Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
Another factor I forgot to mention was that bikes also aren't anywhere near as good at stopping as a good racing car. The centre of gravity on even a GP bike is quite high compared to a formula car and again there's the tiny patch of rubber to create sticktion. I suspect that even the best bike would struggle to stop at much more than 1 G.
A good formula car will be up over 3 G's without too much trouble, and then also have a far higher corner entry speed, etc.
Thought this might be worthy of this thread. Webber does on whole lap more than the V8 and Stoner (although I doubt Stoner was pushing it). Stoner gets Webber on the the start - typical Webber and his starts .Enjoy.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&gl=A ... nomobile=1[/youtube]
Websta wrote:Any benefit that a bike gets from leaning during cornering is also utilised by race cars (and to a greater extent). Race cars "lean" on their outside tyres.!
Cars roll in corners. This affects the dynamic weight distribution.
This is unloading the inner wheels. Therfore they cannot create the maximum sideforce which normally would be available.
The loaded outer wheels could, in theory, build up more sideforce, as they are loaded more. But the maximum available force is limited by the tire itself.
So you don´t have a benefit in a car created by rooling.
For the best cornering perfomance you would like the car to stay horizontal during a corner, with loads equally distributed on both sides. This is why you have ARBs on a car.
Sorry matt that post is rather confusing. Sta bars have no effect on the overall weight transfer in a corner, that is fixed by cgz/track. If you actually look at real tire data you'll see that a car with a reasonably low cgz, say 300mm, and 1500 track, doesn't lose that much total cornering force due to tire load sensitivity. if you disagree show me the maths and a free body diagram.
Websta wrote:Any benefit that a bike gets from leaning during cornering is also utilised by race cars (and to a greater extent). Race cars "lean" on their outside tyres.!
Cars roll in corners. This affects the dynamic weight distribution.
This is unloading the inner wheels. Therfore they cannot create the maximum sideforce which normally would be available.
The loaded outer wheels could, in theory, build up more sideforce, as they are loaded more. But the maximum available force is limited by the tire itself.
So you don´t have a benefit in a car created by rooling.
For the best cornering perfomance you would like the car to stay horizontal during a corner, with loads equally distributed on both sides. This is why you have ARBs on a car.
I know that roll is the worst thing possible in a racing car. I was trying to illustrate the point that a car rolling on to its outer two wheels would more or less resemble a motorcycle (like the car standing on its outer two wheels with the inner wheels lifted). My point was that whatever possible benefit a motorcycle gets from leaning is thus by default present in a car as well (on a very BASIC level, obviously there are a lot of mass distribution and suspension considerations, etc). Obviously a car that rolls less is much better, that was my point.
It was badly worded on my part, just clearing that up.
I think is a MotoGp bike because look, F1 cars have the DRS or drag reduction system. It is like a nitro.Motogp bike have nothing but a lighter engine. They are just replaced with fiber metal engines which makes them faster. The time of a lap doesnt matter. Its hard to turn with a heavy bike instead of using a steering wheel. Thats all . Thanks
Websta wrote:I was trying to illustrate the point that a car rolling on to its outer two wheels would more or less resemble a motorcycle (like the car standing on its outer two wheels with the inner wheels lifted).
Except a car leans OUT of the corner - a bike is leaned IN, which helps produce centripetal force in and of itself
I can't believe that with the availability of internet information on lap times anyone could say bikes are faster.
At most tracks where both race, the cars are about 30 seconds per two minutes faster, meaning that with typical two minute laps, the car will lap the bike every three laps. That is not slower; it is relatively snail paced.
The person who claims that street bikes are faster than Ferraris on top speed should look up top speeds of bikes and cars.
The car is much faster when geared for speed; however, with lap times being most important, the F1 cars are geared for top speed with the best cornering due to downforce. Thirty seconds behind in a two minute race is an eternity. Over the 50 laps of a typical F1 race, the bike would be lapped 25 minutes behind!
Think of the tire patch. A MotoGP bike has a contact patch around 5 square inches at most; an F1 car, about 60 square inches. The bike is very top heavy, both due to needing to lean without scraping parts, and because 1/3 o the race weight is the rider, perched above the bike. The car weighs about 1300 pound and has around 800 horsepower in the current weak engines, while the bike and rider weigh about 425 pounds for the lightest rider, Dani Pedrosa, and about 50 pounds more for Niki Hayden. Using Dani and bike we have 425 pounds powered by 200 hp, about 2.25 lb/hp pushing power through about a 5 square inch (Tire is slightly compressed.) contact patch of the rear tire, a ratio of 5 to 200 or a factor of 40 hp per square inch of tire. An F1 Car's rear tires have about 40 square inches pushing 800 hp, a factor of 20 hp per square inch, or double the grip without the massive down force the cars have.
Also, bikes wheelie. Cars do not. The bikes engine management systems keep power output to where the bike does not flip over. If you say, that the cars also at least keep the tires fro slipping, remember that they are only having to control half as much power per square inch of grip.
My knowledge does not allow me to give such a comparison through the turns, but a 33% faster lap time says it all.
Aero downforce allows faster cornering/braking by dint of adhesion..
As for acceleration/top speeds, that is much closer..
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"
Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).
NathanOlder wrote:So if we go on acceleration and top speeds alone, how do
Drag Bikes and Dragster Cars compare ?
Seen the wheel size and power of a dragbike, they are pretty comparable.
It's mostly that a car brake later, harder and keep braking hard into the corner, where corner itself can be taken a faster overal, which gives the car the advance in accelerating out of corners.
I registered for this site specifically to respond to this post because I have a few things to say. I am a fan of both F1 and MotoGP, and enjoy watching most sports with fast cars, bikes, planes (I can't get interested in NASCAR, though). I do follow MotoGP more closely than F1.
First point: Which is faster? A few might say bikes are faster (just like there are those who think global warming doesn't exist), but the lap times speak for themselves. F1 hands down.
Next point: Since it's likely most people on this site, myself included, will never drive a F1 car or ride a MotoGP bike, which is more fun to watch? If Clew finds MotoGP boring, I respect that, but did anyone watch this year's race from Phillip Island? If you didn't think that was exciting, then there's not much more I can say.
Last point: What do you have the economic means to ride/drive? Is it closer in performance to an F1 car or a Moto GP bike? I ride a 2000 Yamaha R1 and I drive a 2010 Mazda 3. I know the Mazda isn't a true performance car, but I will never afford a Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, etc. Let's look at some at some comparisons of pounds per HP. I'll use my son's RSX-S instead of my Mazda; although it's no Porsche or Vette, it's still a fair assessment of an average guy's car. Based on the (very rough) weight and HP figures I looked up:
RSX-S - 14.4 lbs/HP
R1 with rider - 3.8 lbs/HP
F1 with driver - 1.7 lbs/HP
MotoGP with rider - 1.9 lbs/HP
As you can see, the average guy can get a lot closer to the performance of a race machine on a bike than in a car (if you take the time to build your skills). Yes, my son's RSX-S can probably corner harder than I can, but accelerating out of the corners or on a straight, I'd be gone. I always say: To own a fast car you need a lot of money and a reasonable amount of skill. To own a fast bike you need a lot of skill and a reasonable amount of money. And by the way, for my bike I paid half what my son paid for his Acura.
.Enjoy.
