did anyone see the silver porsche and the superbike racing each other from the traffic lights at hillsborough corner and along holme lane at 3.30 today?
they must have hit 90mph easily!
and i got a ticket for doing 36mph on penistone road dual carridgeway!

If it was a superbike, I don't know why the porsche bothered, it wouldn't have a chance.

Until a corner.

Mind you - there aren't many superbikes that can keep up with a 911 Turbo on the straight.

Originally posted by Tony
Until a corner.

Mind you - there aren't many superbikes that can keep up with a 911 Turbo on the straight.
I've seen plenty of comparison tests, and neither of your statements are true.

Originally posted by Tony
Until a corner.

Mind you - there aren't many superbikes that can keep up with a 911 Turbo on the straight.

as an example most sources seem to indicate that a yamaha R6 does 0-60 in just under 3 seconds, whereas the porche 911 turbo seems to stand at around 3.6 to 3.8 s.

Originally posted by Cyclone
as an example most sources seem to indicate that a yamaha R6 does 0-60 in just under 3 seconds, whereas the porche 911 turbo seems to stand at around 3.6 to 3.8 s.
Yeh, and bikes don't do 0-60 very well (ahem), which is why all comparisons are done on a standing quarter mile, that's when they really come on song...

...and the above example is only (ahem) a 600.

Did anybody see the "5th Gear" comparison round the very tight Anglesey race circuit ?

why are you comparing a 911 and an R6 ??
at least compare it to the R1!

I don't think that anyone who seeks to compare the performance of a sports car with a modern sports bike, even knows what they're talking about, and certainly hasn't had the pleasure of riding a bike.
Especially on a public road, where the bike can weave around the traffic and other obstacles as if they aren't there.
When you have been the owner of a half decent bike, cars really don't seem very quick at all any more. You become spoiled. That's why many bikers who have cars are happy in average family cars, they could never get any kicks with a sports car with a turbocharger.

And by the way I had a magazine with a comparison race with a porsche 911 turbo and a CBR600R of 10 years ago when they were new, and the bike could get 0-60 and break to a stop in the same time that the car took to get to 60mph

OK, found one !

Apologies for the fact that it's old(ish), but these figures came from "Superbike" magazine of November 1998.

The car, a homologation special Porsche 911 GT2,
the bike, a bog standard Suzuki GSX-R 750ww

0-60: GT2 4.8s ; GSX-R 3.47s

0-100: GT2 9.4s ; GSX-R 6.6s

60-130: GT2 10.3s ; GSX-R 7.73s

The magazine in question also had equally "interesting" figures between the Ferrari 355F1 and a Ducati 916, and also a Jaguar XJ220 and a Honda Blackbird. Oh, and don't forget the purchase price of each vehicle !!!!

Watch out for that tree, or damp patch, or wagon, or bus, or, or, or, or.... :)

Sorry - I'll stick with cars for fun. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Tony
Watch out for that tree, or damp patch, or wagon, or bus, or, or, or, or.... :)

Sorry - I'll stick with cars for fun. :thumbsup:
You see, that's why so many young uns get in trouble, they don't realise cars crash on damp patches, or into trees, or wagons, or buses, or, or, or, or... ...too.

Yes but 9 times out of 10, the car driver can get out of the car and walk away....

and most car drivers just think "its okay if i crash i wont die" and thats why them all drive crap!

Originally posted by Briano
Yes but 9 times out of 10, the car driver can get out of the car and walk away....
I love the way you car drivers do that,

"yeh, but a Porshe is faster"

biker,

"no it ain't, an here's the proof"

car driver,

"oh, erm, ****, yeh but I'm safer !"

If you want safer, get out of your fast car and onto a bus.

As has been said above, bikers drive cars too, we know what we're talking about, what's your excuse.

cars are undoubtedly safer.

But it's never worth arguing with a biker about who's faster, cause bikes are invariably the winners.

Argue about who's more comfortable when it rains or snows, who's safer when the inevitable happens, who can go to work without needing to change when they arrive and who's vehicle can't be stolen by two guys and a transit van.

is not a competition.

bikes are faster, there's no point in arguing about it.

but cars can be fun too and they have other advantages that bikes don't. Telling people to get out and take the bus is burying your head in the sand as much as a porche driver claiming the car is faster than the bike.
Cars are safer, even fast fun ones are safer. They might not be 'as much fun' as a bike, but they're a damn site more fun than a bus.

and argue about who pays less road tax

Originally posted by Cyclone
cars are undoubtedly safer.

But it's never worth arguing with a biker about who's faster, cause bikes are invariably the winners.

Argue about who's more comfortable when it rains or snows, who's safer when the inevitable happens, who can go to work without needing to change when they arrive and who's vehicle can't be stolen by two guys and a transit van.
...and ask, who can go to the seaside on a lovely bank holiday, and come back in the same day, without spending all day on the A64, roasting to death.

As I said above, most of us have cars too, we don't get uncomfortable when it rains or snows, we don't get changed when we get to work (unless it's nice weather, and we at least halved our journey time by fetching the bike that day), and just like car drivers, we watch where we put our keys when we get home (because that's how most vehicle thefts are done these days).

don't get me wrong, i've thought about buying a bike instead of changing the car to a convertible, but decided that i'd rarely get to use it and the safety compromise is too much. i'd rather have a bit less fun, sit in the traffic when it's bad and not spread myself along a bit of dual carriageway one day.
(this is of course based on my personal assessment of the risk, i know that not all motorbikers die obviously).

Originally posted by Cyclone
but cars can be fun too and they have other advantages that bikes don't. Telling people to get out and take the bus is burying your head in the sand as much as a porche driver claiming the car is faster than the bike.
Cars are safer, even fast fun ones are safer. They might not be 'as much fun' as a bike, but they're a damn site more fun than a bus.
Cyclone, your missing the point, us bikers can "choose" to take the car any day we like...

...we understand.

I use either as it suits, you are speaking from a point of ignorence of one of the options.

Oh, and I even use the bus when it suits too, or a train, or a push-bike, or my own two feet, I have options. ;)

bikes are easier to steel but when you have a good alarm system, a nice big chain and everypart datatagged its not as easy as people think.

and in the rain doesnt mean its not fun, if your nice a warm and comfatable it can be a really good experiance

I'd love to know if you're all blokes discussing this topic.."ooh, the car's faster", "ooh no, the bike." You're all so caught up in the thrill of things going fast that *no-one* has thought for a minute how bloody stupid it was to be going down Holme Lane at that speed and what could have happened if one of them had lost control or someone who'd just collected their kids from school at that time of day (I'm assuming you're talking pm and not am) had stepped into the road not expecting anything to appear at that speed. Let the silly sods kill themselves by all means, it's the innocent people they take with them that's the problem.

Originally posted by Cyclone
don't get me wrong, i've thought about buying a bike instead of changing the car to a convertible, but decided that i'd rarely get to use it and the safety compromise is too much
Last point first, bikes aren't dangerous, but agreed, the rider is more vulnerable. The rider must realise this, and behave accordingly.

Thought about it have you ?

Don't think about it any longer, just do it, you know it makes sense.

:thumbsup:

no am not a guy! and my ickle bikes faster than all of your bikes and cars put together :P

Originally posted by irenewilde
I'd love to know if you're all blokes discussing this topic.."ooh, the car's faster", "ooh no, the bike." You're all so caught up in the thrill of things going fast that *no-one* has thought for a minute how bloody stupid it was to be going down Holme Lane at that speed and what could have happened if one of them had lost control or someone who'd just collected their kids from school at that time of day (I'm assuming you're talking pm and not am) had stepped into the road not expecting anything to appear at that speed. Let the silly sods kill themselves by all means, it's the innocent people they take with them that's the problem.
Irene, you are of course correct, this should not take place on public roads, if either driver/rider was caught they deserve the book throwing at them, it was stupid.

But, have you noticed how it's the car drivers who think they can drive around all nice and safe, inside their protective steel cocoon, invulnerable.

Just a thought.

it doesn't make sense at the moment.
I drive around 30k miles/year, mostly on the motorway. I wouldn't want to take the risk of doing that on the bike, so it would mean that most of the time the bike would be at home and i wouldn't be.

I'd rather have a car that I can enjoy all the time than a bike that I can enjoy more but only 2% of the time.

I have a friend who's so far had a bandit, a cbr600 and r6 stolen.

1 from outside a club chained to a lamppost in full view of the bouncers, 1 from the road outside his house (no driveway) and one from his garage.
I'd have thought that he might get tracker or something fitted to his latest one, but apparently not.

f_g - i'm not missing the point (not personally anyway) i can't afford to have a fun car and a bike, so the option not to take the bike and to use the car rather defeats the argument that the bike is faster or more fun, it's neither when it's at home and you've taken the car or the bus.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Irene, you are of course correct, this should not take place on public roads, if either driver/rider was caught they deserve the book throwing at them, it was stupid.

