Moto GP VS Formula 1

[Revlis]

Well I made the assertion on a different thread that F1 Cars would spank the snot out of a GP bike.  Had to find evidence to support my claim...

Here we go, official Fastest laps from Sepang, the Malaysian GP...Times from 2002

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>MotoGP: Fastest lap 2:04.925</span>  Top Speed 305.2  Two different bikes.

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>Formula 1: Fastest lap 1:35.27</span> Top Speed 304 or right around there.  

I had a hard time finding concrete Top speed numbers for F1.

So that pretty much answers that.

 

[FredE]

It's not even close.....four large contact patches vs. two small ones. Formula 1 cars can carry WAY more corner speed than GP bikes, hence the huge disparity in lap times. I'm not so sure about top speed, or power-to-weight ratios....but I don't think the GP bikes hold too big an advantage (if any) there, either.

 

[ThunderPants]

Wow, I knew the F1 cars were fast but I had no idea they were that much faster. I guess they can get the power to the ground much better than the bikes and the corner speeds are way up but I didn't think it would be worth 30 seconds per lap. Shows how impressive those drivers really are.

 

[†WÃ￾§†ëD]

dood, where you get the glue? 4 tires dont mean snot when you have 5 times the weight, which means 5 times the enertia. also you find a moto gp bike that has a top speed of 300 and you found real good tube of glue, its easy to find lap times of the various tracks and circuts, it appears you have bad info, 30 seconds?

 

[Kento-Moto]

According to Greg White / Speed TV, thats the results, F1 is un-freakin-believable when it comes to gettin around a road course. avg lap time about 30 sec faster in a F1 car.

 

[Racer 222]

It helps if you don't think of the F1 cars as automobiles but Aircraft. There design helps them get the power to the ground and keep the tires from spinning up. Tons of horsepower generated from those "Planes"

Marc "Howlin Mad"

 

[Revlis]

dood, where you get the glue? 4 tires dont mean snot when you have 5 times the weight, which means 5 times the enertia. also you find a moto gp bike that has a top speed of 300 and you found real good tube of glue, its easy to find lap times of the various tracks and circuts, it appears you have bad info, 30 seconds?

Bah, †Wç†ëD, Check out F1.com and MotoGP.com  I am using best laps and tops speeds from 2002 (official results).  Same track.  I wasn't worried about top speeds and times being the same bike I was looking for outer limits regardless of particular machine...I am not just pulling number out of my ass...If it's SO easy to get this info go look for yourself and tell me I am wrong...Damn, I don't post stuff like this without doing my homework...give it a shot...

A couple of thoughts for you, to make you squirm...

1. Down force, and Aerodynamics.  Bike has neither.  Bikes are about as aerodynamic as a brick.

2. Power to weight, ability to use the power.  The bikes may have a slightly better power to weight ratio but the F1 cars can put all the power they have to use more often.  The differences in power to weight matter little.

As for the top speeds there sparky?  It's in KPH, remember those silly Europeans?   Oh and Tires mean everything... One F1 Tire prolly (I'm Guessing here) has about the same contact patch in surface area, as both MotoGP tires, Oh and the F1 cars do not wheelie...much...

 

[ThunderPants]

Yeah the downforce those cars make are unbelievable and the HP is incredible, somewhere around 800? The cars are limited to a minimum weight of 600 kg which includes the driver. I think this translates to around 1500 pounds which would mean a 2 lb per horsepower ratio. Which is about the same as a motogp bike with 220 hp and a bike with rider weighing around 500 or so pounds. The F1 cars can brake without fear of lifting the rear and the contact patches are huge. They carry huge corner speeds and get the power down much better. I am still amazed they go that much faster.

 

[†WÃ￾§†ëD]

yea kilometers I can beleive, but 30 seconds? and whos riding the gp bike? a two minute lap?

 

[SierraFlyer]

This is right. I did the numbers on the Busa and found we are better than a Turbo Porche by 2 to 1 in power to weight ratio. And we lose to a F1 car by the same 2 to 1. The GP bikes are about the same as F1 in power to weight. That being the same, the advantage goes to F1 because they can generate downforce - 4 G's worth - and that plants the tires on the pavement. Motorcycles only get 1G. F1 wins from better cornering speeds.

 

[ThunderPants]

Umm I would assume that lanky guy Valentino Rossi, he won almost all those races last year didn't he?

 

[Revlis]

yea kilometers I can beleive, but 30 seconds? and whos riding the gp bike? a two minute lap?

