Supercharger

_________________ 0 - 1/4 mile ____ Engine ______ Price

MTI Z07 Corvette ___ 10 sec _____ Pushrod V8 ___ US$ 100K

Ferrari Enzo ________ 11 sec ______ DOHC V12 ___ US$ 650K


http://www.motorsporttech.com

http://www.corvettemagazine.com/2001.../z07/z07-1.asp

Supercharger

The MTI Z07 Corvette won the "One Lap of America" race.

http://www.onelapofamerica.com

wakeech

hahaha... only you man, only you... ahahaha...

rediculous. but funny. :D

Schneegz

Ho to beat EVERY street legal car (in stock form) ever built at the quarter mile and save yourself a TON of cash doing it.

Suzuki GSX-R1000: 1/4 mile --- 9.89 sec @ 145.35
0 - 60 ----- 2.73 sec
MSRP ----- $10,499

desmo996

I'm with you brother. I think it is really funny when guys in mustangs rev their engine at a stoplight to race me in my Ducati. I leave them in the dust!! People are not aware of how fast these things can go. By the time they reach me at the next stoplight, they look at the bike in a whole different way. They ask whether I have modified my bike. It is really entertaining to watch their faces.

vipeRX7

I agree with your point (e.g. motorcycles are verrrrrrrrry fast) but there are a few stock cars that can outdo that in the quarter mile:
mercedes clk-gtr: 9.4 second quarter mile
mercedes clk-gtr ss: ???? (<9.4 for sure)
eb 16/4 veyron?

of course, the clk-gtrs are essentially race cars, though they are street legal. However, they cost way more than $10,499 ...

Schneegz

In that case, you can supercharge your Hayabusa up to 200+ hp. And if you don't mind loosing some handling, you can lengthen the swingarm a bit. Such bikes are running sub 9 second 1/4 miles for less than $25K for the bike and mods.

Or you can turbocharge your Busa and run it up to 246mph, like the guy who was on "Lightning Bikes" on the Discovery channel. Still under $25K for the whole bike.

Hercules

To truly *beat* a Ferrari Enzo you need about 10 minutes and one of these:

Quick_lude

This thread should be titled: How to beat an Enzo in a straight line.. .. besides you're comparing empirical numbers only which do not tell 99% of the issue at hand..

Ultra exclusive, race ready production car that is a collectible and stirs passion like no other car can.. vs a street illegal race car that will probably need service every 2-3 months. These threads are becoming a little old now.. shrug..

Schneegz

Heck, the Enzo will probably need service every couple months too.

The Beav

on a road course though the car will win everytime, those little bitty motorcycle tires do not allow for much grip, which forces them to slow down alot when cornering

desmo996

Beav;
That statetement is not true. It might be true for F1. Check out the lap times posted in this thread:Lap times

Schneegz

Heh, heh, heh...

Here we go again. I went through all that trouble finding those road course times and yet some people refuse to be educated. Stock-based bikes are routinely beating stock-based race cars by more than 11sec at road courses around the country, even though the cars are much mroe heavily modified than the bikes. And yet, car-only guys refuse to accept the fact.

Yes, Virginia, bikes really are faster than cars; in the straights AND around corners.

vipeRX7

Just wondering--any idea how the (252 hp model) radical sr3 would fare up against the bikes. Not really fair though because the sr3 uses a motorcycle engine ...

wakeech

...SR-3?? the hell is that?? if it's not a bike, it'll be slower.

anyways, it's this simple: unless the car is making downforce, and has a comparable hp/wieght ratio (which only a really well-prepped race car would), a bike will be faster. why?? because bikes can "make" grip using the mass of the rider, hanging off the side to use the height of their body and bike as a lever FOR gravity, putting an increased load on the tyres without increasing mass (the same deal as aerodynamic downforce), creating a larger normal force from the ground, thus generating more friction as horizontal grip. really, no contest.

The Beav

the argument isn't about weight or downforce it's about tread patch on the ground, a bike tire is about half the width of a car tire meaning that a car would have approximately 4 times the tire on the ground, you can't make up for that, let's see some track times on a real course like laguna seca, something technical, but pro bike riders have been aknowleging that cars are better on technical course for years and they have more experience than either of us

Schneegz

Beav:

Are you blind? Desmo996 already posted a link to a thread I started a while back ago about Ducati's V-4. That thread has a link to track times I found for Road Atlanta for Speed World Challenge race cars and AMA Superbikes.

Here is the link again:

Track Times

Scroll a ways past the middle of the thread for the link.

You'll notice that, even though the cars have contact patches enormously larger than the bikes, the bikes are going around the track more than 11sec faster than the cars. Why? The cars don't make enough down-force or have a power/weight ratio near that of the bikes.

An F1 car is a different matter. But you can buy a road going version of Matt Mladin's GSX-R1000 that is almost as fast as his bike for less than $11,000. Good luck buying a street legal version of Schumacher's car for ANY price.

