Bike vs Car...

[Ling_650vette]

Did anyone happen to catch one of the latest issues of Cycle World or Motor Cyclist, where they raced a GSX-R1000 vs a ZO6? As of late, there's been some discussion on gixxer.com about the race. If no one has seen it, i'll try to post the discussion from gixxer.com, but the article isn't on there....but a follow up from a Sting Ray owner is.

http://www.gixxer.com/forums/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=27;t=013316 Here's the address, and i dont think you've got to be a member of the site to view it, just a member to post.

 

[danl72]

Of course a motorcycle will beat a car.There is no weight to a motorcycle.

 

[Stan A]

Comparison

I believe that I found an accelerating range that the Z06 will match the GSX1000 bike. Testing done over the last 10 years comparing bikes to cars has shown that in the 60-100mph run many cars can match the accelerating performance of bikes like the one mentioned here.

Keep in mind that the weight advantage of the bike is almost lost once the bike and car are already rolling.

A match up between the Z06 and the GSX1000 with a 60-100mph run gives you an average results of:

Z06 2001.................. 4.5 to 4.8 sec
Z06 2002.................. 4.4 to 4.6 sec
GSX1000................... 4.6 to 4.8 sec

Food for thought....................

Stan
Auto Performance Test Lab

 

[Edmond]

A guy I used to work with

is a big time illegal street racing fan. He told me that one time, he saw a supercharged C5 beat a motorcycle. I still don't believe him to this day, but I don't have a reason to think that he would lie about it either. He said that this guy was so fast that cars wouldn't even race him.

 

[Stan A]

Cars Can be FASTER

Interesting piece of information. Here in Atlanta we had a street legal Callaway Twin turbo that was the promotion car for the Callaway Registry/Callaway Engineering. It appeared at many major shows in the south. The interesting thing about this car was that it was a convertible which produced 620hp+/800lbs-ft torque. Being the Callaway Registry Director (1987-1999) gave me not only ownership but the chance to put this car on the road on many occasions. Many times I had the opportunity to race many different "superbikes". On a rolling run this car never lost a race even to speeds reaching 140mph. Even matched up against a Ninja 1100X that was tricked out with a turbo system (horsepower estimated by rider was in the range of 160-170 ponies. Still managed to reached 150mph ahead of the Ninja by two full car lengths.

Understand that I am sure that there were faster accelerating cars out there. But what made this car so unique is that it was street legal. Also that this car had a 60-100mph rolling time of between 3.2 to 3.4 seconds. The F40/F50/F1 times ranged between 4.4 to 4.7 seconds. A 50mph to 130mph average run time 6.6 to 6.9 seconds.

It was only in the last few years that the street superbikes has reached in the three second range in the 60-100mph run. Also more exotics and many after-market tuner cars are coming into these performance times too.

Don't be surprise to hear about a car beating a bike.

Matching cars against bikes is interesting but the one point that we all know is that the bike has the weight advantage and in drag racing will almost always win.

 

[Edmond]

Stan,

Thank you for assuring me that I was hearing correctly when he said a car beat a bike!

A car would have better aerodynamics and therefore have an advantage at higher speed right?

 

[78SilvAnniv]

advantages...

If a tire blew on either, I'd much rather be in the car at those speeds, and NOT on the motorcycle! :eek
Silver

I'd also think aerodynamics would play a role...it must be harder for a cyclist to control their bike at those speeds than a vehicle driver. One wrong gust of wind...

 

[Ling_650vette]

thats cool Stan, and by no means was i going to go on saying that either was untouchable...i love both, but i lean more towards the ZO6 vs that bike...

And to the car vs bike race, yeah the bikes seem to accelerate a lil bit quicker, but the cars usually can get them in the longer runs, esp from a roll. And Stan, thanks for the Callaway comparison. I was using Lingenfelters TT 427 to explain it to a friend of mine, but he still didn't believe me that the thing pulls a 9.2 sec 1/4 mile and a 1.97 0-60. Untill he opened some recent magazine and saw the test in there...

But, i'm glad most of you guys and gals are fairly "open minded" about the topic, but hey, i knew it was going to be corvette biased being in a corvette room lol. But the funny thing i thought was the fact that the times (i felt) were a tad high for a ZO6, considering the average speeds i've been hearing are about 12.6-12.8 1/4 miles. Granted, these are just average, some people may be pulling closer to the 12.4s that it's rated at.

