SL63 leaves biker on country road!

[acej]

I have had the opportunity to run mine vs a few bikes in a safe environment. Rolling 50mph out of a corner I blew away a 2002 Kawasaki 750 ninja, 2005 fire blade but got slaughtered by a new gsxr1000 by some margin up to 130mph although I was starting to pull it back in before we run out of runway. I am running north of 700bhp. I would imagine past 160 the SL really comes into its own plus most of these bikes are geared to just north of 180. Mine still had a gear left and was at 194mph on the speedo at brunting t before I ran out of room.

 

[Sp!ke]

I was wondering if you had written in a white font on a white background but the background clearly isn't white.

 

[cb1965]

200mph Drag Race: Porsche GT2 RS v. Ducati 1199 Panigale - /CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS - YouTube

Porsche vs bike - Chris Harris

 

[KennyN]

One thing that has only been mentioned briefly in the car / bike debate is the cost , purchase and running.

£2.5k (possibly less) will get you a seriously quick two wheeled machine that will have almost no realistic four wheeled competition away from a standing start.

Not everyone can afford an SL63 but still want the thrill of getting from 0-100 in less than 5 seconds , plus there is far more skill involved getting an old school superbike (without traction / wheelie control) off the line cleanly than pressing your right foot into the carpet with LC .

The corners are a completely different matter though.

Kenny

 

[acej]

One thing that has only been mentioned briefly in the car / bike debate is the cost , purchase and running. £2.5k (possibly less) will get you a seriously quick two wheeled machine that will have almost no realistic four wheeled competition away from a standing start. Not everyone can afford an SL63 but still want the thrill of getting from 0-100 in less than 5 seconds , plus there is far more skill involved getting an old school superbike (without traction / wheelie control) off the line cleanly than pressing your right foot into the carpet with LC . The corners are a completely different matter though. Kenny

Totally agree and as an ex biker who has had a number of late 80,90's early 2000 super bikes they weren't always that easy to launch or get the power down. New bikes are much more point and fly!

 

[V12]

I have had the opportunity to run mine vs a few bikes in a safe environment. Rolling 50mph out of a corner I blew away a 2002 Kawasaki 750 ninja, 2005 fire blade but got slaughtered by a new gsxr1000 by some margin up to 130mph although I was starting to pull it back in before we run out of runway. I am running north of 700bhp. I would imagine past 160 the SL really comes into its own plus most of these bikes are geared to just north of 180. Mine still had a gear left and was at 194mph on the speedo at brunting t before I ran out of room.

They were in the wrong gear. 50mph roll on in 2nd gear and a 2005 fireblade should really leave your SL for dust.

 

[KennyN]

I agree that the Blade was in the wrong gear , or the rider was napping.

This video was one of the reasons I bought a ZX12R , a Busa was also a consideration but it was just toooooo ugly IMHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNvchMtL1Ok


I picked mine up for £2.8k with only 8k on the clock and in mint condition.

Kenny

 

[acej]

I would of though so but this was on a number of runs. Pretty consistent experience on the roads as well I am far from std a well as the Bhp I am putting down 1200nm of torque as well. The 2005 blade wasn't the best bike (I had a 2003) and it's publish 1/4 mile isn't far off where I am and this was a rolling 50 so that took out the 1st second advantage. Maybe he was down on power who knows. The new gixer was in a different league though

 

[prprandall51]

Here is a video of a quick bike (Ducati 1199 Panigale R) vs a standard Audi RS6 (560bhp), on a racetrack with two competent riders/drivers.

Audi RS6 vs Ducati 1199 Panigale R - car vs bike track battle - YouTube

I won't spoil the enjoyment by telling you who the winner is.

 

[Sp!ke]

Or this one

[YOUTUBE HD]IteniLcLImU[/YOUTUBE HD]

 

[prprandall51]

My take: there is no comparison between a motorbike and a car in terms of acceleration in the real-world speeds that are used on the public road.

A good, modern sportsbike will deliver in excess of 650bhp per tonne (calculated including fluids and rider weight). Until a car gets close to that figure then issues like aerodynamics are not relevant, the bike is just going to blitz the car, so the only contenders are the Veyron, Arial Atom, etc.

