Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
There are a number of TV shows/magazines that seek to compare road cars vs bikes on track,
& any number of youtube clips of loose public road contests between cars & bikes..
Having done a bit of fanging of both, my view is.. bikes win, if the rider has skill & is bold enough..
A very expensive/powerful car with downforce/sticky tyres/carbon-type brakes may have more of a chance,
but - if there is much slower traffic about, forget about it..
Edit: Apologies Mods, this topic properly belongs in the "Off Topic" section, if you please..
(No doubt about it - F1 high downforce/sticky tyre footprint - beats any race bikes for lap speed)..
"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).
Its a comparison that never goes anywhere as they are two different thing that don't compete. If you like bikes then bikes are best, if you prefer cars then cars are best. If you raced to car rules then cars win, if you race to bike rules then bikes win.
The only event I can think of where they compete is the Dakar rally, I think 4,wheels come out on top but I assume the rules are different for bikes.
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver
Point-to-point on the open road, or at a track day at a closed circuit,
- you certainly can directly compare any motor vehicles for time/speed over distance..
If you both drive & ride such vehicles you cannot help but compare their relative attributes in everyday use..
"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).
I'm nearly always serious. Its a comparison that I remember going on since I was a child and it just goes in circles. As soon as a cars wins we hear "well the car costs £100k and the bike only cost £10k" or when the bike wins all we hear is "well the car has 4 seats and boot but the bike can't carry more than one person".
You can always compare lap times but you can't compare the parameters of the two competing vehicles as they are way too different. Perhaps Moto GP vs F1 may give a comparison but both are artificially limited in different ways, if the bike was faster we would hear "well the car is running on Pirelli control tyres designed degrade not give ultimate performance" and if the car won we would hear "well the bike is only allowed a much smaller NA engine" and the argument would go on and on forever.
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver
F-O, surely you realize that circuits generally share a start-finish line?
Then while they therefore describe a circle of sorts, the time/speed to get around them can be compared..
..on a quantifiable/comparable basis..
& If you wish to get from point A - to point B - on the public road - in the most rapidly practicable manner..
..then obviously the comparison also stands, regardless of petty/subjective asides..
Moto G.P. bikes likely beat F1 cars for acceleration, & match them for top end speed, but no way can they
compete for average lap speed due to downforce/tyre adhesion advantages in cornering/braking..
This does not apply for regular road going vehicles - however..
"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).
J.A.W. wrote:F-O, surely you realize that circuits generally share a start-finish line?
Then while they therefore describe a circle of sorts, the time/speed to get around them can be compared..
..on a quantifiable/comparable basis..
& If you wish to get from point A - to point B - on the public road - in the most rapidly practicable manner..
..then obviously the comparison also stands, regardless of petty/subjective asides..
Moto G.P. bikes likely beat F1 cars for acceleration, & match them for top end speed, but no way can they
compete for average lap speed due to downforce/tyre adhesion advantages in cornering/braking..
This does not apply for regular road going vehicles - however..
If you had read what I wrote you would have seen that I'm not arguing that you can't compare lap times,that's simple. What you can't compare is the parameters of the competing vehicles which are so vastly different as the render the comparison moot.
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver
Indeed the comparative differences - are what makes it interesting..
"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).
Pointless comparison, but if you think about it with your brain instead of some other organ then the reason is that decent roadbikes are much more closely related to their racing brethren than road cars are to circuit cars.
If you're comparing cars and bikes then you need to compare like-for-like. If you're looking at road cars then you should look at road bikes - not road-legal racers (race-replica). When you do that, you find that the bike's main armament on public roads is its size. Traffic is much less of an issue for the bike. A standard touring bike has decent acceleration but it's not on a level with the race-replica bikes.
If you're going to compare the race-replica bikes to road cars then all bets are off - the bike wins every time.
If you compare competition machinery then the car wins everything except off-the-line acceleration. A racing motorbike won't stand a chance against a F1 car, for example, once they get to the first coner.
Bike or car? Depends on the type of road. Lots of tight turns, lots of braking = car wins. High speed corners, likely bike. On the former, (tight corners, alpine pass, lots of braking), even in my car (Exige with semi slicks and 300bhp/tonne) i will destroy any bike. As soon as you introduce long straights and a bike will be hard to beat point to point.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
They're different. That's it.
Both have their very own philosophy and you'll have - and want - to embrace that philosophy.
Both car and bike have positive practical uses, and both have their negative practical uses.
Daily use:
Practical use for a car : Safer, dry, you can haul luggage and more people comfortably.
Practical use for a bike: Easier driving, cut through traffic, cheaper, faster.
Negative points for a car: More expensive, costly repairs, faster loss of value.
Negative points for a bike: Dangerous in the winter, bike clothing & helmet, accident-dangerous [collision and slide]
Pleasure use:
Practical use for a car: comfortable on the long haul, less need for concentration.
