IOM car speed

[Biker's Nemesis]

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Bikes can 'straightline' a lot of sections that the cars wouldn't be able to as they're narrow enough to allow them to clip from apex to apex through a series of S bends. This would enable them to carry far more speed than a car that has to drive around these 'corners'.

Cars with down force won't have to roll off the throttle as they negotiate these bends.

Non-argument.

Smart.

You edit out the part of my post where I specifically said that I don't think you could run a car with much aero on the Island.

Which is your opinion...which is wrong.

Have a look at the hill climb cars that run down force, then have a look at some of the farm tracks that they run on.

My point stands.

I knew a lad that raced Hill Climbs in a single seater, he was killed on the way back from the ring after a bike course we were on.

He told me that down force wasn't much help in the tight corners. Which there usually are a lot of.

I know more than I let on about motorsport. Some posters on this thread know very little but because they talk the talk and can type a page full of bks people take their word as gospel.

Ignorance is a terrible affliction.

[Life Saab Itch]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

Presumably, in the real world everyone agrees that bikes are the only way?
On a bike there are no queues, you get to the front of the traffic lights every time, other drivers move over to aid your progress, other drivers are much more courteous to you, you don't get bored, they're a great stress reliever, they're fast and fun.
And best of all, I save *at least* 30 minutes per day commuting by bike (which I do all year round in most weathers) That's 2.5 hours per week or 10 hours per month or several days per year. I also save £20 a week in petrol.

You'd have to be a bit mental to believe cars a faster or better in the real world after I've just written all that. I pass 100's of cars per day...they sit there with boredom written all over their faces, and I wonder - why?

Get a bike license - discover the better (only IMO) way.

No doubt that helps an enormous amount when riding around the TT course.

[y2blade]

ignorance is bliss to some of the "members" in here.

[Life Saab Itch]

Biker's Nemesis said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Bikes can 'straightline' a lot of sections that the cars wouldn't be able to as they're narrow enough to allow them to clip from apex to apex through a series of S bends. This would enable them to carry far more speed than a car that has to drive around these 'corners'.

Cars with down force won't have to roll off the throttle as they negotiate these bends.

Non-argument.

Smart.

You edit out the part of my post where I specifically said that I don't think you could run a car with much aero on the Island.

Which is your opinion...which is wrong.

Have a look at the hill climb cars that run down force, then have a look at some of the farm tracks that they run on.

My point stands.

I knew a lad that raced Hill Climbs in a single seater, he was killed on the way back from the ring after a bike course we were on.

He told me that down force wasn't much help in the tight corners. Which there usually are a lot of.

I know more than I let on about motorsport. Some posters on this thread know very little but because they talk the talk and can type a page full of bks people take their word as gospel.

Ignorance is a terrible affliction.

So which is it?
Bikes are faster than road cars...180mph+...etc
or
There are lots of tight corners?

The usual Biker's argument about the TT course is that it has alot of full throttle sections (hence the high lap speed) and that the bike's top speed is key.

The Car argument is that you don't have to have such a high top speed as you will be able to carry more speed through the corners. Corners that you have to roll off the throttle for on a bike would be full throttle in a car as the downforce would stick it to the tarmac, quarry bends on the IOM would be a classic example of these. If you have the right car the top speed will be equal between a car and bike.

There is the argument about the bike's acceleration being faster than a cars, yet everyone seemed to ignore the nugget of information about the hillclimb car reaching 186mph on the shortened straight at Aintree.

Then there is the endless comparison between what a roadbike is equivalent to in a car and what a full on race-bike is equivalent to. These are irrelevant as the question is (and always has been) "Which would be faster around the IOM TT course, a car or a 'Bike?"

Everything else is conjecture and posturing.

The few people who post facts, evidence and talk sense on these (seemingly annual) threads get shouted down by the rabid arguing of the stupid few.

[Biker's Nemesis]

Life Saab Itch said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Bikes can 'straightline' a lot of sections that the cars wouldn't be able to as they're narrow enough to allow them to clip from apex to apex through a series of S bends. This would enable them to carry far more speed than a car that has to drive around these 'corners'.

