Why have acceleration times for bikes stalled?
Discussion
In a recent Autocar video a McLaren 720 just beat the new BMW S1000RR in an acceleration test.
When I first started biking in the 1990s, road bikes generally accelerated much more quickly than road cars. Cars have finally caught up with bikes but what really surprises me is that bikes don't seem to have improved. From memory the quarter mile times for 600 supersport bikes in the 1990s was around 11 seconds and for litre sportsbikes just over 10 seconds. Looking at this list from Wiki this seems to be borne out with some bikes from the 1990s just over 10 seconds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_prod...
Given that bikes today are more powerful, lighter, have better tyres and launch control I am surprised that they are not noticeably faster now than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Is there a reason? Will the same now apply to cars with any future gains limited?
When I first started biking in the 1990s, road bikes generally accelerated much more quickly than road cars. Cars have finally caught up with bikes but what really surprises me is that bikes don't seem to have improved. From memory the quarter mile times for 600 supersport bikes in the 1990s was around 11 seconds and for litre sportsbikes just over 10 seconds. Looking at this list from Wiki this seems to be borne out with some bikes from the 1990s just over 10 seconds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_prod...
Given that bikes today are more powerful, lighter, have better tyres and launch control I am surprised that they are not noticeably faster now than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Is there a reason? Will the same now apply to cars with any future gains limited?
The McClaren is £200k & the BMW £16k.
I could probably stretch to the BMW on a PCP deal, but the McLaren I'd have to trade in my house for!
Even if I could afford both, where in the UK am I going to be able to exploit their true performance (apart from a track)?
I bet the McLaren would be absolutely horrible as an everyday car - supermarket car park or school run would be crap for starters. The bike? I would either lose my licence, or die, very swiftly....
I could probably stretch to the BMW on a PCP deal, but the McLaren I'd have to trade in my house for!
Even if I could afford both, where in the UK am I going to be able to exploit their true performance (apart from a track)?
I bet the McLaren would be absolutely horrible as an everyday car - supermarket car park or school run would be crap for starters. The bike? I would either lose my licence, or die, very swiftly....
Disclaimer: I'm not a motorbike rider/enthusiast, so everything I say here could well come under the heading 'this guy is talking Bo**ocks'.
Cars over the last 20 years have improved massively in terms of down-force, power, efficiency, streamlining, not to mention tyres getting much wider as standard, even on the shopping trolley versions! I remember an old VW polo breadvan my parents had as a runaround, the tyres were all of 4 or 5 inches wide at most. My partners similarly poverty spec Fabia has much wider tyres than that, approx. 6 1/2 inches if I were to hazard a guess. Imagine how much difference there would be in sports cars or supercars.
That progress simply hasn't been replicated in motorbikes, mostly because it can't be. Bikes already cut a much cleaner hole in the air and have done for decades, all cars have done is catch up a bit. Weight has never been an issue, and you can't apply clever down-force without sacrificing both to some extent. Sure, engines are more powerful, but the contact patch of rubber on the ground is so minuscule that the ECU most likely has to tame the beast in the first couple of gears to prevent it killing the rider!
You mention Launch Control; whilst it is a big step forwards in allowing Joe Bloggs to do a full bore standing start in his Focus RS to impress his Julie, the reason most racing drivers don't use it is because they can do better themselves, and have done so for decades. All you're seeing there is an electrification of talent, and it isn't quite as good as the real thing.
Cars over the last 20 years have improved massively in terms of down-force, power, efficiency, streamlining, not to mention tyres getting much wider as standard, even on the shopping trolley versions! I remember an old VW polo breadvan my parents had as a runaround, the tyres were all of 4 or 5 inches wide at most. My partners similarly poverty spec Fabia has much wider tyres than that, approx. 6 1/2 inches if I were to hazard a guess. Imagine how much difference there would be in sports cars or supercars.