Oh, and if Road Atlanta isn't to your liking, you can find other road courses on the link I posted on that thread.

wakeech

you don't know much about grip... tyre patch size has little to do with it, as specific force (pressure) affects only the rate the tyre will heat up... total normal force on the tyre will be the same, whether it's wide or narrow. considering that because of the kinds of racing (super short sprints) bikes do their tyres can be considerably softer, there is very little you can say regarding a mechanical advantage to the car becuase of tyre width/diameter.

SPDFRK

Simple answer:

Sportbike= 400lbs
Stripped out non carbonfiber open wheel car= 2000lbs (at least)

For the car to perform equal it will have to have 5x the horsepower and 5 times the amount of contact patch for the tires to even be close.

Toadman

Yeah, gonna have to kinda disagree with you on that, Keech. Most road courses are not banked. A bike can overcome lateral G's by leaning only to a certain point(when the rider's knee-puck rides the asphalt and he's hanging off as far as he can), at which point his cornering speed is maxed out without losing traction, traction which is finite with bike tires. Cars have far more grip to absorb these side forces. If tire footprints were not that important, F1/CART would use smaller tires/wheels to reduce unsprung weight. All road course lap records are held by cars that not even the fastest bike can overcome with the laws of Physics(Inertia specifically).

The Beav

we've already established that in a straight line the car has no chance, we're talking about technical courses

and keech i also have to disagree, if patch size didn't matter we'd all be running really thin tires to save weight, but no you see performance cars have wide tires to grab better traction around corners, that's why use that auto-x try and get the widest tires possible to fit on our cars

wakeech

*sigh*

look man, people DO run thin tyres to save weight where it counts (like on my Echo), but i've never heard of an auto crosser running tyres that were 12" wide just becuase they'd fit (slip angles'd be all effed up)... as i was saying, width/contact patch affects heat up, not overall grip: if you run skinny tyres, which were magically just as capable in every other way to a wider tyre, they would allow you to run 'round the corner just as quick, but will overheat and fall apart really quick as well.

look at last year's FIA Euro Touring Car series: there was a team with a Civic, and they'd chosen to run tyres significantly thinner than spec, becuase they couldn't get the car to use the wider ones (ie: get the heat in) effectively.

there are more factors than this, many of which i dont' understand or even know the right name for, but i'm telling you: wider tyres do NOT universally equate to more grip. just because a bike's tyres are thinner than a car's DOES NOT mean that they can't have more overall grip (even in an absolute measurement, it's quite possible).

Toadman

Now you're getting into physics, where cornering velocity determines the resistance needed to overcome inertia. Bikes lean to overcome inertia pulling them off the corner in a straight line, but they can't go parallel to the track for optimum speed. Niether can cars of course, but they can sustain higher cornering speed because of the extra energy they have to break linear motion.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force(ground/air friction, gravity, etc.). The more kinetic energy(i.e. velocity) it stores the more energy is required to pull it off-vector or course.

I've yet to see a bike break 1G on a skidpad. Bike sidewalls are very stiff to prevent squirm, which comes easily( F1 racing= scary) Don't me wrong, I ride a Ninja myself but I know the cornering limitations.

Schneegz

Hey, BEAVE! Are you BLIND?

We've posted track times TWICE showing AMA superbikes beat Speed World race cars on ROAD COURSES, and you keep ignoring that fact.

Furthermore, Motorcyclist ran an article in which a Corvette Z06 was pitted against a GSX-R1000. The Gixxer spanked the Vette handily. The Gixxer was pulling higher G's in the corners, and the only way to do that is to go around the corner faster.

For the last time, LOOK AT MY LAST POST on this page. If you refuse to look at that post and those links, you are avoiding facts that clearly do not support your argument.

vipeRX7

The Radical SR-3 is an ~850 lb car that is road legal. Certain versions of it get 252 bhp using a modified Hayabusa engine. It beat a Pagani Zonda (and a Lamborghini Murcielago and an NSX-R and a Ferrari 575M etc.) around a track on BBC's Top Gear. It gets 1.4 gs when cornering. The SR3 has won many awards and has even been disqualified from certain races because it's TOO FAST! :p (Sounds like an RX-7 ... )

http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/
http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/sr3_ad/index.htm
http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/new_range/index.htm

Anyway, I thought comparing this to a motorcycle would be more fair because it is designed from the ground up to be a no compromises racecar, whereas cars such as corvettes have to have 2 seats, a roof, a/c, cd, etc. (Most people want amenities). Anyway, all those things add weight. Motorcycles don't have those things, so I figured it would be better to compare a car that doesn't have those things either.

--Edit--
Also, this car is stock. So if you compare it to motorcycles, you should compare it to stock motorcycles (unless you're going by price, in which case the SR3 will get wasted because it costs mucho $$$)