But, have you noticed how it's the car drivers who think they can drive around all nice and safe, inside their protective steel cocoon, invulnerable.

Just a thought.

don't exaggerate. Car drivers are safer, not invulnerable.

Originally posted by Cyclone
don't exaggerate. Car drivers are safer, not invulnerable.

I'm not exagerating, I said "car drivers who think they can drive around all nice and safe, inside their protective steel cocoon, invulnerable", read some of the earlier posts, particularly

Originally posted by Briano
Yes but 9 times out of 10, the car driver can get out of the car and walk away....
OK, so 9 /10 doesn't meen "invulnerable", but you get the gist, and Tony came up with a similar comment. I didn't say that car drivers *are* invulnerable, I said some of them *think* they are.

Oh, and it was me that said you were missing the point, not f_g, just to set the record straight.

The age-old argument between cars and motorbikes.

In the real world, a motorbike will always get from point to point much faster than a car.

Knowing this, I still wouldn't have one. I'll stick with the car.

Cars and bikes are different forms of transport. They don't compete with each other - you either want one or the other. Or both.

A private jet is faster than both of them, but isn't practical/possible for most people.

On the topic of the race through Hillsborough, what a couple of d*cks!

Originally posted by foo_fighter
I'm not exagerating, I said "car drivers who think they can drive around all nice and safe, inside their protective steel cocoon, invulnerable", read some of the earlier posts, particularly


OK, so 9 /10 doesn't meen "invulnerable", but you get the gist, and Tony came up with a similar comment. I didn't say that car drivers *are* invulnerable, I said some of them *think* they are.

Oh, and it was me that said you were missing the point, not f_g, just to set the record straight.

so it was.

I was clear about the 'invulnerable' comment. I meant to say that car drivers do not believe that they are invulnerable, you are exaggerating the fact that they feel they are safer than a motorcyclist. IMHO of course.

If my circumstances change i might get a bike, but I don't think i'll ever end up being fully on one side of this fence i'm trying to sit on.

Anything can be compared, sometimes it even makes sense to do so. But anyone that claims that there version is 'the best' is probably only looking at very narrow criteria to define 'best'.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Anything can be compared, sometimes it even makes sense to do so. But anyone that claims that there version is 'the best' is probably only looking at very narrow criteria to define 'best'.

Good point.

My car has far better approach and departure angles than anything Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin, Lamborghini etc have ever produced. So my car is far better than them all.

Oh hang on, the LM002...
erm...

Well face it, Supertram goes the way of the pear around there & the pedestrian rules!

I'll stick to me pushrods. :P

Originally posted by steev
Well face it, Supertram goes the way of the pear around there

Oi. Don't be sexist.
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28777

:P

Originally posted by Cyclone
Anything can be compared, sometimes it even makes sense to do so. But anyone that claims that there version is 'the best' is probably only looking at very narrow criteria to define 'best'.
Ah, but something can be "best" for the individual.

For both you and jackthedog a car is "best", I respect that.

For me, and others, having the choice (on any given day) is "best".

I also know people who would never own a "cage" by choice.

You pays your money, you takes your choices.

Just don't make silly comments about Porches being faster than Superbikes (round corners and in a straight line, eh Tony), that's all.

Originally posted by misterseven
did anyone see the silver porsche and the superbike racing each other from the traffic lights at hillsborough corner and along holme lane at 3.30 today?
they must have hit 90mph easily!
and i got a ticket for doing 36mph on penistone road dual carridgeway!

People should watch out for mobile speed cameras up there soon,cusss if the beasties get a hold of this information they will be baying for blood.

Evil money grabbin beasties that they are.

http://www.safetycamera.org/default2.aspx?CF=where

it says there on Penistone Road next week

Originally posted by jackthedog
On the topic of the race through Hillsborough, what a couple of d*cks!
Very, very well put!

foo fighter - I think you are getting a bit too defensive about bikes TBH. The facts are clear that car drivers are safer than bike riders. They have less accidents, and when they do have one it tends to be scrapes and cuts, not decapitations on kerbs.

'Fun' is a matter of personal interpretation. I personally don't find much fun in being on a bike, freezing my nadgers off on anything other than a roasting summers day... when I would boil in my sexy skin tight leather 'gear'. (where is that La Chambre thread ;) )

I think that it is also fair to say that proportionally, bike riders take far more chances on more occasions than car drivers.

Bike riders ARE more vulnerable, but that doesn't automatically make them more careful as breed. You only have to drive on the favourite bikers ride to Skeggy and see this years rolling biker death totaliser signs to see that they take more chances.

It's not really a case of one is better - I merely pointed out the advantages of a car.

Originally posted by Tony
The facts are clear that car drivers are safer than bike riders. They have less accidents, and when they do have one it tends to be scrapes and cuts, not decapitations on kerbs.

Go on then, pull out these *facts*, you have a very biased viewpoint.

Originally posted by Tony
'Fun' is a matter of personal interpretation. I personally don't find much fun in being on a bike, freezing my nadgers off on anything other than a roasting summers day... when I would boil in my sexy skin tight leather 'gear'. (where is that La Chambre thread ;) )
That's personal choice, one I'll point out again, that you are not making from a position of knowlege, but prejudice.

Originally posted by Tony
I think that it is also fair to say that proportionally, bike riders take far more chances on more occasions than car drivers.
Again, would you care to substantiate these allegations, or is it just blind prejudice.

Originally posted by Tony
Bike riders ARE more vulnerable, but that doesn't automatically make them more careful as breed. You only have to drive on the favourite bikers ride to Skeggy and see this years rolling biker death totaliser signs to see that they take more chances.
Again, debatable, just because you see those signs doesn't mean you see the whole story, just what somebody wants you to see. Those signs are there just as much to make car drivers aware of the biker, as they are there to remind the biker not to take silly chances.

I know various agencies have tried to paint a certain picture, and the press love to join in with this bandwagon, so you will be able to find articles which back up your view of things (everybody can, no matter what the subject), but the definitive European study on this subject does not verify your assumptions, when I get chance I'll post some of it.

Originally posted by Tony
It's not really a case of one is better - I merely pointed out the advantages of a car.
Really, I must have missed that, I thought you made a bold statement about Porsches vs Superbikes (that was wrong), and that bikes were somehow uniquely vulnerable to "tree, or damp patch, or wagon, or bus, or, or, or, or..." (which is wrong).

Others have conducted a sensible discussion on the subject, you to date have not.

I get the impression that the whole of your above tirade was just a cover up for those errors, which I will again point out, show you started the discussion from a particularly entrenched position.

Don't get touchy just because you got caught out.

Originally posted by Tony
I think you are getting a bit too defensive about bikes TBH. The facts are clear that car drivers are safer than bike riders.
Really. ?
Most motorcyclists I know have passed 2 driving tests, [Car and motorcycle]and therefore have had up to 2ce as much training, and are 2ce as aware of accident risks. And drive and ride in the defensive method which is designed for motorcyclists.
I am not a professional, but they are generally extremely safe drivers of cars, and have less endorsements, have less accidents, and in my opinion safer.

Y'know what the problem is?

Tony's a Mod'...

...Mod's have never liked bikers. ;)

Tony,
Another thing that has occured to me is a survey I read in a bike magazine which states that almost everyone grossly over exagerates the actual speed of a moving motorcycle, because they look aggresive. Maybe when you see a couple of superbikes going past you, they are only actually doing 29mph. Do you think this could be why you are claiming that they're dangerous because you percieve them to be speeding?

Originally posted by Tony
Very, very well put!

foo fighter - I think you are getting a bit too defensive about bikes TBH. The facts are clear that car drivers are safer than bike riders. They have less accidents, and when they do have one it tends to be scrapes and cuts, not decapitations on kerbs.

What planet are you from car drivers safer drivers yer right in there little tin box with the heater and radio not a care in the world yer real save. Less accidents when more people drive cars are you talking percentages or what. A Biker has to watch what hes doing what the prats in tin cans are doing what the pedestrains are doing and what road conditions are 100% concentration.:rant:

bikers have more accidents because cars cause them

cars tend to pull out from a side road with the front of there car in the middle of the road

overtake without looking behind them - most dont relise they have a blind spot

pull out of car park spaces only using there mirror

Originally posted by f_g
bikers have more accidents because cars cause them

cars tend to pull out from a side road with the front of there car in the middle of the road

overtake without looking behind them - most dont relise they have a blind spot

pull out of car park spaces only using there mirror

Please don't paint some picture of innocent bikers who just pootle around observing all the rules of the road being persecuted by car drivers because it's just nonsense. I was a biker up till 1996, but you only need to have eyes in your head to see the way a lot of people ride sports bikes around.
Admittedly tourers (big beemers, harleys etc) and scooters are more sensible riders, but honda fireplace owners and the like are all nutters (I have know quite a few).