That progress simply hasn't been replicated in motorbikes, mostly because it can't be. Bikes already cut a much cleaner hole in the air and have done for decades, all cars have done is catch up a bit. Weight has never been an issue, and you can't apply clever down-force without sacrificing both to some extent. Sure, engines are more powerful, but the contact patch of rubber on the ground is so minuscule that the ECU most likely has to tame the beast in the first couple of gears to prevent it killing the rider!
You mention Launch Control; whilst it is a big step forwards in allowing Joe Bloggs to do a full bore standing start in his Focus RS to impress his Julie, the reason most racing drivers don't use it is because they can do better themselves, and have done so for decades. All you're seeing there is an electrification of talent, and it isn't quite as good as the real thing.
Biker 1 said:
The McClaren is £200k & the BMW £16k.
I could probably stretch to the BMW on a PCP deal, but the McLaren I'd have to trade in my house for!
Even if I could afford both, where in the UK am I going to be able to exploit their true performance (apart from a track)?
I bet the McLaren would be absolutely horrible as an everyday car - supermarket car park or school run would be crap for starters. The bike? I would either lose my licence, or die, very swiftly....
Not sure what any of that has to do with the thread?I could probably stretch to the BMW on a PCP deal, but the McLaren I'd have to trade in my house for!
Even if I could afford both, where in the UK am I going to be able to exploit their true performance (apart from a track)?
I bet the McLaren would be absolutely horrible as an everyday car - supermarket car park or school run would be crap for starters. The bike? I would either lose my licence, or die, very swiftly....
Watched the video, some people in the comments were speculating on the riders skill to actually launch the bike, maybe with a different rider the bike may win. Also I can't imagine anyone who has ridden the new 1000cc sports bikes gets of one and says it needs more acceleration. Also the speed of bikes now if you wanted to make them accelerate faster you would start getting into drag type mods!
BornRageFree said:
You mention Launch Control; whilst it is a big step forwards in allowing Joe Bloggs to do a full bore standing start in his Focus RS to impress his Julie, the reason most racing drivers don't use it is because they can do better themselves, and have done so for decades. All you're seeing there is an electrification of talent, and it isn't quite as good as the real thing.
The reason most racing drivers don't use it is because its banned by the regulations for most series. To make a bike accelerate faster you need to avoid the bikes attempts to flip it's self over. This can be done by extending the wheelbase.
To make a bike more nimble and turn quicker, one of the things you need to do is shorten the wheelbase.
You don't need to be Einstein to work out which one motorcycle manufacturers have focused on. Look at the lap times of 1990s bikes to current bikes and you'll see where the performance progress has been made.
To make a bike more nimble and turn quicker, one of the things you need to do is shorten the wheelbase.
You don't need to be Einstein to work out which one motorcycle manufacturers have focused on. Look at the lap times of 1990s bikes to current bikes and you'll see where the performance progress has been made.
Driver aids in the car developing faster than on bikes?
Reducing this to a local traffic light grand prix, sitting in the car at the lights I have pressed the brake pedal to engage "hold", pushed all the sport buttons, and am waiting to stamp on the accelerator when the lights change.
The other me on the bike has to get the whole left hand, right hand, left foot thing perfect.
Never had a bike with a quickshifter, anti-wheelie, etc. so maybe this levels the playing field, but there seems more going on and to get right on a bike.
Oh, and power and contact patches.
Reducing this to a local traffic light grand prix, sitting in the car at the lights I have pressed the brake pedal to engage "hold", pushed all the sport buttons, and am waiting to stamp on the accelerator when the lights change.
The other me on the bike has to get the whole left hand, right hand, left foot thing perfect.
Never had a bike with a quickshifter, anti-wheelie, etc. so maybe this levels the playing field, but there seems more going on and to get right on a bike.
Oh, and power and contact patches.
Same reasons as why F1 cars go around corners faster than MotoGP bikes ...Its just physics.
Bikes can go faster off the line, but it wont look much like a road bike, it will be long and low with a fat rear tyre.
