Which is harder to race: Bike or Car?
yogre
have any experience racing both bikes and cars? I'm interested in which
requires more skill. Of course, that "skill" is hard to define but it
seems to me that riding a bike as fast as it will go is harder than
doing the same with a car. You have traction, lean angle, wheelies,
tankslappers etc' to worry about. All things that don't concern car
drivers. What are some elements of car racing that don't apply to bikes?
I guess they do have less track to work with so lines are not as good
and it's much harder to pass. What else?
Peter Roehling
>
> Followup to the "What is faster: Bike or Car" thread, does anyone here
> have any experience racing both bikes and cars?
Very few folks have ever reached the top in both sports, and I don't
recall any of them stating an opinion as to which was the most
difficult. Look up John Surtees an see what he says.
P.
Robert Kennedy
It's such a meaningless question in the end.
Which is harder to master, piano or violin? It's the same sort of
question, and it's meaningless. Our notion of mastery of a particular
context is governed by the set of things people are actually able to
achieve in that context. It's irrelevant how easy or hard it is to get
motorcycles or cars to do particular things. To win, you just have to
beat everyone else, and they're up against the same obstacles as you.
The difficulty of winning has nothing to do with the vehicles and
everything to do with the quality of the competition.
-- Robert
Paddy Mee
I think you are kidding yourself here.
Because car racers don't have the same issues to worry about that
doesn't make them less skillful.
If that was true Kevin Schwantz, Wayne Gardener and Mike the Bike
would have reached the tops of the auto championships they joined.
Paddy
Andy Burnett
<9f3jt4$sut$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>:
>Our notion of mastery of a particular
>context is governed by the set of things people are actually able to
>achieve in that context. It's irrelevant how easy or hard it is to get
>motorcycles or cars to do particular things. To win, you just have to
>beat everyone else, and they're up against the same obstacles as you.
>
>The difficulty of winning has nothing to do with the vehicles and
>everything to do with the quality of the competition.
I'd second that, and in this light, it seems to me that the two are likely to
be roughly equally difficult, to the extent that each sport attracts talented
and determined competitors.
For any given individual, one sport may prove easier than the other if the
individual has aptitudes that favor it.
ab
Troy (Formerly Troy The Troll)
"yogre" <yo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.157ed4d36...@news.earthlink.net...
> Followup to the "What is faster: Bike or Car" thread, does anyone here
> have any experience racing both bikes and cars? I'm interested in which
> requires more skill.
BIKES RULE!!! Cages are for when its cold.....and people who wish they had
the cajones to participate in a REAL sport.
yogre
>
> Which is harder to master, piano or violin? It's the same sort of
> question, and it's meaningless.
It's not meaningless at all. I think Eric gave a good description. If a
motorcycle racer can transition into car more easily that vice versa,
this means motorcycle racing is inherently more difficult than car
racing.
Following the same logic, I think a violinist who has never played a
piano (if you could find one) would find it much much easier to play a
piano for the first time that a pianist playing a violin for the first
time. A violin requires certain skills just to be able to produce a
consistent tone where a piano does this for you by simply pressing a
key.
Look at bikes vs cars in the street. It's harder to ride a bike than to
drive a car. If you can ride a bike only, you find it easy to learn how
to drive. It isn't as easy to learn how to ride even if you already can
drive.
If 2 activities share a large number of similar aspects but one has
significantly more unique skills which need to mastered, then it would
be more difficult to do.
As for competition, you have a point there. The difficulty of a
competition is determined not by the difficulty of the skill but by the
skill level of the competition (I hope that made sense). You can be in a
hamburger eating competition (not a very hard skill to master) and still
find it very difficult to win because the other guy is better that you
at it.
My question was regarding the skill required, not the competition
aspect. My topic may have implied otherwise but that's not what I ment.
Snake
track dirt and asphalt IMCA modified).
The question isn't black and white.
Which is harder?
