• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

lame comparison (Top Gear: Ariel Atom vs 600RR)

My point is this:

It's retarded to say that Cars are better than motorcycles (when it comes to on track performance.) The vast majority of cars could not out-perform the vast majority of bikes... And I'm not just talking about sport bikes Vs. mom's family sedan... My GS500 can pull faster laps than a 944 or a S2000.

No, cars aren't better than bikes; as a platform they have more potential than bikes.
 
If money is no object, then the comparison is fair enough.

But put a box stock $12k R1 up against a box stock $12k car and no contest.
 
Curious about that last statement, Chris. Particularly, what are the lap times you are comparing?

The Mazda Miata, in spec Miata trim with no aero enhancements, is capable of going around T-hill (with the normal T-5, not the bypass) with a time of 2:06. (the spec 944 times look to be in the 2:10ish range)

Don't know the full details, but they have a time-trials prepped S2000 at 2:04.

A BMW M3, in E0 trim, (OEM front spoiler, minor rear wing, stock engine) can go around T-hill (bypass) with times of 1:56.

Here are some other class records T-hill has on file.
http://thunderhill.com/staticpages/index.php?page=LapRecords
I can tell you the IT classes (improved touring) have little downforce enhancements, as they are mostly not allowed.
Another class to note are the SSB, SSC, and SSM classes. SS stands for 'showroom stock' and have a great amount of limitations.

The bottom line is that you RARELY get an 'apples to apples' comparison when it comes to lap times.
On track, both cars and bikes are suprisingly similar when it comes to the stuff you and I could get our hands on. Heavily modified cars will start dominating once the downforce comes into play, of course.
But for the average rider or driver, just know that the weapon of choice, moto or car, doesn't automatically give you the win.
That, and Top Gear is always just 'for entertainment purposes only'. :)
 
Last edited:
ex911 said:
This comment made me curious: what is the top lap time for bikes (of all time, MotoGP / WSB bikes included, not just AFM times) at our local tracks here in the Bay Area?

For example, I think the top lap time at LS for a car is like 1:05 or something like that (for the Toyota F1 car a few years ago). What about for the fastest bike at LS? And at SP? TH?

(And of course I'm too lazy to look it up :) )
Click to expand...

I believe the bike lap record at LS is around 1:21, where as the Indy cars are below that. I didn't think they were 1:05 though. I thought it was around 1:18, but I could be wrong.
 
Archimedes said:
I believe the bike lap record at LS is around 1:21, where as the Indy cars are below that. I didn't think they were 1:05 though. I thought it was around 1:18, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

No, whats-his-name ran an official time of 1:08 with an Indy car there about 10 years ago already. I'm drawing a blank at the moment with his name but I'm sure another Barfer will fill in soon.

And then a few years ago when Toyota was first getting into F1 I believe they had one of their test drivers drive their F1 car around LS as part of the ALMS weekend event and he ran a 1:05.xx.
 
Hey Charles,

I'm going by the Trakpedia typical lap times for Buttonwillow (T-Hill has the bypass, and I didn't want to deal with that.)

Actually, I retract my statement. My laptimes around Buttonwillow aren't quite as fast as I remember them being (I just checked my old AFM laps.) :) I will say that the GS is capable of a 2:09 around T-Hill in it's current form. With super-bike legal modifications, I'm confident a 2:06 would be possible.

For what it's worth, the AFM pace leaders are putting down 1:48s around T-Hill. Are there any cars out there putting down laps like that without significant down-force?
 
Last edited:
Ok, from the Wikipedia (and we all know how authoritative this body of work is :p)

Lap records
On August 20, 2006, Toyota F1 test driver Ricardo Zonta set an unofficial lap record of 1'06.039.[4] The previous record time was 1'07.722, set by Helio Castroneves in a Penske Champ Car during qualifying for the 2000 CART Honda Grand Prix of Monterey. The unofficial record was re-taken by a Champ Car on March 10, 2007 by Sébastien Bourdais, who lapped in 1'05.880 during Champ Car Spring Training.

Officially, Castroneves is still the recordholder as Zonta's and Bourdais' times were set during exhibition and testing sessions, and official records can only be set in race conditions (either in practice, qualifying, or during a race).
Click to expand...

And dude-that-set-the-1:08-lap was Bryan Herta, it just came back to moi.
 
And here is the production car lap record for Laguna from MotorTrend.

• 1st: 2010 Dodge Viper ACR - 1:33.92

Anyone running faster than that on a box stock 600RR is fucking fassssstt, given that's only a few seconds off the AMA Supersport pole time.
 
Jorge Lorenzo went 1:20.978 to get the pole position for the last MotoGP race at Laguna Seca, for reference. That's likely as fast as any motorcycle can go around that course.
 
ScottRNelson said:
Jorge Lorenzo went 1:20.978 to get the pole position for the last MotoGP race at Laguna Seca, for reference. That's likely as fast as any motorcycle can go around that course.
Click to expand...

im sure that record will be broken next year
 
Which episode of top gear was it? Season and Episode please.

