Car vs Bike : Which wastes a larger % of it's power?

[Shan2nu]

This thread was started as a result of numerous posts, which went off topic on another thread.

On an average, a bike wastes almost twice as much power (due to traction loss) than a car.

MotoGP Bike - 1700bhp/ton
F1 Car - 1500bhp/ton

And yet, the car is 20 secs quicker per lap.

Shan2nu

[Rtech]

On an average, a bike wastes almost twice as much power (due to traction loss) than a car.
MotoGP Bike - 1700bhp/ton
F1 Car - 1500bhp/ton
And yet, the car is 20 secs quicker per lap.

I think the term "wasting power" is incorrect. A car is much quicker because it has four huge tyres at each corner plus ground effects that let it stick to the road around corners. Bikes don't have either. Take just the wings off a F1 car and lets see how it performs.

When it comes down to it, on a bike, the rider is 90% of the equation while in a car, the driver maybe barely 50%. A car is more forgiving of errors, it manages weight transfer during braking, shifting and accelerating better, and can basically cover a lot of mistakes of the driver. On a bike, you mess up on any of these things and the bike will bite back.

[Shan2nu]

I think the term "wasting power" is incorrect. A car is much quicker because it has four huge tyres at each corner plus ground effects that let it stick to the road around corners. Bikes don't have either. Take just the wings off a F1 car and lets see how it performs.

LOL. Whichever way u look at it, it's wasting power. Why do you wanna handicap a car? Why not try n improve the bike?

Thats like saying "Remove the wings off a jet fighter and then lets see him try n beat an F1 car".

A car is much quicker because it has four huge tyres at each corner

I think thats why we refer to it, as a "CAR". If it had 2 wheels, it would have been a bike.

Bikes don't have either.

Thats exactly the point. It's the design that makes it slower around a track and makes it waste more power. Similarly, it's the design of the jet fighter, that makes it faster than a car. U just gotta accept some things the way they are, atleast until someone redesigns them for the better.

Shan2nu

[Shan2nu]

what you are saying is that you need half a million dollar car to be able to compete with a 10,000$ bike! Yea, thats a fair comparision alright.

And what you've proven, is that it takes a bike 8 times the power to weight ratio to beat a car.

And why does it need that extra PTWR? Bcoz it wastes most of it.

Ok, how about this.

Hyosung Comet - 200bhp/ton vs Honda CR-V - 100bhp/ton

or

RD350 - 213bhp/ton vs OHC Vtec - 107bhp/ton

around Sriperembudur................

One has twice the power to weight ratio, the other has twice the number of tyres.

Place your bets.

Shan2nu

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Hyosung Comet - 200bhp/ton vs Honda CR-V - 100bhp/ton

or

RD350 - 213bhp/ton vs OHC Vtec - 107bhp/ton

around Sriperembudur................

One has twice the power to weight ratio, the other has twice the number of tyres.

Place your bets.

Is someone actually doing this, or is this all just talk as usual?

Personally I'd love to see Comet vs CR-V.

Originally Posted by BUSA

As far the bet is concerned those bikes are no match for a HONDA, Period

FYI, your precious HONDA SBKs couldn't lap a Yamaha RX100 on track, so stop tom-tomming. We all respect Honda engineering, but I'm not so sure about you...or your name would be Blackbird, not BUSA, which FYI is a I4 1300 from Suzuki, just like the Swift and the Esteem.

Jeez...get a life....

[Rtech]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

LOL. Whichever way u look at it, it's wasting power. Why do you wanna handicap a car? Why not try n improve the bike?

Thats like saying "Remove the wings off a jet fighter and then lets see him try n beat an F1 car".

I think thats why we refer to it, as a "CAR". If it had 2 wheels, it would have been a bike.

Thats exactly the point. It's the design that makes it slower around a track and makes it waste more power. Similarly, it's the design of the jet fighter, that makes it faster than a car. U just gotta accept some things the way they are, atleast until someone redesigns them for the better.

Shan2nu

Shan, please understand what you're saying. I didn't argue that the inherant design of a bike (i.e. 2 wheels) would mean its corner speeds are less than a car. But what you seem to be saying is that a bike is a bad design because even though it has a higher power to weight ratio, its still slower around a track, hence it is "wasting power! Well thats BS!

