There is this cool article (ok originally coming from the Autocar magazine which is a sister publication of TWO_ about Bike Vs Cars. Basically, they take a bunch of bikes (BMW K1200GT, CBF1000, GSXR-600, GSXR-1000) and basically do the 0-100 against a bunch of cars from a GP race car and the Veryon to the Nissan 350Z. Pretty cool. I am not gonna say who wins, find out for yourselves.
I like the heading in the first page of the article : “Defending our honour” hahaha
Pretty cool actually. Because I had enough of those car biased tests that you see on TV and the likes of Top Gear.
a…and something interesting I forgot to add. They also tested the breaking power from 100-0. That is more important I think than who can reach 100 first. As you would expect all the bikes lost in that area, pointing out the obvious (in some people) that most cars can outbreak bikes (thats why the can outrun bikes in corners).
A1 GP race car
Bugatti Veyron
Nissan 350Z
Lotus Exige S
Porsche 911 Turbo
Lamborgini Gallardo
etc etc
Bikes as I said above. The only non-production car was the A1 GP race car.
I wonder if the Autocar magazine has more info on those tests
Well…I wouldnt be too sure about the F1 vs MotoGP test. Nobody knows the speed limits of F1 (although they are trying to find out in that Salt dessert in USA) or the bike’s. It depends on the test really. Acceleration? Top speed? Around the track?
Who knows. We might win on 0-100 and perhaps loose on the track (cornering) and top speed. Who knows. ITs all about power-weight ratio, traction control, braking power.
an interesting thing i find with tests like this is , theres a tiny amount of people can afford an almost million pound car for the veyron, but for the price of a small family hatchback, most people can afford a superbike
so are the tests fair?
should they be testing against special high spec ducatis, aprillas and F4 Tornadoes?
cause anyone who goes to cubana tonight will notice that gixxers, R1s and blades are as common as the average hatchback!
F1 cars lap circuits quicker than GP bikes, their stability and traction are what make the difference. Their corner-speed is amazingly high, and as you say mate, the brakes work better!
Still, we all know bikes rock. It’s not the speed that counts, it’s the thrill factor and skill required that make bikes so appealing…
It will depend where the test is held really. If its around a racetrack the F1 car would be a safe bet. At somewhwere like Silverstone the F1 car is ridiculously quick around the corners but the Moto GP bike is quicker down the straights, but the car laps many seconds quicker than a Moto GP bike, but with much less skill needed to do so of course. 0-60 tests then the Bugatti Veyron will surprise a few people. Anyway thats enough car talk for me, bikes are far superior in so many ways…
Well strictly speaking is not the brakes but the traction control on the GP cars (although GP bikes have the same technology) and the increased contact patch that the GP cars have in relation to the bikes.
Strictly speaking its the aerodynamics creating huge downforce that makes a big difference to corner speeds, thats why the cars are slower than bikes down the straights sometimes.
Thought you had a hat with that slogan on it… if not, you’re not the bloke I thought you were LOL
Yup, F1 cars are the quickest way to cover tarmac and we are deluding ourselves by thinking otherwise. Why does it matter tho? Hell, my 675 isn’t even the quickest bike out there but I still love it with a passion that is usually reserved for medical text books.
Move on people, these tests are just pointless circus shows.
