View Full Version : MotoGP bikes faster than F1 Cars

05-13-2003, 06:08 PM
Barrichello surprised that the RC211V is faster than his F2003-GA F1 car (so am I).

From MotoGP.com:

With Nicky Hayden travelling at 279,6 km/h down the back straight, the top speed of the weekend was quicker than that of the F1 cars at Jerez. `I am very surprised by that,´ said Barrichello.

<img src="http://images.motograndprix.com/multimedia/215/215516.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

05-13-2003, 07:20 PM
not sure about top speed but bike can out accelerate a GP Car so reach the speed quiker and jerez is only 600 meter long on streight --but GP car out corner a bike (except in some S turns) , but who cares about cars considering $100 computer gadget can drive a car better than barrichalo or shumacher so i dont see much more excitment than a slot car racing

05-13-2003, 07:42 PM
I would've never thought would happen. I just can't imagine anything other then a dragster out execelerating an F1, much less a bike beating them in top speed on a track. Could it be that they were running a really high downforce set-up? How do the lap times compare?

05-14-2003, 09:47 AM
I disagree that a MotoGP bike can accelerate quicker than an F1 car. 2 big things in favor of the car: Power-to-weight ratio (850bhp/600kg = .71kg/hp vs. 230bhp/145kg = .63kg/hp) and Contact Patch (4 VERY wide tires vs. 2 skinny tires).

I think Doug hit the nail on the head: Aerodynamics. I bet the F1 cars probably are running a very high downforce setup which above 150mph dramatically reduces acceleration. The MotoGP report didn't say what speed F1 cars reached at Jerez, but I wouldn't imagine it to be more than 10kph less.

Barrichello was quoted as saying that watching the MotoGP race he thought that riding a MotoGP bike is much more difficult than driving his F1 car. Nothing against F1 guys, but with all their traction control, semi-auto shifting, not to mention 4-WHEEL CAGES, that is the understatement of the year!

Still, most tracks I've looked at that both F1 cars and MotoGP run on, the F1 cars are 15-20 seconds a lap faster, because of those same aerodynamics pushing thousands of pounds down on the cars in the corners.

05-14-2003, 11:56 PM
bikes are more aerodynamic than a GP car because GP car can not have inclosed wheels according to rules

-a Le mans car or Nascar is more aerodynamic than GP car because of fully inclosed bodywork --for example on aerodynamics alone a 125cc GP bike reaches 145Mph but a Kart with same engine have hard time going past 120Mph

another factor is GP car in low gear can spin out in the streight ! i seen them spin out on full trottle on a streight on a dry track and lost the race ! so they can not apply all the power even in steights

05-15-2003, 12:28 AM
also i dont believe at all that is possible to get 850 HP considering GP car is 10 cylinder 3000 cc and normaly aspirited - i estimate they make around 650 RWHP

thats 65Hp per each 300c cylinder -- getting 85 hp from 300ml cylinder is just not possible without oval cylinders or turbo which is not used --

so a 900cc triple bike with same technology as GP car such as CUBE would make 3 x 65 = 205 HP which sounds right--

see if 85HP from 300 cc cylinder was possible GP bikes would made 300 hp because both use same engine technology

05-15-2003, 01:11 AM
Hi guys,

Anyway F-1 is Boooooooooring, and last Moto GP race also.
I cannot say that 4 strokes have made it more interesting.
If the factories would really have interest in the 2 strokes they certainly would beat all the "diesels" in MotoGP.
Look at the old triple Proton, they are still fast and have not been developed in 2 years! I need the smeel of 2 strokes again, the Castrol R-40 smell will never get out of my memory.
I'm afraid that in a few years we have a kind of F-1 motorraces, the big fun comes however from 125 and 250, not from the "premier" league.


05-15-2003, 06:42 AM
F1 cars make 800 bhp + and do 4 mpg ! I was a guest at Silverstone a couple years back and had the pleasure of being entertained by Jonathan Palmer.

The older F1 cars that had turbos used to make 650 bhp - the days when Lotus used to compete in the class.

If a 2.0 litre Touring car (or saloon car I think you may call it) can make 360 bhp + I can't see how a 3.0 litre GP car can't make 800.

05-15-2003, 09:30 AM
Do any of you remember a Road & Track (American car magazine) article about 15 years ago where they tested the Benetton-BMW F1 car of Michele Alboreto (rest-in-peace)?