Motocross was "harder" in some ways. The physical conditioning for motocross
is unimaginable to most of the guys I raced cars against. But I always felt
motocross was much more forgiving for my lack of skills. I could just hang
it out and possibly drive "over my head" for a lap and make up for any
mistake I had made. In a car, you are ALWAYS driving at the limit of
something. Mostly tires, in the class that I raced. Any mistake that cost a
couple of seconds took much longer to make up for. Also, for me, the input
from the wheel and butt in the car were much more subtle, and more difficult
to do analysis to. I was often surprised when I spun out that I was only
pushing a small fraction harder than I was when I wasn't losing control.
Motocross kind of "screamed" at you when you reached the limit. The info
wasn't hard to assimilate.
Road racing motorcycles? I wish I knew more. I have seriously been
considering looking into a class that I could experience at my skill level.
I know damn well I can't RACE my gixxer750. I love to ride it, and I have
had street bikes on and off for 25 years. I even think I have pretty well
honed street skills, but this bike is so frigging fast, I just can't imagine
competing at those speeds. It's one thing to put on the armor and hit the
back roads and do a few minutes of twisties and 150 mph straights, but I
don't think I have the cajones to share my space with some other cat doing
the same thing at 150.
Racing bikes and cars?
Cars....expensive, fine honed skills , unforgiving
Motocross.........stamina, balance, the safest way to hang it out
Roadrace bikes.......skills possibly a mixture of the previous two....but
bring big balls
"yogre" <yo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.157ed4d36...@news.earthlink.net...
duc...@my-deja.com
competition. Doesn't matter whether you are in a car, on a motorcycle,
on a tractor, on a bicycle or fighting a duel. If you're racing it, it
is the competition that determines how much of yourself you have to put
into it to win, or giving your all, where you will place in the field.
In the case of duel whether you are alive or dead.
If you are in a car, your competition is in a car, then it is only you
and your resources against the other driver and "his" resources.
Once the weapon is chosen, it becomes irrelevant.
Robert Kennedy
yogre <yo...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > It's such a meaningless question in the end.
> > Which is harder to master, piano or violin? It's the same sort of
> > question, and it's meaningless.
>
> It's not meaningless at all. I think Eric gave a good description. If a
> motorcycle racer can transition into car more easily that vice versa,
> this means motorcycle racing is inherently more difficult than car
> racing.
No. You completely misuse the word "inherently." The transition could
be made easier or harder by stiffer competition in one arena or the
other. Such a phenomenon would have nothing to do with how hard it is
to operate each of the different kinds of vehicles.
Your terms are so vaguely defined as to be (to reiterate the same
word) meaningless. Without any performance criterion, there is no way
to judge the difficulty of the transition. With a performance
criterion, on the other hand, you will be judging the quality of the
competition more than the inherent difficulty of operating the
vehicles.
Maybe your original question was about the level of competition in the
two different sports, but I didn't understand it that way.
> Following the same logic, I think a violinist who has never played a
> piano (if you could find one) would find it much much easier to play a
> piano for the first time that a pianist playing a violin for the first
> time. A violin requires certain skills just to be able to produce a
> consistent tone where a piano does this for you by simply pressing a
> key.
If you think this is a cogent example, you asked the wrong
question. Also, your example makes clear that you didn't really read
what I wrote. I agree with you that it is easier to be a beginning
piano player than a beginning violin player, just like it's easier in
some ways to be a beginning car driver than to be a beginning
motorcycle rider. But a moment ago (until you got off onto this tack)
we aren't talking about being a beginner. We were talking about
*mastery.* That's totally different. It's just as hard to be a master
piano player as it is to be a master violinist, even though one
instrument is arguably easier for a beginner than the other one.
> Look at bikes vs cars in the street. It's harder to ride a bike than to
> drive a car. If you can ride a bike only, you find it easy to learn how
> to drive. It isn't as easy to learn how to ride even if you already can
> drive.
Again you're talking about beginnerhood, not mastery.
And you're actually wrong in some ways, too. It's much harder in a car
to know where the boundaries of your vehicle are than on a
bike. You're much more likely in a car to run into the barrier at the
front of your parking space, or into the car in front of you while
trying to parallel park. Cars present challenges that motorcycles
don't.
> If 2 activities share a large number of similar aspects but one has
> significantly more unique skills which need to mastered, then it would
> be more difficult to do.