Bikers Speed more than car drivers. I know its a fact cos here is the official report...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_028864.pdf

i never brake the speed limit

well apart from our road then! ;)

Originally posted by f_g
i never brake the speed limit

well apart from our road then! ;)

Everybody breaks the limit on our road!!! Luckily its nice and wide though so very few accidents.

Originally posted by muddycoffee

When you have been the owner of a half decent bike, cars really don't seem very quick at all any more.

Fair statement ;)

Not sure if this is wandering off topic now...but I would say I have owned bikes (although my fastest was a humle 350lc) and ridden quick ones (regularly used my colleagues gpz750), even putting my accident aside I do have more fun in a car. Driving each is completely different so very difficult to compare though.

Bike was great fun in a straight line, great acceleration and it felt much quicker than it was. My car however isn't *that* much fun in a straight line, but is great fun on the twisty's. It handles like it is on rails and will go round corners faster than any bike could hope to.
Given that I don't have to be as wary of road surfaces in the car, and am less affected by weather, on balance I have more fun in the car.

It's horses for courses though - totally different experiences and both with their merits.

Originally posted by kilauea
Bikers Speed more than car drivers. I know its a fact cos here is the official report...
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_028864.pdf
Ok those are figures from 1 report, and what did somebody famous say about statistics?

Reading the above report,

From Chart 1 (non built up roads): Motorcycles are indeed the worst offender, on motorways (which are the least dangerous roads statistically). On dual, and single carriageways it's "Articulated vehicles" that are the speed freaks, by far. But we all know what they're like eh ;).

From Chart 2 (built up roads): Motorcycles are again the worst offender in 40 limits, but in 30 limits (you know, where schools are) it's cars and white vans that are the worst offenders, with bikes trailing third.

So, even from your proof, it's a mixed message.

And, lets not forget a crucial bit of physics, damage is proportional to both speed *and* mass. So a car, which weighs at least 4 times a bike will do considerably more damage to third parties, even going slower, which they weren't in those crucial 30 zones.

Don't get me wrong, I know bikers are no angels, and out on the open road folks tend to open the throttle a little ;) , but don't forget, bikers don't get distracted by the radio, or a passenger jabbering on, they don't smoke on the move, search for change in the glove box, etc. etc.

We *may* go a little faster at times, but we are 100% focused on the task at hand, say that about most other road users.

I hear what your saying Foo - and don't get me wrong - I am a "keen driver". I do drive fast on the open road - sometimes over the speed limit, always focussed on the job at hand in a car that can do it safely.
You can read what your want into those stats, but at the end of they day bikers are only slower than cars in 1 test. They are higher than them in every other - including the one where articulated lorries are highest.

I take the point about cars having more mass - but I doubt there is much in that. If you got hit by a speeding bike your fcked anyway. There are no degrees of death! There is less chance of it hitting you due to it's relative size mind.

I also admit that most drivers are careless - I am forever being frustrated by poor driving. However conversely, every single sports bike owner I know thinks he is far better than he actualy is. Which in some cases is even more dangerous.

Originally posted by kilauea
You can read what your want into those stats, but at the end of the day bikers are only slower than cars in 1 test.
Yeh, and that's the *only* test you'll find where bikes are slower. ;)

Originally posted by kilauea
You can read what your want into those stats
That's my point really from the whole of the above, you can read what you like from virtually all statistics, they are all twisted to meet somebodys desired perspective.

Originally posted by kilauea
every single sports bike owner I know thinks he is far better than he actualy is.

Every single driver / rider thinks they are better than they really are, it's just one of those things about people...

...of course, in the case of bikers, we're right though. ;)

But, back to the original purpose of the thread, those two racing through Hillsborough are still kn*bs!

the only point of Tony's that i'd support unreservedly is that having an accident on a bike compared to in a car is far more serious for the driver.
That tin box does a lot to protect you when you run it into another car or off the road.

Originally posted by foo_fighter


But, back to the original purpose of the thread, those two racing through Hillsborough are still kn*bs!

Abso-fecking-lutely!

Originally posted by foo_fighter
0-100: GT2 9.4s ; GSX-R 6.6s

Thats a slow porsche even a maestro can do 0-100mph in 7.5secs

A car is no match for a bike tho.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Thats a slow porsche even a maestro can do 0-100mph in 7.5secs

A car is no match for a bike tho.

eh, are you talking about an unmodified austin maestro?

The only way it'll ever do 0 - 100 in <15 s is pushed off a cliff.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Thats a slow porsche even a maestro can do 0-100mph in 7.5secs

A car is no match for a bike tho.

Where the hell did that figure come from??? I must have missed that!

Porsche 911 GT2 - 0-60 4.0 seconds dead. Source - this months EVO magazine from official figures.

AH! 0-100!! What Maestro can do that? Sureley not even a turbo would get close to that?!

Originally posted by kilauea
Where the hell did that figure come from??? I must have missed that!

Porsche 911 GT2 - 0-60 4.0 seconds dead. Source - this months EVO magazine from official figures.

AH! 0-100!! What Maestro can do that? Sureley not even a turbo would get close to that?!

0 - 100

Originally posted by Cyclone
0 - 100

I edited when I realised the mistake - Cyclone isn't being stupid!

You can see my mistake though with claims of 7.5 for a Maestro!

Originally posted by Cyclone
eh, are you talking about an unmodified austin maestro?

The only way it'll ever do 0 - 100 in <15 s is pushed off a cliff.

Think she's referring to this:
http://www.an-racing.com/Maestro.html

Very modified.

Yeah was referring to that one.... :D It is the fastest FWD Road Legal car in the country after all.




(Self-confessed Maestro Nut)

Originally posted by Cyclone
eh, are you talking about an unmodified austin maestro?

The only way it'll ever do 0 - 100 in <15 s is pushed off a cliff.

My maestro does 0-60 in 6.7secs as standard (from factory) and 0-100 in 20.2 secs.










(Well saying that it doesn't actually go anywhere at present, its not mot'd..)

Well its but-ugly, but my god it goes! How on earth does it get the power down through the front wheel? I don't see any LSD or traction control?
And noticed a NOS controller - was that time with NOS? Still mighty impressive either way but just curious.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the only point of Tony's that i'd support unreservedly is that having an accident on a bike compared to in a car is far more serious for the driver.
That tin box does a lot to protect you when you run it into another car or off the road.
Thank you for understanding what I actually wrote :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Tony
The facts are clear that car drivers are safer than bike riders. They have less accidents, and when they do have one it tends to be scrapes and cuts, not decapitations on kerbs.


Foo fighter - I never said that car drivers were 'better that bike riders. I said that they were safer. They are.

Oh and for the record - I do have a little experience of two wheels you know.

Anyway...
Originally posted by Tony
foo fighter - I think you are getting a bit too defensive about bikes TBH. ...

It's not really a case of one is better - I merely pointed out the advantages of a car.
A fast temper like yours isn't good for driving concentration you know.

This is probably also worth repeating...
Originally posted by Tony
foo fighter - I think you are getting a bit too defensive about bikes TBH. ...

To finish off, and just to raise your blood pressure a little more ... you still would have to be a VERY good rider to outgun me on a clear road (track).
;)

Originally posted by Tony
To finish off, and just to raise your blood pressure a little more ... you still would have to be a VERY good rider to outgun me on a clear road (track).
;)
1) Yeh, and I bet your D*cks bigger too. :rolleyes:

2) You haven't raised my blood pressure one iota, read back through the posts, you have yet to make a reasoned argument, unlike others. You are the one who started the fatuous comparisons, and got your facts wrong. Live with it.

3) Mod' music was always was rubbish (read back a bit if you don't get that).

4) We weren't discussing who was fastest, but what, you lost that argument, and moved the goal posts.

5) If you want a race, go down Hillsborough (or was it you in the first place?), Mr. Wants-to-prove-something, oh, and I won't be there.

6) I've always stated that car drivers are "less vulnerable", safer? well that's debatable to say the least.

7) I've answered points put forward by everyone, why have you singled me out? (I might have to report you for victimisation).

8 ) Go on answer some of the points that have been made, by others and myself, rather than continuing your unsubstantiated and biased tirade.

9) Take a chill-pill, you seem to have got rather worked up about this one, I've stated my case, you're the one that wants to throw down a personal gauntlet.

10) You're :loopy:

Hehe... you still don't understand any of it. :D Perhaps if you actually read and thought about my words you might get a clue.

Just to pick on you again, can you tell me why car drivers might not be safer compared to bikes?



PS.. it is largely acknowledged that my gonads are some of the biggest in Sheffield :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Tony
Hehe... you still don't understand any of it. :D Perhaps if you actually read and thought about my words you might get a clue.

Just to pick on you again, can you tell me why car drivers might not be safer compared to bikes?

