Nissan 370Z Tech Forums banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just read something in the latest Motor mag that will probably interest most people here. They took a car (996 TT) to a drag-strip and also had their performance equipment on board. Which means they compared drag-strip times with the times from their timing equipment. It was interesting to see the drag-strip times about 0.2sec quicker than the 'performance equipment' times. According to them the times you read in the Motor/Wheels mags should be about 0.2sec higher than what you could get at the drag-strip with the same car.

The reason for the discreptancy is because the drag-strip has something called "roll out". The beam that starts the timer at the drag-strip is about 30cm ahead of the car so in a way you get a 30cm run-up on the 400m pass. Does not sound like much but the 996TT was already doing 7kph by the time it hit the 30cm mark ... that's a significant head start. On the other hand the timing equipment starts recording time/distance as soon as it detects the car moving.

I though it was interesting bit of info.

ps.
They also took the 996 Turbo S to Wakefield and let Warren Luff behind the wheel(ie. the pro driver who drove all the cars during the last PCOTY and BFYB). He pulled a time of 1:07.6 if I remember correctly so here's something for you guys to aim at ;-) Interestingly he managed that time on his 2nd lap in that car and all 4 timed laps were within 0.4sec (with the worst just under 1:08).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,917 Posts
I have noticed a lot of discrepencies between magazine times and times that people post up on the forums. I remember Car and Driver posting the stock Z at a 14.1 1/4 when I have seen people around here running 13.7s, I think I even remember seeing one guy run a 13.6 bone stock. I just thought the people at car and driver couldn't drive :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Personally I don't pay much attention to acceleration times - they're mostly used as a selling point, especially overseas. As you guys know, there are too many variables involved (driver, conditions, measuring devices, etc etc) for an objective comparison to be made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
DavidM - I bought Motor this morning and read that article also. That does explain some of the discrepancy between 1/4 mile times that we have recorded against those published in Motor mag.

One thing to also consider with the drag times, is that you can stage your car anywhere within the 30cm . If you stage almost on top of the start light, you'll reduce your "run up" and also reduce your trap speed. On the other hand, stage exactly 30cm from the start light and you get the advantage of a rolling start and subsequent faster trap speed.

BTW, the last 2 issues of Motor mag have been the best that I have ever read - the focus has not been just on Aussie muscle V8 articles. Lots of articles and comparisons featuring Porsches, Evo VIII, STi, M3, Ferrari F430, Lotus et al. In fact, there's been so little written about the Fords and Holdens, that I'm expecting a letter to the editor by a die hard V8 fan complaining about the lack of stories in the mag on the V8 hero cars!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
One thing to also consider with the drag times, is that you can stage your car anywhere within the 30cm . If you stage almost on top of the start light, you'll reduce your "run up" and also reduce your trap speed. On the other hand, stage exactly 30cm from the start light and you get the advantage of a rolling start and subsequent faster trap speed.

I was thinking exactyl the same thing. Now that we know this, it would be ideal to stop as soon as the 'ready' lights go on in order to get as much run-up on the 'start' beam as possible. Considering that the 911TT is hitting 7kph by the time it crosses the 30cm mark, I'd say that there's a decent advantage to be gained by staging the car like this.

BTW, the last 2 issues of Motor mag have been the best that I have ever read...

I agree that they are getting better issue by issue. I'm not sure if it's coincidence or not, but a lot of the improvement that they are putting through are exactly what I've been writing to them requesting for the last 2 years. Like for instance the Wakefield speed-vs-time graph for the 911TT and motorbike. I sent them graphs exactly like that when I had the data logger at Winton 2 - 3 months ago (ie. the graphs I posted in the forum as well). And also they are being a lot more descriptive with the comparisions where they often describe what happens between the 2 car as they accelerate. Again, I've been sending them samples like that for couple years.

MAybe just a coincidence, but I'm just happy that they're publishing stuff I want to see. My biggest issue with Motor at the moment is that in most articles they publish the acceleration numbers to only 120kph which does not show much of the acceleration of the car, but more so it's grip off the line (ie. anything up to 60kph can be launch related). So we really clearly see the acceleration of the cars from 60 to 120kph and that's about it. I want them to publishing the acceleration figures to 160kph at least. They do run them over 400m and hence have the data already ... why not publish it?

ps. Next months issue will be good as well as it'll have the annual BFYB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Perhaps Motor has a new editor that might finally be taking some of what you have been requesting of them on board?
Either way, the mag is a lot more interesting than it was 2 or even 10 years ago.

