Moto GP/Formula 1

[Baltobuell]

 Does anybody remember a RRW article maybe a year ago saying the GP bikes at Suzuka had posted faster times than the F1 cars. I'm prone to dilusions but I thought I read that somewhere. Everthing I find shows the cars 30 seconds faster.

[tshort]

Maybe the Motogp bikes did it last year, compared to F1 cars in the early 90s?? ;)

Here is one discussion on that topic - a couple years old, but showing telemetry data on each: http://www.racing-forums.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-7631.html

Cars win - more rubber.

[tigerblade]

Maybe a higher top speed but like Tom said, I think the cars actually turn faster lap times because they have those huge contact patches.

[Sunny]

Yes, it was long ago (at least a decade I believe) that 500GP bikes are clocking faster lap time than the F1 (when they have no launch, traction controls and other goodies).

[Old808]

Yes, it was long ago (at least a decade I believe) that 500GP bikes are clocking faster lap time than the F1 (when they have no launch, traction controls and other goodies).

I'm willing to bet you can't find an example of that in the last 30 years.

[Steviebee]

the bike have similar top speeds,  but the f1 cars have almost 60% the lap times.  quicker at some places.

The car have several g's of downforce.  bikes have almost none.  That plus 4x (maybe 10x) in contact patch and thier Hoofing thru the corners.

[Super Dave]

Contact patch...

A bike has, at best, two business card size patches...but we all know that there are times when it's only one because of acceleration or braking.

Meanwhile...

Cars have four 8.5x11 patches.  

Does that illustrate it?


Additionally...

Old grandma's can still drive a car.  Probably not a bike.   ;D

[TZDeSioux]

downforce biatches! Anyways.. the 500GP bikes were 2km faster at suzuka than the F1 cars in 2002 but the F1 cars turned lap times of around 30 seconds a lap faster. :)

[tshort]

downforce biatches! Anyways.. the 500GP bikes were 2km faster at suzuka than the F1 cars in 2002 but the F1 cars turned lap times of around 30 seconds a lap faster. :)

Yep - and not surprising, either.  You ever notice the brake markers down the front straight of many of the tracks we race at?  No? Yeah, most roadracing guys probably don't.  You know why?  Cuz by the time we get to them our rear wheels have already been hopping around for about 100 feet and our bikes are trying to spit us off over the front.  

The car guys, on the other hand, wait until, oh, maybe the 1.5 mark (ie, past 2, before 1), before they start their heel/toe dance, and pull their car down to something resembling a turn-in speed in not much distance.  Will they have hit the same top speed as a liter bike?  In many cases, no.  

But they aren't wasting a lot of time on the brakes, either.  

I've proved this to myself over and over again at Blackhawk and RA, where I've piloted both cars and bikes around.  And I'm only on a piddly SV.

[tshort]

And while we're on the topic of braking...would anyone care to guess which bike will stop faster from the same speed (say, 90 mph - since Harleys won't go much faster than that :) ) : a 2004 Harley Road King, or 2004 GSXR 1000?

Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

Hint: it ain't the Gixxer :o  This is another clue as to why the car guys can get around so much faster - they don't have to worry about their rear axles coming up over the top. And neither do the HD guys.

[Old808]

Contact patch area does a lot less for the cars than downforce.

I forget which track it was last year where the cars and bikes had the same top speed (about 330 kph) but:

- Capirossi braked at 300 meters, Schumacher at 85 meters.

- Hayden apexed at 160 kph, the F1 car at 260 kph.

That ain't mechanical grip (contact patch), folks.

[L8brake731]

MOTO GP would look really funny ::)with areo stuff and ground effects :D
Doesn't leave a whole lot of room for passing also.

[Super Dave]

Contact patch area does a lot less for the cars than downforce.


That ain't mechanical grip (contact patch), folks.

Put motorcycle tires on a car and see what happens.

[tshort]

Put motorcycle tires on a car and see what happens.

Uh - won't turn?  :-/
Fast off the line (assuming you widened the swing arm and forks)?  ;D
Look cool?  :)

[Old808]

Put motorcycle tires on a car and see what happens.

With downforce, they'll still corner faster than bikes.  It's just physics.

[Super Dave]

With downforce, they'll still corner faster than bikes.  It's just physics.

Right and with down force and less contact patch...

They will go slower.

It's just physics.

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

It's no secret that Ferrari wants Rossi in a MAJOR way.  That would be pretty cool.  I'd love to see the Doctor perform anal relaxation surgery on all those tight-@$$ed egomanipricks in F1.  Schumacher especially....

[Old808]

Right and with down force and less contact patch...

They will go slower.

It's just physics.

Nice spin.  :) But I believe the question was why F1 cars are so much faster than bikes.  You argued that it is the contact patch area that gives them the advantage.  No you're changing to compare cars with fat tire to cars with little tires.

OK, why is it a Viper GTR or someting equivalent doesn't beat a GP bike so badly around corners?  After all, the tires are huge.

And while you're explaining this, how much contact area is required to stick a car to the ceiling of a wind tunnel?  I believe an F1 car (with motorcycle tires) can achieve that with much less than 150 mph of relative wind (I need to check the exact number).

[Old808]

Here, I did a 10-second Google search that should end this.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurecar/article/0,20967,681879-2,00.html

You're welcome.  :)

[Mongo]

I have a vehicle with 400 HP, the handling of a 2004 Z06 and it will not do  lap quicker than an SS spec GSXR1k with fast drivers of each.  It's not contact patch.  Remember the test Schwantz did with the Vette vs the GSXR?  Same deal.  

[Steviebee]

vett's (street cars Z06, Vipers) dont have the downforce  that an F1 car has.  
that vette barley could pull 1 g.  cornering.  F1 cars can pull well past 3 g's  and even higher in some spots.

Thats 3X the force on the contact patch !!

The bikes have a hugh power/weight advantage over a street car.  Not so over an F1 car,  but since the F1 car has the aero advantage (A hole lot of downforce and still a low amount of drag)  it wins out.

[Super Dave]

vett's (street cars Z06, Vipers) dont have the downforce  that an F1 car has.  
that vette barley could pull 1 g.  cornering.  F1 cars can pull well past 3 g's  and even higher in some spots.

Thats 3X the force on the contact patch !!

The bikes have a hugh power/weight advantage over a street car.  Not so over an F1 car,  but since the F1 car has the aero advantage (A hole lot of downforce and still a low amount of drag)  it wins out.

Physics again...

400HP Vette...  Add the driver and the wieght...yeah, it isn't going to keep up with the GSXR1000, but how far off is it because of the extra contact patch...

[tzracer]

Compare the lap times of a car with and without its wings.

The downforce of a formula car is huge. I was at a shop a couple weeks ago. There was a formula atlantic car in the shop. The shop owner commented that the car created downforce equal to the weight of the car (so the total normal force would be twice the cars weight) at about 37 miles per hour.

The reason a formula car is faster is because it can brake harder and it can corner much faster. It can corner faster because it has more grip. The increased grip comes from more tire area on the ground and from downforce. But which is more important?

At the first GP at Indianapolis, the Ferraris were 20 mph slower than the Arrows (200 vs 220). Why? Because the Ferraris were running more downforce (more downforce, more drag - F1 cars have so much drag at 200 mph that lifting off the gas will result in something like 4g's of negative acceleration - before using the brakes). The Ferraris were 4 seconds per lap faster. The gain in lap time was due to the added downforce in the slower corners.

The conclusion, downforce is the largest contributing factor to formula cars having higher cornering speeds (when they want to slow formula cars - they try to take away downforce, not reduce contact patch - how much money do teams spend in the search of more downforce/ better aerodynamics? How many F1 teams have their own wind tunnels?).

[Old808]

To those who argue contact patch area yields more benefits than downforce in a F1 car:

You are surrounded.  Resistance is futile.  Come out with your hands up and your ego will be spared.  ;D

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

Downforce is the main thing.  When Colin Chapman came up with the idea of ground effects on his Lotus 78, the Lotus cars were unbeatable until everyone else caught up.  Still, an F1 car couldn't use it's available brakes, downforce, or acceleration without a large contact patch.  The large tires make it possible for downforce and acceleration to be useful.  Motorcycle sized contact patches would be overwhelmed by the forces that an F1 car can generate.
If you forced F1 cars to go back to the wingless cigar shape that they used in the Sixties, I think a MotoGP bike would beat them, even though the F1 cars have such big tires.  Without downforce, those cars would be undrivable.
Figure it this way.  If contact patch were the answer, wouldn't the MotoGP bikes have huge, fat tires?  That might cure wheelspin, but the things wouldn't turn then.
If only we could have downforce on motorcycles....

[EX#996]

If only we could have downforce on motorcycles....

K3, you already have downforce on the motorcycle....














.... more than most.   ;D

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

.... more than most.   ;D

Now THAT was just mean!

[EX#996]

Now THAT was just mean!

Just consider the source, Chris....

He's not far behind.   ;D    :-X  

Dawn   ;)

[251am]

  It was about a year ago in one of the British superbike mags, the ones with centerfolds, where an F2 car was compared to a Rizla Suzuki. Bike won.

[Sunny]

I'm willing to bet you can't find an example of that in the last 30 years.

I am not making this up.  They used to picked a race track and have a 500GP races a F1 and boardcast the race to demonstrated who is faster.  They don't start at the same grid line though as too close a racing would prove disastrous if the F1 wwas to be involved in a collision with the 500GP bike.  They are gridded not too far from each other if I remembered correctly.  It's set up to see if the trailing F1 can catch up and pass the bike or lose more ground.  I believe the last of this top racebike vs. top race car races I saw was in early 90's or late 80's.  The bike was still slightly faster then.

[tzracer]

The only direct comparison that I recall between a GP bike and an F1 car was done by Yamaha. Yamaha was supplying F1 engines at the time. The "race" was essentially a drag race including coming to a stop. The bike was faster until it was time to brake, the car could brake much harder than the bike. Overall it was close, about a draw.

As far as doing laps, I don't recall ever seeing a GP bike with a lap time lower than an F1 car at the same track in the same year. It is not even close.

In turn 1 at Indianapolis (trun 1 for the F1 track), the cars are at 200+mph slowing to about 85mph, they are not braking until about the 60m mark. It is amazing to watch.

[Sunny]

Hmmmmm.........  I guess I am the only one who saw the race around the track...........  I am pretty sure that it wasn't a dream.  I know for sure that nowadays' F1s are much faster than any bike, but it was reversed in the old day with no electronics gadgets helping the F1 drivers and the tire technologies weren't as good (F1s back then spun out/crash out quite often).

[Old808]

Hmmmmm.........  I guess I am the only one who saw the race around the track...........  I am pretty sure that it wasn't a dream.  I know for sure that nowadays' F1s are much faster than any bike, but it was reversed in the old day with no electronics gadgets helping the F1 drivers and the tire technologies weren't as good (F1s back then spun out/crash out quite often).

LOL @ the dream comment.  ;D

Remember this, though: a street bike today would whoop a GP bike from the old days.  Tire technology hasn't improved just for cars.  Not saying you're making stuff up, but I'll believe it when I see something more concrete.

[Sunny]

No problem, but I think I'll be able to dig the video out as I don't think anyone loaded stuffs like that on the internet back then.  Anyway, I am not eager to prove myself right like Dan.  It's ok with me if people don't believe that a 500GP was faster than a F1.  What matters is that F1 is truly undoubtably FASTER than any bikes now.   ;)