LESS VULNERABLE.

"Safer" takes in many other concepts, don't you understand that?

I can't believe *you* are telling *me* to read the post,


is there *any* inteligent life on planet Tony?


Now, before I answer any more of your points, try answering some that have been put to you.

Oh, and if all you're going to do is address all your posts to me, wouldn't it be more suitable to use a PM?

But I said 'safer' not 'less vulnerable'. You're the one who seems to be denying that car drivers are safer - which they are.

I agree that they are also 'less vulnerable'. I also maintain that they are 'safer'. Far, far 'safer' than any motorcycle will ever be.

As for which is faster - I also originally said...
Originally posted by Tony
Mind you - there aren't many superbikes that can keep up with a 911 Turbo on the straight. I never said that 'cars are faster'. :P

I have never tried to prove anything BTW. I'm quite happy to accept the tests quoted. Where did I say otherwise, or try to 'twist and turn'?

Oh, and please don't insult my intelligence. Looking at your increasingly hysterical posts you really don't want to go there ;)



PS... Were you being tongue in cheek about mods music? Do you think my taste in music has anything to do with my thoughts about bikes?

The only reason why the bikes aren't safe, is because the car drivers see them as skittles :)

Originally posted by Skatiechik
The only reason why the bikes aren't safe, is because the car drivers see them as skittles :)
... and too many riders think that they are Joey Dunlop - the greatest ever TT rider.

... oh, he's dead isn't he?

is there a point to any of this any more?

Shall we compare bustops to lamposts next?

Agreed. :clap:

Originally posted by kilauea
is there a point to any of this any more?

Shall we compare bustops to lamposts next?

Agreed, one probably does more damage than the other, lamp posts are in generally thicker metal, and a bigger diameter ;)

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Agreed, one probably does more damage than the other, lamp posts are in generally thicker metal, and a bigger diameter ;)


Oh I see, your a lefty bustop-ist are you ;)

Originally posted by Tony
PS... Were you being tongue in cheek about mods music? Do you think my taste in music has anything to do with my thoughts about bikes?
Tony,

The fact that you didn't get this, is proof that you didn't actually read my earlier posts...

...or anybody elses, since you still only want to answer (a small proportion of) the points in mine.

You started off confrontationally, and I see your trying to end in the same manner, being other than respectful to a good man like Joey Dunlop will never get you anywhere, you have sunk to a new low.

Signing off,

ff.

Funnily enough I see the first page as completely the opposite.

Joey Dunlop is a good illustration. There are far more bike riders who drive a la Dunlop than car drivers who drive a la Senna.

Why don't you want to understand that being on a bike is not as safe as being in a car? :confused:

A bike rider is far more likely to end up like Dunlop than a car driver like Senna.

Originally posted by Tony
Funnily enough I see the first page as completely the opposite.
Quite frankly, that doesn't surprise me.

Now, do you want to enter into a sensible discussion, or are you just going to repeat yourself all day.

I'll start it off nice and easy,

why do you think car drivers are "safer" than motorcyclists?

I know that cars have safety cages, hence why I've always said that bikers are more vulnerable, but why "safer".

Please explain.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
why do you think car drivers are "safer" than motorcyclists?

I know that cars have safety cages, hence why I've always said that bikers are more vulnerable, but why "safer".

Please explain. I think I have explained and illustrated that on a number of occasions.

So could you please help me to help you? What do you define as safe?

OK, so you're not going to answer that one, here's more,

You stated:
Originally posted by Tony
Mind you - there aren't many superbikes that can keep up with a 911 Turbo on the straight.
To which you received the replies:
Originally posted by Cyclone
as an example most sources seem to indicate that a yamaha R6 does 0-60 in just under 3 seconds, whereas the porsche 911 turbo seems to stand at around 3.6 to 3.8 s.
Originally posted by muddycoffee
I don't think that anyone who seeks to compare the performance of a sports car with a modern sports bike, even knows what they're talking about, and certainly hasn't had the pleasure of riding a bike.
Originally posted by foo_fighter
The car, a homologation special Porsche 911 GT2,
the bike, a bog standard Suzuki GSX-R 750ww
0-60: GT2 4.8s ; GSX-R 3.47s
0-100: GT2 9.4s ; GSX-R 6.6s
60-130: GT2 10.3s ; GSX-R 7.73s
Now that looked to me (and obviously others) like you were saying "there aren't many superbikes that can keep up with a 911 Turbo on the straight", and so people proved you wrong.
Although, you now say:
Originally posted by Tony
I never said that 'cars are faster'.
Curious, so what did you mean by "can't keep up with"?

You then moved onto:
Originally posted by Tony
Watch out for that tree, or damp patch, or wagon, or bus, or, or, or, or.... :)
That's not confrontational to you then?

But I forgot, in your much "safer" car you don't need to worry about them do you.

I think the issue here is that Tony is saying that a car is safer, whilst you are thinking that he's saying a car driver is safer.

On balance a bike rider is probably the more careful driver, thus being a safer driver. But the car vehicle is inherently safer than a bike as it encloses the driver, can't fall over and has 4 wheels on the floor.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think the issue here is that Tony is saying that a car is safer, whilst you are thinking that he's saying a car driver is safer.

On balance a bike rider is probably the more careful driver, thus being a safer driver. But the car vehicle is inherently safer than a bike as it encloses the driver, can't fall over and has 4 wheels on the floor.
Cyclone, I fully admit that being inside a car is "safer", I keep saying so...

...the problem is, I don't know what Tony is saying, because despite asking repeatedly, he won't clarify, prefering to simply repeat himself.

I'm repeating myself because you don't seem to be able to take in the simple fact that cars are safer than bikes! :rolleyes:

I then asked you to explain what you meant by 'safer' so I could try to understand why YOU didn't understand me. You ain't done that yet. :nono:

You have a strange idea of being confrontational if you think that pointing out that bikes are more vulnerable to trees or damp patches, or wagons, or bus's is some sort of confrontation. I just thought it was a statement of simple unarguable fact. :loopy:


PS... that last loopy smiley isn't confrontational - it's just a statement of simple unarguable fact. :|

Just out of interest - do you think that I have a problem with bikers because I'm a mod?

Originally posted by Tony
I'm repeating myself because you don't seem to be able to take in the simple fact that cars are safer than bikes! :rolleyes:
Read other peoples quotes, they understand what I'm saying, and aren't sure what you mean either.

Originally posted by Tony
I then asked you to explain what you meant by 'safer' so I could try to understand why YOU didn't understand me. You ain't done that yet. :nono:
Tony, mi old chicken, I've been asking you for pages to answer various questions, if you can't be bothered, neither can I.


Originally posted by Tony
You have a strange idea of being confrontational if you think that pointing out that bikes are more vulnerable to trees or damp patches, or wagons, or bus's is some sort of confrontation. I just thought it was a statement of simple unarguable fact. :loopy:
Pointing it out is one thing, I understand the vulnerabilities strangely enough, maybe it was the smilie at the end, almost laughing at the thought of someones injury I found confrontational.

Originally posted by Tony
Just out of interest - do you think that I have a problem with bikers because I'm a mod?
C'mon, that post was pages ago, haven't you found it yet, you did get the joke didn't you? Mods never liked bikers (substitute rockers, if it helps).

So, I'll start off easy again (and where Cyclone tried to help out too), do you think
1) Cars are safer than bikes
2) Car drivers are safer than bikers
(Please bear in mind, I've already agreed that bikers are more vulnerable, that covers part of 1. above)

Then we'll try to move it forward from there, do you think you can manage that, or are you going to go on one again, or maybe just plain ignore the question as usual.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Pointing it out is one thing, I understand the vulnerabilities strangely enough, maybe it was the smilie at the end, almost laughing at the thought of someones injury I found confrontational.
Boy, you DO see things that aren't there don't you?

Originally posted by foo_fighter
C'mon, that post was pages ago, haven't you found it yet, you did get the joke didn't you? Mods never liked bikers (substitute rockers, if it helps).
Glad you got it at last. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by foo_fighter do you think
1) Cars are safer than bikes
2) Car drivers are safer than bikers
(Please bear in mind, I've already agreed that bikers are more vulnerable, that covers part of 1. above)
1. Yes. (and you seem to agree)
2. Yes. (so you obviously agree again)


Now I know that you will interpret this as some sort of 'victory', but I'm out of this rather bonkers chat that I seem to have ended up having with you. I'm going to spend the next couple of hours in decompression after plumbing the depths of your mind. :|

Cya :wave:

my point was actually what a couple of selfish mean hearted child murderers they both were.
this was at school turning out time.

Originally posted by misterseven
my point was actually what a couple of selfish mean hearted child murderers they both were.
this was at school turning out time.
Sorry misterseven, I know it was lost in all the other "stuff" but a few of us did agree with you on that point.

Yes they were morons.

