you look at the you tube video of the bike vs the lambo on the race track, you can see how much longer it takes to slow a bike vs teh car.
The 2nd-most bad arse KBer.
you look at the you tube video of the bike vs the lambo on the race track, you can see how much longer it takes to slow a bike vs teh car.
Then I could get a Kb Tshirt, move to Timaru and become a full time crossdressing faggot
Homo Sapiens Vulgaris
Indeed - but while the 1098 might not be your average bike the lambo is about as far a cry from an average car as you can possibly get. I think you'll find a slight difference on the price tags as well... (besides, I would personally like to have them do all 3 exercises at least 10 times and then compare the averages).Originally Posted by renegade master
I'd still put my money on your average motorcycle (road-bike, of course) being able to out brake your average family car - and most definately just about any 4x4. That is provided the pilot is not a complete tosser of course in which case you'll end up the way I have on a couple of occasions now.
Generally speaking bikes have good brakes compared to their weight and unless you have a gross disregard for your own health you take some interest in fitting decent tyres to it. The same cannot be said for most cars out there.
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Forum whore
So what do you have in mind as an average car and an average motorcycle?
e mare libertas
I'm pretty sure my V6 Camry with ABS wearing Firestone something-or-others can outbrake the hell out of my GSX1400 wearing Pilot Road 2s.
In fact, I'd be quite happy to set up a test of that.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
i'm motarded
they are both the top of the range in their respective fields.
at the other end of the spectrum, i would put money on a Daihatsu Mira outbraking a GN250.
Homo Sapiens Vulgaris
Good point really. I'm not even going to suggest an average motorcycle on here - someone is bound to take offense.
Let's say something from the mid to late nineties that weighs around the 200-250 kg mark, have a two-pot caliper disc brake on the front and a single-pot caliper on the rear.
As for the car, take a middle class family sedan from the same period with a weight of about 1100-1300 kg, disc brakes on the front and drums on the rear.
I suspect that the main difference would be the tyres.
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Hardcore Biker
bikes do stop faster its just up to rider ability
The 2nd-most bad arse KBer.
the only way to know is to set up some tests _b
Then I could get a Kb Tshirt, move to Timaru and become a full time crossdressing faggot
Homo Sapiens Vulgaris
Test it on the next guy that tail gates you. If he hits you - you won!
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Hardcore Biker
you have to factor in reaction time otherwise its a unfair test
Hardcore Biker
Plenty of people have (scroll up) and the car always wins.
so is it the tyres, or the weight/coefficient of friction that makes difference?
lets see some proof of what you're saying.
Homo Sapiens Vulgaris
That was kinda the point behind my not-so-serious post. And the point is of course that it is unfair to the person in front of you to sit closer than your reaction time allows for... And a lot of people do exactly that.
I don't follow the first bit of your post. The tyres and road surface - all of their properties (e.g. pressure, temperature, etc) - are what determines the coefficient of friction.
Weight is divided out in the equation since more weight equals more normal force, but also more inertia. More weight will be harder on the tyres and brakes though...
Proof of what I am saying. So what do you suggest? Personally I would suggest *you* go and get a good book on classical mechanics and when you're done with that I doubt you'd feel any need for me to backup what I have been claiming here.
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Loving life in the Bay
Henry is correct - when you do the sums to calculate decelerative force mass cancels out. You are left with gravity and friction. Since gravity is the same for both the defining factor is friction. If you assume no wheel lock up then it all comes down to braking efficiency.
Mikkel is also correct because mass comes back into play when you consider energy. Ie ability of the brakes to convert kinetic energy into heat.
Bikes have fewer brakes but less energy to dissipate. Cars have more brakes but more energy. The winner all depends on what you consider average. I wouldn't like to pick it.
Forum whore
As they both influence each other, it would have to be both.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks