rec.autos.simulators

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

Moto

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Moto » Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:00:00


>hey man!
>ive raced bikes and "driven my car "

Me too.

Wrong, in the 'real' world.

A very, very fast car may just be able to keep up with a modern
run-of-the-mill sports bike costing one tenth of the price, but usually not.

Example:

Standard 1998 Fireblade with 130kg rider is well over 520 bhp per ton.
(And an R1 is probably pushing more like 600 bhp per ton, even in standard
trim.)

Standard 1998 Ferrari 355 with 130kg driver is 225 bhp per ton.

(And yes, I've spent plenty of time driving the vehicles listed above.)

Bike wins, no contest. And the bike is a fraction of the price, which leaves
you plenty of money for tune-up kits. I put a full-race pipe, race bodywork,
re-jet, Dyno, Ohlins suspension, etc., etc. on mine for what one minor
service on a F355 would cost.

The last 3 mag reviews over here in the UK that have pitched top road-going
sports cars against modern sports bikes have seen the bikes dominate ALL the
time at EVERY circuit. In the wet, the cars dominate, though.

New Porsche 911 is 0-100 mph in 11 seconds.

Blade and R1 are about 5.1 seconds. Nuff said.

Just my two pennies.

Steve P.

Paul Baile

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Paul Baile » Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:00:00

How do you explain lap records around circuits such as donington where the
f1 cars are considerably faster than a 500gp motorcycle?

From what I've read cars can corner considerably faster than a bike ever
will.



>>hey man!
>>ive raced bikes and "driven my car "

>Me too.

>>on the track (after a race day) and a car is way faster than a bike,

>Wrong, in the 'real' world.

>A very, very fast car may just be able to keep up with a modern
>run-of-the-mill sports bike costing one tenth of the price, but usually
not.

>Example:

>Standard 1998 Fireblade with 130kg rider is well over 520 bhp per ton.
>(And an R1 is probably pushing more like 600 bhp per ton, even in standard
>trim.)

>Standard 1998 Ferrari 355 with 130kg driver is 225 bhp per ton.

>(And yes, I've spent plenty of time driving the vehicles listed above.)

>Bike wins, no contest. And the bike is a fraction of the price, which
leaves
>you plenty of money for tune-up kits. I put a full-race pipe, race
bodywork,
>re-jet, Dyno, Ohlins suspension, etc., etc. on mine for what one minor
>service on a F355 would cost.

>The last 3 mag reviews over here in the UK that have pitched top road-going
>sports cars against modern sports bikes have seen the bikes dominate ALL
the
>time at EVERY circuit. In the wet, the cars dominate, though.

>New Porsche 911 is 0-100 mph in 11 seconds.

>Blade and R1 are about 5.1 seconds. Nuff said.

>Just my two pennies.

>Steve P.

Remco Moe

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Remco Moe » Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:00:00

Hi MotoX,

Errr, what is a R1?

If you're that 130 kg driver, you not only spent a lot of time driving
:-)

Remco

David Mocn

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by David Mocn » Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:00:00

Hi Steve P.,
There is a bit of right here but a bit of wrong as well. A "road" bike is
always quicker than a "road" car because of it's low weight and high power.
When it comes to cornering then car has the edge.... you can get a car (that
is a sports car) around a corner quicker than a bike. Though, the raw speed of
a "road" bike is still way too much for a car (that is practically any car bar
Porche 911 Turbo).
When it comes to "racing" bikes and "Racing" cars then cars are much
quicker.... again it depends on what you define a "car". F1 cars are about
10-20 seconds a lap quicker than the GP bikes. The reason for this is mainly
the amazing downforce that F1 cars generate, not the mention the "sticky" huge
tires and a weght to power ratio on par wit any GP bike. The bereaking
distances and cornering speeds is where race cars (F1 in particular) shine.
Top speed and acceleration of a GP bige and an F1 car are roughly the same.
Therefore, it just depends on what "cars" you compare to "bikes". The more
dowforce the car generates the more things whing in the "cars" favour.
Though, Steve... you are very wrong about one thing, the 0-100mph for Porche
911 Turbo. It is 7 seconds flat... check up on it, the time you're staing is
the 1/4 mile time... though the terminal speed at the end of the quater is
around 200Kmh (125Mph). On a subject of P11 Turbo, that is probably the only
"road" car that will beat a bike (though only marginaly) because of it's raw
power, 4-wheel-drive (ie. traction and grip ans stability), huge tires (grip
and traction again), best bkares in the business (breaking)  and it has decent
downforce as the speeds increase.
Regards,
David Mocnay
ps. I was interested in the "bike vs car" question about a year ago, so I did
my research :-)




>>hey man!
>>ive raced bikes and "driven my car "

>Me too.