OK, I'll ignore the rest of your silliness, I notice you try this wind-up and scarper tactic on a few threads, so I'll not be drawn, instead I'll concentrate on the more important issues.

Originally posted by Tony
1. Yes. (and you seem to agree)
2. Yes. (so you obviously agree again)
1) Always have, glad you stooped low enough to clarify your position, as I've been asking for pages now.

2) No, I don't. As others have posted, since bikers have typically done both car and bike tests, and understand both sets of issues, I really don't see how your statement holds water. Yet again you are making inflammatory statements with absolutely no substantiation.

As I said above, having a look at some of your other posts I notice a trend, you jump in, make bold opinionated statements, ask others to prove their point, and yet don't do anyone the courtesy of actually answering questions properly your-self, except in a curt, flippant and argumentative manner.

The original purpose of this tread was to point out that two absolute idiots had endangered peoples safety, even lives.
I admit I got drawn into a separate "discussion", but at least I have had the decency to clearly state my position on these cretins (a number of times now).

Whereas some (who should know better) have merely tried to fan the fames, and even at one point attempt to solicit a "race" (which was turned down).

In summary, sorry to everyone else for boring your t*ts off with this ultimately futile discussion, to the one who knows who they are, grow up!

Now, Bye-bye :wave:

Yawn. Go back and have look at my thought on the Hillsborough incident... many pages back.

Then go find where I asked for a race. The only thing you will find that comes close (and that's stretching it a bit) used the word TRACK.

:loopy:

Hehe... I await your final word :)

Originally posted by misterseven
my point was actually what a couple of selfish mean hearted child murderers they both were.
this was at school turning out time.

Whilst fully agreeing with the sentiment that they were a couple of idiots, I think "selfish mean hearted child murderers" is a ridiculous thing to call them.

Sounds like something the Daily Mirror would put on their front page.

Originally posted by Tony
To finish off, and just to raise your blood pressure a little more ... you still would have to be a VERY good rider to outgun me on a clear road
Your words.

Oooo! Now you are just attempting to distort the truth! :nono: Originally posted by foo_fighter
Originally posted by Tony
To finish off, and just to raise your blood pressure a little more ... you still would have to be a VERY good rider to outgun me on a clear road
Your words.

No.. actually THESE were my words...

Originally posted by Tony
To finish off, and just to raise your blood pressure a little more ... you still would have to be a VERY good rider to outgun me on a clear road (track).
;) See that last word? And it's hardly an invitation to a race. Maybe you rise to things more easily than I do :hihi:


PS... Anyway, cars are still safer. :thumbsup:

brand new superbike about £8000

brand new super car around £100000

Not read the middle of this but a 911 Turbo is 4 wheel drive, wet weather performance will be comparable to a bike however in the dry a bike would murder a car.

0 - 100 times prove this over and over.

You're assuming of course that all else is equal. Its not the same person in control, so that assumption is invalid.

cars are undoubtedly safer.

But it's never worth arguing with a biker about who's faster, cause bikes are invariably the winners.

Argue about who's more comfortable when it rains or snows, who's safer when the inevitable happens, who can go to work without needing to change when they arrive and who's vehicle can't be stolen by two guys and a transit van.

And dispite all the downsides biking is more popular than ever, ask yourself why.

Really. ?
Most motorcyclists I know have passed 2 driving tests, [Car and motorcycle]and therefore have had up to 2ce as much training, and are 2ce as aware of accident risks. And drive and ride in the defensive method which is designed for motorcyclists.
I am not a professional, but they are generally extremely safe drivers of cars, and have less endorsements, have less accidents, and in my opinion safer.
An interesting statistic from the polices own record police motorcycles have far fewer accidents per mile than police cars, don't have the actual numbers but the figures were quite significant.

Until a corner.

Mind you - there aren't many superbikes that can keep up with a 911 Turbo on the straight.

but there are also quite a few!

An interesting statistic from the polices own record police motorcycles have far fewer accidents per mile than police cars, don't have the actual numbers but the figures were quite significant.
That's because motorcycle riders are pretty much the elite drivers on the Police Force. Any old copper can jump in a panda with minimal training and experience.

Originally posted by Tony
To finish off, and just to raise your blood pressure a little more ... you still would have to be a VERY good rider to outgun me on a clear road (track).

sorry tony i havent got time to read all this thread, what do you drive? and what do you think you can beat on a track? do you race?

Funnily enough I see the first page as completely the opposite.

Joey Dunlop is a good illustration. There are far more bike riders who drive a la Dunlop than car drivers who drive a la Senna..
I'm sorry, but what planet are you living on, take a walk around any city estate, any evening of the week and you will see people being stupid in cars usually souped up hot hatchs with brain dead spotty oiks behind the wheel doing doughnuts in car parks, traffic light drag races, driving as fast as they can around estate roads and a raft of other irresponsible acts. I don't see the same from bikes.

I stick with my analogy. IMO there are proportionally more Sunday hero riders than drivers. :)

its true, i reckon the reason you get more boy racers in cars than bikes, is because they cant handle the pace of being a biker, they couldnt handle being cold or getting wet, and where are all the car s l a g s going to sit?

so what do you drive tony? and have you ever driven track?

I stick with my analogy. IMO there are proportionally more Sunday hero riders than drivers. :)

That will all depend on what roads you use to count them.

just to put the picture str8, it wasnt a really a superbike,i cant even remember what it was actually but i think it was a yamaha.
& its actually a 911 carrera injection actually,and although it didnt coat me £100,000 it did cost close to half('cos it's not a new one).

so what do you drive tony? and have you ever driven track?That's the second time you've asked, so.. it's my perogative not to answer the first question, but to the second, yes but I'm no racer. :)

Not read the middle of this but a 911 Turbo is 4 wheel drive, wet weather performance will be comparable to a bike however in the dry a bike would murder a car.

0 - 100 times prove this over and over.
You're not really using the right sort of comparison IMO though. Yours seems to be an opinion formed from cracking the throttle and blatting past a line of cars on a normal road.

I think it's time to put this to bed ;)

Let's give it a proper test, like the Nordschleife, the worlds longest, swoopiest, hilliest, bendiest race track. Generally regarded as the ultimate proving track... all 12 miles of it.

The fastest bike around there was Helmut Dähne in 7.49.51 in 1993. That was a racing bike set up for the track and the lap. I take nothing away from that - its VERY fast and he had to be millimetre perfect. It was a great lap.

But, and this is where it may get tough for bikers to swallow, I can provide a list of Porsche (and other) times that make that look, well.. a little slow ;)

7:28 --- Porsche Carrera GT, Walther Rohrl in 2004 was the lap record holder for a production (albeit exotic) car. That's a whole 21 seconds - a lifetime on the track!

A Radical ( good comparison for the bike) has recently lapped in 6.55 (memory don't fail me) but let's be honest - it's not very practical. At least the Carrera GT had, a roof, leather seats and air conditioning.. and doors! :hihi:

That will all depend on what roads you use to count them.
Sadly you can use the bunches of flowers at the roadside as a guide. :(

That's the second time you've asked, so.. it's my perogative not to answer the first question, but to the second, yes but I'm no racer. :)(

why was it your perogative not to answer the first question? i asked a question and you didnt answer so i asked again.

I don't want to answer it so I won't - that's my business. :)

hold up tony tone, you wrote

"To finish off, and just to raise your blood pressure a little more ... you still would have to be a VERY good rider to outgun me on a clear road (track)."

so i simply asked what you you drive, so i can tell whether he could "outgun" you on a clear road, so why be so secretive about it? whats the problem.

Presumbably because he values his privacy?

As to the Radical being a good comparison for a bike, well.... doesn't it generate downforce?

Presumbably because he values his privacy?

As to the Radical being a good comparison for a bike, well.... doesn't it generate downforce?

privacy, in what car he drives? i dont think his life is going to be in danger is it? he shouldnt make statements if he is not willing to write what he drives, how else are people going to tell whether hes talking tosh or not!

Most cars that you'd use on a track generate downforce.

I can understand why sheffieldism is asking. The car driven is very relevant as to the statement about being faster than bikes. Unless Tony's car is unique in sheffield it's hardly going to single him out, so privacy can't really be a concern... Maybe it's a lambo or something and it is nearly unique.

I value my privacy - it's as simple as that. I don't tell people specifically where I live, what I do for a living or what car I drive :) Not even the other mods know that :D

Anyway, I thought this was supposed to be a bit of fun? :(

Good point about the radical, but I sort of discounted it anyway as it's really a track car, and you might as well start quoting F1 / F3 car times once your there. There are plenty of other non downforce cars that still whoop that bikes bum, including a bunch of Porsches - the original subject :)

Most cars that you'd use on a track generate downforce.

