Casey Stoner versus F1 car versus "Supercar"

[PhilB]

Your comparison is a stretch at best. The dolphin doesn't have artificial enhancements added to how it stays within and moves through the ocean whereas the F1 and V8 Supercar have enhancements to artificially enhance traction. My contention is to remove that artificial grip and let's see what's what.

Aerodynamics is "artificial"? More so than any other aspect? They're manufactured machines. EVERYTHING about them is artificial. Singling out one design aspect as more artificial as the rest is silly.

PhilB

[shortbus]

Aerodynamics is "artificial"? More so than any other aspect? They're manufactured machines. EVERYTHING about them is artificial. Singling out one design aspect as more artificial as the rest is silly.

PhilB

[butcher bergs]

Aerodynamics is "artificial"? More so than any other aspect? They're manufactured machines. EVERYTHING about them is artificial. Singling out one design aspect as more artificial as the rest is silly.

PhilB

Yes. I believe I've plainly stated this 3 different ways...now going on 4.
The cars can be manipulated to artificially provide extended amounts of grip way beyond what gravity offers. The bike is always at the mercy of gravity and therfore cannot extend its available grip at any point in time or speed. Again, now in its 4th iteration, level that area of the playing field, run the test and see the results

[timmyho414]

we all know how downforce and arrow dynamics. I get your point it's just silly to do a "comparison" like that.

Top Gear and Richard Hammond tested a F1 car and at first couldn't drive it fast enough to get down force and kept spinning out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo

[xsiliconkid]

the only difference between a F1 car and a Fighter Jet is bigger tires and smaller wings.

[j4eric]

Stoner said it..." FEAR"

[breakdirt916]

let's see 'em drag race to 100!!!

wussup now bitches!!!!

[PhilB]

Yes. I believe I've plainly stated this 3 different ways...now going on 4.
The cars can be manipulated to artificially provide extended amounts of grip way beyond what gravity offers. The bike is always at the mercy of gravity and therfore cannot extend its available grip at any point in time or speed. Again, now in its 4th iteration, level that area of the playing field, run the test and see the results

So your contention is that air is more artificial than gravity. Nope. Both of those are natural phenomena. Using aerodynamics to increase traction is no more artificial than putting rubber tires on the wheels to increase traction. One of the inherent differences between 2 wheels and 4 is the vehicle dynamics. The 4-wheeler has an advantage in stability, which can be used to aerodynamic advantage. The 2-wheeler has advantages in weight and width.

So sure, get rid of the wings to even the playing field. Then put 2-foot outriggers on both sides of the bike to get rid of the width advantage it unfairly has, and add half a ton of ballast to get rid of the weight advantage it unfairly has, run the test and see the results.

PhilB

[Kurlon]

let's see 'em drag race to 100!!!

wussup now bitches!!!!

Agreed, if we're going to strip the aereo/etc, why bother even putting them on anything other than a drag strip? Hell, why even bother with that, lets just compare dynos taken at the crank and call it a day.

[butcher bergs]

I have not once stated to remove anything, add anything, modify anything. Those statements are 100% on you guys.
What I have stated several times over was to set the cars up so their down force is static...same as what the bike is limited to.

[-Dutch-]

So, different things are different and perform differently. Got it.

[golden chicken]

Speed Comparison: GT vs. F1: http://youtu.be/K2cNqaPSHv0

[Ductard]

How about GP Moto vs. F1 car on the moon??? With 1/3 the gravitational pull for both and zero down force for the F1 I think the Moto would have a chance. I'm pretty sure I knew all the answers to these navel-contemplation exercises when I was like 6. Although in my youth, I may have neglected to figure out how the engines (and drivers) would stay running with no oxygen.....

PS - joking aside, I think you guys are being too hard on Bergs. I find the question intriguing (Moto vs. Car with no down force) but it's no more valid/fair/artificial than say.....my sister's '89 ford escort vs an F1 (running on 1 cylinder) or me vs. Eric Wood (if he wasn't allowed to use his brakes....riding side saddle....on a moped....)