While I knew that the bike can accelerate a lot faster than the TurboS as demonstrated on the speed v time graph, I didn't realise that the bike's mechanical grip was as low as it actually is.

I recall going for a quick fang up the Macquarie Pass (twisty mountain road) behind some bikes a few months ago. I was surprised at just how much ground I could make up on the bikes under braking and through the corner and though that the rider may not have been trying hard, despite pulling away from me easily as the corner opened up.

I now understand that my car would have at least 20 times more rubber on the road and can therefore scrub speed quickly, unlike a bike.

That was a good informative article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
While I knew that the bike can accelerate a lot faster than the TurboS as demonstrated on the speed v time graph, I didn't realise that the bike's mechanical grip was as low as it actually is.

I was actually surprised to see the bike come up 1sec quicker. I was impressed that they managed to squeeze a time like that from the bike with a non-pro rider. Afterall, it takes 'only' a V8 Supercar to match the time that the Superbikes reach at the track and they accelerate on a different scale to the V8 Supercar (they are closer to F1 cars in that respect).

Though, the bike also has an advantage that all the corners are 'shellower'. By that I mean that a car has to take a lot sharper corner than the bike even when going over the same road/track. The car can only use the wideh of the track minus the width of the car, while saying the same for the bike is still the whole width of the track.

Also another thing of interest was that from the car they could extract those times within 2 laps, while it sounds like it took a whole afternoon to extract those times for the bike. Over the 1st couple laps the bike was good 4 seconds slower.

That was a good informative article.

Yes, an excellent article and not just the bit on the track but also on the drag-strip. I'm sure you noticed that this article was prompted by something they priniting in the previous issue (or the one before). They claimed that a few bikies could not get away from an EVO8 on a twisty road and a few people were in disbelief so they put it to the test.

I now understand that my car would have at least 20 times more rubber on the road and can therefore scrub speed quickly, unlike a bike.

Also it's possible to drive the car on (and even over) the limit on the road (even oif momentarily). On the other hand the brake has to be always well bellow the limit or the rider risks killing himself. In a car it's no big deal if the car squirms here and there or steps out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Don't take too much from what happens on a public road.

The biggest factor in deciding how fast you can go on a road on a bike is the actual surface and the "bravery" of the rider.

Like David said when riding a bike you always have to keep something in reserve or you could die, that simple.

There was nothing funnier than going to a race track and seeing all these blokes turn up and crash in the first session because they were going to hard.

On a race track it is a totally different scenario, and please keep in mind I'm talking about "joe average" riders and drivers. The difference on the track comes down to the type of circuit.

I know for a fact I can go around Eastern Creek on an R1 a **** of a lot quicker than I can in a car. I couldn't say the same for the Oran Park figure eight track. The difference is the type of corners, it is a whole lot more "technical" to ride a bike faster than it is to drive a car.

I'm not sure if it is still the same as I am out of touch with it now, but, back when the GP bikes were at the Creek the V8 Supercars were doing almost identical lap times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Though, the bike also has an advantage that all the corners are 'shellower'. By that I mean that a car has to take a lot sharper corner than the bike even when going over the same road/track.

Not necessarily - the car candrive over the ripple strops on entry and exit, therby maximising the track width by at least a metre. The ripple srip would not upset the balance of most cars, especially an awd Turbo S which would just transfer some of its drive to the grippier wheels.
The article stated that the bike on the otherhand had to stay clear of the ripple strip otherwise the rider would drop the bike. Also keep in mind that the riders pegs were scrapping the track, so he would have to position the tyres on the bike approximately 50cm inside the entry ripple strip, thereby reducing the track width.

Also another thing of interest was that from the car they could extract those times within 2 laps, while it sounds like it took a whole afternoon to extract those times for the bike. Over the 1st couple laps the bike was good 4 seconds slower.

Probably due to the rider being a non pro, combined with the fact that he wanted to avoid getting ribbed by his colleagues for being beaten by a car. So he pushed harder in the last few laps and beat the Porsche consistently.

The biggest factor in deciding how fast you can go on a road on a bike is the actual surface and the "bravery" of the rider.

