No they're not the loads through car dampers are much greater, and rally cars are worked far harder with dampers that are just as exposed to the elements, dampers going weak has nothing to do with the surface corrosion you might see on your dampers, the seals are designed to be exposed to the elements and should not last significantly shorter periods of time, if you're routinely replacing dampers something is wrong with them but its not being exposed to the elements.
Sorry to be stupid then but what is the point of a single seat conversion, if you're on a budget and the pillion seat forms the back of the seat (which I guess is what you're getting at) then either leave it on or chop out the inside of the pillion seat so you've got just enough stiffness on the front of it and cover it with aviation tape, I'm pretty sure it'll work out lighter, a lot cheaper, and a bit less aerodynamic than the chunks of fibreglass people sell, but then again you're not buying it for the performance advantage are you? Or even better would be a lip of aluminum attached to the front of the pillion seat and some tape, but again it wouldn't look pretty enough for you?
Great but remember a car on the limit is only controlled by the tyres and throttle, we can't shift weight around like a bike can so whilst tyres are just as critical, if not more so for a car on the limit.
You've mismatched the tyres though and intentionally or not messed up the balance of the car. Assuming the tyres are all of a similar design/intended use and compared as nearly new complete matching sets I say there is little difference between tyres that you'll struggle to tell them apart.
Motorcycle suspension is set up very finely. Much more so than a car. Shocks can start to sag and lose their rebound overtime. No, surface corrosion doesn't but if you ignore cleaning your shock it will become poorer and will eventually fail. British road salt is very nasty stuff.
And I can argue that motorcross bike suspension is pushed harder than rallycars, however we're not arguing about racing. We're talking about general road and perhaps TRACK use.
You really have no idea do you. NO-ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT AERODYMANICS. IT COSTS ALL OF £70 IT'S A PIECE OF PLASTIC THAT CLIPS ON. IT'S AESTHETIC.
You "shift your weight" (ie lean off) to keep the bike more upright this keeping the contact patch larger. Motorcycle tyres are much more a part of the bike than tyres on a car are. That's just a fact. The smaller the contact patch the more important they are to the stability of your vehicle.
No it isn't, endurance rally bikes maybe, but long distance rallies are far more demanding than any amount of standard road or race use, everyday the cars/bikes get more use than a race car/bike will ever be expected to get, for days on end, add to that the worst possible conditions, especially sand and the work load is much harder, there's no need to keep the shocks clean though.
I know what it is, I also know that it serves very little purpose other than maybe replacing support from the front of the pillion seat and possibly helping aerodynamics. The point is earlier on you were trying to justify your seat cover and fart can as something other than chavy mods for looks/making noise without actually doing anything useful. Looks are an important part in vehicles, although I think rear seat covers always look daft on road bikes, it's really the biking equivalent of a meshed up grill, the light chav tuning option that doesn't look too bad just not as good as when it started.
Tyres are still as fundamental to a car, if not slightly more so due to the fact you have less you can do to adapt to your tyres, in a car you only have three basic controls, that's it and even if you're Schumacher there's only so much you can do, on a bike you have the same plus an extra brake and infinitely variable weight distribution and aerodynamic changes to accomodate for the machine.
Use the front brake during a corner and it will sit the bike up or lowside.. Use the rearbrake and you risk locking it up/causing the back to come round
Despite my best efforts to explain to you, you seem to have no understanding of motorcycling as a "hobby" and you have no understanding of anything bike related WHATSOEVER
It's lucky no-one in the biking fraternity cares if you think it doesn't look good. The thousands of motorcyclists that have single seat covers disagree with you. No-one buys them other than looks. There's no "replacing support" or "aerodynamics" involved!
Loud "fart cans" as you say tend to give a 2-7bhp increase depending on bike without the need to rejet. Look it up.
You're overthinking things and it's bloody irritating. Actually, you know what, Alex? You're totaly right. You're the master of everything and you know it all. I'm an idiot and I know nothing.
Forget about what you think/have been told and think about the physics of the situation for a change, then give me one good reason why either brake will automatically cause the bike to fall on the floor used with restraint and used at just the right time to both change the balance of the bike (which is the very reason why you say it can't be used) and to get a tiny bit of extra retardation. You may not be able to but I'm sure any racer worth his salt can and does all the time. It's exactly the same with braking round corners in a car, nearly everyone (including track schools) will implant this image that touching the brake pedal in a corner will automatically cause the car to spin and burst into flames. Of course we all know to be fast you have to trail brake, in any car without exception, of course it's up to the individual to decide when and if they are confident enough progress from the safe but slow method to truly controlling the car. However good a driver gets he only has the steering wheel and two pedals (assuming the clutch is never used for any other purpose than changing gear in circuit racing), no matter how good he is a driver cannot change the balance or drag of the car when he needs to, nor (excluding very exceptional cases) can he use the brakes independently to change the balance of the car, and of course a clutch that is actually an important part of riding fast is another tool that the fast rider can use.
Didn't think it did, your previous post seemed to imply that there was an obvious purpose of a seat cover other than looks that I was missing, clearly there wasn't...