I can understand why sheffieldism is asking. The car driven is very relevant as to the statement about being faster than bikes. Unless Tony's car is unique in sheffield it's hardly going to single him out, so privacy can't really be a concern... Maybe it's a lambo or something and it is nearly unique.

im asking becasue i want to know? why is that such a problem. U make a statement, u back it up, and i wasnt asking about whether cars are faster than bikes, i was simply referring to his statement about a certain user not being able to beat him on a straight road, so i just want to know what he drives to make this statement. what is the bloody problem people!

I value my privacy - it's as simple as that. I don't tell people specifically where I live, what I do for a living or what car I drive :) Not even the other mods know that :D

Anyway, I thought this was supposed to be a bit of fun? :(

forget it mate, ur hard work

im asking becasue i want to know? why is that such a problem. U make a statement, u back it up, and i wasnt asking about whether cars are faster than bikes, i was simply referring to his statement about a certain user not being able to beat him on a straight road, so i just want to know what he drives to make this statement. what is the bloody problem people!

I said "I CAN understand". I was backing you up.

I can declare that my car will outrun the space shuttle. Means nothing if I'm not prepared to say what I drive.

privacy, in what car he drives? i dont think his life is going to be in danger is it? he shouldnt make statements if he is not willing to write what he drives, how else are people going to tell whether hes talking tosh or not!

There've been two reported thefts in the last yr or so with violence (incl. guns) being used to steal cars from people's homes locally. And for all you know, he might be able to give you the run-around in a beat-up Metro.

And Cyclone, no. Most cars you use on a track don't generate downforce, thought thats partly due to the growth in track days. Most cars made specifically for racing or track days do, though. Hence a Radical against a bike is only a fair comparison in terms of power-to-weight ratios and the like.

I'm not trying to big myself up - I just was using myself as an example. The car I drive is neither here nor there. One of the fastest point to point B-road cars I've ever had was a Citroen, but I've moved on a bit since then :)

Mm... AX GT?

Yea! :) An awesome car in Snowdonia. It's the car in which I learned everything (well some stuff anyway) about momentum and line.

There've been two reported thefts in the last yr or so with violence (incl. guns) being used to steal cars from people's homes locally. And for all you know, he might be able to give you the run-around in a beat-up Metro.

And Cyclone, no. Most cars you use on a track don't generate downforce, thought thats partly due to the growth in track days. Most cars made specifically for racing or track days do, though. Hence a Radical against a bike is only a fair comparison in terms of power-to-weight ratios and the like.

Porsches don't have pop up spoilers (on boxsters) in order to not generate downforce. Any car capable of 150mph needs tuned aerodynamics or it will briefly resemble a plane.

Not sure what the relevance of the thefts is. I doubt Tony's car is in disguise, so announcing the type of car on here would make him niether more nor less likely to have it stolen.

I said "I CAN understand". I was backing you up.

I can declare that my car will outrun the space shuttle. Means nothing if I'm not prepared to say what I drive.

i do apologise cyclone, i completely read that wrong, its still a bit early for me,sorry ;)

Yea! :) An awesome car in Snowdonia. It's the car in which I learned everything (well some stuff anyway) about momentum and line.

He! Bugger all weight and enough power to make it fun. ;) Got me speculating about what a one-time AX GT owner graduates to.... ;)

There've been two reported thefts in the last yr or so with violence (incl. guns) being used to steal cars from people's homes locally. And for all you know, he might be able to give you the run-around in a beat-up Metro.

And Cyclone, no. Most cars you use on a track don't generate downforce, thought thats partly due to the growth in track days. Most cars made specifically for racing or track days do, though. Hence a Radical against a bike is only a fair comparison in terms of power-to-weight ratios and the like.

is he paranoid? doe she live in fear of having his unique car stolen? i doubt it - why are you even referring to these cases? im not sure it you are aware, but cars get stolen from homes locally on a daily basis! so even if they know what his car is, do they know his address?

I saw an aerial atom the other day. First one i've seen on the road I think.

Porsches don't have pop up spoilers (on boxsters) in order to not generate downforce. Any car capable of 150mph needs tuned aerodynamics or it will briefly resemble a plane.
.
Not true. Plenty of car bodyshells that were never designed to go much more than 100mph will happily do well over 150mph without producing lift.

Some shapes produce dangerous lift at relatively low speeds, while others by pure fortune of their aesthetic design happen to generate little lift and can be used at higher speeds without aerodynamic modifications.

that may well be true. But cars that are designed to go that fast don't rely on good luck, they are tested in wind tunells and are tuned to develop some downforce.

is he paranoid? doe she live in fear of having his unique car stolen? i doubt it - why are you even referring to these cases? im not sure it you are aware, but cars get stolen from homes locally on a daily basis! so even if they know what his car is, do they know his address?

No!!! Surely not?!?! And there was I thinking I was living in a fool's paradise where nobody harmed any other living creature....

As you so correctly point out, cars do get stolen on a daily basis, from right under our noses. So why maximise the risk by broadcasting to all and sundry details of your wealth or lack thereof?

I have a neighbour (unfortunately!). He is paranoid. He has a big mouth. He gets broken into a lot. Spot the link!

that may well be true. But cars that are designed to go that fast don't rely on good luck, they are tested in wind tunells and are tuned to develop some downforce.

No. Not road cars as a rule. Tuned to minimise lift certainly, but for the speeds most road cars travel at, even the quicker ones, the downforce produced would be negligible and not cost-effective.

Racing cars or cars designed specifically for track days are a completely different matter. Though having said that, I defy anybody to tell me where the downforce is produced on a Caterham Seven.

The aerodynamic house brick that is the fabulous Caterham can't go fast enough (aerodynamically) to need downforce. :)

The new 911 GT3 has a front splitter and rear spoiler that produces zero lift at the front and a tiny bit of down force at the rear, unlike all the other 911's.

As somebody else said, down force really is a specialist area meant only for the track, but many cars are designed so they don't produce uplift, which is why the rear spoiler on the 911 Carrera lifts around 75 mph. It's not there to create downforce, but to reduce uplift all the way to the thick end of 200mph. :)

I'm not sure that's very clear, but (my badly made point is) reducing uplift, and creating downforce are 2 different things. :confused: :)

Of course, bikes don't have this problem, but they have a different advantage that cars don't have - they can lean and create their own camber. So maybe we should be comparing downforce cars?

Not in a straight line, Tony, no, but other than that... ;)

Not in a straight line you say?

I think a couple of CLR drivers at Le Mans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CLR_Flip.jpg)might have appreciated a bit more downforce on the Mulsanne Straight a few years ago :hihi: Try that in a Caterham!

No!!! Surely not?!?! And there was I thinking I was living in a fool's paradise where nobody harmed any other living creature....

As you so correctly point out, cars do get stolen on a daily basis, from right under our noses. So why maximise the risk by broadcasting to all and sundry details of your wealth or lack thereof?

I have a neighbour (unfortunately!). He is paranoid. He has a big mouth. He gets broken into a lot. Spot the link!

what a crock of crap, your neighbour has a big mouth and so its his fault he gets broken into, but simply stating what car you have will not get you robbed or even broken into as the scrotes dont know where he lives! i think you are as paranoid as your neighbour.

lets test it.

I have a ferrarri F50.

We'll see how many attempted break-ins I suddenly get to find my keys.

lets test it.

I have a ferrarri F50.

We'll see how many attempted break-ins I suddenly get to find my keys.

i can hear all the scrotes now running round to hunt for the f50 - it will only be a matter of minutes cyclone - watch urself!

sheffieldism can we just move on?

no am not a guy! and my ickle bikes faster than all of your bikes and cars put together :P
Dont be too sure :hihi:

Tony can you stop being pathetic, yeah ill move on - but if you state something, be prepared to back it up.

sheffieldism, this is the internet, there is no reason whatsoever for me to tell you what car I drive, especially in relation to something I said over a year ago.

Let's move on, and don't start chucking around insults.

Not in a straight line you say?

I think a couple of CLR drivers at Le Mans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CLR_Flip.jpg)might have appreciated a bit more downforce on the Mulsanne Straight a few years ago :hihi: Try that in a Caterham!

Sorry, I meant the Caterham isn't that fast in a straight line... round bends however ;)

Oh yes! :) Round twisties it's VERY good if the driver is equally good enough to keep it on the road.

Mind you, that solid rear on the old ones doesn't help much...

... cue the world passing you uncontrollably by as you plough a field backwards :hihi:

Cyclone, sheffieldism (though that name ought to be changed): You two really don't know much about this, do you?

sheffieldism, this is the internet, there is no reason whatsoever for me to tell you what car I drive, especially in relation to something I said over a year ago.

