View Full Version : Moto GP vs F1 - who is faster?
I know it would depend on many factors, but all things being equal, which machine will have the best times?
Carsick
01-08-05, 08:52 AM
F1. (IMO)
Agreed. A car simply has more traction.
Motogp is much more interesting, though.
Mike1234
01-08-05, 08:58 AM
There was a test last year at City Airport with the BAR F1 car, Michael Rutter and his BSB bike and a Honda powered Formula 1 Power Boat.
The minute the F1 car's traction control managed to settle down having got the thing off the line then the the car just disappeared in to the distance.
I doubt even the lower weight and higher power of a MotoGP bike would make enough of a difference.
SVeeedy Gonzales
01-08-05, 08:58 AM
Yeah, F1, but then they have a pile of stuff - "launch control" and other techno wizardry that isn't there in MotoGP. Didn't Rutter give some F1 driver a pasting (and a top end speedboat that had already been given a head start) because the poor guy in the car didn't have his computer running all his traction and launch control for him. Awww.
Beat Rutter (just) when the computers were doing it all for him though.
Also, let's stick the F1 drivers out there with no pitstops for fuel and tyres, forcing them to run on ragged tyres in all sorts of conditions, etc. with no pit radio, no water, no CD changer (you get the point) and they'd never be able to handle it... what's all that about? No wonder F1 has become so dull. Is there anything that they can't halt the race for - toilet? snacks?
I saw that. That was just a drag race as well. Chuck in a few corners and the car would be long gone I reckon.
Which GP driver was it that said something like this;
"compared to riding a bike - in car racing the driver is totally irrellevant"
Which GP driver was it that said something like this;
"compared to riding a bike - in car racing the driver is totally irrellevant"
My guess would be Damon Hill.
Which GP driver was it that said something like this;
"compared to riding a bike - in car racing the driver is totally irrellevant"
Do you know the answer?
Was it Mark Blundell
SVeeedy Gonzales
01-08-05, 09:58 AM
Which GP driver was it that said something like this;
"compared to riding a bike - in car racing the driver is totally irrellevant"
I'm sure that must have been aimed mainly at Mr irrelevant robot Schumacher, surely? F1 is won in the pits, not on the track... most F1 guys will admit that... it's more about technical set up and skill, rather than driving ability. Cars do cost tons more though. Wouldn't be surprised if each F1 team spent more than the entire MotoGP budget every year.
Saint Matt
01-08-05, 09:59 AM
I swear i saw an R7 race an F1 car round the track and win, might not have been F1 though.... it was a while ago 8-[
Wouldn't be surprised if each F1 team spent more than the entire MotoGP budget every year.
Toyota's reputed budget is £250mill.
Mike1234
01-08-05, 10:01 AM
Didn't Rutter give some F1 driver a pasting (and a top end speedboat that had already been given a head start) because the poor guy in the car didn't have his computer running all his traction and launch control for him. Awww.
Beat Rutter (just) when the computers were doing it all for him though.
Rutter won the first run because the launch control on the F1 wasn't set up properly. The second and third runs the F1 car gave Rutter a total pasting, he didn't even see where they went!
SVeeedy Gonzales
01-08-05, 10:01 AM
Do you mean...
"Montoya repeated the often-stated theory that the driver is more important in CART than in Formula 1"
Cloggsy
01-08-05, 10:04 AM
Moto GP vs F1 - who is faster?
Bothered :?:
F1 is crap & MotoGP is ace... 'Nuff said ;)
Agreed, just wondered if I had bragging rights. :D
Bothered :?:
F1 is crap & MotoGP is ace... 'Nuff said ;)
You're right of course "C", but it essential for any male that if you raced two things, which one would win. We need to know that stuff.
SVeeedy Gonzales
01-08-05, 10:22 AM
Ultimately the car would win, I think we all know that.
But that's with all the extra money, development, etc. chucked into it. And the fact that they don't have to go anywhere near as far as bikes do when they race.
What's the distance a car does in a race before tyre change and fuel refill? If race bikes were allowed to do that and had been developed that way (plus more fancy electronics, 2 wheel drive, etc.) then perhaps there would be a closer match.
Be a right pain though... it's bad enough now - how much fun would if be if you had to keep stopping for fuel for your 5 litre tank and change your tyres every 50 miles on your sports 1000 bike??
F1 bears little relation to cars on the road, whilst bikes are a lot closer to their racing forebears. We're faster in the real world and that's what matters :wink:
Mike1234
01-08-05, 10:33 AM
Ultimately the car would win, I think we all know that.
But that's with all the extra money, development, etc. chucked into it. And the fact that they don't have to go anywhere near as far as bikes do when they race.
What's the distance a car does in a race before tyre change and fuel refill? If race bikes were allowed to do that and had been developed that way (plus more fancy electronics, 2 wheel drive, etc.) then perhaps there would be a closer match.
Be a right pain though... it's bad enough now - how much fun would if be if you had to keep stopping for fuel for your 5 litre tank and change your tyres every 50 miles on your sports 1000 bike??
F1 bears little relation to cars on the road, whilst bikes are a lot closer to their racing forebears. We're faster in the real world and that's what matters :wink:
You might be interested, well, I use the term lightly, to know that F1 cars haven't has wheel changes mid race for several years!
Doesn't make the racing any better though!
You might be interested, well, I use the term lightly, to know that F1 cars haven't has wheel changes mid race for several years! Nope! Just this season.
