wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

Okay, time for a simple physcis lesson...

Therefore the car has to have enough surface area, and
friction ability to to overcome 4 times the force.

The car has far more than 4 times the contact patch. And, the car
also shifts its CG to load up the outside tires in a turn, applying
more down force to them. And, the car applies it's down force
(traction) in a turn like this:

_|_

while the bike is like this:

_\_

If the desired result is to not slide across the pavement, which do
you think is more efficient way to apply down force to resist that
tendency? You're concentrating on one tiny little aspect of the
issue. Time to open your mind and that basic physics book!

Fact is, unless the track is specifically designed for the inherent
weaknesses of bikes, cars almost always turn faster lap times. The
ability to take the turns faster and better brakes more than makes up
for the bike's better acceleration on most tracks.

------------------------------------

As evidenced by virtually all real world tests done on the subject.
I had to let iBoaterer out of the Bozo bin to see what the heck he was
talking about.
His analysis on the subject is flawed. A car can overcome the
centrifugal forces (to a point) due to transferring them to the two
outside tires, allowing it to corner at faster speeds. If you could
measure the forces, they would be huge. A motorcycle rider can't
compensate enough by leaning at the same speed or even near the same
speed. He's relying on a "counterbalance" effect which can't be
nearly high enough. Now, if the motorcycle rider had outriggers that
he could climb out onto for additional mechanical advantage, he could
corner faster.