Let's move on, and don't start chucking around insults.

right i apologise for the fact that you did say this a year ago, my fault i didnt check all the dates. But i still think you talk a load of **** sometimes, u made a statement and you still wont back it up - for what reason? privacy hahaha, do you think your big time, and everyone will know who you are! And as for insults, if you class that an insult you have issues matey.

that may well be true. But cars that are designed to go that fast don't rely on good luck, they are tested in wind tunells and are tuned to develop some downforce.
That may be true of most modern cars, but certainly not true of the early cars that passed 150mph (early Ferraris and Lamborghinis (the Miura was a nightmare)) which struggled with a lot of front end lift, or current TVRs which have significant problems - the Cerbera floats badly at the front end over 160).

And, on the whole, modern cars are not tuned to produce downforce unless for the track, or a few 'supercar' examples, and there are a whole lot of cars out on the market now which are not supercars but are capable of over 150. They are mostly optimised to avoid lift, rather than create downforce. The energy to produce downforce has to come from somewhere - and that would result in unwanted drag.

Either way, your statement that any car capable of 150mph needs tuned aerodynamics or will briefly resemble a plane is wrong.

Cyclone, sheffieldism (though that name ought to be changed): You two really don't know much about this, do you?

nope i know nothing, ive jumped on the bandwagon simply to attack Tony.

[QUOTE=Tony]The new 911 GT3 has a front splitter and rear spoiler that produces zero lift at the front and a tiny bit of down force at the rear, unlike all the other 911's.

QUOTE]


now that bit is accurate & true whether U read differing mags or not.
having the real thing beats having to read books & use Google.

The aerodynamic house brick that is the fabulous Caterham can't go fast enough (aerodynamically) to need downforce. :)

The new 911 GT3 has a front splitter and rear spoiler that produces zero lift at the front and a tiny bit of down force at the rear, unlike all the other 911's.

As somebody else said, down force really is a specialist area meant only for the track, but many cars are designed so they don't produce uplift, which is why the rear spoiler on the 911 Carrera lifts around 75 mph. It's not there to create downforce, but to reduce uplift all the way to the thick end of 200mph. :)

I'm not sure that's very clear, but (my badly made point is) reducing uplift, and creating downforce are 2 different things. :confused: :)

Of course, bikes don't have this problem, but they have a different advantage that cars don't have - they can lean and create their own camber. So maybe we should be comparing downforce cars?

The Caterhams certainly do go fast enough to make use of downforce - or at least they would if they had bodies that could produce it. Useable amounts of downforce can be created at less than 100mph for racing purposes - enough to help plant a car in a bend on a race circuit. I've recently provided R&D assistance to a racing team to create the correct aerofoil profiles for just this purpose.

A splitter is very useful because it reduces the amount of air getting under the car, and therefore reduces the static pressure on the floorpan, which is almost always higher than the static pressure on top of the car where the air is moving faster - hence lift, just the same as the principle of an aeroplane wing.

The rear spoiler on the GT3 won’t reduce the lift from under the car but it will add downforce – which compensates for uplift. Sadly it will do so at the cost of drag, and therefore a bit of top speed.

Creating downforce comes from two main areas – getting the car’s shape right in the first place, and adding spoilers (if we don’t go into ground effect, which is juts a matter of sucking the air out from underneath). Reducing lift mainly comes down to stopping air from getting under the front of the car, and into the wheelarches (which usually end up pressurised).

I've not claimed to be any sort of expert.
I was basing my comments on what i've seen on the tv mainly and read in magazines.

Maybe i overstated the production of downforce, when really i just meant the negation of lift.
Companies would certainly know about it if their cars took off above a certain speed, it wouldn't take a genius to sue them.

What was the original point anyway, i've lost track. Oh yes, bikes don't generate downforce and so can't corner as hard. Is that counteracted by leaning them over, or will that only go so far, it's shifting the centre of balance rather than increasing friction to the road... But then the turning moment has the effect of pressing the bike into the road and thus increasing the grip, which is the opposite of the effect on a car....

[QUOTE=Cyclone].

What was the original point anyway, i've lost track. QUOTE]


it was about a silver porsche "racing" a motorbike.

I've not claimed to be any sort of expert.
I was basing my comments on what i've seen on the tv mainly and read in magazines.

Maybe i overstated the production of downforce, when really i just meant the negation of lift.
Companies would certainly know about it if their cars took off above a certain speed, it wouldn't take a genius to sue them.

What was the original point anyway, i've lost track. Oh yes, bikes don't generate downforce and so can't corner as hard. Is that counteracted by leaning them over, or will that only go so far, it's shifting the centre of balance rather than increasing friction to the road... But then the turning moment has the effect of pressing the bike into the road and thus increasing the grip, which is the opposite of the effect on a car....
I don’t mean to be pedantic, but . . . . .

Your first comment about “shifting the centre of balance rather than increasing friction to the road” is correct. The bike has to lean into the bend to produce a centripetal load, to counter the momentum which is trying to take it in a straight line.

But “the turning moment has the effect of pressing the bike into the road and thus increasing the grip” is entirely wrong. The “force” (actually just momentum) trying to push the bike in a straight line acts only in the horizontal plain. The only force acting in the vertical plain, and contributing to dynamic friction, is the bike’s mass subjected to gravity, so that load does not vary with speed or bend radius. The bike’s suspension is compressed not because the downforce is increased, but because when canted over the suspension is working against both downforce and centripetal load.

(Some bikes do produce a little downforce, the ZX12 for one (they are really planted at high speed), but that’s immaterial).

There are two reasons that cars corner better than bikes. Firstly, the cars have much lower centres of gravity – a huge advantage. Second, the cars have a much bigger tyre contact area – and although friction forces are proportional to load applied rather than area, the bike’s tiny footprint is subject to any and every variation in track surface, and on the limit the strength of the tyre surface material comes into play as the rubber yields.

I love my bikes and know that it would take a Veyron to out-accelerate a big bike (even a McLaren F1 wouldn’t come into its own until 150-plus), but round a circuit even a well-sorted road car will beat a race bike.

Last time out on the Nordshleife I watched a Fireblade slide out in front of the standard CLK I was driving, which puts it into perspective. The previous posters who mention comparisons of race cars and race bikes are absolutely correct that the bikes cannot get anywhere near the cars’ times round a circuit.

That aside, a litre-class bike will be at 100mph shortly after the 911 turbo hits 60. The manufacturers quote some fantastic times for 0-60 for these cars, but just try to repeat them on real-world tarmac, and watch those wheels spin without going anywhere.

It's a while since i've had to use any a level physics, but the centripetal force is pressing the bike into the track once it's canted over isn't it...
Actually now i'm not sure it is. It's acting sideways, so it would only help if the corner were banked, but in that case it helps the car as well.

Just figuring it out as we talk about it.

It's a while since i've had to use any a level physics, but the centripetal force is pressing the bike into the track once it's canted over isn't it...
Actually now i'm not sure it is. It's acting sideways, so it would only help if the corner were banked, but in that case it helps the car as well.

Just figuring it out as we talk about it.
The most direct example of centripetal force is what a piece of string applies to a mass swung around your head - it's the force that causes the object to accelerate inwards away from its natural momentum-led path.
In the case of the bike, it is provided by the sideways friction of the tyres. The only thing pressing the bike onto the track, whether it's canted over or upright, is gravity (excluding any negligible aerodynamic effects).

If the corner were banked that would add a lot of centripetal foce - as I recall from a crackin experience round the Milbrook Bowl.

Nah... There is (sideways) force applied between the tyre and the track that far exceeds the gravitational downward forces between the bike and the track. We must apply accelerative moment. G is a concept and a calc, so we must not misuse it. We are now bringing friction and surface resistance into play....

(and I'm rapidly running out of provable knowledge, but at least I'll admit it ;))

... do you think we can get a collective deal with McClaren : ;)

the sideways force may exceed 1 G in acceleration (or the equivalent, 9.8 m/s). But the frictional force is the coeffecient of friction * downward force (provided by gravity) * surface area.
The bike is leant over to stop the rider being shot of, it's just altering the centre of gravity so that the lateral acceleration acts through the entire bike and not through just the lower half.

I've said my bit - anyone else with more knowledge care to elaborate :)

Nah... There is (sideways) force applied between the tyre and the track that far exceeds the gravitational downward forces between the bike and the track. We must apply accelerative moment. G is a concept and a calc, so we must not misuse it. We are now bringing friction and surface resistance into play....

(and I'm rapidly running out of provable knowledge, but at least I'll admit it

I've said my bit - anyone else with more knowledge care to elaborate :)
Ah - yes, I would, because I regret to inform you that you're talking billhooks and, in my own conceited way, I can claim to have more knowledge..

A very sticky race tyre might exceed 1.0g friction, and therefore exceed gravity sideways - not on the road, where tyre friction coefficients have to be real-world useable and have some wear life. Which, in simplest terms, means that the vertical gravitational weight exceeds the sideways force that the tyre can contain.

G is not a concept, it is a constant.