Yeah - a small moment in the car raises the heart rate by say10 beats / min momentarily, then you just get on with caning the car through the next corner. The same moment on a bike would have the heart rate rise by 30b/m and see you slowing down for the rest of the ride, where Joe Average is concerned with preserving bodily functions.

The bike editor also stated that a reasonable driver would smoke a bike rider through twisty public roads, simply due to the rider having to ride well within the bike maximum performance parameters in order to preserve life and limb, due to road irregularities.

[/B]I know for a fact I can go around Eastern Creek on an R1 a **** of a lot quicker than I can in a car. [/B]

But is that car a Porsche 996 911 Turbo S which is arguably the fastest production car, seeing that the R1 is also arguable the fastest production bike?

Finally, would R spec tyres on both the car and bike alter the result? I'm just not sure if the fastest performance bikes are fitted with road or race spec tyres from the factory?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I know for a fact I can go around Eastern Creek on an R1 a **** of a lot quicker than I can in a car.

Just out of curiosity, how much quicker were you?

I'm not sure if it is still the same as I am out of touch with it now, but, back when the GP bikes were at the Creek the V8 Supercars were doing almost identical lap times.

I'm pretty sure it is as that's the situation at most circuits.

Finally, would R spec tyres on both the car and bike alter the result? I'm just not sure if the fastest performance bikes are fitted with road or race spec tyres from the factory?

I read in one of the UK mags (ie. EVO) that motorbikes already come wtih 'soft' rubber which is comparable with R-spec tyres for the car. From what I gether the rear tyres on a bike does not last long at all ... maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of what a road-tyres on a car would.

I'm sure that there is even stickier tyre for the bike that you could fit, but I think it would be yet another step above R-spec tyres.

Still fitting either one with stickier tyres would make them quicker. Not sure whether it's any harder to extract the time from those tyres on the bike, but car should be about 1.5sec/lap quicker because of them at a place like Wakefield.

Not necessarily - the car candrive over the ripple strops on entry and exit, therby maximising the track width by at least a metre. The ripple strip would not upset the balance of most cars, especially an awd Turbo S which would just transfer some of its drive to the grippier wheels.
The article stated that the bike on the otherhand had to stay clear of the ripple strip otherwise the rider would drop the bike.


Yep valid points and also very true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
David, I have never actually driven a car at the Creek and when I was in my "peak" I was getting around the Creek in mid 1.40's. I know there is no way known I can do that in my car.

I do know from experience there are certain sections of public roads where me on a bike would leave me in a car for dead. For instance, I have riden and driven the Old Pacific Highway more times than I care to remember and I know I can get along that road much quicker on a bike than a car. That road (in the main) requires good torque and acceleration and the bike has that in spades over the car!

A couple of minor points.

The R1 is no longer, and hasn't been for at least the last few years, the fastest production bike and in fact there is now probaly nearly half a dozen bikes that are quicker.

The real high end bike tyres are that soft they get sticky just looking at them, but, the contact patch is very small.

I'll say it again though, joe average bike rider would kick joe average's arse every time at a track. On the road, especially all the roads we love (old pacific, national park, oxlet highway,putty and so on) it's a totally different kettle of fish. Those roads simply don't get look after well enough and if you don't travel them frequently enough it is too easy to get caught out again.

Keep in mind a R1 does 1 -100 in a bit over 3 seconds, weighs 120kilo's and has a top speed approacing 300km/hr so don't take anything that happens on a public road involving a bike for anything. If the bloke on the bike can ride well and it is a decent road a Z will get smoked!!


Could I also say I haven't read the article yet so I don't even know the combatants but I've seen the same thing before. Top Gear did the same thing a while ago with a R1 up against some porsche at a tight little track at Anglesea and the Porsche just won.

As always

H
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
David, I have never actually driven a car at the Creek and when I was in my "peak" I was getting around the Creek in mid 1.40's. I know there is no way known I can do that in my car.

That is quick. 350Z with Dean Evan's (from Motor) behind the wheel was in 1:53s if I remember correctly. I think it takes something like a GT3 with a pro-driver to go around in mid 1:45s, but my memory is a bit hazy here.

That road (in the main) requires good torque and acceleration and the bike has that in spades over the car!

