even though bikes are faster and quicker than cars. We all understand cars set better faster times than bikes at a given track and that's due to just one factor: Tire Grip Surface MotoGP bike rear tire = 60cm2 Formula 1 car rear tires = 600 cm2 that means cars have much more grip while braking and cornering let alone traction while accelerating which translates as CARS have 1000% more rubber touch with the ground making cars much easier to drive than bikes to ride and don't forget that the bike's front tire is usually on the air while it's rear tire is sliding speaking of percentages: does that mean a car is 10 times easier than a bike to race? if so V. Rossi is 10 times more likely to succed in F1 than the other way around.
Downforce makes a huge difference as well. I don't think much transitions over to be honest... it's like comparing a hockey player to a speed skater going around a rink. Same idea, kind of, but hugely different process. If I was making an olympic speed skater I'd rather start with a hockey player than some guy off the street, but why not start with an up and coming speed skater right off the bat (ie someone in F3000, F3, whatever it is this year)... It's good for publicity though for sure.
Over the years I've ridden Superbikes, and driven a race car, raced shifter carts. The physical skills necessary to go fast on a bike, vastly exceed those necessary to go quickly in a car (however, to get the very last bit of speed from a car requires a set of skills that I don't have, but I can usually get close to the leaders in the class I'm running in). The current crop of MotoGP bikes are electronically controlled. Without the control, they are unrideable. Gary McCoy was given a Suzuki, with the controls turned off at Valencia. Made it 2 corners, before it spit him off. Having said that, controlling one of these bikes has to be far more difficult than a car. The current crop of riders slide both ends of the bike. In my heyday, trying to copy Roberts, I fell more than once trying to slide the front of the bike. I couldn't do it, and I'd won at the National level. That's how difficult it is. Sliding the rear isn't all that difficult, but when you set the bike up, with more traction in the rear than the front, which virtually all MotoGP riders do, unless you're superman, you're going to fall down. Mark my words: If Rossi does go into F1, he'll be world champ sooner rather than later, if the car's competitive. Art
Agreed. I also think that one thing many car drivers may take for granted is the fact that when bikes turn, a rider relys on an X,Y and Z axis: Forward motion, turn in (countersteer) and lean angle. Cars rely more on X and Y: forward motion and turn in based on front tire direction. (while this may not make sense or be totally accurate its how I see it in my mind) If a car is leaning in a corner, it needs stiffer springs. not to mention it is leaning away from the corner versus into it. Also, having raced cars and bikes I can say that I have never had to shift my weight when turning a car. (nor could I due to 6 point harnesses) The added variables of motorcycle racing, like body position, body steering and gyroscopic force due to centralized engine crank location, lack of down force and barely any contact patch, create a completely different experience and require (IMHO) a higher level of skill than that of car racing. Don't get me wrong. I think anyone in F-1 is able to do things in a car that most of us dream of but racing a bike to that level requires a lot more from the operator.
By the way, yesterday was Rossi's birthday. His 27th birthday. He's arguably the greatest motorcycle racer ever, with the decorations to prove it. But he's also considering a switch into the pinnacle of auto racing at an age when we start referring to drivers as having moved out of their prime. Rossi has given the best years of his life to 2-wheeled racing, and while it may be easier to get up to speed on four wheels than it is on two, the physical demands of racing a Formula 1 car are immense, possibly greater than those experienced on a motorcycle. I realize that racing a motorcycle is a very physical endeavor, but so too is F1. So, I guess my point is that another element to this equation is the fact that Rossi, should he get a ride in F1 next year, will be 28 years old. How many years will he then race? Let's say that, God forbid, he doesn't win races right out of the gate nor go straight to the World Championship? What then? He's kind of been handed this situation because of who he is. Valentino Rossi hasn't pursued a lifelong dream to race F1 cars--he's already fulfilled his dream on motorcycles. So, if it doesn't all go swimmingly, what then will his attitude and commitment be? Also, nobody really knows where Ferrari as a team are right now, let alone in the next year or two. It's also very possible that Ferrari won't be the tent you want to go camping in.
It is beyond me how you make the conclusion about "much easier to drive" based on grip alone. Makes no sense at all. Driving cars on the edge requires different skills than riding bikes on the edge. It is a totally different ball game. If you were right all F1 team bosses would be hiring motorcycle champions left and right. That has not happened. Rossi will never be F1 Champion. A win perhaps, stranger things have happened (e.g. Fisichella in Brazil or Panis in Monaco), but not champion. Carved from different wood.
then how would you explain cars doing faster laps than bikes when a bike is much faster in straight line? it's all handling and the ability to brake harder in less meters etc. and it's all due to tire grip the same thing happens when cornering; 4 tires deal speed better than 2 P.S. aren't superbikes faster than F1 cars in straight line?
Let's take the CATALUNYA circuit where both F1 & Moto GP races are held for instance the longest straight F1 cars reach 310 kph while MotoGP (not superbikes) reach 322 kph according to telemetry. it's the braking departament where CARS take advantage. and kill 2 wheelers
I said acceleration, also top speed in one specific track doesn't mean squat, not all tracks are equal.
art, i too agree with you. rossi is the doctor and he will figure out the dynamics w/ seat time and he will end up rocket ship fast. he understands how to find the limit and will no doubt get there. remember that he is a pure racer!
Its like comparing Ski jumping to Slalom Skiing ( Winter Olympics and all ). Yes both on skis, both on snow, totally different disciplines.
For sure breaking distance is shorter for an F1 than for MotoGp. But the real killer is the cornering speed. As MotoGp has no ground effect (in addition to having a tire/tarmac contact surface that is one order of magnitude smaller), F1 are much faster during the turn. As a matter of fact, during World Championship motorcycle races the faster cornering machines are the 125 cc, being lighter. As far as Rossi winning the F1 title, again it is not possible to say now. Just remember that without the right package you go nowere in F1. Think about MS the last two years: he was the same pilot but last year, as the reigning champ, he was only able to win Indy for the reasons we all know. If the car is not a winner, you cannot win. In MotoGp the situation is completely different. The human factor is still dominating. This allowed Rossi to win the world championship riding the worst byke. Ciao Eugenio
Superbikes and MotoGP bikes are two different types of bikes. So, has anybody got proof of an F1 car out accelerating a MotoGP bike (like the Ducati)? Saying that an F1 car out accelerates a Superbike is one thing, but saying that it out accelerates (and here I mean a top or the top) accelerating MotoGP bike is another. Please provide a link if you have evidence. Thanks.
You guys are crazy to think the bikes are faster than F1 cars, because they are not, particularly as speed increases. Superior aero and sheer HP to break through give the car the advantage. This is why you can see street race videos of high HP cars beating bikes with ease on the highway, even though the bikes would take the 1/4 mile. And the new F1 V-8s could probably even out rev the bikes!!! I would love to see superbike/motoGP statistics. I do know that Michael's Ferrari vs the Eurofighter jet showed that a top F1 car can do 600 meters in 9.4s and 900 meteres in 13.2s at 229 mph-----IN THE WET!! That is incredibly fast, I don't think the bike would even have a chance. This would equate to a 1/4 drag somewhere in the 7 to low 8 sec bracket for the Michael's Ferrari, absolutely amazing particularly when the FIA is constantly trying to make F1 cars slower........ Copy and paste: http://www.drliew.net/archives/000917.html
MotoGp is faster in straight line than a F1 car for a very simple reason: Aerodynamic. F1 has a lot of down-force aerodynamically induced in order to obtain the maximum possible cornering speed, hence has an enormous drag force that prevents very high top speed. MotoGp has not such a requirement, as the only way to increase cornering speed is by increasing performances of tires and chassis.. Ciao Eugenio
The fact that Honda was by far the best bike when Rossi moved to Yamaha two years ago is undeniable. Rossi always stated that he left Honda as Honda top management kept saying that he was winning because he was riding a Honda, not because his own superior capabilities (machine more important than man). Rossi believed that most of the credit was his own (man more important than machine) As a matter of fact, all riders agreed that Honda was the best bike. Biaggi used this excuse (he was riding a Yamaha back then) to justify his poor performances. Honda MotoGp top management was fired one year later when Rossi became World Champion. Biaggi was fired this year after failing to win a single event with one of the only two factory bikes. Ciao Eugenio
Well considering the F1 accel numbers (in the WET!) I just posted, a MotoGP bike would have to be absurd, as in 0-200 mph in about 9 sec or less, literally. Again, do any of you have a link showing how fast a MotoGP is, and not just to 150, but to 200+ mph? I think it would have an incredibly hard time comparing to a F1 car. Obviously, it can't touch the lap times, but I don't think it would have anything for a F1 car in a straight line either until proven otherwise, especially at higher speeds. Contrary to popular belief, motocycle aero is worse than a road car at high speed, and time and again high HP road cars have been proven to walk away from super bikes that have superior power/weight ratios for that reason. F1 cars may have tons of downforce, but they reach top speed amazingly fast regardless.
Intresting topic, there was a comparison on fifth gear back in 2004 (episode from 11.10.04) between a Honda F1 car (driven by Jenson Button) , a Honda Superbike (british championship about 160kg), and power boat. The car and bike where head to head the first 100 metres but at 100mph the aerodynamic from the F1 car is pushing the tyres into the ground and that makes Jenson able to use the full 900hp of his car and made the bike to look like a toy... ;-) the problem for the bike is the tendency to wheelie, there isn't much spinning or something he just can't use all the power he has... I think MotoGP bikes would be way faster than the Superbike, but still no chance against the F1 car!!! An interesting fact, an F1 car is accelerating faster from 100 - 200 Km/h then from 0 - 100 Km/h. 0 - 100 Km/h in about 2.5 sec. 0 - 200 Km/h in under 5 sec. (not much, maybe 4,6 - 4,9 sec) 0 - 300 km/h in just about 7 sec. (something about high 6s and low 7s) You have nearly the same power all the time, that's just unbelievable!! braking: 300 - 0 Km/h in 1.9s and over 5g... All times are from the old V10 engines, don't know about V8s. Keep in mind it depends on many things like tyres (and temperature), tarmac, wing settings etc.... BMW released all these infos in late 2003 or late 2004!!!
all this car versus bike discussion is besides the point in fact MOTOGP reach higher speeds in straights that's a fact (CATALUNYA 310 kph car versus 322 kph MotoGP) the thing is: who is a better operator ? a F1 driver or a Moto GP rider?
Perhaps in that particular instance, that bike went faster than the F1 car in question on that part of the track. But obviously lap times are what count, and also I think if you lined 'em up for a standing mile the F1 car would walk away from the bike well before the end. I would love to see such a contest with one of the recent V-10 cars.