As a beginner, or as a functioning participant. But I thought you were
asking which was easier or harder to win races on. That's a totally
different question because you not only have to function, but you have
to beat other functioning competitors. How easily you can win will
depend on how good your competition is.
> As for competition, you have a point there. The difficulty of a
> competition is determined not by the difficulty of the skill but by the
> skill level of the competition (I hope that made sense).
It makes perfect sense. That's what I've been saying all along, and
it's why your original question (as I understood it, anyway) was
meaningless.
> My question was regarding the skill required, not the competition
> aspect. My topic may have implied otherwise but that's not what I ment.
So how do you judge which form of racing is more difficult, if not by
the results of competition?
-- Robert
Andy Burnett
>So how do you judge which form of racing is more difficult, if not by
>the results of competition?
I've found myself mostly agreeing with you on this topic, but your question
above does cast a different light on the original question. An alternative way
to frame the original question might be: Which of the two sports has the
longer learning curve from beginnerhood to top-tier mastery? It isn't
specifically what he said, but if you were to consider it that way, you might
decide that some forms of racing are more difficult.
Along these same lines, we are assuming that the two forms (maybe even all
forms) of racing have the same source of limitation, e.g. the prowess,
creativity and psychological fortitude of the competition. But to provide more
contrast, consider the difference in racing Pinewood Derby cars (remember
those?) vs. racing bicycles across a high wire.
You could argue that it's easier for someone to begin racing Pinewood Derby
cars and become competitive than it would be to even ride a bicycle across a
high wire, let alone race one. If you begin from the place of assuming
mastery, it may follow that someone could put every bit as much effort into
winning a Pinewood Derby race as to win a highwire bicycle race. But it almost
goes without saying that a greater percentage of the population could become
competitive at racing the little wooden cars than racing a bicyle in a venue
that would result in almost certain death if they missed a cue. In that sense,
I'd say racing the little cars is easier.
ab
mmn...@mmnnoo.org
Exactly, and I would add that if you choose a sport in which fewer
people participate, the competition is easier.
In the US I would argue that basketball is the 'hardest' sport
to excel in, because everybody gives it a try at some point or
other, and millions have played at least to the level of high
school ball, which in itself implies hundreds of thousands of
hours of practice.
You can outperform 90% of americans on a motorcycle just
by learning where the brake and clutch are.
Larry xlax Lovisone
addition...
I look up to the sky to the next level in the hierarchy of racing that's
even harder than cages or bikes... Unlimited Air Racing in Reno... ah yes...
hurling above sage brush at 469 mph trying to hold on your lower lip in a 6
G turn as a short fuse burns away engine life... you got to be fast on the
stick and I don't mean pudknocking or your unforgiving WW2 gun platform will
likely auger you deeper than a falling meteorite...
In Bob "Hurricane" Hanna's estimation his efforts to win a single air race
proved the hardest in his racing career... bring him closer to death than
all of them combined...
Larry L
Robert Kennedy
Andy Burnett <tzr...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> You could argue that it's easier for someone to begin racing
> Pinewood Derby cars and become competitive than it would be to even
> ride a bicycle across a high wire, let alone race one. If you begin
> from the place of assuming mastery, it may follow that someone could
> put every bit as much effort into winning a Pinewood Derby race as
> to win a highwire bicycle race. But it almost goes without saying
> that a greater percentage of the population could become competitive
> at racing the little wooden cars than racing a bicyle in a venue
> that would result in almost certain death if they missed a cue. In
> that sense, I'd say racing the little cars is easier.
Maybe easier to do, but not easier to win. If the whole population is
just as vested in winning that pinewood derby race as they are in the
bicycle highwire race, you can be sure it's going to be just as hard
to win either one. There will be only one winner in either case.
I interpreted the original question as asking how hard it is to do
well, not how hard is it to just participate.
-- Robert
Pius Frei
Probably, both require very high skills to excel. However, my guts feeling
tells me it is harder to acquire that skill on a bike than in a car.
Pius
99 CBR600 F4
Andy Burnett
>Maybe easier to do, but not easier to win. If the whole population is
>just as vested in winning that pinewood derby race as they are in the
>bicycle highwire race, you can be sure it's going to be just as hard
>to win either one. There will be only one winner in either case.
This is quite true, though the possibility of winning becomes available to
more people to the extent that more can participate. Then again, if the
opportunities for wins aren't proportionately more numerous, winning itself
may be harder, once entry requirements are met.
ab
yogre
But this is precisely what I'm saying. Riding motorcycles fast is harder
IMHO than driving cars fast. You seem to enjoy spliting hairs in this
discussion rather than add to the point.
Andy Burnett
<MPG.157f5ea2f...@news.earthlink.net>:
Robert thinks with precision and is serious about his own racing. You've
clarified what you were originally asking now, but only because of the
discussion so far. I think Robert *has* added to the discussion.
ab
SuperHawkGuy
are you talking about judging it by the competition. If a motorcycle racer
can go out and nearly make lap records in a race car. Yet a car racer can't
even go out and beat the motorcycle racers mechanic's time around a race
track then which do you think requires more skills. It has nothing to do
with the competition of anything. You take top level persons in either
sport swap vehicles and see which one can do better in relation to known lap
times. I can probably lap any particular racetrack on a motorcycle faster
than that Stewart guy that raced in the Indy 500 and the Pepsi 600.
--
Ren VTR #2081
J&E pistons, K&N
Erion Cams,D&D
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/helmet/9/
"Robert Kennedy" <rob...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:9f3v5f$4vq$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
Andy Burnett
<9f4tf5$gji$00$2...@news.t-online.com>:
>It has nothing to do with the competition of anything.
Never raced, eh?
ab
yogre
says...
Hey Andy, of course when you race (or compete in anything) it's ALL
about the competition. But you can't compare skills by comparing the
competition.By doing this, you just ignore the skill completely. If the
competition got stronger from one year to the next, it was indeed harder
to race but the the skill of riding fast hasn't become harder (or
easier) because of it.
Andy Burnett
<MPG.157ff7145...@news.earthlink.net>:
>Hey Andy, of course when you race (or compete in anything) it's ALL
>about the competition.
We agree about that.
>But you can't compare skills by comparing the
>competition.By doing this, you just ignore the skill completely.
I see what you're saying and agree to a point. This seems to be in agreement
with the part of the discussion where Robert called out the difference between
entry level and mastery. There's no question that driving a car and riding a
motorcycle demand different skills. I happen to think that more people can
become acceptably proficient at driving a car than riding a motorcycle. I've
met people who really should not ride. I've met people who probably shouldn't
drive either, but they seem to be in the minority, at least as a percentage.
It may be that the answer to the question depends upon what you assume about
the participant. If the question assumes the participants have the basic
requisite skills to operate their machines, competition is the only remaining
differentiator of difficulty. If you assume that the hopeful participant is
lacking some of the basic skills to operate their machines, the learning curve
to reach a basic level of proficiency may be steeper for one than for the
other. Once the participant reaches a basic standard, "mastery" is purely
relative to what other people can do.
>If the
>competition got stronger from one year to the next, it was indeed harder
>to race but the the skill of riding fast hasn't become harder (or
>easier) because of it.
I'd rephrase that the skill of riding as fast as you were before hasn't
changed. It may well be harder to go as fast as the fast guys are going.
ab
yogre
> the participant. If the question assumes the participants have the basic
> requisite skills to operate their machines, competition is the only remaining
> differentiator of difficulty. If you assume that the hopeful participant is
> lacking some of the basic skills to operate their machines, the learning curve
> to reach a basic level of proficiency may be steeper for one than for the
> other. Once the participant reaches a basic standard, "mastery" is purely
> relative to what other people can do.
The reason I started this thread is because although I very much enjoy
riding bikes fast (well, not that fast :), I don't find the same thrill
in driving fast. The very thing I enjoy about bike riding is lacking in
cars. This is the huge amount of knowlage and understanding that are
required to go really fast. I'm trying to find out if there is something
I don't know about car racing that equals this. It seems to me that
every skill required to drive fast would also be required to ride fast
but riding requires a hell of a lot more. Since I've never taken a car
to speeds close to what I do with my bike, I may be totaly wrong but so
far the responses have seemed to support my instinct. Even those posted
by car races.
Robert Kennedy
You continue to be vague. What do you mean by "fast"?
Once you define that word, I'll be able to tell whether I agree with
you. In my world, it's defined according to what the best
riders/drivers can do -- i.e., by competition.
Qualifying lap times in world-level motorcycling tend to be bunched up
just like qualifying lap times for world-level auto racing.
-- Robert
Robert Kennedy
yogre <yogr...@spam-hotmail.com> wrote:
> The reason I started this thread is because although I very much enjoy
> riding bikes fast (well, not that fast :), I don't find the same thrill
> in driving fast.
How do you know you don't? It sounds like maybe you haven't tried
driving fast.
> The very thing I enjoy about bike riding is lacking in cars.
This is true for me, too, BTW. Learning to go fast in cars doesn't
interest me very much at all, but my reasons are different from yours,
I think.
> This is the huge amount of knowlage and understanding that are
> required to go really fast.
It sounds like you're more interested in what it takes to go sort of
fast, not what it takes to go really fast. Because to go *really* fast
is hard, no matter what the platform. Going sort of fast in a car
is much easier than going sort of fast on a bike because (like I said
before) it's easier to be a beginner in a car.
> I'm trying to find out if there is something I don't know about car
> racing that equals this. It seems to me that every skill required to
> drive fast would also be required to ride fast but riding requires a
> hell of a lot more.
Depends on what sort of riding, but if you're comparing road racing
motorcycles with road racing cars, I think you'll find that road
racing cars deals much more in slide management than road racing
bikes. Even if your last name is McCoy.
> Since I've never taken a car to speeds close to what I do with my
> bike...
So you don't have any idea what it's like to go fast in a car, but you
claim you don't enjoy it.
-- Robert
yogre
> driving fast.
I'm not drawn to it like I am to riding fast. I never sode a bike fast
until I got sportbike about a year ago but I got because I wanted to do
it. I don't feel this way about driving.
> > The very thing I enjoy about bike riding is lacking in cars.
>
> This is true for me, too, BTW. Learning to go fast in cars doesn't
> interest me very much at all, but my reasons are different from yours,
> I think.
Judging from your response, I think our reasons are quite simular.
> > This is the huge amount of knowlage and understanding that are
> > required to go really fast.
>
> It sounds like you're more interested in what it takes to go sort of
> fast, not what it takes to go really fast. Because to go *really* fast
> is hard, no matter what the platform. Going sort of fast in a car
> is much easier than going sort of fast on a bike because (like I said
> before) it's easier to be a beginner in a car.
Well, I can't go REALLY fast yet :) so you are right in this respect.
When you talk about going REALLY fast, this steers the topic back to how
stiff the competition is and I agree with this too: If you try to
determine a skill difficulty by how hard it is to compete, then all
skills are equaly hard to master. This is a philosophical argument
though and has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the skill
itself.
> > I'm trying to find out if there is something I don't know about car
> > racing that equals this. It seems to me that every skill required to
> > drive fast would also be required to ride fast but riding requires a
> > hell of a lot more.
>
> Depends on what sort of riding, but if you're comparing road racing
> motorcycles with road racing cars, I think you'll find that road
> racing cars deals much more in slide management than road racing
> bikes. Even if your last name is McCoy.
Yes, road racing only. Yeah, sliding is a major issue for car racers
while bikes (even though sliding is an emerging techich) mostly try to
avoid sliding. I also think passing in a car is way harder than with a
bike. Simply because of space considerations. Same goes for lines.
> > Since I've never taken a car to speeds close to what I do with my
> > bike...
>
> So you don't have any idea what it's like to go fast in a car, but you
> claim you don't enjoy it.
Well, like I said above, I'm not drawn to it very much. When I ride my
bike up and down HWY 9, I'm having a blast. When I even think about
driving a car (any car) there, I get sick.
yogre
says...
> In article <MPG.157f5ea2f...@news.earthlink.net>,
> yogre <yogr...@spam-hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe easier to do, but not easier to win.
> > But this is precisely what I'm saying. Riding motorcycles fast is harder
> > IMHO than driving cars fast. You seem to enjoy spliting hairs in this
> > discussion rather than add to the point.
>
> You continue to be vague. What do you mean by "fast"?
>
> Once you define that word, I'll be able to tell whether I agree with
> you. In my world, it's defined according to what the best
> riders/drivers can do -- i.e., by competition.
OK, I'll try this one:
For me, FAST means to get within some percentage of the world class
performers (the competition if you will). A skill is hard or easy
depending on how hard or easy it is to get within a fixed percentage
(say 50%) of this. So going back to cars and bikes:
My personal opinion is that given the same level of training, of a group
of 100 randomly chosen test subjects traing on bikes and cars, more will
achieve this threshold driving cars than riding bikes.
> Qualifying lap times in world-level motorcycling tend to be bunched up
> just like qualifying lap times for world-level auto racing.
of course they are. This is the very nature of any competition.
I think we agree on almost all aspects of this conversation except that
while I prefer to explore the nature of the skill invloved, you prefer
to talk about the competition level. I have no argument with you here.
In fact, the reason I'm not interested in this line of though is that I
already have a very well defined opinion about already. On the other
hand, I don't know much about the skill of car road racing and am
looking to compare it (as a skill) to bike road racing.
Robert Kennedy
yogre <yogr...@spam-hotmail.com> wrote:
> For me, FAST means to get within some percentage of the world class
> performers (the competition if you will). A skill is hard or easy
> depending on how hard or easy it is to get within a fixed percentage
> (say 50%) of this.
OK, now we're making some progress. But we still aren't there. How do
you know when you have 50% of someone else's skill? For example: I can
do 2:02's at Thunderhill on my GSX-R 750. The fastest rider in my race
did 1:57's. What percentage of his skill do I have, and how do you
arrive at that number?
-- Robert
Tom David
With cars almost anyone with normal reflexes, sense of balance, depth
perception etc can get within 90% of the fastest times ever by the
best driver given two obvious things
1. That they are willing to work very hard indeed at the techniques of
driving fast. How to brake, when to brake, trail braking, left foot
braking, how and when to use the throttle, and all of the general
racecraft stuff that only comes with practice and equally important,
study.
2. Equal cars
This 90 % deal would have you doing 201/203 laps at Indy, not shabby,
but not really fast in racing terms. Damn fast for anyone below the
out and out pro level.
The next step up of 5% to 7% moves to 95% to 97% and takes some
natural gifts, and a serious commiment to learning and study. This is
the stage most folks never get to when they race cars. If you did get
to 97.5% of the best guys laps at Indy, you'd be running at 220.6 or
so and that would have put you in the program. This is fast! Seriously
fast
But the next step up, which very few achieve every, and even fewer
achieve consistently is let's say 99%. This meams that you'd have
qualified at 224+. That's fast enough to win! the trick is doing it
consistently.
In motorcycles I can't hit a lick. Or sure after 45 years of riding
and racing, I've won a few trophies ( damn few ) but more do to luck
than ability, But cars are a different matter. 1989 and 1990 I went
undefeated in 19 straight races in a MazdaRX7 and DP and DSP Fiat.
That wasn't luck. it was almost a total commiment of every free moment
to developing the cars and studying with the best, P.D.Cunningham.
So in cars I could be considered " fast " but in bikes never.
However, and here is the biggest factor. I enjoy riding more than
driving! I'm more excited and satisfied finishing at the back of the
pack racing a bike than winning in a car.
It seems to come down to natural gifts, commitment, and certain
passion for the mount of choice. Also. don't be mislead by bike racers
who get into race cars and go somewhat fast. By time I figure Biaggi
was only at 88% to 90& of the Ferrari 1 cars potential, and that's
crap period. And Doohan didn't even get a lap in before he had a big
shunt. and that's even harder to understand. Even the great Hailwood
really never was outstanding in F2 and less so in F1.
Of course we need to mention Joe Leonard, AMA grand national Champ,
then Indy winner and USAC champ, and of course John Surtees, GP champ
and F1 worlds Champ. I least we forget, Dan Gurney drove the only F1
GP Porsche ever won and he was one hell of a road racer in the 50 and
60's on Montesa's and others. And Pre WWII Tazio Nuvolari started by
riding Bianchi's if I remember correctly, before moving on to Alfas to
great sucess on two and four wheels.
Just some random thoughts as this is a fascinating topic.
Tom
Tom David
yogre
says...
It doesn't matter what the percentage is. I just used this as an
example. What matters is that there is some way to compare how close you
are to the other persons performance. This is why it is meaningfull to
compare car driving to bike riding. If you can do 2:02 compared to 1:57,
this puts you equaly close if you were driving a car at 2:02 compared to
someone elses 1:57. The numbers don't matter. It would much harder
(using your example) to compare a violin playes skill to that of a
pianist.
Therefor, I believe it is easier for a randomly picked person to achieve
a time of say, 2:30 in a car than on a bike assuming both bike and car
record times are say, 1:30.
But again, this argument is purely philosophical. You had me going there
for a moment when u mentioned cars have more slide management but
somehow you seem to always steer the conversation back to the stuff we
already agreed upon.
Ray Curry
comes to road racing. If you limit the discussion to one level of
competition, there's points to be made on either side. Riding a bike
gives you a much greater feel for the vehicle and if you concentrate on
that, you can learn on your own (if enough track time is available) to
get pretty fast. Cars can be a bit more forgiving in the learning
process so careers tend to last longer for all but the very best but
it's harder to get that feel to move to the next level of
competitiveness. Cars are more expensive and accidents tend to be bit
more serious and fatalities are a touch higher. Cars of yesterday
required reactions and feel much like bikes but today they require more
of an ability to judge speed. A car with a lot of down force acts like
falling off a ledge when it finally spins. Before there was a lot of
down force, the rear could slide a bit and the drivers could recover.
Now a little bit out of alignment means the down force drops off fast
and there is no recovery. Jeff Ward is very competitive in IRL as an
ex-motocross champ but Eddie Lawson was not. Other ex-modern bike champs
are competitive in cars but not in the higher forms of racing. In such
cases, I sure it was the cost of having to start over that discourages a
longer try and better effort. My own feeling is that the same dedication
and time by the same person of equal natural abilities to learn an
athletic endevor spent in either type of racing under the tutoring of a
good mentor will result in the same level of advancement. In each case
though, moving from street riding, to track, to being able to make it
around with being a danger, to competitive with amateurs, to able to win
as an amateur, to national caliber, to world caliber, each step takes a
lot of time, dedication, to ultimately something born into the
individual that you can't understand or fully measure until you've been
there.
Jamin Kortegard
I'm thinking it'd have to be some kind of statistical analysis, similar to
SAT testing. All relevant lap times fall should fall into some kind of bell
curve, with very few extremely fast lap times, a large lump of pretty fast
times, and very few not so fast times.
You tally up the various times, figure out a standard deviation from the
mean, and then see what percentile your time puts you in. If I recall stats
from college, the mean is the 50th percentile (50% score better, 50% score
worse) and a total of 67% of all scores fall within +/- one standard
deviation of the mean.
I don't know how this would measure actual skill level, but I think you
can't just compare simple differences in lap times. A 10 second difference
in one situation (cars on track XYZ) can't be directly compared to a 10
second difference in another (bikes on track ABC). The statistical analysis
would show you how a particular lap time compared to all the other lap times
in the same situation. Whether the respective percentile scores could be
compared as actual measures of skill between bikes and cars is debatable.
But then, debate is pretty much what we're all here for, right. :)
-----
Jamin Kortegard
jam...@oz.net
2001 YZF-R1
1992 ST1100
Tom David
guy who goes 90 mph on the Interstate in his Porsche is " FAST "
according to the police., but some drunken coked up clown in a rusted
out Monte Carlo doing 55 in a 55 is OK by their standards.
I think the Porsche guy is fine but the Monte Carlo is a danger to
everyone.
About driving fast in cars, here are some observations I've developed
over many years.