Road bikes peaked years ago for 0-60 times.In gear times of bikes has improved over the years, just check the 0-150 or 0-186 times between a 90s superbike and current models.
Bikes can go faster off the line, but it wont look much like a road bike, it will be long and low with a fat rear tyre.
Road bikes peaked years ago for 0-60 times.In gear times of bikes has improved over the years, just check the 0-150 or 0-186 times between a 90s superbike and current models.
I would think it's because an acceleration test is usually from a standing start, traction, grip, and outright power are the key factors and, as said, the physics is hugely in favour of cars. Whilst there have been huge advancements in all three across both vehicles, it's disproportionately higher in performance cars versus bikes. There was simply more scope for improvement in the first place.
Personally I think tyres is the biggest advancement, and in a supercar you're getting what, eight, ten times the contact area? Recently as well though we've had massive advances in traction available even in mainstream fast hatches which massages their performance figures nicely. After all, you surely haven't failed to notice things like all wheel drive becoming fairly standard, advanced electronics differentials, and launch control all becoming fairly commonplace fitment in cars as their manufacturers chase the big numbers. It's become a numbers game for cars, and cars rule the numbers as result.
I had my GSXR-750 at the time and was out for a spirited ride/drive in the highlands a year or two ago with mates, a few had brought their prized exotica, another mate was in-between supercars so brought his Golf R estate. In isolation, objectively it is an incredible feat of engineering, it is affordable, has extremely high practicality, relatively low running costs, and on the road it won't struggle to keep up with M5s, mid-level Ferraris, Porsche turbos etc., a hot hatch has now, on paper, become all the vehicle you'll ever need. On paper. That is where cars are nowadays.
But, this is a bike forum, so I feel compelled to point out that in the real world of narrow lanes, and poor visibility, I personally believe, on a long enough road, nothing is quicker than a well-ridden bike. Whether or not you feel compelled to take the risks associated with doing so is the only real limiting factor... Well, that and running out of fuel.
Personally I think tyres is the biggest advancement, and in a supercar you're getting what, eight, ten times the contact area? Recently as well though we've had massive advances in traction available even in mainstream fast hatches which massages their performance figures nicely. After all, you surely haven't failed to notice things like all wheel drive becoming fairly standard, advanced electronics differentials, and launch control all becoming fairly commonplace fitment in cars as their manufacturers chase the big numbers. It's become a numbers game for cars, and cars rule the numbers as result.
I had my GSXR-750 at the time and was out for a spirited ride/drive in the highlands a year or two ago with mates, a few had brought their prized exotica, another mate was in-between supercars so brought his Golf R estate. In isolation, objectively it is an incredible feat of engineering, it is affordable, has extremely high practicality, relatively low running costs, and on the road it won't struggle to keep up with M5s, mid-level Ferraris, Porsche turbos etc., a hot hatch has now, on paper, become all the vehicle you'll ever need. On paper. That is where cars are nowadays.
But, this is a bike forum, so I feel compelled to point out that in the real world of narrow lanes, and poor visibility, I personally believe, on a long enough road, nothing is quicker than a well-ridden bike. Whether or not you feel compelled to take the risks associated with doing so is the only real limiting factor... Well, that and running out of fuel.
Prof Prolapse said:
...I feel compelled to point out that in the real world of narrow lanes, and poor visibility, I personally believe, on a long enough road, nothing is quicker than a well-ridden bike. Whether or not you feel compelled to take the risks associated with doing so is the only real limiting factor... Well, that and running out of fuel.
Or the real world of motorways with queues of slow moving cars, vans and trucks. Over a 4 year test period my bike has saved me hours of time on the M6.When the Yamaha V Max came out decades back i bought one, a full power as they called it version with 145 bhp.
1200cc, big rear tyre, or big for the time and a grunty motor which was relatively easy to launch. I used to drag race mine but not with the success Pee Wee Gleason, the tiny bike racer had. He achieved a 9.97 quarter mile with just fettling to tyre pressures, suspension settings, etc. 30 years on and even the 200 bhp litre bikes are precious little better.
