Nonsense. Hollywood has shown us, automobiles, like bikes, can simply divert through the sidewalk cafe if necessary.
But seriously IANARacer - I had a Honda CX500, a moderately heavy bike for its power, and pretty stable. I got very nervous the few times I exceeded 90mph. It just seemed unstable. Whereas, in a BMW or Audi, I could often do 200kph (120mph) on remote flat highways and feel in control.
IMHO, For the initial take-off, a motorcycle will beat a car almost always. In longer runs, without obstacles, I would think the car could win, but maneuverability s a greater asset for a bike. Plus, maneuvers where cars bump each other in a chase would be lethal at speed on a motorcycle.
But then, Hollywood in Electric Horseman shows a horse outrunning police cars. So with the right stunt double, anything is possible.
Some bikes are better than others. Thirty years ago I was on a Harley Davidson Sportster 883 that threatened to go into tankslapper as I approached 85 MPH. More recently, I had a BMW R1100RT at 125 MPH (its top speed), and it felt rock-solid.
Questioning the slipping. To take a real-world example, BMW’s S1000RR has 205 horsepower and can hit 197 MPH. If 90% of the power is making it to the rear wheel, then the tractive force is only 351 pounds. Assuming a 200-lb rider on a 440-pound bike, that force is only enough for about half a G of accel from a standing start.
That said, yes, the tire will be running pretty damn hot if you spend any time at that speed, and so might be a bit gooey. Not from the traction force so much, but mainly from the sidewall/tread flex every time the tire completes a rev. You can warm up a tire significantly at lower speeds even when it’s not slipping.
I’m not a biker but IIRC even I’ve heard of those bikes specifically because they the creme de la creme, aren’t they? And if we are in that territory we should be comparing with cars that are going to be 200mph+.
The “Ghost Rider” is in the Guinness Book of World Records for a 215-mph wheelie on a turbo Suzuki Hayabusa, so it’s pretty clear 186 is not the top speed. Possibly some “adjustments” were made. His average speed in heavy traffic was around 170.
I have noticed motorcycles pass by me quicker on the highway. Perhaps because they’re accelerating hard. I automatically ease off on the gas. (Drivers Ed training)
Cars and trucks take much longer to complete a pass. I’ve had to break so they can move over before approaching a blind hill or curve.
If that bike has a turbocharger, then yes, some adjustments were made; a turbo is not the norm for a Hayabusa. 186 is the top speed for one straight out of the showroom only because it’s governed. It’s a bloody big engine, 1.3 liters, and yes there’s definitely more speed available if you bypass the governor, as some folks do. And if you add a turbo, you’ll get a lot more.
Depends what your criteria are. If the constraint is “mass-produced vehicles a middle-class American can afford and identify with,” then that limits what cars you can choose, but it still means pretty much any motorcycle. The S1000RR and Hayabusa are each about $18,000 - expensive as bikes go, but still within reach for the average schmoe. If you really do want top-performance hypercars, price be damned, then yes - there are plenty that can go well over 200 MPH without modifications.
It depends on the motorcycle. I have a Honda Nighthawk 750 that accelerates like a bat out of hell at low speeds, but at highway speeds I would have to accelerate hard to pass someone quickly at highway speeds. I also have a Harley Dyna Wide Glide (1320) that, between the larger and much more powerful engine and also significantly different gearing, will zip right around you on the highway with very little effort.
Think of it this way. if I’m on the Harley, I’m on a motorcycle that weights somewhere around 800 lbs with basically a 1.3 liter engine. There’s a good chance you’re in a car that weights over 2500 lbs with somewhere between a 1.5 and 2.0 liter engine. My power to weight ratio is easily more than double what yours is. I don’t have to hit the throttle anywhere near as hard to get the same amount of acceleration.
I tend to pass people quickly on the highway too. The reason isn’t because I want to go fast. The reason is that I’m paranoid that you’ll hit me. Car drivers look for cars. A motorcycle isn’t a car, so car drivers have a natural tendency to ignore them.
At least here in the USA, once you get out of the basic around-town delivery / commuter bikes, it seems there are rather few bike equivalents of the ubiquitous Toyota Camry. Which represent the great bulk of cars.
So while cars that can accelerate smartly to 150+mph are WAG 2% of the car fleet, they might be 40% of the motorcycle fleet.
So if the question is “Can a top 2% bike keep up with a top 2% car on a clear highway” the answer IMO is “Probably. Assuming the rider is the more skilled / braver of the two operators.”
But if the question is “Can a 30th percentile bike keep up with a 30th percentile car on a clear highway?” the answer IMO is “The car stands zero chance from the git-go even with an ordinary Schmoe as the rider.”
My daughter had a friend in high-school who drove the local cops nuts with his dirt bike. He would ride it (unlicensed) on the roads. When the police would attempt to pull him over, he would flee. If they got too close, he’d turn into a field and disappear. The police would go to his home, but his dad would cover for him, “couldn’t be my son, he’s in Ohio visiting his aunt” sort of thing. “Well then, where is his motorcycle?” “He lent it to a friend.”
