KneeDragonR1

mmaragos,
Good point. If the bike is directly PULLING against the force of gravity, it would be pretty slow.

I am glad someone is joining in on the fun.

KneeDragonR1

GlennStile

1. No , it was tested with a g-tech which compensates for this.
2. don't blame me for you ignorance of the English language, get back to school you moron.
3. there are quite a few but that's not common, I noticed you quietly ignored your stupid point of 2 friends having the same car makes it common when I point out 2 people who have untima's, what about RX7's are they common as well ?? plenty of people on here with them, they must be everywhere.
4. classic losers strategy , when you lose and argument start with the spell/grammar checking.
5. no I haven't tested a yugo
6. I didn't ride the bike, usually the owners do or we use our test guy for a fair comparison
7. no everything on the internet is not true.
8. I said 1.47 not 1.24 , your pegs would have to be up your **** with your head.
9. still available from dealers
10. correct, because its safe, so you don't slide off because the tyres have no grip.
11. I never said the 200ft is mandatory I said it was usual, back to school again, take some reading lessons
12. of course camber needs to be factored in, how many skid pans have you seen with a camber, none, because it will change the impact area of the tyre.
13. which dealer , in which country , with which tyres? they are not all set-up the same.
14. sitting on the ground,
15. really! anti gravity suits did you get that from star trek.
16. It is the only 100% accurate way to test continuous lateral acceleration.


"My god you are finally right!, but only those cars that can go faster than a bike pulling +1.2Gs"

I have nothing to defend, you have said it all in this final sentence. I am right, the Elise I was in pulled over 1.2g. 1.47 to be exact to would be faster than a bike around the corner.

I should mention that I actually make and design parts for Harris including steering dampers and peg raising brackets and we recommend that they should really only be used on the track with racing tyres due to the fact that road legal rubber cannot handle more than 1g. This figure does rise in certain conditions i.e. hot day, warm (not hot) tyres but its a small range.

KneeDragonR1

Okay stop now before you display any more technical ineptitude: Homework for Glennie-

1. Read a physics book. Any of them will do. Then report back as to why it would it would be ignorant to compare instantaneous Gs of a Lotus (1.47) to constant Gs of a bike (1.2).

2. (~0.93G Lotus) - (+1.2G Bike) = Faster Lotus? You can do the math.

3. Read the chapter on lean angle of a single track vehicle relative to camber and complete this sentence.
Camber is A. Directly proportional B.Inversly proportional. Why?


I took your advice and went to school and found out even in UK "allot" means to ration or allocate. You could allot a lot or allot a little. Either way you allot you could learn a lot.

So are you the bloke at Harris that takes out the trash or mops the floors? Obviously you do not really design because have no technical knowledge or background. But if you do you homework you can make you dream of being an engineer. What are you about 15-16 years old?

Save your old posts so when you actually know physics you can see how much you learned.


KneeDragonR1

GlennStile

This is totally ridiculous , you just ignore what I tell you or twist it to suit your warped ideas.

You keep going on about this instantaneous reading as if it is the only bend that car has ever seen. I used it as a simple example of what is possible from a good street car not as the be all and end all of car handling.

You keep quoting that a bike can pull 1.2 g continuous, ok a race bike can but its on the limit. but this is not comparing like for like.

you are comparing a race bike with non road legal rubber to a street car, how about you compare a race bike to a race car and a street bike to a street car.

ok so I mad a mistake and put allot when I meant a lot big deal, your obsession with pointing out irrelevant errors just goes to show you are loosing the argument.

actually I don't work for Harris directly, I am contracted to design parts to their requirements and then CNC machine them but I work in house and at my own facilities, don't start talking to me about technical knowledge Mr "anti gravity suit" you have spent all this time fixating on irrelevant issues and twisting facts, I have yet to hear anything technical from you.

as to my age and qualifications, well I don't like to blow my own trumpet but. I have a masters degree in computer science, a bachelors in mechanical engineering both from Cambridge universities I have been building bespoke turbo installations for 10+ years on bikes and cars as well as developing and building my own ECU's and re-mapping OEM units. I have also worked as a plastic mould tool designer 7 years and used just about every type of CNC machinery at on time or another. I could go on but I think this proves my credentials as an engineer.