The Fastest lap was Max Biaggi. The high speed I am not sure of...

The fast lap for F1 Was Juan Pablo Montoya I think, may have been Schewy...

Sucks but it's true...What is really kinda spooky is that will apply to real world riding in some cases. Take a typical canyon road, Remove the traffic. Now add a 911 Turbo or say a Z06 Vette VS say a GSXR1000. Keeping in mind real world environmental conditions, such as tar strip, gravel in road, run off, blind corners etc. The Porsche or the Vette will very likely make it to the end first. Why? Simple, the dude in the car just has to stomp it and steer, he doesn't need to worry about all the dirty corners and less than ideal tarmac, it just doesn't matter. The dude on the bike has to take these things into consideration. And in the real world over say 6-7 miles the cager just might have the edge.

A magazine a few years ago did just this. ( I cannot remember which) They put a ZX9R up against a Viper. Up a closed canyon for 10-12 miles. There and back the Viper had quicker times by about 45 seconds per segment. Not a huge margin, but sobering none the less...

 

[†WÃ￾§†ëD]

well thats a 3.44 mile long track so it makes sense, and you are correct about the lap times. there is a lot of straights on that track, take seca or sears point, you wont see that margin....

 

[ThunderPants]

Rev, I remember reading about a car vs bike test. I think the bike was a YZF1000(not the R1). They could simply push the car much harder than the motorcyclist felt comfortable doing. Still its an interesting read.

 

[Revlis]

well thats a 3.44 mile long track so it makes sense, and you are correct about the lap times. there is a lot of straights on that track, take seca or sears point, you wont see that margin....

Well you are right, though the percentage of difference would probably be about the same... And from your lips to Ecclestones ears man, I would love to see F1 Race at Laguna Seca.

Just remember that the F1 cars gain their advantage in the corners, not so much the straights, so on a tighter curvier track the difference in times would be greater.

What it really comes down to though is that in 99% of the situations WE run into everyday, there is not a production car made that can even touch us...Period... Not until you reach about $250K plus do things get interesting...

 

[Revlis]

Rev, I remember reading about a car vs bike test. I think the bike was a YZF1000(not the R1). They could simply push the car much harder than the motorcyclist felt comfortable doing. Still its an interesting read.

Yeah OK, YZF1000. I cannot find it anywhere out there. It was a good read and you are right, it was just much easier for the cager to push harder. Wish I could find the article...I found this though...

 

[NotABusa]

Sent this post to a friend of mine, he brought up the point that if they spent 2.5 million on a bike, it would probably smoke the F-1 cars, it would weigh 200 lbs, put out 300 HP and a drag coefficient of .2 or .3. It would look nothing like today’s motorcycles do and be as unobtainable as an F1 car. MotoGP motorcycles (or some very close semblance) can be had for less than $30,000.

Conversely, you can drop 10 grand or so on a GSX-R 1000 and have the equivalent of a GT car. I think we got the Bang-for-the-Buck factor by far. That and in a flat out drag, 'busa takes all. Hell my 1989 supposedly did 0-60 in less than 3 seconds piloted by a much better rider than myself.

I'll take bike.

 

[ThunderPants]

Well the problem with 300 Hp is how to get it to the ground on a 200 pound bike? The rear would just be spinning way too much. The gp bikes now have more power than they can put to the ground in an effective way. Superbikes shred tires like crazy already, Mladin has chunked 3 this year. The horspepowere would come into play on long tracks only, like Daytona. How do you make downforce on a bike that is leaned over in a turn? Any downforce you would get would push the bike to the outside of a turn rather than down into the ground. I like the fact that motorcycle racing is as much the rider as it is the driver. Schumacher is an incredible driver but do you think he would have won all those championships driving a BAR or Arrows car? F1 is all about who can spend the most money on the most technology and research. Motorcyles are the same to a degree but look at Eric Bostrom running a 750 against the 1000's and putting it on the podium nearly every race. A better example is Rossi vs Hayden, same bike, same team but Rossi is lightyears ahead because of experience and that rare qulaity that makes great riders. I am not knocking Hayden, I want to see him succeed and he will when he gets this whole MotoGP thing figured out.

 

[ThunderPants]

 I like the fact that motorcycle racing is as much the rider as it is the driver.  

I meant to say the rider is as much a factor as the bike.

 

[Charlesbusa]

4 wheels vs 2 wheels................Its like comparing apples to oranges