If you want to test "POWER", take it one a drag strip. On the circuit, your testing a vehicle's handling characteristics, and obviously 2 wheels would produce less grip than 4!

And what you've proven, is that it takes a bike 8 times the power to weight ratio to beat a car.

And why does it need that extra PTWR? Bcoz it wastes most of it.

You see, that that point of your's shows is that you consider P-2-W ratio as power. Thats wrong. You want to judge its power you look at the output.

A basic 7,000$ 600cc bike puts out about 105-110hp at the wheel. It does a 0-100 in less than 3.5 secs or less.
A basic 20,000$ car would put out maybe 150 hp from a 2,000cc engine. It would do the 0-100 in about 8 seconds or so.

Now which one wasting power....

Why do you wanna handicap a car? Why not try n improve the bike?

No need, I think a car is handicapped anyway!

[Shan2nu]

But what you seem to be saying is that a bike is a bad design because even though it has a higher power to weight ratio, its still slower around a track, hence it is "wasting power! Well thats BS!

Nah dude, i never said bad. I'm just saying that certain designs have their flaws.

Cars are more expensive
Cars guzzle more gas
Cars take more space

In the same way

Bikes waste more power
Bikes can't corner as quick
Bikes can't match cars with similar power to weight ratio.

You see, that that point of your's shows is that you consider P-2-W ratio as power. Thats wrong. You want to judge its power you look at the output.

Power to weight is not power. Power to weight is used to pit 2 equal machines. Moreover, i'm giving the bikes twice the power to weight ratio, so that they can compensate for the lack of traction. I don't see a problem with that.

Ok pal, if you wanna play it that way, lets try this.

Hayabusa vs XTR 2 around a track.

Both share the same engine and so....the same power output, except that one is a bike and the others a car.

Now don't give me any reasons.

Shan2nu

[Rtech]

Shan, can you define what YOU clasify as waste of power? I would say a vehicle is wasting power when the wheels are just spinning and the vehicle is not making any progress. You seem to be saying that as a bike can't go round a track as fast as a car, all the power it makes is going to waste!

Thats like saying that you Vtec is just wasting power as you drive around at 20kmph in the city. Does even a F1 car put down 100% of its power in a corner? You and I know the answer to this.

Originally Posted by shan2nu

Power to weight is not power. Power to weight is used to pit 2 equal machines. Moreover, i'm giving the bikes twice the power to weight ratio, so that they can compensate for the lack of traction. I don't see a problem with that.

Why do you always go blindly by figures on paper man! And how on earth would giving a bike twice the power2weight (as you've put it) help compensate for the LACK OF TRACTION!?! If its lacking traction, all the power in the world is not going to help it now is it. The basic laws of physics givern how fast a vehicle can corner.

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Ok pal, if you wanna play it that way, lets try this.

Hayabusa vs XTR 2 around a track.

Both share the same engine and so....the same power output, except that one is a bike and the others a car.

Now don't give me any reasons

ummm...I think I've been pretty clear in my previous posts that a car would be quicker round most circuits than a bike. Is that reason enough?

Let me put this in a single line so as not to confuse things: My only debate with you is when you say a bike wastes power! That is just a wrong statement to make. And no amount of irrational arguments are gonna make it right!

[Shan2nu]

Why do you always go blindly by figures on paper man! And how on earth would giving a bike twice the power2weight (as you've put it) help compensate for the LACK OF TRACTION!?! If its lacking traction, all the power in the world is not going to help it now is it. The basic laws of physics givern how fast a vehicle can corner.

Thats bcoz once it comes out of the corner and onto a straight, it'll acc wont it? Imagine a place like Shanghai. Power to weight does help in a straight line.

Does even a F1 car put down 100% of its power in a corner? You and I know the answer to this.

Atleast it'l put a larger % of it's power down when exiting the corner due to it's larger contact patch. The bike on the other hand, wont come anywhere near a cars exit speed, coz if it tries to, it'l spin it's wheels (which you consider "wasting power").

I never said cars dont waste power. I'm just saying that bikes waste a lot more in comparison.

Why else would a Hayabusa be slower than a Veyron (even in a straight line). Hayabusa has close to 800bhp/ton, where as the Veyron has just 530bhp/ton.