what about you ?

sneakyasian

I've seen R6's run 10.7 second 1/4 miles, stock. the same night my friends 3rd gen ran a 9.7 while power sliding right then left, in third and fourth shifts. he's got 600 hp measured on his dyno. so I'd say 550 would do the trick with a 150lb rider who is decent.
The twisties would very on how hard the bike wants to push. not many bike riders would try to pass a car being pushed to the limits, on the streets.

sneakyasian

sorry I didn't see how long this thread was, I was just responding to the first part. MY BAD

West TX RX-7

Something that was not mentioned is drag coefficient. The drag of a motorcycle is 2 to 3 times more than a sports car. .30 for the car vs .50 to .90 for a bike with rider depending on the bike and how big the rider is and how well he is tucked in.

That makes a huge difference even at 60 mph.

SPOautos

The curve of acceleration isnt that big a deal because the distance of travel is also affected by the acceleration curve. If your a dog out of the hole its not going to affect your mph cause you havent used up much of the track.

Similar to the way I trap 125, I can spin the tires off and run a 15 @ 125 or I can throw on some slicks and run high 10's @ 125. The mph can be compared from one car to another within reason.

And if you would like to compare ET instead they both ran mid/high 11's but mph is what is used to calculate the power and can normally be compared from vehicle to vehicle.

STEPHEN

Ibnso

Reading all this between Glennstile and KneeDragonR1 I was just wondering what the corner speed is for 1g? Reading your argument one can only assume that the bike and car will both be doing the same speed at the same g force, otherwise the argument would seem pretty irrelevant to the thread.

TIA

mdouble

Hmmm just curious, but how do they measure the g-forces on a bike? I can understand in a car because it remains pretty much the same position relative to the road, but a bike varies lean angle. So, is there a way to work out lateral G force if you know the lean angle, speed and G force downward through the chassis (if the bike was vertical). Hmm I think that makes sense. It does remind me of a physics class I did

Mat.

KneeDragonR1

Check your numbers, but you are conceptually correct.

The drag coefficient is larger on a bike, but the frontal area is less. Drag = coefficient x the frontal area. Bikes actually have less aerodynamic drag.

However wind resistance is more unfavorable to bikes, but because they generally have less power than a car. For a bike to run a 10 sec 1/4 mile, ~120 rwhp. A car will take significantly more.

That same 120 hp will not push the bike much over 165mph while the 10, 11, 12… second car has no problem. There is 2X more drag for the car, but 5X more power.


KneeDragonR1

KneeDragonR1

You are 100% Correct.

In short 45 degree = 1g


It is very simple. A bike that is leaning will show how much centrifugal force is needed to balance with the lateral gs forcing out. If the bike is straight up 90 degrees, g = 0 because there is no lean (or roll) and no lateral. If the bike is at 45 degrees the centrifugal force pushing in is exactly equal with the gravity. g=1. Do an internet query for the equation of velocity, roll angle, radius, and lateral gs. I do not remember the formula.

The roll angle must account for the rider and bike as a single unit. If the rider is hanging off the inside of the bike he will alter the center of gravity allowing the bike to have less lean at a given speed. The same is true on a bicycle.

Roll angle is calculated by drawing a line through the center of gravity of the rider/bike to the tire contact patch. This is taken in relation to the road thus nullifying camber.

This method is only relevant if the bike roll angle is static. The bike is still turning and going forward, but not changing lean angle or velocity. If the bike lean angle is changing it is like standing on a scale and jumping up and down. Your numbers will be crap.


KneeDragonR1

KneeDragonR1

I see you neglected you homework.

'Twist to suit'? I read your post and pick out things that are based on a faulty premise or personal observations represented as fact.

My technical facts are just that, facts that can be supported by data (you have amassed much data), but can use mathematical substantiation.