They actually track tested and dyno tested the car. I will never forget it because I remember the similarities to my Honda Civic at the time.

Both engines were 16-valve inline 4-cylinders, displacing 1600cc's, except the BMW F1 motor had a single turbo. My Civic made a claimed 123 bhp at the crankshaft. The BMW F1 motor made 900 bhp in race trim and with the boost turned up to "qualify" (meaning it would grenade after 3 laps), it made 1050 bhp!

In the acceleration testing I recall it did the 1/4 mile in 9 seconds at something like 160+mph and took 10 seconds flat to reach 175mph.

Even with the lack of turbos, I think all the other advancements in F1 (tire compounds, traction control, aerodynamics, etc.) would enable modern F1 cars to accelerate even quicker. I seriously doubt that a MotoGP bike will accelerate more quickly than even the Arrows F1 car.

I agree with Chrono, MotoGP has been a let down because of the domination of Honda. Ducati (and especially Troy Bayliss) has made it interesting, but it still reminds me of the Hakkinen/McLaren vs. Schumacher/Ferrari F1 battles with only the 2 of them fighting for anything while the other cars were seemingly on parade laps. The TV coverage sucks as well, not covering any other battles in the field.

125, 250 GP and SBK Supersport still provide the best action on 2 wheels.

05-15-2003, 09:33 AM
Trying to use standard logic on an F1 to try and rationalize it's HP figures is like trying to walk your fish on a leash.... It's silly (and not healthy for the fish).

The amount of money spent on a F1 car is often the size of budgets deficits that many small countries have. Last year, Ferrari alone spent nearly $400,000,000 (yes 1/2 billion) on their Formula 1 effort. By comparison, I believe I saw Ducati and Hondas budget for MotoGP between $5-$8,000,000.

The amount of research, time, materials, and testing to achieve 900 HP out of a 3 Liter engine and nearly a ton of aerodynamic downforce is staggering. Saying that a bikes engine is "based on" a forumla one engine is usually a gross exaggeration. The revs, the drivetrain the transmission - all is different.

I think Just 2 or 3 races ago (or maybe last year), Steve Matchet (former Benneton pit Chief) stated that a modern day F1 car will 0-100 kph (62 MPH) in nearly 2.5 seconds with the quarter mile coming in just under 9 seconds.

(On a side note: After taking into account sales and endorsements, and racing efforts, Ferrari the company makes only between $10-$20,000,000 per year in revenue)

Ricky J
05-15-2003, 02:36 PM
In their heyday, the Eighties, the best turbocharged F-1 V-6s made upwards of 1000bhp in qualifying trim, and a Honda powerplant could give 1500 momentarily! Not at all bad for 1.5 liters...

05-15-2003, 08:53 PM
stock VFR750 1986 tested by CYCLE magazine in 1986

0 to 60 in 2.4 second

thats stock VIintage street bike faster than GP car !

if you dont believe me go to any library that has archives of CYCLE magazine and look it up on 1986 -- it takes lotsa skill to launch the bike perfectly and it depends on rider ability , Terry vance done low 2 in 0-60 on an older GSXR750 street bike -we are not even talking about a race bike here ..

as far as 2 strokes , they allways last in drag race at start and after that held back by slower 4 strokes in turns so if they changed rules to rolling start proton would be 4th not 9th

05-15-2003, 11:28 PM
0-60 doesn't really mean much to be honest, I just pointed it out for comparisons reason...

A GSXR-1000 or Hayabusa will pull under 3 seconds with a little.work and practiced hand.

But it ends there.

05-16-2003, 05:38 AM
If a TVR Tuscan that races in the TVR Challenge in England does 0-60 mph in 3.2 secs, what do you think a GP car can do it in ??

I don't doubt that GP bikes can be as fast but I don't think they can out accelerate a GP car - too small a contact patch.


05-16-2003, 01:50 PM
Like all race machines f1 cars a compromise. There’s home made kit cars for 30K, designed for hill climbs that can out accelerate an f1 car up to 100mph, because that’s all they are designed for.

05-17-2003, 06:54 AM
car outcorner bike resulting in faster lap time but 2 GP cars hardly fit in a turn so what good all this cornering ability when there is no overtaking in the corners ? everytime i watch GP Car its like each cars running alone , thats not even a race

also i am not convinced about outright speed , a remember a while back NSR500 did 200mph at hokenheim track ( 320kmh ), GP car clocked 312kmh trap speed in same track , have they gotten that much faster now ?

