Manoah2u wrote:but i take corners [ even slow ones ] vastly much faster on a bike then in a car, and corner them deeply in a smooth line.
In a car, you'll have to search the perfect braking point and the perfect angle to go through the corner the best you can.
the general driver is simply not capable of this , and more importantly, their vehicle is not in perfect all-new shape.
Yes, as in braking, a car IS able to span less of a braking distance compared to a motorbike. That is true, and yes, the fact the car has 4 wheels to put to use in a stable matter gives them braking benefit....
however, in real life, drivers brake far earlier than motorbike drivers will brake, AND, will have much more trouble angling their car in the 'perfect' manner.
Really? Perfect angle? General driver not capable of this? Perhaps if bikes and (fast) cars were more similar in their braking and cornering ability, but they really aren't. The braking force in a car is that much superior to *any* bike (it's easy and logical science), it doesn't matter at all. As I said, add bumpy roads to equation and in a bike, you are moving further and further away from its comfort zone and where and how it is quick.
Anyway, fair point, the "driver" variable will always be the most important one. Exclude that, then it depends of course on the car. Given the topic, we're surely not talking about Fiesta's or little Citroens against faster bikes, but even in a sporty little modern Fiesta (actually - scratch that - any modern car), you will have a superior braking force to *any* bike, as braking at speeds below say 100kmh and the limiting force will not be the quality of your brakes, but the grip of your tyres. In the end, it's 4 tyres and 4 brakes against 2 (slimmer) tyres and brakes - add the high center of gravity and the most of the braking force is coming from the front-tyre contact patch.
There's no discussion, really. Now of course, braking at higher speeds and the limiting factor will become the brakes, not the tyres. But even then too, a car doesn't have to worry about instability (braking in a straight line) or the high center of gravity. Assuming adequate brakes for the function, a car will always prevail on braking.
Cornering; it's the same; Corning ability is a function of grip. Downforce can enhance that, but it's rather simple mathematics in the end. More weight = more foce, so any car will have a certain highest potential for speed X in corner radius Y. In slow corners, the car (especially on semi-slicks) has far more grip than any bike. Introduce successive corners where you have lots of weight shifting and a car as another advantage over a bike, who will need to shift his weight from one side to another.
Introduce high speed corners and a bike will win, because he can lower the center of gravity and in the end, has a lot less weight pulling him out. A car (serious equipment) can try to match this by adding downforce, but we are talking about serious high speed cars then. I'm willing to go as far to say that on production cars, it's going to be hard to match bikes in out right acceleration or high speed corners, irregardless what you throw at it.
If we are talking about race tracks (with smooth surfaces) - bikes will be very competitive thanks to their outright acceleration which is just ridiculous. Any part of the track with slower corners though and lots of braking and quick cars will narrow the gap a bit. Which is faster in the end depends on the track and the cars you are testing against.
Oh and btw Manoah2u; I have no idea why you are bringing up the Hayabusa. It might be one of the quickest bikes acceleration and top-speed wise, but on a typical twisty roads, they are the worst of the lot, because they are heavy. They will get eaten alive by more "slower" but lighter bikes. At the same time, they'll both get eaten alive by even quicker cars if the road permits it (again; lots of braking, slow corners etc).
And I'm not saying this from behind the wheel of a multi million dollar Ferrari FXX - a Lotus Exige is already quite adequate. Take a Caterham Superlight R500 (yes, I've driven one too) and a bike
won't out accelerate you out of corners until you hit higher speeds (>100kmh).
As I said; Bikes are fast, but they are only because even the most basic sporty bike will offer a power to weight ratio that matches that of seriously high performance cars. So on any piece of tarmac with a bit of straight (the longer the better), you will be increasing gaps to cars. Introduce braking, car will close the gap. Slow corners, car wins. Highspeed corners, bikes mostly win.
The rest is down to the track. If the bike in question has a slower cornering speed for corner X, then it will lose not only because it has to brake to a lower speed than the car, but will also lose time throughout the corner too. If and by how much it can negate that by the following straight and acceleration depends on the track. In a high speed corner, the bike might have a higher cornering speed, so has to brake less (than the car), so for that particular corner, they might be similar in the end.
On a bike forum, the figures being thrown around is that the real comparable time is somewhere between 7:20 to 7:28 which puts it right within the same ballpark as a Nissan GT-R. So again, how is this particularly impressive (other than that the driver had some serious balls) given how much faster his bike is on every straight, but likely *much slower* in just about most corners? Even a Renault Megane (275bhp Version) in 2014 did the 'Ring in under 8 minutes...