'Irrelevant errors' like, ‘You can get this car from the factory’, ‘You cannot exceed X.Xgs on street tires’, ‘The common yet uncommon Lotus’ are good representations that you lack a basic understanding of fact vs. observation.

I think I already derived this, but a stock bike (I just used mine because I knew the stock lean angle) at 53 degrees can drag pegs on a continuous radius without changing roll angle. This means a continuous lateral force. If you apply these numbers you get 1.24gs. I neglected rider position/ after market pegs because this would drive the number up. 1.2 is not a magic number. Gixxer, CBR/SP2, Duc… may be higher or lower, I really do not know. Even though 1.24 is below the actual limit, that is what can be proven. Anything higher would be unsubstantiated.

Tires are nothing special, Dunlop 207, Metzler M1, Bridgestone BT10s, Pilot Sport etc.
About ‘allot’, I got bored after pointing out ~15 observations touted as mathematical or otherwise fact. Although they were all individually erroneous, noting the same type of problem became redundant. That was pretty funny you told me to go to school, but I had to explain ‘allot’ to you twice before you figured it out.
I am confused why I would need an anti-gravity suit to corner a bike. Lateral gs are directly proportional to lean angle. I already explained how to derive this.

I am honestly surprised about instantaneous and continuous gs. It sounds like you have a very loose grasp of the difference. Why would I make a big deal, because it is a huge deal. I already tried once to explain by using the jump on a scale reference of continuous gs vs. instantaneous gs. Kinetic vs. Potential?

I would not like to ‘blow my own trumpet’ either if I had such a poor understanding of high school physics and frequently claimed personal experience as indisputable laws of nature. Masters degree? I greatly overestimated you. I thought you just did not have the schooling for technical thinking. Keep hitting those books.


KneeDragonR1

BadAssRX-7

i would think its all a power to weight plus gearing... you do a 100 hp bike @600# thats 6 # per hp now do a car. say a fb 2200# @105hp thats 20.95....# per hp then you have gearing...
so you get a 2200# car making 350 hp your gonna have about 6.28# per hp

GlennStile

Ii cannot be bothered with you any more, you are a total Muppet.

I have understood everything you have said its just a shame that most of it is crap. You say I have made ~15 errors, more rubbish, those points included your own meaningless claptrap like "have you tested a yugo" and "they use anti gravity suits". it's things like that, that have shown you to be a completely incompetent fool.

As I have said there are many lotus elises around but they are not common.

You cannot pull 1.2 g on street tires FACT, if you say otherwise you are simply WRONG, lying or deluded.

You can still get the Elise sport from the factory but its at request.

All I have wanted to point out is that a car will corner faster than a bike, this is a fact, proven time and time again by many many people. if you want us to believe that your bike can pull 1.2g on standard rubber your going o have to prove it and you haven't, you have simply rambled on pointing out meaningless mistakes i.e. ALLOT.

you are now trying to degrade my qualifications etc but I see you have yet to tell us yours, you only accomplishment seems to have been to buy an R1 and spout fictional "data", where exactly is your supporting data you say you have?

I don't believe I have ever come across someone so ignorant or arrogant, why don't you take you mystical bike with its ever gripping road tyres to your local track and impress the developers with your anti-grav suit, im sure they will be amazed to see how you have accomplished this when they can only just do it with their fully race prepared bikes.

KneeDragonR1

j

KneeDragonR1

Cannot be bothered anymore? That sounds like loser talk to me. Look what we have already learned:

The difference between Inst and Con gs
Lotus factory announced they would not be making the Sport Elise anymore
Despite earlier claims, there is more than the 200 ft circle method to find g-force
Cornering force of a bike in static lean using roll angle: tanq = lat g; q = roll angle degree
Unsupported generalizations are usually false, “the best handleing road bikes and have only ever seen 0.96 max”
G data: Lotus Elise by Road and Track = 0.91 Bike data from Glenn 0.96
Simply saying something is fact is not proof
Observed lean angle applied to physics laws of nature is proof
Glenn gets very cranky when he is repeatedly proven wrong


Further clarification:
Could Glenn’s statement, “1.2g is about the max for a race bike” be true AND a street bike lean over enough to drag elbows? For both to be true there must be a logical explanation. An anti-gravity suit was the best argument I could make to support the statement. By faulting the argument, Glenn is unknowingly finding fault in his own statement.