05-17-2003, 08:20 AM
well, due to most tracks other than a drag strip consisting of corners, you want your car to corner well to decrease your lap times, and unless you are leading a race, stretch out your lead, if you are behind someone you gain on them and overtake them under braking

I think F1 is very competative, and Racing a F1 car is by no means easy.
they overtake going into corners

05-17-2003, 10:18 AM
A few years ago MCN ran a test at Mugello with Biaggi and Schumacher. The NSR500 did 0-60 in 2.6secs (tall first gear remember) and the Ferrari did it in 2.9secs. The performance is very similar speed wise but the cars make all the time up on the brakes and corners (a la downforce) No doubt the current MotoGP bikes are faster than back then, as are the F1 cars (traction control used on both) But at the end of the day its about entertainment. F1 is @#%$, the drivers are essentially ballast, these cars are so sophisticated that any gimp could drive them round a track quickly. The beauty of motorcycle racing (and riding) is that it will never be more machine than man. That is the bottom line.

05-17-2003, 03:07 PM
so how come you don't race F1?

post like these make me laugh

05-18-2003, 09:18 AM
woa ! shumacher car fire coming from fuel tank ! (he still won ) but not much to hold your breath other than that ..

if you seen racing in monaco , cars cant pass on that track so race often finish in same order started

05-19-2003, 04:48 AM
Yeah Monaco is won and lost on pit strategies.

And anyone who thinks that you can jump in an F1 car and drive it fast is crazy. You will be off the road in no time. They are unreal, the power to weight ratio is like nothing you could imagine.

Many a man has been caught out thinking they can drive TVRs fast - they end up in a ditch. Once you get used to the power delivery you can drive them fast. Thats just a TVR, mine which was a Cerbera 4.2 had 360BHP and was the fastest production car in the world (limited run cars not included - F50s, McLaren F1s, XJ220s etc) in 1998. They did a 4.5 litre which was even faster. I can't imagine what it would be like in a F1 car that has more than twice the power and half the weight !!


06-04-2003, 12:01 AM
Rossi does Suzuka in about 2m03s
Schumacher does it in about 1m31s

I'll watch GP first anyday, but on a track with turns, there's no contest, F1 cars are way faster.

'nuff said

06-07-2003, 09:18 PM
watched monaco race last weekend , i didnt see a single pass made ( i think not even possible) , without overtaking its just time trial

so whats the point of lapping faster when you cant pass slower ones ? so what if shumacher end up on the back of slower car ? ( unless slower car show let him go )

06-16-2003, 06:41 AM
Top speed is dictated by aerodynamics because drag is proportional to the square of speed. Put simply, to double your speed, you must quadruple your power. Check out the link below for a good introduction.

www.insideracingtechnolog...02drag.htm (http://www.insideracingtechnology.com/tech102drag.htm)

The formula is Drag = Frontal Area x Cd x (speed squared). where Cd is the coefficient of Drag.
A bike has a similar Cd to an F1 car, but a smaller frontal area, so it will have a lower drag at the same speed, so it can reach that speed with less power.

The formula for acceleration is Acceleration = Force / Mass.
From the figures given earlier, F1 (850Hp/600Kg) 1.42 Hp/Kg against bikes (230Hp/145Kg) 1.59Hp/Kg, it is not surprising that they bikes accelerate faster.

As for F1 cars being easy to drive, :rollin: . I was a race marshall at a Boss series race in Mondello Park a few years ago. This is where ex-formula one and Indy cars, owned by private individuals, get to race. One individual had hired an F1 for the race (I think it was an Arrows, but I couldn't be sure). He was a pretty good amatur single seat racer with plenty of experiance, and he had the cash.

Driving out of the pit-lane for the first time, to form up for the parade lap, he touched the accelerator. His left rear tyre went over the white line seperating the pit-lane exit from the track and lost traction. His right rear had full traction and slewed the car to the left, pushing the left rear off the white line. It then re-gained traction, and catapulted the car into the sidewall opposite the pit-lane exit. It took less then one second. It was the first time I had seen a race car crash before it had even gotten onto the track! No one was hurt, but the car was destroyed.