Cars with down force won't have to roll off the throttle as they negotiate these bends.

Non-argument.

Smart.

You edit out the part of my post where I specifically said that I don't think you could run a car with much aero on the Island.

Which is your opinion...which is wrong.

Have a look at the hill climb cars that run down force, then have a look at some of the farm tracks that they run on.

My point stands.

I knew a lad that raced Hill Climbs in a single seater, he was killed on the way back from the ring after a bike course we were on.

He told me that down force wasn't much help in the tight corners. Which there usually are a lot of.

I know more than I let on about motorsport. Some posters on this thread know very little but because they talk the talk and can type a page full of bks people take their word as gospel.

Ignorance is a terrible affliction.

So which is it?
Bikes are faster than road cars...180mph+...etc
or
There are lots of tight corners?

The usual Biker's argument about the TT course is that it has alot of full throttle sections (hence the high lap speed) and that the bike's top speed is key.

The Car argument is that you don't have to have such a high top speed as you will be able to carry more speed through the corners. Corners that you have to roll off the throttle for on a bike would be full throttle in a car as the downforce would stick it to the tarmac, quarry bends on the IOM would be a classic example of these. If you have the right car the top speed will be equal between a car and bike.

There is the argument about the bike's acceleration being faster than a cars, yet everyone seemed to ignore the nugget of information about the hillclimb car reaching 186mph on the shortened straight at Aintree.

Then there is the endless comparison between what a roadbike is equivalent to in a car and what a full on race-bike is equivalent to. These are irrelevant as the question is (and always has been) "Which would be faster around the IOM TT course, a car or a 'Bike?"

Everything else is conjecture and posturing.

The few people who post facts, evidence and talk sense on these (seemingly annual) threads get shouted down by the rabid arguing of the stupid few.

You know what.

I don't know.

[Life Saab Itch]

Biker's Nemesis said:

Life Saab Itch said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Bikes can 'straightline' a lot of sections that the cars wouldn't be able to as they're narrow enough to allow them to clip from apex to apex through a series of S bends. This would enable them to carry far more speed than a car that has to drive around these 'corners'.

Cars with down force won't have to roll off the throttle as they negotiate these bends.

Non-argument.

Smart.

You edit out the part of my post where I specifically said that I don't think you could run a car with much aero on the Island.

Which is your opinion...which is wrong.

Have a look at the hill climb cars that run down force, then have a look at some of the farm tracks that they run on.

My point stands.

I knew a lad that raced Hill Climbs in a single seater, he was killed on the way back from the ring after a bike course we were on.

He told me that down force wasn't much help in the tight corners. Which there usually are a lot of.

I know more than I let on about motorsport. Some posters on this thread know very little but because they talk the talk and can type a page full of bks people take their word as gospel.

Ignorance is a terrible affliction.

So which is it?
Bikes are faster than road cars...180mph+...etc
or
There are lots of tight corners?

The usual Biker's argument about the TT course is that it has alot of full throttle sections (hence the high lap speed) and that the bike's top speed is key.

The Car argument is that you don't have to have such a high top speed as you will be able to carry more speed through the corners. Corners that you have to roll off the throttle for on a bike would be full throttle in a car as the downforce would stick it to the tarmac, quarry bends on the IOM would be a classic example of these. If you have the right car the top speed will be equal between a car and bike.

There is the argument about the bike's acceleration being faster than a cars, yet everyone seemed to ignore the nugget of information about the hillclimb car reaching 186mph on the shortened straight at Aintree.

Then there is the endless comparison between what a roadbike is equivalent to in a car and what a full on race-bike is equivalent to. These are irrelevant as the question is (and always has been) "Which would be faster around the IOM TT course, a car or a 'Bike?"

Everything else is conjecture and posturing.

The few people who post facts, evidence and talk sense on these (seemingly annual) threads get shouted down by the rabid arguing of the stupid few.

You know what.

I don't know.

Evidently.

[RobM77]

Biker's Nemesis said:

RobM77 said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

And how exactly did you formulate these calculations?

This was on another thread last year. I explained this earlier in the thread I think. I timed the TT bike lap record from a You Tube video between two points, and then an old F1 car between the same two points, again from a YT vid.