With cars almost anyone with normal reflexes, sense of balance, depth
perception etc can get within 90% of the fastest times ever by the
best driver given two obvious things
1. That they are willing to work very hard indeed at the techniques of
driving fast. How to brake, when to brake, trail braking, left foot
braking, how and when to use the throttle, and all of the general
racecraft stuff that only comes with practice and equally important,
study.
2. Equal cars
This 90 % deal would have you doing 201/203 laps at Indy, not shabby,
but not really fast in racing terms. Damn fast for anyone below the
out and out pro level.
The next step up of 5% to 7% moves to 95% to 97% and takes some
natural gifts, and a serious commiment to learning and study. This is
the stage most folks never get to when they race cars. If you did get
to 97.5% of the best guys laps at Indy, you'd be running at 220.6 or
so and that would have put you in the program. This is fast! Seriously
fast
But the next step up, which very few achieve every, and even fewer
achieve consistently is let's say 99%. This meams that you'd have
qualified at 224+. That's fast enough to win! the trick is doing it
consistently.
In motorcycles I can't hit a lick. Or sure after 45 years of riding
and racing, I've won a few trophies ( damn few ) but more due to luck
than ability, But cars are a different matter. 1989 and 1990 I went
undefeated in 19 straight races in a MazdaRX7 and DP and DSP Fiats and
a Lola or two..
That wasn't luck. it was almost a total commiment of every free moment
I had to work on the cars, to study readouts, and to developing the
cars and studying with the best, P.D.Cunningham.
So in cars I might be considered " fast " but in bikes never.
However, here is the biggest factor. I enjoy riding more than
driving! I'm more excited and satisfied finishing at the back of the
pack racing a bike than winning in a car.
It seems to come down to natural gifts, commitment, and a certain
passion for the mount of choice. Also. don't be mislead by bike racers
who get into race cars and go somewhat fast. Using the reported times,
I figure Biaggi was only at 88% to 90& of the Ferrari 1 cars
potential, and that's crap period. And Doohan didn't even get a lap in
before he had a big shunt, and that's even harder to understand. Even
the great Hailwood really never was outstanding in F2 and less so in
F1.
Of course we need to mention Joe Leonard, AMA grand national Champ,
then Indy winner and USAC champ, and of course John Surtees, IOM
winner many times GP winner, GP Worlds champ
and F1 Worlds Champ. I least we forget, Dan Gurney drove the only F1
Bruce Richmond
>
> Yes, road racing only. Yeah, sliding is a major issue for car racers
> while bikes (even though sliding is an emerging techich) mostly try to
> avoid sliding.
Motorcycle roadracers have been sliding for years. It is *not* an
emerging technique. (You may be thinking of "backing it in" which has
gained popularity lately.) Sliding is one of the skills that
separates the fast riders from the rest of the pack. When turning the
fastest possible laps on a bike, the tires will be sliding. Push it a
bit further and your butt will be sliding! That is a good share of
the reason why it is easier to approach the limits of what is possible
with a car than it is with a bike. The consequences of exceeding the
limits on a bike are usually much greater than in a car.
I think bikes require a larger variety of skills to operate well than
cars do. A rider is much more intimately involved in what his vehicle
is doing. He affects the handling of the bike by repositioning his
weight, side to side and front to back. He changes the aerodynamics
by hugging the tank for less drag or popping up to act as an air
brake. I think this intimacy is what many of us like about bikes.
When things are right it is almost like they become an extension of
your body.
A car may require a smaller set of skills, but that translates into
needing to perform those tasks at a higher level of proficiency in
order to stand out among your pears. A drag racer hardly has to know
how to use the steering or brakes but must be extremely proficient
with the clutch, throttle and shifter.
John Fisher
> >
> > Followup to the "What is faster: Bike or Car" thread, does anyone here
> > have any experience racing both bikes and cars?
Having raced both go carts and YSR's on the same track I would say that it
takes more skill to go fast on a bike than a cart. The fastest guy on YSR's
ran a stock bike and could keep up with anyone on almost anything they could
build. In cart racing it was totally how much money you spent on the
motor. Almost anyone could drive to 95% of what a cart could do while only
2 or 3 guys could do the same with a ysr. FWIW the YSR's are slower than
5hp briggs powered carts.
John