Btw, Stan, how did that Callaway handle? I bet that was a rush being able to drive something like that.....of course, its no Sledgehammer, but hey.....that power is just enough to smoke some fox bodies

 

[warren s]

In car Vs bike, a relativly un practiced Z06 driver can get all the performance the car can provide in just a few prictice passes. On a bike however it takes a very talented rider to run the times these bikes show in the magazines. Just spend an afternoon at the local strip and see how many 9 and 10 second bikes either run in the 13s or into the wall.

 

[Stan A]

Right!!!

Warren's is absolutely right...... By the way I saw that comparison on Motor Trend tv and one thing that they mentioned was incorrect. The Corvette that was used in the test against the plane was not a street car by definition. It had no cats and was geared for the track. It was also automatic. The time posted about 0-60mph in 1.97 sec is a little hard to shallow! Just visible observations on the launches from several angles they showed on the program give the clue that the 1.97 sec was not right. The automatic shifts before 60 mph no matter which rear end you use. A check time check by a stop watch showed that the first shift came between 2.5 and 2.8 seconds. This may not be the absolute way to check it but it does show that the 60mph mark came in after these two timed numbers. Also, if you check with other similar setups on similar cars, you will not that the 0-60mph cames in between 2.5 to 3.2 seconds that have similar 1/4 mile times. I feel that it was said to give the car a better posture.

I called the department of the Navy and asked about the plane they used. On a aircraft carrier it launches to 150mph in 4 seconds, however, a ground launch of 0-60mph would take over 6 seconds. After that speed the plane is gone!!!

It was a great article/program and both the car and plane were increditable. I have no doubt that Lingenfelter can build a car that can do the 1.97 sec to 60mph but not in "steet legal form" and besides the front of the car would lift off the ground noticeable.

I am looking forward to a "street legal" shootout which would include a 427 Lingenfelter Tw-Turbo before the summer is up.

 

[Ling_650vette]

Oh yeah Stan, i'll agree w/ that...

My dad being a zoomie for 15 years of my life, i've grown up w/ planes, and i hope to soon work on 'em (then i can afford the Zoh ) But, they tend to not be the quickest of vehicles on the ground, esp from a stop. But, if you can compare how well they accelerate from say 150-300...it's beyond amazing, but heck, they've got thousands of lbs of thrust behind them, so they should be able to move that quickly. I've got no disrespect to the Navy, but next time, test it againt a F-22 or F-15 lol

 

[Stan A]

You Said It!!!

I like your choices better.......................

Stan

 

[BadBill]

Certainly cars, especially C-5's, are "quicker" than motorcycles. My Dyna Glide will leave my 2001 coupe in the dust up to about 70 mph, not bad for a 1908 air pump, but the car always shows the bike the fast way home...

 

[Bullitt]

Ummm... have any of you guys ridden the latest crotch rockets? If you haven't, you're missing something spectacular that is going on in the motorcycle industry. "Lighter and faster" has become the creedo. Every year, engineers are going to incredible lengths to shave a few pounds here and find a few horsepower there. All for the sake of being the best for one more year. That's something that is truly lacking in the car industry. Competition that's unheralded among any industry that I know of, period.

The aforementioned Ninja is history now. For it's day, it upheld motorcycle glory admirably, but the world has moved on. You're talking about a bike that is around 11 years old. 160-170hp from a turbo is peanuts compared to today. I'll look up the issues, but I remember one guy hitting 220mph that was described as "violent."

I've been around them for awhile now and there is something definitely missing from the showroom cars that bikes have in spades. The fact that for around $10,000 or less, you can have performance attained by cars costing many more times as much, is everyman's dream. I may never be able to afford a $100,000 automobile, but I can get a bike that relays that rush of speed quite comparably.

And yes, there are some people out there that can't ride their bike to it's full capabilites, but either can most drivers. No shocker there. Most of today's cutting-edge bikes are almost completely adjustable. From altering ride height, wheelbase, spring rates, steering head angle, etc... Tool kits are usually supplied also, so there's not much aftermarket expense either. Again, it's to make the bike accesible to everyone and anyone who is willing to unlock every molecule of its' potential and theirs'.

Stoppies, wheelies at 100mph, srcaping knees, scraping elbows into turns, leaned waaaaayyyy over you feel like you're defying physics, etc.... :eek Cars just can't compete with this type of hooliganism. Oh sure, everyone says, "you'll die on that bike, you bast***!!" But what the hell? You only live once. :gap

--Bullitt

p.s. I wear a helmet and the appriopiate gear when I ride. Unfortunately, I haven't ridden in awhile. Don't lay down the "dangerous" aspect or you'll sound like my granny. :eyerole