In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:46:29 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:11:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,







says...















On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:















So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the







same tire contact area as the motorcycle.















BS. Cite?















http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911-







carrera/featuresandspecs/







(140kg laden weight)















http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducati_848







(Dry weight 370 pounds, so if you take it's laden weight of say 600







pounds we're close)















BTW... like many sports and race cars, my old Boxster's rear tires had a lot of camber to allow the tire to have better contact with the road when in a high speed turn. Wears out the inside edge quickly, but increases grip dramatically. That big, flat patch of rubber stays on the pavement.















Bikes can't have flat surfaced tires, so their contact patches are very small all the time.















Oh, now you want to talk specialty cars, but street motorcycles!!!!!







Well, the contact are for a road course motorcycle is large as well for







just that purpose. Plus, you've forgotten that pesky physical fact that







you are trying to turn 4 or 5 times the mass of something that wants to







go straight.







No, the facts (lap times) I posted were for race cars and race bikes, on the same course, and the cars were faster. The contact patch is more than 4 or 5 times larger for the road course car. And the Boxster is no more a "specialty" car than the average crotch rocket is a specialty bike. They are both built to handle and go fast, but are street legal.







You STILL just simply ignore physics and instead talk anecdotal what



ifs. The contact patch is no where near 4 times that of the motorcycle,



AND as stated earlier by Eisboch, because of the high CG of the car,



it's mass is all distributed to the two outside tires, add to that that



the CG is above those tires. With the motorcycle, it leans, so the CG is



more in line with the vector AND the tires. What IS much greater with



the car is the centrifugal force.



You're relying on a textbook and ignoring reality.



Physics IS reality.

You're touting one tiny bit of physics as if it represents the entire situation. That's like saying a single peach pit defines and entire peach orchard.

Now, I'll tell you why you think that a car corners
better than a motorcycle. It's simply because of it's ability to out
brake. A motorcycle, because of it's small mass compared to a car wants
to flip over when braking, a car does not, also, if braking BEFORE the
radius, the car's mass will shift to the front wheels, making lots of
traction, while the bike's much less mass won't do as much work.

That's not why I think that. And you're wrong about the bike's braking, too. It wants to flip because it's CG is located so high and close to the front wheel's axle. If it's wheelbase was longer, with the mass located lower and further back, the front could brake harder without flipping. Simple physics!

Holy cow!!! You STILL are denying the existence of the most important
aspect, MASS!!!!