Stop right there. If you had any common sense you wouldn't be quoting a small section from a video clip where two different vehicles have competed and expect that to be the same 30 odd miles later.

The difference was quite significant, and the F1 car was being driven extremely gingerly with a good bit less power than it had as new (different engine). I think that's enough evidence. But just in case it isn't, didn't you read the rest of my post? I have even more evidence that is overwhelmingly in favour of the car. Just where are the sub 7 ring laps from bikes? The sub 6s?

edited to add: you are clearly just a troll, so I think I should leave you to it

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 23 March 22:55

[Life Saab Itch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6noOET7Eik
That is the Tony Pond footage. That was 100mph average.

Are you seriously telling me that either of these cars would not beat that record?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3kcsv6edmk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XqpfZmUXUM&fea...

Do you think that they would manage to be 30mph faster than the Rover as an average speed?

[Biker's Nemesis]

RobM77 said:

edited to add: you are clearly just a troll, so I think I should leave you to it

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 23 March 22:55

This is your standard line every time.

I troll no more than you do.

The last thread we locked horns on I showed you to not be able to back your posts up and you accused me of trolling.

I am a true petrol head, cars and bikes.

maybe you should try a bike like I have tried cars, single seaters, Atoms, you name it I've done it.

Idiot.

[Smiler.]

Puddle Jumper said:

Looks like we might actually find out how much quicker a modern car is compared to Tony Pond's lap.

TT News

TT Thread said:

same old same old.......

Oh my God man, LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE|!

[RobM77]

Biker's Nemesis said:

RobM77 said:

edited to add: you are clearly just a troll, so I think I should leave you to it

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 23 March 22:55

This is your standard line every time.

I troll no more than you do.

The last thread we locked horns on I showed you to not be able to back your posts up and you accused me of trolling.

I am a true petrol head, cars and bikes.

maybe you should try a bike like I have tried cars, single seaters, Atoms, you name it I've done it.

Idiot.

Oh come on, you know you're a troll. Nobody is that stupid - the facts have been spelt out to you: power to weight ratios, lap times, videos etc. You simply must be a troll! If you're not, then I'm afraid that I can't help (oh, and if you're not a troll then I've just insulted you, so very sorry about that!).

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 23 March 23:17

[Biker's Nemesis]

RobM77 said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

RobM77 said:

edited to add: you are clearly just a troll, so I think I should leave you to it

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 23 March 22:55

This is your standard line every time.

I troll no more than you do.

The last thread we locked horns on I showed you to not be able to back your posts up and you accused me of trolling.

I am a true petrol head, cars and bikes.

maybe you should try a bike like I have tried cars, single seaters, Atoms, you name it I've done it.

Idiot.

Oh come on, you know you're a troll. Nobody is that stupid - the facts have been spelt out to you: power to weight ratios, lap times, videos etc. You simply must be a troll! If you're not, then I'm afraid I can't help.

You view things from one side of the fence.

Take a look at yourself in the mirror and be objective if you can.

Trolling part here:

Are you a failed racing driver? Not quite capable of getting into the bottom 3rd of a race?

Spend your time telling others where they are going wrong? I bet you like the sound of your own voice?

Maybe if you could drive a car a little bit quicker you could maybe be in the top half of the Mini cup.

Never mind, I bet you mum and dad tell you its the taking part that counts, after all someone has to make up the numbers.

There's those that talk about it and those that do it.

Trolling finished.

Have a nice night and don't dwell on what I've said that others on this forum have seen.

[Biker's Nemesis]

Life Saab Itch said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

Life Saab Itch said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Life Saab Itch said:

srob said:

Bikes can 'straightline' a lot of sections that the cars wouldn't be able to as they're narrow enough to allow them to clip from apex to apex through a series of S bends. This would enable them to carry far more speed than a car that has to drive around these 'corners'.

Cars with down force won't have to roll off the throttle as they negotiate these bends.

Non-argument.

Smart.

You edit out the part of my post where I specifically said that I don't think you could run a car with much aero on the Island.

Which is your opinion...which is wrong.

