www.zxrworld.co.uk

at the end of the day i like my bikes more than i like my cars but theres no way a bikes gona beat a super car. its simple aint it more hourses, 4 tyres to put the power down and get the grip plus ther surface area is greater on them cos there bigger than most bike tyres. im sure there are other factors like a limit to the amount of bhp a bike can have before it would become un-rideable.

i suppose the only fair way to get an indisputable answer would b to put a car and bike with similar or equal power to weight figures on a track together. and this track should have an equal mixture of straights and fast/slow bends

then get lewis hamilton in the car and ross/stoner on the bike

and see what the result is, personally although i would love the bike to leave the car in its dust, that car is gonna romp away with it

i sound like jeremy clarkson!

i aint no car enthusiast, sure i aim to own a ferrari/lambo but there will always b a bike parked next to it in my future triple garage!

gem

not really the same as the superbike/supercar questions but theres sound twisty bits round near me i like to ride round and in a MR2/MG ZR (just ordinary cars) ive found they really felt like they were on the limit of grip at around 60mph whereas the bike feels fine and could go faster if i only had the guts to hang off it more.

road was national speedlimit at the time btw

unless u dont mind losing your license, riding like a racer on the road is a bad idea

conditions are too variable also

gem

T180985 wrote:not really the same as the superbike/supercar questions but theres sound twisty bits round near me i like to ride round and in a MR2/MG ZR (just ordinary cars) ive found they really felt like they were on the limit of grip at around 60mph whereas the bike feels fine and could go faster if i only had the guts to hang off it more.

road was national speedlimit at the time btw

dont forget your road bike aint that much different from the track version. i think. werent there a stink kicked up about that befor. ppl sayin they are too powerful for the road as they are almost the same as the track versions or something.

again, what makes you so sure that power:weight ratio would produce a "fair" competition?

Again to use the Impreza WRX as an example, 300bhp and 1200kg is probably typical, giving a power to weight ratio of 0.25bhp/kg. Lets try and find a bike with that ratio...

After a bit of searching, I found a bike with a power to weight ratio of 0.27bhp/kilo. It's the 40bhp, 150kg Hornet 250. Woohoo.

deviant wrote:again, what makes you so sure that power:weight ratio would produce a "fair" competition?

Again to use the Impreza WRX as an example, 300bhp and 1200kg is probably typical, giving a power to weight ratio of 0.25bhp/kg. Lets try and find a bike with that ratio...

After a bit of searching, I found a bike with a power to weight ratio of 0.27bhp/kilo. It's the 40bhp, 150kg Hornet 250. Woohoo.

its not all about the bhp/kg though to make it fair as you could argue the car has more grip so its only fair a bike has more power to accelerate out of corners etc tbh i think its hard to compare bikes and cars as they are two very different things

tbh im getting a bit bored,

im not an engineer so i obviously dont understand the full ins and outs of these things,

i believe a car will always out perform a bike of close or equal comparison...

maybe im wrong, i dont care

gem

which was exactly the point I was trying to make - it's a stupid comparison, because there is no sensible metric by which you can say you have a comparable bike and car - other than picking ones which have the same lap time round your arbitrarily chosen test track, and that will, funnily enough lead to a draw.

The only real world metric that is relevant to me is "how much fun can I have on the best bike I can afford compared to the best car I can afford". Which is why I've got a bike. However it's crap for going to tescos.

good point.

i remember a couple of years ago a friend said how come motorbikes are so expensive,

and i suppose £9000 give or take for a bit of plastic could seem pricey to somebody not into bikes,

i just said "ok, so u think £9000 is a lot"? "now think how much you would have to spend on a car to give you similar speed and excitement" he started reeling off cars like subarus, evos etc. all approaching £30,000 if you want the good ones

gem

yea plus runnin em is more expensive, insurance, things goin wrong, etc its not so good. bikes are more fun cheaper to buy cheaper to run. you gota love it. and the only thing that can really hurt you is old folks in there AUSTIN metros turning right without indicating.

and austin martins eh?!

gem

A car will always beat a bike on braking into a corner and speed able to be carried around that corner - even without downforce.

That's purely down to the extra grip from 4 wheels..

Of course, that's only the theory - in reality, most cars on the roads will be on tyres made from soap, while most bikes will be on extremely sticky rubber in comparison.

I think that's the only real deciding factor that would make a car win. And how big the driver and riders balls are to push it on the roads.

Gemini wrote:and austin martins eh?!

gem

:smt097

Jamz wrote:A car will always beat a bike on braking into a corner and speed able to be carried around that corner - even without downforce.

That's purely down to the extra grip from 4 wheels..

Again, it's not as clear cut as that. Yes, the car has more rubber in contact with the road. However it also has about 5x the mass, so the tyres need to generate 5x the force to stop it, and 5x the force to get it round the same radius corner.

Where the car gets the upper hand is in shitty real-world conditions - where the roads are covered in mud, diesel, gravel, etc. I don't know about you guys but I'm reasonably happy sliding a car around. A little slide on a bike however results in me needing to clean my leathers. You can't fall off a car and hurt yourself because one wheel has lost traction.