KneeDragonR1
Honest officer, that is not my "j"

GlennStile

"The difference between Inst and Con gs
Lotus factory announced they would not be making the Sport Elise anymore"

They will still build them on request, the reason they are not offering them as openly as before is
simply due to emission regulations but they will still build you one and have it SVA'd and are still
available from dealers.

"Despite earlier claims, there is more than the 200 ft circle method to find g-force"

I did not say this was the only method, I said it was the usual method of testing a vehicle.

"Cornering force of a bike in static lean using roll angle: tanq = lat g; q = roll angle degree"

I have not disputed that this is true, I have disputed that it is not an accurate nor appropriate test due to the fact it cannot be constant. You seem to think that because a bike can physically be held at 53 degrees that you can corner like this, if your bike is set-up so the peg touches road at 53 degrees how long can you hold it there, not bloody long since the peg will grind, upset the bike at which point you must lift or crash.

but, I hear you say "I would be on my knee sliders" true but then you would not be at full 53 degree lean.


"Unsupported generalizations are usually false, ?the best handleing road bikes and have only ever seen 0.96 max?"

Not unsupported, tested. I am dealing with generalisations due to the fact that we are not comparing and specific cars/bikes and the fact you are comparing road cars to race bikes.

"G data: Lotus Elise by Road and Track = 0.91 Bike data from Glenn 0.96"

Strange , I have just had a look on the road and track site and they have the Elise measured at 0.97g in their tests, so I guess your wrong again.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...?ArticleID=224


"Simply saying something is fact is not proof"

im glad you have noticed, perhaps you will stop doing this now.

"Observed lean angle applied to physics laws of nature is proof"

humm , how did you observe this lean angle ?? what measuring equipment did you uses exactly ? a tape measure on your TV screen ? or do you stop mid corner in your anti-grav suit jump off and measure the lean with your high school protractor ?

"Glenn gets very cranky when he is repeatedly proven wrong"

how exactly have you proven me wrong ? a car will corner faster than a bike FACT, a race car can pull 4g compered to a race bike pulling <1.3g.

you seem to have totally given up on road bikes, I suspect that this is because you are struggling to find anything higher than 0.96g that I have measured on a GSXR6 yet road cars will exceed this as the road and track article shows.


"Further clarification:
Could Glenn?s statement, ?1.2g is about the max for a race bike? be true AND a street bike lean over enough to drag elbows? For both to be true there must be a logical explanation. An anti-gravity suit was the best argument I could make to support the statement. By faulting the argument, Glenn is unknowingly finding fault in his own statement. "

They are not both true. 1.2g is about the max for a race bike, but, I did not say that a street bike could lean enough to drag elbows. By stating that an anti-gravity suit was your best argument you are effectively stating that you are a lire and proving this by accusing me of making such a statement.

You still haven't told us your qualifications, im assuming your still in high school since all you seem to be able to refer to is high school physics which although correct do not tell the whole story.

KneeDragonR1

Thank you for pointing that article out. Road and Track’s data, like all empirical data is subject to inconsistencies. Road surface, temp, tires, and the likes. Do an internet query, they do claim 0.97. They also claim 0.87. They also claim 0.91, 0.89...

0.91 is still a valid quote.

The better part of the article is Lotus vs. Z06 skid pad. The Vette pulled more lateral on the skid pad than the Elise. The Z06 has also gone head to head with the Gixxer1K -Motorcyclist magazine On a road course: Entry speed, exit speed, straight, lap time and mid corner were all faster on the Gixxer. FWIW the Gix also won Ľ mile and 0-100-0

“Fact: I have pulled 1.47lateral g in a lotus elise, you will not do this on a bike.”
If the Vette can out do the Lotus, and the Gix can out do the Vette…

Changing the topic to F1 and credentials because you cannot support, “Fact: I have pulled…”, “Fact 1.2 is the max…”, or other creative ‘facts’ is one means of debate but does not support your claim.