Interesting reference to the article in question is that the bike and car were dead even in the last corner at Wakefield. So all they had to do is floor it straight towards the finish line. Considering that the bike was 1sec quicker for the lap, it means it made up the enire 1 second advantage over the 996TT just in the stretch from last corner to the start/finish line. There are not many cars quicker than the 996TT in terms of acceleration and still despite that the bike was good 40kph quicker over the start/finish line.

Keep in mind a R1 does 1 -100 in a bit over 3 seconds, weighs 120kilo's and has a top speed approacing 300km/hr so don't take anything that happens on a public road involving a bike for anything.

True, though the interetsing thing is that despite the bike's stupendous acceleration, it 'only' takes a WRX to beat one off the line. I'm not talking a long race just over 100m at most. The bikes do not have the off-the-line traction that cars can muster. And even the traction that they do have only a few bike-riders can extract. From what I've seen almost anyone on the bike can extract the optimum acceleration from 100 to 200kph, but very few of them can extract the optimum 0 to 100kph acceleration.

Good example is also the 400m times for the bike and the 997TT in the magazine. I think there was less than one second between the two of them over the 400m line (with the bike winning), but that is not much considering how much acceleration differnece there is between the two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
I disagree, ever so slightly, with one thing.

I have never seen any car on the road keep up with a bike I have been on taking off from a standing start. Not only have they never kept up, they never looked like keeping up.

With saying that though, you don't come accross many 996's or the like!

As always

H
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
have never seen any car on the road keep up with a bike I have been on taking off from a standing start. Not only have they never kept up, they never looked like keeping up.

I guess you have different experiences. I have not seen a bike keep up with my parent's automatic HSV R8. Lights turn green, floor the throttle and the bike in the next lane is 10 meters behind even before it let's the clutch out. The car backs off at 80kph (or so) ... which is about 50m down the road and you hear the bike scremaing like crazy still 10 meters behind and trying to catch up ... probably already doing 40kph+ more than me, but still fair way behind. Next lights the same thing happens.

Problem I see with a bike is how does your everyday rider launch the bike so it can keep up with the car in terms of distance? Look how quickly a car can cover ground from standing start (350Z figures taken just for demonstation):
- 0-30kph =1.38 = 5.33m
- 0-60kph = 2.86 = 23.94m
- 0-80kph = 4.31 = 52.17m
- 0-100kph = 6.32 = 102.49m

The Zed (and car with similar acceleration) covers the 1st 10 meters in less than 2sec, and the first 80 meters in around 4sec. I just cannot see a bike covering distance that quickly from standstill as the bike maturaly wants to flip and needs to have the power fed in smoothly. In a car like HSV you just floor the throttle and get maximum acceleration straight away. It takes a few seconds to get the bike off the line cleanly and straight before you can remotely start 'flooring' it ... actually, some bikes you can't floor at all untill you're well over 100kph. Still, even 'few seconds' means 10m lead for the car.

So yes, the bike will accelerate to any speeds much, much quicker, but it may still be behind and as I mentioed before I have not see a single bike keep up with the HSV at the 'trafic light' derby across the lights (ie. over 50m).

That does not mean it can't happen as I don't have the data for the bike to see how it covers distance off the line. On the track I would not be surprised to see someone know knows what they're doing and ready to do a kick-arse bike launch and beat the HSV to the 50m mark. On the road I see it a lot less likely.

Bikes are great at acceleration-to-speed, but not that great at acceleration-to-distance. Looking over the 400m times from this article, the bike beat the 996TT to 400m by just under 1.5sec, which equates to 77.5m at the speed that they were traveling. It also shows the bike carrying extra 40kph over the finish line, and still accelerating much harder that the car (ie. 996TT does 0-160kph in 9.0sec, while the bike takes only 5.5sec). Given this superior accleration for the bike, and it beating the 996TT to 400m 'only' 77.5m, it shows that the car was ahead at the early stages of the run. At some stage the bike passed it ... from the look of it, it was at around the 200m mark (or a bit less), but that still shows that in a race to 100m the 996TT would win hards down and with a decent lead.

It's not unlike a Zed lining up a WRX at the lights. With a 'good' launch the WRX will beat the Zed over the intersection even though the Zed may always be accleeraing harder. The WRX has a lauch advantage and it takes a while to claw that back. Same for the bike IMHO.

ps. What bike have you got at the moment Harry?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
David, like I said earlier I haven't read the article so I don't know what sort of bike they used, but, I'll assume it's one of the 1000cc Jappers.

