Yeah, I know its a car show but

[James Deuce]

But what about maximum lateral acceleration? I would have expected that that would be where bikes fall down (literally...) against cars.

Jeez, this is so old, we must have done this at least twice before. Anyone have enough energy to do a search and link back to a relevant thread?

Surprisingly lateral grip was higher than straightline acceleration and deceleration. The practical straightline acceleration for a shortwheelbase sportbike usually topped out at 1G, whilst wheelying and wheelspinning at the same time. Braking was around the same doing a rolling stoppy. The point is that the bike is accelerating to much higher speeds much more quickly than anything short of winged single seater car. and that is where the major advantage in cars over bikes is - aerodynamics. F1 cars generate more braking force by lifting off the gas than a MOTOGP bike can at max braking.

[jrandom]

Surprisingly lateral grip was higher than straightline acceleration and deceleration.

Really? So the bike could go around corners faster than the car could before anything started to step out? Interesting.

I think the general conclusion should be that the physical limitations of two wheels are lower than four wheels (ref, as usual, the fasterer-ness of F1 cars over the GP bikes), but that the cheapness and accessibility of motorcycles on the road means that almost *any* car on the road will be spanked by a bike; to go out and buy a car that could contend with a modern Japanese superbike, you would have to spend at least ten times as much.

So, then, the ultimate physical limitations being lower does not imply that bikes aren't better than cars. It just means that for no more than the cost of a new Toyota Corolla, you can buy something that's not orders of magnitude away from a GP machine in performance, but will still take you to work every morning.

Try doing THAT on four wheels.

[ManDownUnder]

Really? So the bike could go around corners faster than the car could before anything started to step out? Interesting.

I think the general conclusion should be that the physical limitations of two wheels are lower than four wheels (ref, as usual, the fasterer-ness of F1 cars over the GP bikes), but that the cheapness and accessibility of motorcycles on the road means that almost *any* car on the road will be spanked by a bike; to go out and buy a car that could contend with a modern Japanese superbike, you would have to spend at least ten times as much.

So, then, the ultimate physical limitations being lower does not imply that bikes aren't better than cars. It just means that for no more than the cost of a new Toyota Corolla, you can buy something that's not orders of magnitude away from a GP machine in performance, but will still take you to work every morning.

Try doing THAT on four wheels.

AMEN BROTHER!

[Motu]

Yep,you got it jrandom.Generaly bikes out perform cars,even performance cars,but then most performance cars have a bit of luxury to go with the price,there are few stark spartan cars.But when the cars get serious (F1,WRC,Top Fuel drag,LSR etc) it's game over for the bikes.

[flyin]

[QUOTE] Kinda interesting to look at the whole output/capacity thing though. I remember seeing a glowplug engine spinning at some obscene rate putting out 1bhp from something like 10ccs? I'll try to find it.[QUOTE]

yeah model planes/cars etc have some cool little motors.
an average .40cu (6cc) glow pug motor running on methanol/castor oil/nitromethane puts out around 1hp

with the high power pylon racing motors theres all sorts of tuned pipes etc theres crazy power to be made, more than a hp per 4cc!!
well they move a fairly solid model(plane) round the pylons at over 300kmph!!

the smaller you go th higher th revs too. this little .010 motor (around a 1/4cc) i have pulls rediculous revs, upwards of 30 000......... (runnin it with 30% nitro

[ManDownUnder]

Check this out - some of the engines on here...

http://www.alansmodels.com/engines/car_engine.htm

.21 cubic inch (that's 3.44 cc's......) spitting out 1.9bph!

O - I see it takes 40,000rpm to do it (or at least achieves that output at some point along the way to 40k)... but for the sake of conversation... that's

... errrr.... aarrrrmmmm....

552.12 bhp per litre?!?

Ladies and laddies - we've got a way to go before we get there. Yes I know it's all hypothetical and no really applicable... but it's fun to look at, even only for a while...

MDU!

[vifferman]

You have a point MDU, and I love to trot out to car enthusiasts, "yes 100bhp/litre is a lot, but the RGV250 trotted out 200bhp/litre 14 years ago."

I read some time ago that the record for power/litre for a normally-aspirated engine (not counting those glowplug engines someone else mentioned, if those figures are in fact correct) is still held by a 1960-summat Honda 50 race bike, at 17hp.

Modern F1 cars are single-seat, open cockpit, open wheel racers. They must be constructed by the racing teams themselves and are required to be powered by 3.0-litre, ten-cylinder naturally aspirated engines.

Not for long.
They "go too fast" despite the latest regulations to slow them down (which made no difference - the lap times for testing were quicker), so soon (next year?) they'll be 2.4-litre V8s.

By the way - was the show any good? I wanted to watch it, but didn't.

[Motu]

There used to be a model aircraft wankel motor - do you model guys know if they still make them? Honda 50?? you can still buy one...brand new.Ash King used to ride one of these.

[flyin]

yep you can still get workin model wankel motors! check out http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXBY72&P=0
what are you hoping to do with it? nifty fifty rotor conversion?!?!
[SIZE=]brap brap brap [/SIZE]