The problem is several faulty premises that I have repeatedly disproved through experience, technical data and mathematical explanation. If you understood dynamics of a cornering bike and car, it would be much easier for you. Your idea of, '4 tires are more than 2, so the car corners better' is not dynamics.' It is barely subtraction.

I like your technique of changing facts, i.e. a street bike on street tires dragging page or elbows is a race bike? If a bike leaves a continuous 30ft-grazing arc of peg, it crashed? 190 hp standard (if you special order it from a factory that claims they do not make it.

“I did not say this was the only method”, but “you must time the vehicle traveling round a circle of a specfic diameter”
Not the only method, but you must do it this way?

Now that you are still wrong, I am not interested in a battle of credentials. I ignored your initial request for because degrees are a superficial means to display purchased knowledge, but at your request I will. I graduated from Georgia Tech with a physics and a ChemE degree. Then I went north to MIT for my PhD in Dynamics Energy Conversion.

I am board with, “Fact…” (no support), “My testing…” (data is not fact), self-contradictions, ‘You must do it this way, but it is not the only way.’

No engineer would ever subscribe to the ‘Fact’ based logic you have dished out. Someday when you can proclaim a premise, provide support data, extrapolate inferences, and prove a fact mathematically or otherwise your opinion might be worth my time.


KneeDragonR1

West TX RX-7

I'm still a little unsure about that. Take plane for example. A passenger plane. Isn't it much more efficient than a bike that is 50X smaller? I was remembering reading somewhere about the air moving around the bike and swirling around the front tire area causing alot of drag, much more so than an aircraft and more so than a passenger car. I wish i could remember where I read that. It was on motorcycle.com about 4 years ago.

Oh it also had to do with the back of the bike and the windmoving around the front and then back together at the rear end.

Flyinbiya

kneefaggot said=
{The drag coefficient is larger on a bike, but the frontal area is less. Drag = coefficient x the frontal area. Bikes actually have less aerodynamic drag.}

Do your research boy!bikes have way more areodynamic drag !There are to many places wind can get trapped on a bike ,not to mention the big thing sticking off the top off it !even if they are tucked in all nice and neat!!! still has more drag !

KneeDragonR1

I did my research. I am still right:
FD = CD 0.5 A v2

FD = Drag force, (Newton).
CD = Drag coefficient, (N/ m2)
= Air density, (kg/m3)
A = Frontal area,(m2)
v = Velocity (m/s)


Disregarding mechanical losses, drag can be measured by how much drag force is on a vehicle at a given speed. A stock 7 uses all power (225rwhp) to hold a speed of 160 mph. A modern 600 sportbike will require 100hp to maintain 160mph. There is more than 2X more drag force on the 7. Just as Flyinbiya so astutely said, "way more." He just confused his nouns.


West TX RX-7,
You are on the next chapter of aero. The thing about the tail is laminar flow. Basically vehicles create air turbulence in the wake. This creates a vacuum and increases drag, but this increase can be determined through testing. See 160mph above.

I do not know about the airplane reference, unless they were neglecting frontal area. In which case they are only comparing drag coefficient. Drag coefficient is absolutely worthless unless you tie an area to it. With no area but a barn door CD 1.00, drag force is still 0

Exposed front tires a not a good thing, but as we can see from real world evidence, it does not make a difference for our purpose.

ErnieT

iTrader: (2)

Jason,
I smoked bikes all time including R6's, ZX6Rs, and a CBR 929 top end. I was running 28lbs of boost with race gas, but I did smoke the **** out him. He was very pissed. Get yourself a pretty big single turbo, some race gas, turn up the boost and his *** is yours!

KneeDragonR1

4 autocrosses and 2 trackdays.

You’ll smoke almost every rider in the twisties.

KneeDragonR1

ErnieT,
Have you ever used a GPS to calculate top speed? You must be at least over 180mph. Me likes.