2bhp if you're lucky, a standard manifold and exhaust will have been design to work with back pressure including the silencer/standard back box so the chances are messing about with one part of the exhaust without any thought process is likely to create lots of chavtastic noise and if anything a reduction in power.
You're right you are an idiot if you just blindly believe sweeping statements without anything to back them up, without thinking them through, whether they agree with your point of view or not. The engineering principles are exactly the same however many wheels it has so there's no reason why specific knowledge or experience is required to discuss a lot of topics, if it was this forum would be incredibly dull. Threads that you just post annoying irrelevant spam in stating how you're scared of trying to think about the problem would be a waste of time if they went on hearsay and peoples acquired 'knowledge' like bikers seem to use, rather than actual logic and thought.
actually you can (to a certain degree) in anything that isnt 4wd
ive personally used left foot braking while using the gas pedal to decrease braking on one end to get the tail round on ice and better drivers use it quite a bit even those who can adjust the brake balance of the car as is apparent from that telemetry comparison of schumacher and someone else that keeps popping up every now and then
It's still using the brakes dependently to balance the car, having independent brakes does allow for big advantages in car setup, allowing a car to be less edgy with extra rear braking used to keep the back end nicely balanced (like the Mclaren third pedal).
Sorry, Sam, to keep off-topicing your thread but I am annoyed with the bullshit.
Sorry since when have we gone from a general discussion about road bikes/cars to racing them? You forget I've done nearly 10,000 miles on 2 wheels since December 2008? (I'm still learning every time I go out btw)
You can "balance" a motorcycle in it's setup so it's slightly easier to use the front brake without trying to sit up, however the limit grip of the tyre is still only so much and even racers (such as Jorge Lorenzo at Jerez MotoGP last week, just one of many) frequently get it wrong
I did not say that using the brake will "automatically" cause you to crash, however for a normal rider (IE not a Racer), you do your braking BEFORE you turn, if you MUST brake you should use the back brake but even so it's generally frowned upon.
Have you ridden a motorcycle? I'm not talking a little pit bike, I'm talking 'motorcycle' (IE above 125cc at the very least), gone into a corner too hot and braked hard using the front? You'd know what happens. It's all about centrifugal force. Motorcycles are naturally unstable. However the rotation of the wheel and the crankshaft is what gives you stability. That's why it's generally easier to take a faster corner than it is a much slower one.
You cause them to turn by unbalancing them and forcing them to lean, which because of the curvature of the tyres 'steers' the bike.
Eg If you wish to turn left, you must push on the left handlebar (or pull on the right one), either way turning the wheel to the right which makes the motorcycle unbalance and lean to the left.. When you apply the brakes it acts as a "stabiliztion" effect which tries its damnedest to sit the bike up again. To counter this you must outweigh the stabilization effect caused by braking by "unstablizing" the bike EVEN MORE the bike by pushing on the bars harder. It's a VERY fine line between crashing and on the road it's all too easily crossed.
Over thinking. Tristan implied it and you brought it on..
Standard motorcycle exhausts are very restrictive compared to a good aftermarket one. Motorcycles are much more of a "problem" and face VERY strict sound and emissions regulations in comparison with most cars -
Hence why exhausts that flow more freely tend to be louder. Maybe, now, I understand why 'chavs' (as you so call them) hate people like you so much. Because all you do is brand them with stereotypes that you have no idea about.
80% of after market slip ons come with removable baffles you can remove. This makes the exhaust illegal (although most cops only tend to do you for them if they're feeling off or on an "out to get bikers for noisy cans and small plates" day, and makes it sound "fruitier". In some cases, removing the baffles can increase power slightly or, more often than not, just leave power alone. However you can sometimes get a decrease in power, although this is getting much rarer.
You'd be hard pressed to find a slip on exhaust for a motorcycle that decreases power. 95% actually increase power. Just a FEW examples across a range of bikes.
Googled "slip on exhaust dyno" and took basically the first 3 results.
And while exact gains will vary from exhaust manufacturer to bike, the pattern remains the same. An increase is what you can expect.
Average gain is about 4 -6bhp, depending on your bike. If you use a PC3 (Powercommander, fuel remapper) you can get more. Sorry but that's just a fact.
Uhm, no.
Indeed mechanical. Physics wise, uhm no. Try jamming on the brakes on a bike mid corner and see what happens. You can use your own bike for that, just a warning.
I grant you 10/10 for thought Alex. I see very little spam (at least in this thread). Do carry on.
S14, I don't mind you going off topic as your just proving AJP wrong lol.
AJP, stfu lol. You eventally don't know no where near as much about bikes then what S14 does. So shut up and stop making the thread go off topic.
On the insurance front of things. I have been looking on Adrian Flux and they will give anyone a minimum of 20% discount if they have done their pass plus. So I will be deffently doing that. But to the point, they also say if you have done your advance driving course you can get 35% discount. What I want to know, how old do you have to be to do an advance driving course? I will do it, if it saves me money on my insurance lol.
