Veyron vs Yamaha R1

[rob172cup]

Regardless of what people say the Veyron is quicker than a F1 car in a straight line and seen as 5th gear did the bike v's F1 thing then i'd say the veyron would win.The R1 is not mahoosivley faster than an R6 anyway

ian

that test used a superbike vs an f1 car thats like racing gp bike vs a british touring car

it should have been f1 vs moto gp bike that would have been a better test


the veyron is quicker than a f1 (the road car not the racer) f1 racing car 0-100mph 4 secs (depending on the downforce and stuff) the veyron 0-100 mph 5.5

and yes the r1 are massivly faster then the r6 have you ridden both???

oh and i know a gsxr 1000 does 0-100mph in about 5.8 secs

 

[rob172cup]

........

 

[Ian_182]

.....................

 

[Ian_182]

Just to add something.
Hers a modded hyabussa v's a modded dodge viper

http://www.dpccars.com/motorcycle/02-09-07page-Suzuki-Hayabusa-vs-Supercharged-Dodge-Viper.htm

ian

 

[RedClio89]

anyone mentioned the fact an R1 is like £9000 and that car is well over 250k cars will never be as fast and as good with feedback to the rider as bikes , for you out there who own or have riden a bike will understand.

put it like this if some one offered me both id take the car and sell it for the bike , and pay for all my gear , modifications , legalitys , and enought trackdays for my clio and bike for a life time

 

[Ian_182]

I dont think anyone is talking about the cost.Its the power.
We all know bikes are a cheap way of going fast

ian

 

[Toypop]

Toypop.Sorry not being nasty and i totally agree with what you say about bikes and the whole 75% throttle thing.
I'm just a petrolhead and hope that for once the veyron is the car to do the bikes.
What happens after 120mph on a bike.Ive heard that due to weight and stuff the bikes harder to press on and it does'nt go very fast say after 150mph.
Maybe the bikes are doing over 100+mph when the veyron goes.This may explain why the veyron appears so fast as it still has loads to go

ian

The bike has a very strange way of accelerating and then suddenly dying.

They seem to accelerate really fast right up to their top speed and then just stop and die in a really short period of time like the last 10mph or so. It doesn't seem to stop accelerating until you virtually hit the rev limiter in 6th. In that sense the gears are prefectly matched to the speed. You would swear on your life though that if it had a 7th gear it could pull it but in reality it wouldn't.

Where as the car seems over geared. In the case of the Clio I find once you get to 90mph the acceleration is really tailing off and the speedo is only moving up slowly yet it will just keep on accelerating slowly. When you change to 5th at 120 or whatever it really just seems to give up but it refuses to die completely. You would think it could never hit the rev limiter in 5th but if you had a really massive straight it could gradually build up and hit it.

The bike though will just rev really quick bang bang bang up through the gears then say right thats it no more speed and stop!

Hence a litre bike will stay level with a Veyron until 150 - which is within 35mph of its top speed where as the Veyron still has another 100 or so to go! Both of them see their acceleration starting to decay at the same time no doubt but the bikes decays instantly whereas the Veyron dies gradually over a long period. At the end of the day the litre bike is around £793,000 cheaper than a Veyron and it is sold at a profit rather than a loss rumoured to be around £3m? So as long as you don't go over 150mph you wouldn't notice the difference aside from having £793,000 left in the bank! They are still rapid from 150 to 185 or whatever. If you take a car with a 185mph top speed too then you would probably find the litre bike hits that 185mph top speed around a minute quicker! My SV650 had the same top speed as my Clio but would hit 100mph quicker than an FQ400!

I know the ZX6R would start slowing at an indicated 170 and stop at 182 although in reality (real speed) that was probably 155 and 167 respectively as they have the same speedo error as in a car. The litre bike is electronically speed limited to 186 but I have seen videos of mine flying through an indicated 180 whilst still accelerating like a rocket. It would also accelerate far quicker than the Veyron to 150 but they are set up as track bikes which compomises acceleration. They have double the power to weight ratio but can't use it for flipping for wheel spinning. Lengthen the swing arm, fit wider rubber and fiddle with the suspension and it will go a lot quicker with no extra power. It would also make a more stable road bike but the price would be slow laptimes... Bear in mind the litre bikes are all built to comply with the rule book for superbike racing as they have to share certain components with the race bikes whereas the Veyron is an "anything goes" prototype - I don't even believe it is classed as a "production car" under the FIA rules?

In that sense it is an unfair comparison and whilst I disagree in these threads when people say "yeah but if you tune car X...." in this case I have to say it is fairer to compare the Veyron with 500hp turbo Busa's as opposed to 185hp stock bikes that are built to comply with a rule book.

 

[RedClio89]

i know just thought another point of view would come in handy

and i have to add this
"The top speed was verified once again by James May on Top Gear, again at Volkswagen's private test track. When getting close to the top speed during the test he said that "the tires will only last for about fifteen minutes, but it's okay because the fuel runs out in twelve." He also gave an indication of the power requirements, at 155 mph (249 km/h) the Veyron was using approximately 270 BHP (201 kW), but to get to its rated 253 mph (407 km/h) top speed required far more from the engine (the power required to overcome aerodynamic drag increases as the cube of the speed.)At full throttle, it uses more than 125 L/100 km (2.1 mpg), "



and the veyron is faster


Zero to 60 mph (97 km/h): 2.5 s
Zero to 100 mph (161 km/h): 6.0 s
Zero to 150 mph (241 km/h): 11.0 s
Zero to 200 mph (322 km/h): 22.0 s

And the r1
Zero to 60 mph (97 km/h): 2.8 s
Zero to 100 mph (161 km/h): 5.85 s
Zero to 150 mph (241 km/h): ????
Zero to 200 mph (322 km/h): tops out at between 170-180 , so mabe a turbo and big sproket

but the fastes motorbike is the hayabusa turbo, then it would be a war of the giants

 

[Toypop]

That time for the Veyron to 100 is rather slow? I thought it was around 5.5 which is also what the latest litre bikes will do.

Of course a lot of these times you see recorded are corrected for sea level and all that crap so it is hard to compare like with like. You never know which has been corrected and if they haven't been corrected where they were recorded.

If you test them on some dual carriageway in a typical part of the UK then I suspect both the bike and Veyron will do around 6s to 100mph and 11s to 150mph although they have been recorded as low as 5.4 to 10s respectively.

Another reason to be wary of statistics.

 

[Toypop]

Ian182, this should answer your question fully as to what happens after 120mph. You can see how quickly it accelerates to its electronically limited top speed. See what I mean how about you would swear it needs a 7th gear. You will see he short shifts a fair bit especially in 1st gear cos the front starts lifting so he bottles it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6LbCjprqj4

 

[Ian_182]

Yep i see what you mean mate.The lack of drive slows it.After 160 aswell it seams to die also.Which could explain the whole veyron vid.If the veyron went for it after 110+ then the bike is nearly out of puff.
The way the car and bike are moving between traffic i would'nt be shocked

ian