The Suzuki isn’t even $19K new and has been around for nearly 25 years without much changes (the BMW is even less.). I think you should be comparing it to a $19K “sports car”
Motorcycles clearly have the advantage in the performance/dollar metric.
No. That’s not how it is at all. I used to be a regular participant of track riding days and while I never owned a bike that could get above 150 on any regular length straight, there’s no shortage of bikes that were going well faster without any rear wheel slip. And the bikes are much faster and more powerful now. There’s no shortage of YouTube videos of people easily doing 180-200 mph for extended periods without control problems and without destroying the rear tire.
And that’s not talking about race bikes, which up until recently had no significant aero devices yet still go in excess of 220 mph every lap for an hour.
I can only provide a cite in German, my Google Fu is not good enough in English to find the right search criteria, but you can translate it with deepl(dot)com. From the magazine Motorrad, the leading motorcycle magazine in German. The relevant part:
Hohes Tempo stellt Fahrer wie Reifen unter enormen Stress. Die kleine Kontaktfläche am Hinterreifen muss für mehrere Minuten die volle Leistung von über 180 PS übertragen. Das führt zu Schlupf: Der Reifen rutscht permanent leicht durch und legt somit eine größere Strecke zurück als das gesamte Motorrad ein aufreibender Job. So zeigt das Datarecording bei echten 306 km/h eine Umfangsgeschwindigkeit am Hinterradreifen von 314 km/h.
High speed puts both driver and tyre under enormous stress. The small contact area on the rear tyre has to transmit the full power of over 180 hp for several minutes. This leads to slippage: the tyre constantly slips slightly and thus covers a greater distance than the entire motorbike - a gruelling job. Thus, at a real 306 km/h, the data recording shows a circumferential speed at the rear tyre of 314 km/h. (Damn, this deepl is not bad)
306 → 314 km is a slippage of over 2%, that is more than 20 m per kilometer. The photo in the article (about half way through, where the cite is taken from too) shows the consequences for the tire. And 306 km/h is just under 200 MPH.
Note that in that article, they call out that they felt like that tire wear was not appropriate and Dunlop asked for it back to examine it, as it was rated for that speed.
The ZZR 1400 in particular envelops its driver in a deceptive sense of security. It is unspectacularly fast, pushes without end up to a real 306 km/h.
Dunlop is currently examining the test tire, and a statement will follow shortly.
But in general, 1-2% of tire slip is normal under hard acceleration. It’s not intuitive, but tire grip peaks after the point where the tire starts to experience slip. In a turn, for a sport tire, grip peaks somewhere between 5 and 10 percent slip.
At any rate, I stand by my original point. People take their bikes to the track all the time and experience speeds of 175+ for multiple laps without issue on DOT approved tires. Race tires will do laps with top speeds well above 215-220 mph for 45 minutes or more.
I don’t think we really disagree: we both say that slip occurs and that 200 MPH is crazy fast. I doubt that anyone goes that fast except on a straight line, so the average speed on a circuit will be slower: here is the MotoGP race in Valencia last year, the averge speed for the winner is 156.8 km/h or 100 MPH (other races were marginally faster). Still crazy fast: those machines are much faster than when I was young, I would shit my pants in them today. But to each his own. As long as they don’t try it on a public road it’s fine by me. When you write
Precisely: that is for under 200 miles in total. And soon you need new tires. It is an expensive hobby. Something was wrong with that Dunlop in the article: even for those speeds the degradation was too fast and too extreme. But at those speeds motorcycle tires cannot last long.
Concerning the original OP question: motorcycles run around 100 MPH on average on closed circuits, Formula 1 cars run around 200 km/h, so in those circumstances the cars are faster. In real traffic conditions motorcycles should be faster, but much scarier.
I recall an article (around 1990?) that mentioned that in Ontario, there was a category of motorcycle that was impossible to insure (and hence, to drive - legally). These pocket rockets were the top end bikes over 1000cc specifically designed for excessive speed and acceleration. One of the reasons for the insurance problem was the mentality of the typical owner - the insurance companies thought men (typically) who wanted to own an excessively powerful motorbike also had the aggressive driving nature that made accidents inevitable.
Not sure if or when this changed or whether such bikes still have problems with insurance.
Don’t know the about Canada, but around Y2K, many manufacturers were concerned enough about the prospect of regulations or bans in Europe that they agreed to limit the top speed of their bikes to a paltry 186 MPH:
Was thinking the same thing kayaker. Had a Yamaha 490 IT. It was crazy quick. Now your not going to hit a 100 mph, but you can go damn near anywhere if your a good rider.
It is, but as a “gentleman’s agreement” they all ignore it on occasion for limited models like the BMW HP4, Kawasaki H2, Ducati Superlegerra and such. The top shelf stuff is out of reach of the 20-somethings that buy liter-bikes for a few grand can afford. The old guys that buy the really fast stuff typically use them for garage/office art. I knew someone in Chicago who had a hallway full of Ducati sport bikes.
