Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Superfly3176 wrote:

bandit600 wrote:A classmate of my younger brother when he was in high school was given a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo by his parents when he turned driving age. 5 months later he passed away after wrapping his car around a tree on a road near my parent's house that has a 45mph speed limit. The forensics report indicated he was using his right hand to keep some take out chinese food from flying off the seat... Granted he could have done that in any car but I'm sure it was a lot easier to do in an Evo.

Clearly the same issues exist in the four wheel world, it just happens to be a lot easier to mangle yourself on a bike...

Easier when you get in an accident sure. But I know when I'm on my bike im not distracted by chinese food falling off the seat. When I'm in my car, there's more likely to be a distraction.

I'm not distracted by Chinese food, the radio or my cellphone when I'm on my bike - but I am not distracted by my helmet or gloves, or my most recent collision with a bug when I'm driving.

Distractions are present however you're moving down the road. It's only a matter of nature and magnitude, and the driver's/rider's discipline in dealing with them.

SquidKid wrote:

Amdonim wrote:Well, technically I'd say you'd be on the level of buying a SuperGT car. Unless you're buying an RC212V.

Still ridiculous, I mean a YZF-R1 is probably the equivalent of a Audi R10.

The straight line performance is probably similar. The R10 being several magnitudes higher in cornering and top speed. The turbodiesel LMP cars accelerate like an F1 car and still pull 230mph top speeds (and being nearly silent at the same time).

But performance wise, a street going literbike would be about like slapping the bare minimum to be street legal on a Le Mans Prototype.

I like both bikes and cars. I prefer bikes.

At least at the level of stupidly fast race vehicle. My chances of lapping a track in an F1 car and bringing it back in 1 piece are better than my chances of doing that on a moto GP bike.

Even if you take performance completely out of the equation, the logic of "I can drive a car, therefore I can ride a bike" is pretty obviously flawed.

Grey Thumper wrote:Even if you take performance completely out of the equation, the logic of "I can drive a car, therefore I can ride a bike" is pretty obviously flawed.

Depends on the person and bike I think. If you could ride a bicycle when you were younger with any competency and drive a car, I'd say you have an 85-90% chance of being able to ride a bike. Maybe more then that.

However to say you can drive a sports car, therefore you can ride a hayabusa is assinine.

Does my harley qualify as a liter bike? VROOM VROOM.

Yeah, there's quite a difference between a 70hp/80ft-lb bike and a 180+hp bike with race braking and handling that read every millimeter you move.

So not all 1000cc+ bikes are "liter bikes".

Superfly3176 wrote:However to say you can drive a sports car, therefore you can ride a hayabusa is assinine.

I guess it stems from the mentioned "neophytes" being unaware of the power/weight ratio of bikes. My first bike had all the usual "starter bike" qualities; just 50hp and around 400lbs. But I checked that it had a similar power/weight ratio to a Porsche 911 (and a similar 0-60 time, mid 4 secs., slow by bike standards, but fast enough to get you into a whole lot of trouble).

A liter Gixxer has 155 hp lugging around 475lbs, so each "horse" needs to lug only 3lbs, or a power/weight of 653hp/ton. Far superior to a Bugatti Veyron, which has 987hp and weighs 4162lbs, about 472hp/ton. And I don't exactly hear of many people suggesting that a Veyron would make a great first car.