A Z06 is hampered by the weight of its luxuries and ameneties (as is any car that is factory stock). A GSX-R1000 is hampered by the fact that it needs to cost no more than $11K, otherwise, nobody would buy it. The SR-3 is not hampered by either of these limitations. So, no, the SR-3 is not a good comparison.

A better comparison would be a motorcycle to an Elise or an Opal Speedster. The bike would still win.

 

Road Atlanta:

Speed World Challenge - 1:34.381 See link

AMA Superbike - 1:23.857 See link

Road America:

SWC - 2:25.349 See link

AMA Superbike - 2:14.740 See link (note: second race was run in rain, fastest time was 2:25.235, still faster than the cars, despite the lack of traction)

 

The handling ability of a wheeled vehicle is not dependant upon the amount of tire it has in contact with the ground. It's a simple matter of physics. The force of static friction is equal to the mass of the object (m) multiplied by the normal force (in this case, gravity (g)) and by the coefficient of static friction (s). Friction=mgs. Area has a negligible effect on this force. As mass increases, so does the force of friction, but so does the inertia of the object which therefore increases its resistivity to a change in motion (increases force applied to the tires when turning) and so makes it more likely to break loose when turning hard. The compound the tires are made out of is more impactful on handling than the actual size of the tire patch on the ground. The reason why race cars use big, wide tires is to reduce the chance of the whole tire being over something slippery (e.g. sand) at one time and to decrease the sidewall:tire width ratio, decreasing the amount of flex experienced during hard cornering and so improving handling by keeping the tread on the ground. The area of tire that hits the ground has more to do with the amount of pressure exerted on the ground, which is more important in poor traction conditions than in tire-tarmac conditions.

 

97gpt:

Good explanation. You forgot one thing. Downforce. The normal force on the vehicle in motion includes the amount of downforce acting on the vehicle...

N = weight + downforce

And traction = friction = N(coefficient of friction)

On most road cars, downforce is negative. That means that most road cars actually generate lift at speed. Most road cars are at a huge disadvantage when compared to motorcycles because they actually loose traction (friction) as velocity increases. Very few road cars generate much positive downforce.

Race cars, on the other had, can generate enormous amounts of downforce, depending on what the rules allow. F1 cars, for example, generate upwards of 3x their own weight in downforce at high speed.

Motorcycles, because of their tall, skinny shape, generate very little downforce or lift, so they perform best on "slow", very twisty courses. This is especially true of the smaller, lighter 2-stroke race bikes, but they are heading toward extinction.

 

very well said both of you

bikes are *much* faster than a stock production vehicle.

the times, and the physics, prove this repeatedly

 

anytime you can have a 150hp+ engine strapped to 2 wheels, nitrous, and a gross weight of 600lbs you've got a rocket on wheels.

I wonder how fast my protege would go if i chopped it and only drove around with the front clip :D

 

2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII with Buschur Racing Modifications:

1/4 Mile: 12.42 seconds
Engine: 2.0 liter L4 Twin Scroll Turbo 21 psi
Cost: $31,000 + $7,000 in mods.

How important is 1 second anyway???

 

Here's one that can take on the Enzo:

http://www.pettitracing.com/sections/Banzai.html

Pettit Racing RX-7 Banzai Edition

1/4 mile - 10.855 sec @ 126mph
0-60 - 4.0 sec
Price: $35k plus the cost of your car

If you're gonna do it, do it with a Wankel and save yourself $600k.

 

...or a 'Busa with a turbo, save yourself another +$30k on top of that.

 

Yeah, but it's an RX-7...

Having driven and ridden at 130mph+, I'll take the added protection (and cost) of a car over a motorcycle any day.

Then again, hit a wall at 100mph+ in anything other than a track bred race car and your chances of survival drop significantly anyway.

To each their own I guess.

 

The nice thing about a 'Busa is that it's power band is so wide and useful. You can ride it around town in sixth gear and it won't complain one bit. Or you can ride it at 80mph in first gear and listen to it scream. Your choice. Need to pass on a two lane road while in 6th gear? No need to down shift. Just twist the throttle. But don't twist too hard. You'll be far into the tripple digits in no time and you won't even know it because the engine is so smooth and the aerodynamics are so good.

The best thing about motorcycles is that always intangiable "fun factor". Anything with two wheels and an engine makes every trip to the grocery store, the barber shop, the book store (to read car and bike mags :D ); any trip at all becomes an adventure. The feeling of vulnerability mixed with the sensation of flying is intoxicating. It lets you know you're alive. It's the most exciting way to get from point A to point B that doesn't include an airplane, a parachute and an oxygen tank. It doesn't matter if you're riding a $35K Benelli Tornado or a '78 Honda CB400 you rescued from oblivion for $600. Sure, some bikes are more fun than others, but ALL of them are more exciting than any car because they are so LIBERATING.

And unless you ride motorcycles you'll never know what I'm talking about.

 

true, but the organ donor factor keeps me away from them

 

Wuss. :D

 

yeah i'll jump out of a perfectly good airplane but the bikes scare me. How will i enjoy my 8 if i'm pancake!!