Practical use for a bike: freedom, lots of fun in cornery roads, more able to look at the beauty of the surroundings.
negative points for a car: restricted to the traffic around you and less fun [ a convertible would ease that a bit ]
negative points for a bike: less comfortable on a long haul, demand for concentration.
Race use:
this is not even a discussion. A bike is simply far easier to race and drive compared to all that you need for a car
to perform [and safe]. In an accident, a bike is far safer than a [standard] car, and a lot cheaper, as for car safety,
you also need a helmet and wear, but a rollcage, good brakes and tires [ very expensive usage ], etc etc.
in a bike accident during racing, generally, you 'fall' off the bike and then slide off the track. The track is what
could potentially risk a motorbike driver more then his own 'driving'. Even more, a bike will generally get less damaged
compared to a car [ or atleast is easier salvagable]. A fellow racer will have less trouble avoiding to hit your because of the maneuvrability of a bike. In case of a car; your vehicle is big, and the opponent vehicle is big [ compared to bike ],
and is far less manouvrable. thus, when in an 'error'; chances of making contact are far bigger.
And that is realy why we don't see bike vs car races. It's seriously creating mortal danger. a car WILL easier hit a motorbike during a inter-vehicle race simply because motorbikes behave/manouvre different on track, and because
the car is so big, it's hard to miss a bike if it pops up in front in some unexpected situation.
Either way the point is simple
You buy and drive both with your heart. therefor, there is no comparison or general answer because we are all diferent and have our own preferences. The general ++++ side for a motorbike vs a high performance road car [ sportscar ] though is significant in simple case that you drive them both to enjoy them thus will act in speeding. In the case of a motorbike,
you are by far, and i really mean as in far far far less likely to get a ticket or pulled over then a sportcar. Somehow, sportscars attract far more attention. People whom have not driven motorbikes [ superbikes that is ] can't answer this one correctly. Youll both get tickets, but in case of the car, prepare for the worst.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
J.A.W. wrote:There are a number of TV shows/magazines that seek to compare road cars vs bikes on track,
& any number of youtube clips of loose public road contests between cars & bikes..
Having done a bit of fanging of both, my view is.. bikes win, if the rider has skill & is bold enough..
A very expensive/powerful car with downforce/sticky tyres/carbon-type brakes may have more of a chance,
but - if there is much slower traffic about, forget about it..
Edit: Apologies Mods, this topic properly belongs in the "Off Topic" section, if you please..
(No doubt about it - F1 high downforce/sticky tyre footprint - beats any race bikes for lap speed)..
Cars have 4 tyres bikes have 2.. the car will always win in the corners.
Not necesserily, as more weight (car) means more force pulling you out. You can counter that with downforce, but depends on the car. A bike can also use lying into a corner to drop the center of weight.
But yeah, 4 tyres, 4 brakes and cars will pretty much always outbrake bikes, even in non sporty cars. Add semi slicks and competent brakes and you will destroy bikes, which is why in tight corners, lots of braking, cars will generally be quicker. Add long straights or high speed corners and unless you are in a car with a lot of downforce or grip and the bike will be quicker.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
Just to add, generally, bike lovers (sorry ) are usually blinded by the immense power and ridiculous power to weigh ratio, and also straight line speed, into believing that bikes are quicker than *anything* outthere. Or their ability to overtake in next to impossible circumstances. Introduce bumpy roads, lots of braking, slow tight corners and bikes are quickly out of their ideal zone and potential.
I've stopped counting how many times i've caught a bike on open roads (alpine passes, or quick B roads - and yes, quick bikes too that were *on it*) and they didnt even realize i was right behind them or closed in on them. At least on the race track, bikers tend to know better and realize that they are far from the quickest on track and have the decency to move to the side as passing on the straights is generally impossible.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
I ride a bike, Honda VFR400R, granted not a large displacement at all, but in everyday riding around town or out on the highway then I have the advantage and only because I can whip in and out of traffic If I want. the point and shoot method.
But on an open road with long straights and a mixture of slow, med. and fast corners then I don't stand a chance, and it was the same thing when I had a 2007 750 GSXR,
You lose a lot of time and give up a lot of distance braking for corners that the car simply lifts of the gas or just has to tap the brakes, My tire contact patch is the size of a credit card, a car has twice that on just one tire, add the cars ability to use 4 wheels to slow down the car from very high speeds for slow corners, the bike just can't to that.
Here's an article from Mototrend 22 cars that stop from 60-0 in less then 100 feet, best on their list is 2011 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Carbon Edition 93 feet and at the bottom of the list, 2009 Porsche Boxster S did it in 99 feet. http://www.motortrend.com/features/mt_h ... ewall.html
Now coming out of the corners, there's nothing like a bike, on the gas fast and no weight to hinder acceleration and your off like a rocket. just not enough to make up the difference.
) are usually blinded by the immense power and ridiculous power to weigh ratio, and also straight line speed, into believing that bikes are quicker than *anything* outthere. Or their ability to overtake in next to impossible circumstances. Introduce bumpy roads, lots of braking, slow tight corners and bikes are quickly out of their ideal zone and potential.