Bikes have major disadvantages over the best cars. One-wheel drive, one-wheel braking in effect, absolutely tiny road contact area for the rubber and inherent instability.
My current Fireblade has around 190 bhp, after the full Akropovic and dyno time set-up and destroys 99% of cars i come across but i'd be mullered by a top model Ferrari or Lamborghini on a track.
1200cc, big rear tyre, or big for the time and a grunty motor which was relatively easy to launch. I used to drag race mine but not with the success Pee Wee Gleason, the tiny bike racer had. He achieved a 9.97 quarter mile with just fettling to tyre pressures, suspension settings, etc. 30 years on and even the 200 bhp litre bikes are precious little better.
Bikes have major disadvantages over the best cars. One-wheel drive, one-wheel braking in effect, absolutely tiny road contact area for the rubber and inherent instability.
My current Fireblade has around 190 bhp, after the full Akropovic and dyno time set-up and destroys 99% of cars i come across but i'd be mullered by a top model Ferrari or Lamborghini on a track.
Edited by Grindle on Friday 3rd May 12:05
A bike,even a small one, is miles better when traffic is involved.
Over longer distances a car is better. This is just real world stuff.
It hit me in 2003 when I used my Honda Hornet to go from London to a job in Minehead.
On the way back it was raining on the A303. I'm trying to keep to 70/80 and having a miserable time. I see a car come up behind me and I pull over to let him pass.
It's a boggo Mondeo with it's fat driver sitting there sipping his coffee.
It was at that point when I thought, what the hell am I playing at
Decision was made for me a few days later in London when I got hit by a car and put into hospital, bike written off.
I still ride but only if I can guarantee good weather and a fun time.
Over longer distances a car is better. This is just real world stuff.
It hit me in 2003 when I used my Honda Hornet to go from London to a job in Minehead.
On the way back it was raining on the A303. I'm trying to keep to 70/80 and having a miserable time. I see a car come up behind me and I pull over to let him pass.
It's a boggo Mondeo with it's fat driver sitting there sipping his coffee.
It was at that point when I thought, what the hell am I playing at
Decision was made for me a few days later in London when I got hit by a car and put into hospital, bike written off.
I still ride but only if I can guarantee good weather and a fun time.
Yes a long journey is better by car in all honesty. I stupidly rode an FS1E (50cc) from Land's End to John O'Groats for charity in 1974, the most stupid thing i ever did.
Anyway back on topic, traction as mentioned is a massive reason bikes have gained about half a second in the quarter mile in 25 years.
Anyway back on topic, traction as mentioned is a massive reason bikes have gained about half a second in the quarter mile in 25 years.
I would have thought the other big limiting factor for a bike along with tyre contact patch is to do with the length of the wheel base..
I know wheel spin is definitely a factor when trying to launch a bike, but trying to stop them looping themselves is the other one.. so both limit the amount of power that can be used at launch.. it's definitely a fine balancing act..
Not enough grip equates to the rear wheel trying to spin, too much grip, and the front wheel is heading for the moon..
Cars only have the issue of wheel spin to contend with really.. and modern supercars have a huge rear tyre for grip and if one starts to spin, the electronics can prevent the spin on just that wheel independently.. on a bike, traction cutting in stops the power driving te bike forwards all together..
I know wheel spin is definitely a factor when trying to launch a bike, but trying to stop them looping themselves is the other one.. so both limit the amount of power that can be used at launch.. it's definitely a fine balancing act..
Not enough grip equates to the rear wheel trying to spin, too much grip, and the front wheel is heading for the moon..
Cars only have the issue of wheel spin to contend with really.. and modern supercars have a huge rear tyre for grip and if one starts to spin, the electronics can prevent the spin on just that wheel independently.. on a bike, traction cutting in stops the power driving te bike forwards all together..
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff