Can a motorbike out brake a car?

[Gubb]

It's a legal requirement (WOF standard) that your bike can stop within 2 bike lengths from 50kmh.

[skidMark]

I've seen a bike stop in just over two metres from 100kmh.









Of course the truck it went into the side of kind of influenced its stopping distance

Oooo that made me cringe.

[homer]

I've seen a bike stop in just over two metres from 100kmh.









Of course the truck it went into the side of kind of influenced its stopping distance

so true i stopped in about .5 meters at once

[rachprice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oz44oGaI4c
I thought bikes would outbrake cars but then I dont know much at all!
btw fifth gear? what a fuckin rip off of top gear.

[Jantar]

Under ideal conditions a bike can (not will) outbrake a car. What you have experienced is an illustration of reaction time. At the time that you started braking the van had already peeled off quite a bit of speed. The fact that you didn't hit the van showed that you outbraked it quite considerably.

However a car with modern ABS can (again, not will) outbrake a bike without ABS. It all comes down to reaction time and driver/rider ability.

[Motu]

More important is can you maneuver while under hard braking? Your options are very limited on a bike,you practically have to do all your hard braking in a straight line.A car has more options in that department,there is a lot that can be done to change direction....with ABS you can damn near steer a car while hard on the picks.

[krad_nz]

The main difference is that braking quickly in an ABS equipt car requires very little skill to pull off successfully. Stomp the brake pedal and the ABS does the rest.

A bike on the other hand has to brake + remain up-right and composed throughout the whole procedure. This requires more skill to pull off.

So, your average car driver is going to get it right more often than your average biker, just because its easier in a car.

Also, if you consider that the majority(?) of bikes don't have ABS... well that skews things even more so in the favour of cars..... on average.

At the extremes in both cases I would still put money on the car. Ie: a top spec race bike vs a top spec race car and equal drivers/riders in both, car for the win.

Its just about converting kinetic energy (ie: moving object) into heat + noise without skidding.

Ceramic brakes these days mean that the difference in weight between a bike and car is no longer a limiting factor. Also, a car has twice as many brakes, and doesn't have to remain balanced etc.

All imho of course

The argument also depends on whether its straight line braking or braking while corning or avoiding an obstacle, cage, horse etc.

[Subike]

there have even been occasions where cars have gone backwards under braking
but the truck was still going forward

but yes, SD I agree
too many riders dont give themselves the saftey net of distance, not only from the car in front but the one behind as well.
And sadly too often the one comming in the opposite direction.

[Jantar]

It's a legal requirement (WOF standard) that your bike can stop within 2 bike lengths from 50kmh.

Pardon? Is it really a legal requirement that a bike can stop in 4.6 meters from 50 kmh? Since when is it a requirement that a bike must break all the known laws of physics?

[slopster]

It's a legal requirement (WOF standard) that your bike can stop within 2 bike lengths from 50kmh.

What the fuck that is impossible. I think you will find its more like 8m at 30kmh.

[slopster]

And ABS braking doesn't stop you quicker it just helps keep you in control if you panic and lock up the wheels. Or all the race cars would have it wouldn't they

[Mikkel]

A bike should be able to out-brake any car that doesn't make use of down force generating spoilers.

That said, it comes down to the skill of the rider - and if you stuff it up you'll be worse off on the bike of course.

A car, without ABS, is no more capable of braking hard and maneuvering than a bike is.

A car, without ABS, is no more capable of stopping quickly on wet/icy/loose surfaces than a bike is. But it is more stable, less prone to locking up on all wheels and less likely to fall over.

To some degree this of course requires a superb rider who can evaluate the surface, slope, weight distribution, tyre temperature and pressure and apply the optimal braking force to both wheels. Unlike a car a motorcycle can change the balance between front and rear brakes on the fly.

Add modern ABS and ESP systems in cars and you pretty much have to be omniscient to outperform the 4-wheeler...

[AllanB]

In that Mission Impossible movie on the Speed Triple (yummy) Tom (weirdo) Cruise stopped from god knows how fast on the front wheel while pulling a gun out of his pocket and then spun it around (while still doing before mentioned stoppie) and shot the baddie.

Hollywood is so full of crap - every motorcyclists knows to keep both hands on the bars when doing stoppies at 160.

[skidMark]

What the fuck that is impossible. I think you will find its more like 8m at 30kmh.

Well it's not hard really i made morcs rvf400 with "wooden brakes" stop in a bike length from 60kph in a carpark after being on it 30 seconds.

Can do that same on a zxr....

Takes a fair amount to lock a front wheel, ive had front wheels start locking and skidding and try tuck under etc.... the trick it to keep strong arms to keep the bars straight....once its crooked and it tucks, you are screwed.

In saying this though i do alot of stoppies, so i have practised braking alot.

[jrandom]

I had managed to reduce my total stopping distance to between an estimated 12-15 metres at 100kph...

That's impressive.

I've never measured my stopping distances.

I recall Autocar magazine testing a few supercars for best 0-100 and 100-0 times (an R34 GTR won overall) and the stopping distances from 100kph were in the order of 30 metres.