>>on the track (after a race day) and a car is way faster than a bike,

>Wrong, in the 'real' world.

>A very, very fast car may just be able to keep up with a modern
>run-of-the-mill sports bike costing one tenth of the price, but usually not.

>Example:

>Standard 1998 Fireblade with 130kg rider is well over 520 bhp per ton.
>(And an R1 is probably pushing more like 600 bhp per ton, even in standard
>trim.)

>Standard 1998 Ferrari 355 with 130kg driver is 225 bhp per ton.

>(And yes, I've spent plenty of time driving the vehicles listed above.)

>Bike wins, no contest. And the bike is a fraction of the price, which leaves
>you plenty of money for tune-up kits. I put a full-race pipe, race bodywork,
>re-jet, Dyno, Ohlins suspension, etc., etc. on mine for what one minor
>service on a F355 would cost.

>The last 3 mag reviews over here in the UK that have pitched top road-going
>sports cars against modern sports bikes have seen the bikes dominate ALL the
>time at EVERY circuit. In the wet, the cars dominate, though.

>New Porsche 911 is 0-100 mph in 11 seconds.

>Blade and R1 are about 5.1 seconds. Nuff said.

>Just my two pennies.

>Steve P.

Ian Fir

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Ian Fir » Wed, 03 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Huge difference between F1 and a street legal Ferarri.

An Indy car or F1 car will stay ahead of even a GP bike on most circuits.

It all depends on weight and traction.

--
Regards,
Ian Firth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diversions Software - Game Development - http://www.divsoft.com
     Home of Prairie Dog Hunt PRO '97 - DS Sporting Clays

Ian Fir

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Ian Fir » Wed, 03 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Yamaha R1, sequel to the YZF1000 and FZR1000.

--
Regards,
Ian Firth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diversions Software - Game Development - http://www.divsoft.com
     Home of Prairie Dog Hunt PRO '97 - DS Sporting Clays

Trip

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Trip » Wed, 03 Jun 1998 04:00:00


> It all depends on weight and traction.

And downforce... Throw aerodynamics into the equation and bikes lose out
big time.

Trips

Bozo

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Bozo » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00

The catch is in the later turning forces each can generate.  While the bike
will crush any normal (e.g. not pure race) car in a straight line, the car will
return the favor when it gets twisty.

Ben

Jerry Logsd

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Jerry Logsd » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00



> >Wrong, in the 'real' world.

> >A very, very fast car may just be able to keep up with a modern
> >run-of-the-mill sports bike costing one tenth of the price, but usually not.

> >Example:

> >Standard 1998 Fireblade with 130kg rider is well over 520 bhp per ton.
> >(And an R1 is probably pushing more like 600 bhp per ton, even in standard
> >trim.)

> >Standard 1998 Ferrari 355 with 130kg driver is 225 bhp per ton.

> >(And yes, I've spent plenty of time driving the vehicles listed above.)

> >Bike wins, no contest. And the bike is a fraction of the price, which leaves
> >you plenty of money for tune-up kits. I put a full-race pipe, race bodywork,
> >re-jet, Dyno, Ohlins suspension, etc., etc. on mine for what one minor
> >service on a F355 would cost.

> >The last 3 mag reviews over here in the UK that have pitched top road-going
> >sports cars against modern sports bikes have seen the bikes dominate ALL the
> >time at EVERY circuit. In the wet, the cars dominate, though.

> >New Porsche 911 is 0-100 mph in 11 seconds.

> >Blade and R1 are about 5.1 seconds. Nuff said.

> >Just my two pennies.

> >Steve P.

> The catch is in the later turning forces each can generate.  While the bike
> will crush any normal (e.g. not pure race) car in a straight line, the
car will
> return the favor when it gets twisty.

> Ben

Cars win when it comes to slowing down. More *** on the ground and
locking the front tires will only lead to flatspots, not falling over.
Jer ('73 Corvette with autocrossing setup / Ducati 916)
Moto

Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

by Moto » Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:00:00

Like I said in my post: In the 'real' world....

Sure, an out and out sports car (F1, GTR, etc.) will corner and out-lap a
bike. But, like I said in my post, most people can afford a modern sports
bike at 7-10K here in the UK, but not 100K to 1Million for a race spec
sports car. Or even 100K for an F355...

Steve.


>How do you explain lap records around circuits such as donington where the
>f1 cars are considerably faster than a 500gp motorcycle?

>From what I've read cars can corner considerably faster than a bike ever
>will.


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.