My favorite show as well, but as noted its an entertainment show.
 
Burning1 said:
The advantages that high end sports cars have over motorcycles has very little to do with the size of the contact patch of the tires, and a lot to do with the cars ability to produce down-force. Motorcycles typically have an advantage in terms of mechanical grip when compared to a car.
Click to expand...

Bike are narrow single track vehicles. I think a bike's biggest advantage in a turn is having 4' more pavement to maneuver. The next big advantage is a rider's the ability to move the CG to the inside of a turn and lower to the ground.

I haven't seen any statistics that show bikes get much more mechanical grip than cars. Maybe someone can pull some test results of the Gs pulled by bikes and cars inside a 100' circle. The speed will be too slow for aerodynamics to make much difference. Car tires at really wide and a formula race car only weights 1200lbs (3 bikes). I have to believe the contact patch to weight ratio heavily favors the car.
 
SLu said:
Bike are narrow single track vehicles. I think a bike's biggest advantage in a turn is having 4' more pavement to maneuver. The next big advantage is a rider's the ability to move the CG to the inside of a turn and lower to the ground.

I haven't seen any statistics that show bikes get much more mechanical grip than cars. Maybe someone can pull some test results of the Gs pulled by bikes and cars inside a 100' circle. The speed will be too slow for aerodynamics to make much difference. Car tires at really wide and a formula race car only weights 1200lbs (3 bikes). I have to believe the contact patch to weight ratio heavily favors the car.
Click to expand...

I have seen some of the statistics. Modern superbikes are pulling in the range of 1.6 lateral G forces on modern, race tires. That's nothing compared to modern F1 cars, which can pull upwards of 5 G, but significantly better than most modern production cars.

Hanging off is beneficial to handling, but in ideal conditions (E.g. very smooth pavement, fresh tires, no clearance issues, rider is not past the edge of the tire) it does not provide any significant improvment in grip. Obviously, it has significant advantages in real world conditions, but perhaps equally obvious is that car dynamics are very different than motorcycle dynamics. The drivers inability to shift around weight isn't much of a hinderance to a track-tuned race car.

Sure, the width of the bike and the fact that it does not experience roll-induced loading of the tires is a significant advantage, but not as significant as the advantages provided by camber thrust (though again, downforce is an even more significant advantage in the favor of cars.) Also, the bike's advantage is much greater than 4 feet - on the track, you've got to compare wheelbase, not vehicular width.

Listen, if you or anyone else wants to debate this topic, I strongly suggest you read and understand 'Motorcycle Dynamics' by Vittore Cossalter, and 'Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design: the art and science' by Tony Foale. To be brutally frank: If you don't understand the topics discussed in those books, you really don't understand motorcycle dynamics well enough to debate this topic.
 
Don't get too soapboxy there b1. You've been mistaken before on technical issues ;)

It's just a "lame comparison" after all.
 
Burning1 said:
I have seen some of the statistics. Modern superbikes are pulling in the range of 1.6 lateral G forces on modern, race tires. That's nothing compared to modern F1 cars, which can pull upwards of 5 G, but significantly better than most modern production cars.

Hanging off is beneficial to handling, but in ideal conditions (E.g. very smooth pavement, fresh tires, no clearance issues, rider is not past the edge of the tire) it does not provide any significant improvment in grip. Obviously, it has significant advantages in real world conditions, but perhaps equally obvious is that car dynamics are very different than motorcycle dynamics. The drivers inability to shift around weight isn't much of a hinderance to a track-tuned race car.

Sure, the width of the bike and the fact that it does not experience roll-induced loading of the tires is a significant advantage, but not as significant as the advantages provided by camber thrust (though again, downforce is an even more significant advantage in the favor of cars.) Also, the bike's advantage is much greater than 4 feet - on the track, you've got to compare wheelbase, not vehicular width.

Listen, if you or anyone else wants to debate this topic, I strongly suggest you read and understand 'Motorcycle Dynamics' by Vittore Cossalter, and 'Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design: the art and science' by Tony Foale. To be brutally frank: If you don't understand the topics discussed in those books, you really don't understand motorcycle dynamics well enough to debate this topic.
Click to expand...

I'll go check out the that book. From a scientific point of view, all one needs to do to check the validity of the mechanical grip claim is to run the 100' test I mention above. There's not enough down force to matter at that speed.

I have to strongly disagree with the statement about shifting the weight in a car. If the car could move 20% of its weight inside, that'll be a big advantage. I have read Carroll Smith and Adam for cars, but am no expert. I assume everyone else who's debating this topic (except me) has read and have a complete understanding of motorcycle and car dynamics.
 
I understand motorcycles better than cars, so Charles would be a better judge of how moving around weight might affect a car.

My understanding is that moving weight would have a pretty significant impact on chassis stability, although race cars are typically set-up to have minimal body roll in cornering. I strongly suspect that for/aft weight balance, and weight centralization are going to be more important for a car than whether weight could be shifted laterally.

I strongly suspect that the grip you lose by unloading the inside tire is gained back by loading the outside tire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top