Think basics. The sideways forces, momentum vs centripetal, act in one axis – sideways in noddy terms.
Weight, and the friction it generates, act in the vertical axis. The limit of friction generated by weight, vertical axis, is what determines when the tyre slides out because the required centripetal force exceeds what mass times gravity times friction coefficient can provide.

I wouldn't discount >9.8m/s2 acceleration into a turn though. Top gear measured a road car at 6G in a corner. Okay, it has 4 wheels compared to the bikes 2, but rubber/tarmac must have a pretty high level of friction, and the sides of bike tyres are softer than the middle aren't they?

Anyway-
To get back to the original thread.

What were they doing racing in the first place?
Its just stupid really and someone could have been killed.

It was a year ago! - should i go and race a porsche at hillsborough so you can talk about it?

It was a year ago! - should i go and race a porsche at hillsborough so you can talk about it?

If you like- as long as you make sure you dont hit joe public :hihi:
I'd rather you didnt though if I'm being honest.

f_g would murder any porsche off the lights on her shiny new (dont think im allowed to say what bike she has with all this privacy malarkey :D )




My car however isn't *that* much fun in a straight line, but is great fun on the twisty's. It handles like it is on rails and will go round corners faster than any bike could hope to.

really? this weekend go to any track and look at some of the guys in the fast group.

I wouldn't discount >9.8m/s2 acceleration into a turn though. Top gear measured a road car at 6G in a corner. Okay, it has 4 wheels compared to the bikes 2, but rubber/tarmac must have a pretty high level of friction, and the sides of bike tyres are softer than the middle aren't they?
Top Gear could not have recorded a road car at 6g. A Formula One with highly sticky rubber and aerodynamics pressing it to the floor by more than its own weight can't manage that, and road tyres only provide .85-.95. A really good road car can manage about .85/.9 in a bend.

For a coefficent of friction to exceed unity you need 'sticky' materials, like double sided tape or, in our case, sticky racing tyres. Road tyres are not like that.

Surface area is not included in the friction force calc - it's just the coefficient x downard weight.

f_g would murder any porsche off the lights on her shiny new (dont think im allowed to say what bike she has with all this privacy malarkey :D )

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilauea

My car however isn't *that* much fun in a straight line, but is great fun on the twisty's. It handles like it is on rails and will go round corners faster than any bike could hope to.

really? this weekend go to any track and look at some of the guys in the fast group.
Of course it would - bikes are wonderful, amazing in a straight line, and a good rider can maintain some corner speed, but bikes just cannot get round corners on two wheels as well as cars can on four - just check out the lap records for different classes of car and bike at some of the major circuits.

Of course it would - bikes are wonderful, amazing in a straight line, and a good rider can maintain some corner speed, but bikes just cannot get round corners on two wheels as well as cars can on four - just check out the lap records for different classes of car and bike at some of the major circuits.
very true but in a car you cant get your knee down or wheelie :D a MASSIVE buzz the first time you do it. I have regular access to a (tuned to some 250hp) original audi quattro and although in the damp its far quicker than my bike through SOME corners i get nowhere near the rush i do when im on fighting to get my bike to go where i want it, not where it wants me to go. (note to self must get a better handling bike)

very true but in a car you cant get your knee down or wheelie :D a MASSIVE buzz the first time you do it. I have regular access to a (tuned to some 250hp) original audi quattro and although in the damp its far quicker than my bike through SOME corners i get nowhere near the rush i do when im on fighting to get my bike to go where i want it, not where it wants me to go. (note to self must get a better handling bike)
Hey, I'm onside with the bikes - I run a nitroused ZX12, and the can bet that it likes standing up on the back wheel.
You can 'straighten' some bends due to the narrowness of the bike, but on a track they're hopeless compared to a car.
The Quattro will be faster than the bike damp or dry round a bend, provided both are pushed to the limit.

in the damp/ wet yes. in the dry not so sure i think the 4wd slows it a little by dragging the front but hey i dont claim to be a racer by any means. i know a someone who used to race (he won a brittish trophy for some form of superstock) and he's practiced on a wet track alternating between cars and bikes and he had a quicker lap time than all the cars scoobys evos caterams etc. the thing is a semi skilled driver in a fast supercar could keep up with a super skilled rider on a bike. swap roles?

Swap roles and the cars still murder the bike. Check out those Nordschleife stats again. :)

(Incidently, RWD (with LSD) is generally faster than 4WD on tarmac.)

in my opinion the only car to beat that porsche from the lights (without getting technical)is the twin r1 engined kit car with a 0-60 of 2.8.

yeah a twin engined R1 kit car would be awesome

Swap roles and the cars still murder the bike. Check out those Nordschleife stats again. :)

(Incidently, RWD (with LSD) is generally faster than 4WD on tarmac.)


We are talking road cars here arent we ? Not some tricked up slick tyred track car on the 'ring?

My car is quoted in evo as doing 60 in 4.3 secs and yet a sportbike (even my old 600) is faster in a straightline.

A friend has a 911s (3.8 to 60 tested in autocar) and yet admits to being blown away by a bike (he owns a fireblade himself by the way).

There really isnt a comparison on the road, sorry.

Swap roles and the cars still murder the bike. Check out those Nordschleife stats again. :)

(Incidently, RWD (with LSD) is generally faster than 4WD on tarmac.)
Absolutely correct, every time. People are fascinated with acceleration times because they can read them from magazines. It doesn't matter how fast a bike can get to 60, or 100, or 100 to 150, it CANNOT get round bends as fast as a car. The Nordshleife is the best example because no other race circuit more closely represents road racing - I've watched a hard-ridden Fireblade slide out in front of the hire-standard CLK I was driving because the nike simply could not sustain the corner speeds I could follow him with (shame really, but he was German).

My fun car is a RWD LSD’d front-engined V8 and I totally agree re the 4WD – otherwise, we would have 4WD F1s – and we don’t!

in my opinion the only car to beat that porsche from the lights (without getting technical)is the twin r1 engined kit car with a 0-60 of 2.8.
There are many exotic sports cars, all production albeit some of them limited production runs, that would blow the 911 Turbo away.

We are talking road cars here arent we ? Not some tricked up slick tyred track car on the 'ring?
My car is quoted in evo as doing 60 in 4.3 secs and yet a sportbike (even my old 600) is faster in a straightline.
A friend has a 911s (3.8 to 60 tested in autocar) and yet admits to being blown away by a bike (he owns a fireblade himself by the way).
There really isnt a comparison on the road, sorry.
Yes, the bike will absolutely murder the car in a straight line. It will also murder the car through traffic, or through bends which are interrupted by having to get past other cars.

However, if you're trying to get the car and bike round the same circuit, the car will win.
I’m not convinced the car would win on even a twisty public road because ‘twisty’ public roads still have an awful lot of straights that the bike can use to its advantage. I play with both, on and off track, and while I prefer the bikes for fun I know that a bike simply cannot hold corner speed the way a car can – and bikes never will while they have such high centres of gravity and small tyre contact patches.

Unless, of course, somebody defies all the laws of physics.

Yes, the bike will absolutely murder the car in a straight line. It will also murder the car through traffic, or through bends which are interrupted by having to get past other cars.

However, if you're trying to get the car and bike round the same circuit, the car will win.
I’m not convinced the car would win on even a twisty public road because ‘twisty’ public roads still have an awful lot of straights that the bike can use to its advantage. I play with both, on and off track, and while I prefer the bikes for fun I know that a bike simply cannot hold corner speed the way a car can – and bikes never will while they have such high centres of gravity and small tyre contact patches.

Unless, of course, somebody defies all the laws of physics.
its actually quite refreshing to hear of someone who has experience of car and bike on track as well as off. (most car drivers who have a fast car have it for the point and squirt and in my experience have no idea how to read the road or take a corner) good on you and i've no doubt if i ever came across you on the track or on a closed road you'd be quicker in your fast car. but still like i said earlier you cant wheelie a car or get you knee down :D

its actually quite refreshing to hear of someone who has experience of car and bike on track as well as off. (most car drivers who have a fast car have it for the point and squirt and in my experience have no idea how to read the road or take a corner) good on you and i've no doubt if i ever came across you on the track or on a closed road you'd be quicker in your fast car. but still like i said earlier you cant wheelie a car or get you knee down :D
That's why I love my bikes more!!!!

Let's give it a proper test, like the Nordschleife, the worlds longest, swoopiest, hilliest, bendiest race track. Generally regarded as the ultimate proving track... all 12 miles of it.

The fastest bike around there was Helmut Dähne in 7.49.51 in 1993. That was a racing bike set up for the track and the lap. I take nothing away from that - its VERY fast and he had to be millimetre perfect. It was a great lap.

Just received the latest Nordschliefe lap times for the new 911 turbo in stock setup, ie what you get as standard from your dealer.

7:42 with Cup track biased tyres and 7:47 with standard road tyres. :D