It is only when the speed moves up to well over 120-140mph that the car starts to offer serious competition - and even then it needs to be packing that enormous power-to-weight mentioned above.

Of course, on the public road then four other factors come into play to even up the playing field and give car drivers a misplaced sense of the potency of their car:

1) the inability of bikes to brake anywhere near as quickly as a car (even a high-performance sportsbike is outbraked by a modest family hatchback); which induces extra caution on the part of the rider.

2) the inability of a bike to brake or accelerate hard whilst in a corner, or to make major abrupt adjustments to their cornering line whilst in a corner

3) the vulnerability of the rider to serious injury if it goes wrong (more caution still!).

4) the lack of torque in a sportsbike engine which means that a bike has to be in exactly the right gear and engine revs to access the full acceleration potential. For example, on my bike, if I want to fly, I need to have the engine at around 8-9000rpm to tap into maximum acceleration. On the public road, you don't just pootle around at 9000 waiting for an AMG to come alongside; instead you are more likely to be down at 4-5000 and will need to drop three gears - maybe even four - to get on-song.

 

[ivandraganov]

David was doing only 100mph when car pulled in front:http://youtu.be/y965HcoUULQ

 

[Sp!ke]

Of course, on the public road then four other factors come into play to even up the playing field and give car drivers a misplaced sense of the potency of their car:

I think the difference on a public road is far greater in favour of a bike.

On a bike you can filter and overtake anywhere even with oncoming traffic.... more often than not you don't even need to brake when a car has to - on a bike you just aim for the gap and squirt it some more.

 

[Rustrust]

3) the vulnerability of the rider to serious injury if it goes wrong (more caution still!).

.

if you crash a car or bike at 60mph you are dead, and you cannot be any more dead than dead even if you are going 150mph

having seen car crashes go wrong at normal sane speeds, the outcomes are often death at speeds much more everyday than what a bike and amg mercedes do

 

[prprandall51]

if you crash a car or bike at 60mph you are dead,

I would rather be in my Mercedes and spin into a tree at 60 mph than on my own just dressed in leathers.

I would much rather clip Armco in a car than on a bike - and don't even get me started on those frightening tensioned wires that some muppet thought would be better than Armco, they would cut a biker to bits, whilst a car would be gently pushed back into the carriageway.

I can't agree with your assertion that you are no safer in a car than on a bike.

 

[Sp!ke]

I would rather not crash anything but I have had my share of motorcycle offs.

In my youth I used to regard falling off as being inevitible in order to explore the limits.

A fair amount of skin loss and breakages later and having discovered that I now shatter not bounce, I now try and stay shiney side up.

 

[Chalpkin]

if you crash a car or bike at 60mph you are dead.

Hi,
That's not always true, I once hit a patch of diesel on a motorway silp road at about 70mph on a Yamaha FZS600, the bike lowsided, slid into the armco with me following, luckily because of the gentle arc of the bend and the fact that I weighed quite a bit less than my bike, I stopped before hitting the armco, obviously a lot has to do with the surrounding objects but it just goes to show that a crash at speed (up to a point), is not always fatal.

 

[Sp!ke]

I once came off at close to three figure speeds and the motorcycle punched a hole through a garden wall which I then followed through. Did I ever mention I had the luck of the devil?

 

[cb1965]

I once came off at close to three figure speeds and the motorcycle punched a hole through a garden wall which I then followed through. Did I ever mention I had the luck of the devil?

LOL, if you saw that in a movie you'd say 'Yeah, right' with a huge roll of the eyes. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

I stopped learning to ride a motorcycle when two guys I went to school with got killed in two separate incidents within a week of each other with the car drivers involved being found culpable in both cases.... unlike you I don't have the luck of the devil so thought.... hmm, maybe this is not for me. Shame really as I have always loved bikes and the majority of bikers I have met seem to be great guys.

 

[Bellow]

if you crash a car at 60mph you are dead,

Then take this as proof that corpses can type...

the fact that I weighed quite a bit less than my bike, I stopped before hitting the armco, obviously a lot has to do with the surrounding objects but it just goes to show that a crash at speed (up to a point), is not always fatal.

A mate of mine has survived a few 'sorry mate, I didn't see you' impacts. His survival technique is to jump as high as he can the split second before his bike hits the object.