Have a look at the hill climb cars that run down force, then have a look at some of the farm tracks that they run on.

My point stands.

I knew a lad that raced Hill Climbs in a single seater, he was killed on the way back from the ring after a bike course we were on.

He told me that down force wasn't much help in the tight corners. Which there usually are a lot of.

I know more than I let on about motorsport. Some posters on this thread know very little but because they talk the talk and can type a page full of bks people take their word as gospel.

Ignorance is a terrible affliction.

So which is it?
Bikes are faster than road cars...180mph+...etc
or
There are lots of tight corners?

The usual Biker's argument about the TT course is that it has alot of full throttle sections (hence the high lap speed) and that the bike's top speed is key.

The Car argument is that you don't have to have such a high top speed as you will be able to carry more speed through the corners. Corners that you have to roll off the throttle for on a bike would be full throttle in a car as the downforce would stick it to the tarmac, quarry bends on the IOM would be a classic example of these. If you have the right car the top speed will be equal between a car and bike.

There is the argument about the bike's acceleration being faster than a cars, yet everyone seemed to ignore the nugget of information about the hillclimb car reaching 186mph on the shortened straight at Aintree.

Then there is the endless comparison between what a roadbike is equivalent to in a car and what a full on race-bike is equivalent to. These are irrelevant as the question is (and always has been) "Which would be faster around the IOM TT course, a car or a 'Bike?"

Everything else is conjecture and posturing.

The few people who post facts, evidence and talk sense on these (seemingly annual) threads get shouted down by the rabid arguing of the stupid few.

You know what.

I don't know.

Evidently.

I said that to shut you up you fool.

[RobM77]

Biker's Nemesis said:

RobM77 said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

RobM77 said:

edited to add: you are clearly just a troll, so I think I should leave you to it

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 23 March 22:55

This is your standard line every time.

I troll no more than you do.

The last thread we locked horns on I showed you to not be able to back your posts up and you accused me of trolling.

I am a true petrol head, cars and bikes.

maybe you should try a bike like I have tried cars, single seaters, Atoms, you name it I've done it.

Idiot.

Oh come on, you know you're a troll. Nobody is that stupid - the facts have been spelt out to you: power to weight ratios, lap times, videos etc. You simply must be a troll! If you're not, then I'm afraid I can't help.

You view things from one side of the fence.

Take a look at yourself in the mirror and be objective if you can.

Trolling part here:

Are you a failed racing driver? Not quite capable of getting into the bottom 3rd of a race?

Spend your time telling others where they are going wrong? I bet you like the sound of your own voice?

Maybe if you could drive a car a little bit quicker you could maybe be in the top half of the Mini cup.

Never mind, I bet you mum and dad tell you its the taking part that counts, after all someone has to make up the numbers.

There's those that talk about it and those that do it.

Trolling finished.

Have a nice night and don't dwell on what I've said that others on this forum have seen.

That's all just childish insults (in fact are you about 12? ). You know as well as I do that I've won countless races and set lap records etc. Let's get back to the facts and the subject in hand, which you continue to ignore, thus me thinking you're a troll. Especially this business about drifting a bike on opposite lock at 140mph in the wet - that sounds rather far fetched to me...

[Biker's Nemesis]

RobM77 said:

That's all just childish insults (in fact are you about 12? ). You know as well as I do that I've won countless races and set lap records etc. Let's get back to the facts and the subject in hand, which you continue to ignore, thus me thinking you're a troll. Especially this business about drifting a bike on opposite lock at 140mph in the wet - that sounds rather far fetched to me...

Yes I was being childish and trolling. I said I was.

I didn't say I could drift a bike in the wet at 140, I said I could wheelie a bike at 140.

Plenty of people on here have seen me do it.

The last 2 paragraphs weren't trolling BTW.

[RobM77]

Biker's Nemesis said:

RobM77 said:

That's all just childish insults (in fact are you about 12? ). You know as well as I do that I've won countless races and set lap records etc. Let's get back to the facts and the subject in hand, which you continue to ignore, thus me thinking you're a troll. Especially this business about drifting a bike on opposite lock at 140mph in the wet - that sounds rather far fetched to me...