If it ain't wasting power, then why is it slower?

Why do people say that RWD cars waste more % of it's power when compared to AWD cars?

A Veyron can hit 200 in 7.3 secs. Do you think it would be as quick, if it were RWD? No way!! Thats bcoz it would have to make do by transfering less torque/power to the wheels to prevent them from spining.

The bike has that exact problem. And that is why it wastes more power or rather....a larger % of it's power compared to a car.

Shan2nu

[Rtech]

Thats bcoz once it comes out of the corner and onto a straight, it'll acc wont it? Imagine a place like Shanghai. Power to weight does help in a straight line.

9 times out of ten, the bike would accelerate faster. Thats if you disect the corner in seperate parts and analyse each part seperatly.

Atleast it'l put a larger % of it's power down when exiting the corner due to it's larger contact patch. The bike on the other hand, wont come anywhere near a cars exit speed, coz if it tries to, it'l spin it's wheels (which you consider "wasting power").

this is impossible to judge. varies from corner to corner, vehicle to vehicle etc etc.

Why else would a Hayabusa be slower than a Veyron (even in a straight line). Hayabusa has close to 800bhp/ton, where as the Veyron has just 530bhp/ton.

give the Suzuki engineers a brief and the funds to develop the fastest production vehicle in the world and they too can make a bike to do that. Oh yea, and allow them to sell the bike for a million bucks as well.

Why do people say that RWD cars waste more % of it's power when compared to AWD cars?

you say RWD wastes power. I say AWD it utilises the available power better. There is a difference. You could call it a waste if a vehicle were built for a specific purpose, where all it would ever do is one single function. Then anything extra would be a waste. The bike may be slower around a corner, but that hardly translates into wasted power.

Hayabusa vs XTR 2 around a track.
Both share the same engine and so....the same power output, except that one is a bike and the others a car.

how about putting them on a drag strip? Why restrict the test to a circuit?

[jat]

Originally Posted by Rtech

When it comes down to it, on a bike, the rider is 90% of the equation while in a car, the driver maybe barely 50%. A car is more forgiving of errors, it manages weight transfer during braking, shifting and accelerating better, and can basically cover a lot of mistakes of the driver. On a bike, you mess up on any of these things and the bike will bite back.

What people are talking about power to ration without the driver. Put a driver (for example one like me) on a bike and it power to weight ratio is reduced to half. But on car, it is reduced by around 10%, which is negligible. Now add to that the air resistance (I am no way aerodynamic ) on the bike but car is not affected at all. So when we have to consider the timings, we have to consider the gross weight etc and not the brochure values.

RK

[v1p3r]

Firebird turbo Busa will whop the Veyron in a straight line. 0-60, top speed, you name it, turbo on turbo, bye-bye Veyron.

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Is someone actually doing this, or is this all just talk as usual?

Personally I'd love to see Comet vs CR-V.

Like I said, is this happening?

[Surya]

Which wastes larger % of its power??
IMHO its Bike.

Now, dont ask me for the scientific reasons.

Surya

[Psycho]

Well my 2 bits here, its like saying drive 2 F1 cars round a circuit with the same Power to Weight, one with all aerodynamics, traction control, ABS etc and the other without a bodyshell and just a frame without all that I mentioned for the previous one. Now say which will lead.. Obviously the first one due to the added advantages, hence saying power to weight is not right even if you say against car to car. So where does the question come up for car against bikes.

As for bikes please realise it takes way more power to go up for top end speeds due to aerodynamics, however they do not have the benefits of 80% of the mech handling your car for you and you only driving, accelerating, braking and shifting gears. As mentioned earlier the biker is 90% of the mechs on the bike as she/he handles traction, weight transfer, braking, banking round turns etc.

Hence I would say comparing cars to bikes is like comparing apples to peaches, each of them are great in their own ways and can never be directly compared.

Yeah I know I went off topic but this was important, now coming to which ones wastes more power(I am excluding the driver/rider on this): I would say that bikes waste lesser power due to the design of the mechs and lesser moving parts as compared to anything on 4 wheels. ( % wise, I wouldnt even bother as they do not match up on an equal scale)

[nitrous]

Oh,no. Not Again!

Looks like the 'bike vs car' thread has been started off with a new name. Old wine. New bottle.