Car vs Bike by autocar.co.uk

[G35CO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Man0X0bf8vk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyzf600r%2Ecom%2FphpBB2%2Fv iewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D34%26t%3D52657&feature=player_embedded

[The Black Knight]

Not a bad comparo, a little lop sided though. Would have been nice if they used a 1098R v. the Skyline. Obviously the car was the top of the line model(it's the Skyline so it's loaded) and the R model would have been a better comparo than the S, more power and more everything else.

I don't know what the Brits attraction is to Italian bikes. Every comparo I've seen like this is always X car vs. a Ducati. I've only seen one bike v. car shootout with a Japanese bike. It was a GSX-R1000 v. a Westfield XTR4, which I thought was a better comparo.

It will be a battle til the end of time. Bike v. Car, I think alot depends on the track. If you've got a smaller, tighter track then I'm sure a performance car will win. But if you got to a bigger, longer and more horsepower oriented track, the bike will win just about every time.

I think alot has to be said for motorcycle riders in general. Anyone can go fast in a car. You've got 4 tires, big brakes and no fear of crashing if you go off the track. You've got to hand it to bikers who go just as fast with less contact patch, smaller brakes and holding the line through the corners.

I've always felt that anyone can go fast in a car, it's the every mans go fast toy. It takes a special breed to make a motorcycle go fast and really fast.

[Sean]

I liked the very end when he passed the car like it was standing still. :doublefinger:

[mopoet178]

wet track doesnt help our case either

[thatmofo]

Good video.

[PsychoMike]

I've always felt that anyone can go fast in a car, it's the every mans go fast toy. It takes a special breed to make a motorcycle go fast and really fast.

exclenent words

[Xtremjeepn]

Anyone can go fast in a car. You've got 4 tires, big brakes and no fear of crashing if you go off the track.


Maybe in a straight line. Driving a car FAST in the corners takes some real skill.

[d3spair]

Maybe in a straight line. Driving a car FAST in the corners takes some real skill.

Disagree with cars like the GTR, they take a huge amount of that skill element in a car out of the equation. It really makes you look a lot better than you are.

That being said, no shit the GTR would be quicker on a tight corner track due to braking.

[Xtremjeepn]

It's a nice car but it does not drive for you. When I get near a real computer I will see if I can find the video of a 23 year old Porsche 944 lapping a Nissan GTR with all its fancy gadgets.


EDIT:

Here is the video. 86 944 with V8. Only about 350hp but no fancy gadgets like the GTR. At about 7:35 in the video the GTR gives up and waves the better driver by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90zTpqkRDI

[Canuck]

Four wheels will always be faster around a track than two.
Compare the F1 to MotoGP lap times on the same circuits. No comparison.
Now with the average sports car vs. the average sportbike, the bike typically have the advantage, better power to weight ratio, cheaper to obtain a fast sportbike compaired to a fast car, etc. But when it comes to the overall physics between the two in top of the line competition, four wheels wins.

[The Black Knight]

Maybe in a straight line. Driving a car FAST in the corners takes some real skill.
See I disagree. In a car certain elements are taking out of the equation. You don't have to worry about doing a superman of the track should you overcook a corner. If you run off the track in a car, you just get back on and drive off. For bikers, the thought that runs through their mind is that, should they go off there might be a chance of not getting back up(either through being injured or the bike no wanting to start again).

Also the biker is more aware of the track in my opinion. Because the aformentioned reasons. You just have to pay more attention to your surroundings on a bike than in a car. I believe that a car is way more forgiving at speed than a motorcycle is.

Not saying it doesn't take talent or skill to go fast in a car or make on go fast. All I'm saying is it takes less talent and skill to make a car go fast, than it does to make a motorcycle fast. And I'll argue that point til I die, it just takes a different breed to make motorcycles go fast.

Michael Shumacher may be the fastest guy ever and produce faster lap times. Fact is, Valentino Rossi is just way more badass because of what he can do on the bike. If you don't believe me, just look at when Rossi was in the prospect of going to F1, when he was testing for Ferrari, he was running 2 to 3 seconds off Shumacher and Alonso's pace. That's pretty freakin quick for someone that doesn't have the experience they do with F1 cars. Do you think Shumacher or Alonso could produce lap times close to Rossi's on a MotoGP bike? Hardly, those ladies in F1 are to worried about their pretty faces and falling off the bike in order to make it go fast enough to come close to Rossi's times. That said, I love F1 racing and think Shumacher was one of the if not the best racer ever. Do I think he or others could compete in MotoGP?? No, they just are bred for it.


