Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

the R1 Vs porsche at ASC couple years ago

Discussion in 'Racing, Motorsports, and Track Days' started by ronin11, Feb 1, 2008.

  1. hi,

    im looking for info, video, whatever on the R1 street bike Vs the race prepped porsche that raced during one of the aussie superbike rounds a couple years.. anyone have a link to info or video of it by any chance? im trying to prove bikes are better to a few car driving friends of mine.. in relation to bang for your buck.
  2. Doesnt it depend on what your definition of what "better" is?
    Its like convincing someone that blue is better than green.
    If your friends dont agree, agree to disagree :wink:
  3. There is no argument there. :?

    In other news, I'm looking for compelling evidence to convince some friends that you can carry more stuff and stay dry in a car.
  4. I think you're referring to the race MOTOR had as an addendum to their GSXR1000 v Turbo S feature at WP. It was a Gemballa GTR600 v an R1 on slicks, ridden by then privateer champion. Will try and dig out the issue.
  5. Hopefully these are readable:

  6. Yeah, that was the article at WP. Certainly interesting reading the riders comments on the lap they took him on, particularly his comment on braking into the turns :LOL:
  7. And of course after you successfully argue that bikes are better than cars in bang for bucks your mates will counter with "I can spin a car and laugh about it later but if you do the same on a bike you can end up in hospital so add the medical costs to your case".

    Like Red vs Blue, Holden Vs Ford, Honda vs Yamaha vs Kawasaki vs everything else there will always be differing opinions.
  8. bang for your buck power Vs cost. thats where the argument was at. not about spinning out etc. they were arguing that a track car specifically set up for the track will beat a bike there hands down. i was aiming at proving them wrong. thanks for the people (jd esp) for posting the article.
  9. Apples to apples, an F1 car v Moto GP bike around any track the car will win, a production R1 bike v a production DB9 car around any track the DB9 will win. What is your definition of bang for buck? I don't know of any track where a race bike has the outright lap record but please correct me if I'm wrong.
  10. You are wrong. First off, a DB9 wouldn't beat an R1 because it's relatively heavy GT car. And unless it's a very tight, winding track, bikes have a good chance as they have superior acceleration.
  11. Every track has at least 4 corners....advantage 4 wheels. You may underestimate the advantage of 4 wheels around corners, it is significant.

    Well please tell me the track where a bike has the outright lap record. As I said, 'I could be wrong' but you need to prove it. Lakeside....no. Bathurst.....no. Oran Park....no. Amaroo Park.....no. Brands, Donington, Monza........no.
  12. and you will also find that all of those track records are held by cars with aerodynamic aids that assist downforce and grip.... so it's a moot point. Talk production bikes to production cars with no extra downforce and on most tracks the bikes will shit in.

    The cars that will be at bathurst shortly for the production car endurance race would not keep up with a well piloted R1 around there.

    back when the Aussie V8's raced alongside the superbikes at the 2+4 meetings, the car drivers were usually found up on pit wall watching the bikes and were constantly amazed at how close the bikes got to the cars laptimes.... all with no downforce... and that is the main reason they can corner faster, not necessarily because they have 4 wheels.

    it aint quite that simple.

    Graeme Crosby was a great bike racer and a very good car racer. I remember him pulling a huge lap in a car at bathurst in qualifying and when a reporter asked him how exciting it was he said it was boring.... compared to riding a bike.
  13. Mate are you for real or what? In case you are.....here goes.

    A pure race car was quicker around Bathurst than a pure race bike.

    F5000 driven by Warwick Brown v RS500 ridden by Andrew Johnson, Warwick had him covered. This was before the chase, which by the way just widened the gap.

    The production bike v car test is more difficult because todays bikes are much closer to race bikes than todays cars are to race cars. To be realistic it would have to be a top of the range Porsche (GT3) or Ferrari (599) which around any circuit I can think of would smoke the latest production superbike even with Croz riding it.

    and you will also find that all of those track records are held by cars with aerodynamic aids that assist downforce and grip.... so it's a moot point In fact the lap record at Lakeside (and Amaroo I think) was held by a superkart with no aerodynamic aids.

    the car drivers were usually found up on pit wall watching the bikes and were constantly amazed at how close the bikes got to the cars laptimes In the 70's Jack Brabham was on the pitwall at a 2+4 at the Hume Weir for a 350 bike race, (which amazingly Ron Boulden didn't win) not because he was amazed at the lap times, but because he couldn't believe guys were prepared to do this.

    I think the 4 x 1 metre wide slicks on the V8's may have a lot more to do with their superior cornering speed than the mickey mouse spoilers they have hanging off them, and yes, it really is that simple.
  14. GH, by that theory, bikes wouldnt go round corners at all???

    i always thought tyres on cars helped for traction during braking and acceleration, and wheelbase and suspension setup helped for cornering? obviously traction plays a part, but i think keith codes $10 system explains what cant in that regard.

    its a chalk and cheese argument, and one no side will win, as proven by the end of discussion on the other forum as well..

    lets put it simple. my name is shaun giles. ive just paid 20K, got myself a gixxer thou, and can punt it around broadford in XXXX seconds a lap. i dunno times there, lets just say fast. how much would dick johnson have to pay to set up a car that is going to be competitive and put in similar times? he couldnt just buy one off the shelf thats for sure...
  15. I don't understand ronin. You said the above in your very first post, but continue to say that no side will win.

    Forget lap times and who's quicker by a couple of seconds here or there. Is a $100k car five times more "bang" than a $20k bike? Bang for buck.
  16. Possibly I would be able to "Bang" :bannanabutt: in my 100K car it would be a bit difficult on a bike

    ...as well as public :p

    as for being 5 times more fun on a race track it depends on the person i like scaring myself

    but the thought of binning a 100k car is pretty scary as well

    (ps i have only ever done track days in a car it only cost 7k)
    which is less than bike
    after i ride eastern creek i'll let you know what is better
  17. Depends. Having the fastest bike in the world doesn't mean much if you happen to be in a crappy hatchback at the time you need/want it because it's cold and raining ;).
    And if it's pure performance you're after 100k buys a hell of a lot of Caterham - enough to shake off pretty much anything 2 or 4 wheeled.
  18. Going in circles here. :LOL: Doing the shopping in the rain isn't part of the "bang for buck" test I would have thought.

    And again, we go straight to the fastest lap time. Is a 100k Catterham 5 times more bang that a 20k bike?

    I've just had a thought that a 20k gokart would be pretty grouse, but that's not exactly a car.
  19. It's not 5 times as fast if that's what you're getting at. But the faster you go the more it's going to cost to try and go that little bit faster - something like a Caterham may well be cheaper than trying to chase an identical laptime by modifying a bike.