Doesn't make the racing any better though! Correct!
Mike1234
01-08-05, 10:55 AM
You might be interested, well, I use the term lightly, to know that F1 cars haven't has wheel changes mid race for several years! Nope! Just this season.
Are you serious? I thought they hadn't done wheel changes since long before they introduced those crap treaded tyres.
kwak zzr
01-08-05, 03:45 PM
f1 quicker! max biaggi raced m.scumacher<spelling some years ago and the moto gp bike was quick till the corners where f1 car flew by.
agreed f1's mega ****e now :evil:
With regards to launch control/traction control, motogp bike have a considerable amount of electronics to prevent them flipping the bike. This is why you can now have a 250hp bike and still keep it on the track. According to the commentators anyway, the electronics only give them the max power on the straights, everywhere else it is limited.
Sadly F1 has become too reliant on technology, and the costs are just obscene. It also isn't helped by rule makers who seem unable to grasp the effects their changes will have. MotoGP is better, but again, before it, the costs where waaay less - you could turn up on a half decent bike and if you were an amazing rider still do well, as the machinery was only part of the equation. Now you have to have near the best just to be in the race.
Also the rule book for F1 is too restrictive, meaning outside of the software and aero tweek world there has been little in the way of revolutionary innovation in recent years (when was the last time we had a car banned?).
MT
(when was the last time we had a car banned?).
MT
This season! B.A.R.
kwak zzr
01-08-05, 06:47 PM
270bhp for honda moto soon! :D
Carsick
01-08-05, 07:10 PM
Sadly F1 has become too reliant on technology, and the costs are just obscene. It also isn't helped by rule makers who seem unable to grasp the effects their changes will have.
MogoGP is no better in that regard, and the rulemakers are a consortium of the manufacturers!
Most of the rules seem designed to make the bikes harder to ride and more dangerous. They bring in things like CC limits claiming that it will keep a cap on the power output but it just makes the engines even more peaky. It's just PR so nobody can say they didn't try to make the sport safer.
SVeeedy Gonzales
01-08-05, 07:49 PM
Also... he may have left Rutter behind, but if Rossi had been there he'd have been over the finish line by the time the launch control on the car kicked in :D
If you stuck rossi on a pedal bike he would still manage it :D
jonboyy2k
02-08-05, 08:54 PM
....straight line though and the gp bike is faster, and THAT'S what matters lol
carelesschucca
02-08-05, 09:50 PM
if you want a good example
Kimi Raikkonen fastest lap this year in the race round Sepang was 1:35
Rossi last year in qualifying was doing 2:02's...
Top speed's on tracks and the GP bikes are up there Carlos Chucca had the bike upto 213 mph at Mugello, with the fastest speed at Indianapolis being 214 mph...
BUT F1 IS BORING AND BIKES IS FUN...
I remember being at Laguna Seca for World Superbike about 6 years ago. The announcer was commenting on qulifying times and the discussion turned to a comparison of motorcycle vs CART (Indy Car Racing Series) times. Turned out that the track record for bikes was over 8 seconds slower than the CART machines. Keep in mind that CART machines are significantly slower than F1 cars and Laguna is a VERY tight circuit. I believe that it comes down to cornering speed and the cars just put too much rubber down on the ground for bikes to match their speed mid corner.
Also, at this years' Moto GP, they had a 250cc go-kart exhibition with many former bike racers competing. The karts were lapping within 2 seconds of the AMA 600 Supersport bikes.
ujoni08
03-08-05, 06:11 PM
Agreed with all of the above. Something that brings it home is watching (and hearing) onboard footage of the MotoGP bikes (subscribe on the MotoGP.com website and watch it all as streaming video on demand). The bikes have the throttle almost shut for ages through every corner. They just can't feed in any power till they're almost through. THAT'S where the cars nail it all the way. Also, a car has downforce from the wings, but a bike can't have that. If we did, it would become sideways force when leant over, and THAT would be bad.
Jon.
Flamin_Squirrel
03-08-05, 06:44 PM
One of the reasons F1 cars corner so fast is because they cheat and use downforce. I suggest stealing the worlds supply of F1 wings, then compare :wink:
Carsick
03-08-05, 06:45 PM
One of the reasons F1 cars corner so fast is because they cheat and use downforce. I suggest stealing the worlds supply of F1 wings, then compare :wink:
and nick their diffuser wotsits and watch them literally take off.
no real arguement here, f1 cars on lap times are much faster because of downforce and the extra grip from 4 big wheels. Motogp is real racing though so who cares
SVeeedy Gonzales
04-08-05, 07:33 AM
Yeah, F1 would beat a bike on the same track... and there are dozens of other vehicles (mostly military or just very expensive) that would blow a F1 car off the track - in terms of performance and the forces they'd generate... and they'd probably all be a lot more interesting to watch than F1.
Reminds me of that pilot story of the planes calling in to get their relative speeds and some guys in a blackbird overheard some **** fighter pilot do his (which was loads more than anyone else's) just to brag. So they checked theirs (all pilots could hear the same frequency and the speeds the others had) and the blackbird was travelling about 5 times faster than the (now humbled) **** fighter pilot.
ujoni08
04-08-05, 09:43 AM
Agreed with all that's been said, but it still cheeses me off a bit, as a biker and keen watcher of MotoGP, that Schumacher would lap Rossi every 4 1/2 laps or so on the average track. Still, Rossi looks so much more spectacular.
Jon
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.