Yes I was being childish and trolling. I said I was.

I didn't say I could drift a bike in the wet at 140, I said I could wheelie a bike at 140.

Plenty of people on here have seen me do it.

The last 2 paragraphs weren't trolling BTW.

err, yes you did:

Biker's Nemesis said:

Quite right VB, I can back a bike in, slide it in the wet and balance it on the back wheel at nearly 140mph.

Unless you meant to put a comma and an "also" in there...

I would also suggest that if you think this...

Biker's Nemesis said:

Drifting a car is a piece of piss, there isn't much skill in that.

...then actually you have no idea what drifting a car really means in the context that we were talking about. Are you saying you can slide the front and rear by equal amounts and keep them at the optimum slip angle from turn-in to exit, having threshold braked into the corner, and do all that within the context of a lap for ultimate lap time? Lots of people can, but I don't know anyone good at it who regards it as a "piece of piss", and I certainly don't know of any bikers (from the guy next door up to Rossi) who've jumped into a proper racing car and suddenly said "this is easy" and set a new lap record straight away, or even gone anywhere near quick. Or the other way round of course - car drivers onto a bike. You are inhabiting cloud cuckoo land to be quite honest.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 23 March 23:35

[Biker's Nemesis]

RobM77 said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

RobM77 said:

That's all just childish insults (in fact are you about 12? ). You know as well as I do that I've won countless races and set lap records etc. Let's get back to the facts and the subject in hand, which you continue to ignore, thus me thinking you're a troll. Especially this business about drifting a bike on opposite lock at 140mph in the wet - that sounds rather far fetched to me...

Yes I was being childish and trolling. I said I was.

I didn't say I could drift a bike in the wet at 140, I said I could wheelie a bike at 140.

Plenty of people on here have seen me do it.

The last 2 paragraphs weren't trolling BTW.

err, yes you did:

Biker's Nemesis said:

Quite right VB, I can back a bike in, slide it in the wet and balance it on the back wheel at nearly 140mph.

Unless you meant to put a comma and an "also" in there...

I did mean I can slide it in the wet and balance it at ......

Not at the same time though.

Look Rob. This isn't making either of us look good.

Just admit I'm right and I'll say no more.

[Papa Hotel]

WOO WOO! LOOK AT ME, I'M WAVING MY WILLY AROUND!!!

FFS guys, this as bad as any pissing-match I've ever seen here.
If you must continue, please stop pressing the "quote all" button, it's very hard to keep track of who has the bigger dick.

[R1 Loon]

RobM77 said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

RobM77 said:

That's all just childish insults (in fact are you about 12? ). You know as well as I do that I've won countless races and set lap records etc. Let's get back to the facts and the subject in hand, which you continue to ignore, thus me thinking you're a troll. Especially this business about drifting a bike on opposite lock at 140mph in the wet - that sounds rather far fetched to me...

Yes I was being childish and trolling. I said I was.

I didn't say I could drift a bike in the wet at 140, I said I could wheelie a bike at 140.

Plenty of people on here have seen me do it.

The last 2 paragraphs weren't trolling BTW.

err, yes you did:

Biker's Nemesis said:

Quite right VB, I can back a bike in, slide it in the wet and balance it on the back wheel at nearly 140mph.

Unless you meant to put a comma and an "also" in there...

That's poor pedantry and incorrect. The use of "also" would be superfluous, as the "and" in the sentence would take precedence and mean "also" anyway.

The word "and" should never be preceded by a comma either.

Given that there are three items listed in the claims, then each should be treated as an individual and standalone claim. If there were only two, then there is room for misinterpetation, but not with three.

[RobM77]

Papa Hotel said:

WOO WOO! LOOK AT ME, I'M WAVING MY WILLY AROUND!!!

FFS guys, this as bad as any pissing-match I've ever seen here.
If you must continue, please stop pressing the "quote all" button, it's very hard to keep track of who has the bigger dick.

I'm not trying to prove myself at all, I've just quoted a bunch of facts to demonstrate a point and am trying to explain them to someone with two brain cells and not a very good command of English To be honest, I give up, I don't think he'll ever get it.