Disagree with cars like the GTR, they take a huge amount of that skill element in a car out of the equation. It really makes you look a lot better than you are.

That being said, no shit the GTR would be quicker on a tight corner track due to braking.
I agree, just look at Formula 1, they have so many gizmo's and gadgets that it's taken the driver right out of the car. You might as well have a computer running the car around the track. Sure there's driver input but the engeneering of the cars themselves are what really help the drivers put in those amazing lap times.


Four wheels will always be faster around a track than two.
Compare the F1 to MotoGP lap times on the same circuits. No comparison.
Now with the average sports car vs. the average sportbike, the bike typically have the advantage, better power to weight ratio, cheaper to obtain a fast sportbike compaired to a fast car, etc. But when it comes to the overall physics between the two in top of the line competition, four wheels wins.
I agree with that, but in the defense of the MotoGP bikes. You really can't compare them to F1 based on price. Sure MotoGP is the Formula 1 of motorcycle racing. But they aren't in the same price range as far as development goes. I mean what do most MotoGP bike run?? Several hundred thousand? Maybe a million for a bike if you're lucky?? F1 cars cost several millions of dollars. The pricetag for development and overall money thrown at them makes for a lop-sided comparison.

I'll agree that F1 put in faster times than MotoGP. However, they don't always run the same lay-outs at the same track. I know that at some of the courses there are certain sections that are designated for F1 only(i.e. section of turns or chicanes). Sure they run the same tracks but not always the same configurations.

Also I'll have to dig it up(it's been a long time since I've seen it on-line) but they(some magazine I think) did a comparison on performance between a F1 car and a MotoGP bike. They wanted to show just how hard each accelerate.

If I remember correctly they took Shumachers Ferrari and Hayden's RC211V(at Catalunya) and ran their times and corners speeds and so forth. Sure the Ferrari was faster around the corners but not super fast over the bike.

In their acceleration comaro, they showed how each would enter the front straight at Catalunya. Shumacher came off the last corner at 120km and Hayden at 85km. Here's where it got interesting. Shumacher coming on to the front straight faster only managed a top speed of 312km(193.8mph)(if I remember right) but Hayden coming onto the straight lower, reached a top speed of 340km(211.2mph). Here's the other interesting factor, not only did Hayden manage a higher top speed with coming onto the straight slower but he did it in a shorter amount of track used. Because the RC211V had to brake earlier for the first corner. So not only did the Honda come onto the straight slower but managed to catch and pass the Ferrari in a shorter period of time.

I think that's something to be said for the sheer speed of a motogp bike. Granted F1 cars are pulling 4 to 5g's in the corners. I can't remember the track but it was last year and the commentator said that MotoGP bike easily achieve 2.5g's, which on a bike is very good. Considering the contact patch of the tires.

I agree with you, at the top level of racing(Formula 1 and MotoGP) the cars will win. But like you said, at the street level there is no comparison. Any of the crop of the latest 1000cc bikes will easily eat for lunch an Enzo or a F50 or even a McClaren F1 at a track. The cars just don't have the power to weight working for them.

And lets be honest, in order to test a bike v. car correctly, you need a race track that caters to both of their strengths and works their weaknesses. Meaning you can't have a super tight track that is full of 90 degree corners and chicanes which would be way more bias to the car. Likewise, you can't have a track that has two or three big straights, with giant sweeping corners that would exploit the bikes potential and be more bias to the bike.

I think it would be better if they went to one of the tracks that was a mix of everything. It would have to be a big track, so horsepower would come into play, yet at the same time have technical sections of corners to fully work both the driver and rider. Mugello is a big track and there are others of equal size. Shanghai would be a great one(it's very big).

Also one last point on the F1 v. MotoGP, I remember(been awhile as well) reading the lap times for both at many tracks. While a good portion of the tracks the F1 cars lapped about 15-20 seconds faster than the MotoGP bikes. However, there were a couple(Jerez maybe?) where the MotoGP bikes were about 4 or 5 seconds off the F1 cars pace. Now that's pretty freaking good and fast considering they are chasing F1 cars. Obviously they were probably tracks with very long straights and corners that were favorable to the bikes.