If that is the case a very valid point to keep in mind is these bikes retail for about $17 - $18k compared to a couple of hundred grand.

That was the thing that used to crack me up when riding on the road. I was riding a bike that cost less than $20k and there was nothing on the road (within reason) that would come anywhere near it.

Like I said, in my experience there is no "normal" car that will keep up with a bike it a traffic lights race, and I know how quick auto HSV's are as my last car was a series 2 VT Clubbie.

If you can actually ride a bike you can get it off the line extremely fast without it wanting to flip, the front wheel will still come up a little.

Up until about a year or so ago my last bike was a 2000 model R1 with Ohlins suspension,tripple clamps and steering damper, D&D exhaust, braided lines and a few other goodies. The bike was "put together" by a bloke called Graham Morris who has been racing Superbikes in Australia for as long as I can remember. The tyres on it were Pilot Sport race compound and you guys think car tyres are dear!

I have owned over the years about 6 or 7 high performance bikes in one guise or another and have been riding since I was about 5.

I had to get rid of the bike as I was advised by a surgeon after the operation I had last December it would be terribly unwise of me to continue to ride.

I hadn't actually missed riding too much until I started "talking" about this ****, pricks!!

As always

H
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
DavidM - I understand the point that you're making about the HSV being quicker from a standing start over 50m compared to a bike. But perhaps, you were up against some riders that did not know how to launch a bike from standstill and that's why they lagged behind. Also, were these bikes Japanese "hyperbikes" that you beat? I tend to agree with Harry that a well launched 1000cc modern sportsbike should just get across the intersection first and from there it would be curtains for the car.
If you want to see how quick a bike is off the mark, then next time you go to the drag races, watch for the 60' times of the bikes.

Harry - the bike in the article was a GSX R-1000 that costs $19,950. This was also the price of the optional Porsche carbon ceramic brake package!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
My only expirience against a bike is with a guy I know who owns a Suzuki Hayabusa, also he knows how to drive the bike and isn't affraid to launch it hard and lift the front wheel. In my opinion he's a madman since he thinks the bike isn't fast enough and he's getting a turbo. Right now he has only removed speed/rev limiter and has an open exhaust.

Anyways considering that the bike can reach 135km/h in the first gear and it gets to 100km/h in 3seconds I don't think I need to mention how badly he has destroyed me, even of the line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Like I said, in my experience there is no "normal" car that will keep up with a bike it a traffic lights race, and I know how quick auto HSV's are as my last car was a series 2 VT Clubbie.

You're more than likely right. I'll see if I can dig up some time-to-distance data on the bikes and see what that shows. As it is I don't have any hard data to back up the car's better time-to-distance capabilities compared to a bike ... I'm going mostly by what I read and the several bikes that I met at the lights.

Though, no matter how much ground the bike looses off the start, it can't take long for the bike to literaly fly-by as a 'good' bike will hit 160kph in about 8 - 9 seconds ... even if the 'average' rider lost 2 seconds on a woosy launch. At that point a car like HSV/Zed will be doing around 120kph so the bike will be reeling it in (or pulling aways) at the rate of 11 meters per second.

But perhaps, you were up against some riders that did not know how to launch a bike from standstill and that's why they lagged behind.

I'm sure that they were just your 'average' riders. No pros, racers or anything like that. Though, I would also say that an average driver will have no problem getting the most (or close to it) from the automatic car over the first 50 meters while I still say there's only very few people who can extract the most out of the bike in the same situation. I wonder how many riders can make a 10.5sec pass in the GSX R1000 that they had in the article? I'd pressume they'd losse all the time at the launch (ie. over the 1st couple seconds).

so, were these bikes Japanese "hyperbikes" that you beat?

Yep, all jap bikes ... anything from 250cc to 1000cc. They get beaten in the 1st couple seconds. As I mentioned before - the car leaps off the line and the bikes 'ease' off the line and by the time they've got some momentum they are already good 4 car lengths behind. They can't make up that deficit in the next 3 seconds consideirng that they're still falling back at that point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
I have a video of a motorbike vs a Porsche on a track done by Top Gear or whatever its called with that english presenter. They have a motorbike racer riding the bike and a regular test driver driving the car.

Its quite an eye opener. I'll load it in 30mins if I can find it.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top