So what? I make no claim to being a good driver and just because I don't trail brake or left foot brake in my very limited track experience doesn't mean when discussing the performance of tyres and behaviour on the limit (which is only of any importance on a track) I'm going to make the assumption that the brakes and steering are going to be used independently of each other. Equally I've also gone beyond the limit on track and road, though thankfully using some caution and a sensible factor of safety (ie. no where not be intentionally anywhere near the limit) has meant with the exception of one dramatic 100mph spin on a trackday (that I was incredibly lucky to not hit anything or turn the car over in) I've managed to get through my first two years of driving with out denting anything, that doesn't mean when I've had moments I've learnt anything about car control or the limit, you learn that by doing it right and feeling things on the limit.
Once slowly round a car park, that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion though, there's no need to do something to (attempt to) understand the physics behind it, normally actually having practical experience is detrimental because you get misleading notions and can't look at it with a fresh slate, going on what ever silly nonsense other people tell you (ie. like most instructors) will just get you confused. If the design of racing cars, bikes and planes was only done by people who had used them (let alone people who were exceptionally good at using them) then we probably wouldn't have commercial airliners or winged racing cars in the world today.
The manifold and rest of the exhaust are still wrong for the engine, getting a power gain is pot luck, the engineer who designed the exhaust system will be able to explain to you why the drop in power, increase in emissions and various other ill effects that your bike seems to suffer are a matter of simple physics. Regardless of whether the claim is actually genuine or not (I bet those graphs you produce came from an unbiased source?) the reason why you have it is because it looks good (in your eyes) and makes more noise. A new back box that looked like the standard one and didn't have removable baffles wouldn't be able to compete for sales with one that had some naff carbon effect and removable baffles even if it produced lower power would it?
IIRC you made the comment about exhaust tips on Corsas being chavvy, they are just like back boxes on bikes, doesn't mean we don't all have a bit of chavvy side at heart.
I was refering to the recent thread about calculating oil pressure which you felt the need to make 4 posts in of absolutely no use declaring how you didn't want to think about the subject being discussed.
I lack some specific knowledge about how bikes work true, I also have a brain and know how dampers work and have stripped and installed them in various applications (not in bikes admittedly) and am fully aware of why they are not severely effected by getting dirty, and the assertation that dampers failing over time means they must be kept clean is ridiculous.
Pass Plus is easy and you're guaranteed to pass, it's just a case of 6 hours of lessons (or less if your instructor is prepared to be inventive). The Advanced Driving Test is much harder to get, it's a proper test (open to anyone) that most new drivers are going to struggle to pass between passing their test and getting insurance for their first car, given that nobody can actually drive a car well on the road when they pass their test.
Very true fitting an exhaust is will improve the performance of any engine. To my knowledge though (and I know it's not great) most bikes have an exhaust as standard. Simply cutting part of the carefully designed exhaust off and bolting something in its place is not guaranteed to improve performance. You acknowledge that if you simply welded a big bit of straight pipe to a standard manifold that you would get a decrease in just about everything but emissions and noise despite the fact the new exhaust was less restrictive, decatted and unsilenced?
And this relates to motorcycles (this discussion) how? Going beyond the limit in a car involves a slide of some sort. At worst generally it's into the kitty litter, you're pulled out and away you go.
Going beyond the limit on a bike involves it either lowsiding or highsiding and you often being whisked away on a stretcher and your bike being written off or damaged beyond economical repair..
Driving a car and riding a motorcycle share no similarities apart from having a throttle, brake(s) and clutch. Ride a bike and take a track exactly how you would drive it in a car and you'll be off on the second corner. The way the tyre grips is similar in principle but they way they lose and regain grip are very different. You have 2 wheels so often losing grip means you crash instead of slide and regain grip.
Uhhh, it does. Slowly round a car park? Chances are you hardly touched upon counter-steering and about actually having to brake before you turn.
You live close to me. I have a pillion seat. If you are willing I'd happily take you out for an hour to show you what I mean (not the crashing part obviously) and have a friendly discussion over a sandwich if you don't believe me.
You're talking to me as if you know about trail braking on a motorcycle and the theory, physics and output of fairly simple motorcycle physics, which you clearly don't or you wouldn't be talking such utter tosh.
Frankly you have no more of an idea about motorcycle physics than I do about quantum physics, quite clear when you look back at some of the utter bull you have written down.
Are you trying to counter my point by saying because I have experience and I KNOW what I'm talking about that in actual fact I have no idea at all?
Pot luck my arse Alex, are you being blatantly ignorant?!
I've proved my point and despite clear evidence you still repute it. The Carbon Fibre cans are actually LIGHTER than the already LIGHTER THAN OE stainless or titanium exhaust system and remain cool to the touch. Useful for underseat exhausts (standard fit on many models, not some bolt on) or high level exhausts which means it won't melt bungee cables or damage the fairing.
Go look any brand of motorcycle exhaust by a half decent name, Arrow, Akrapovic, Blueflame, Beowulf, MIVV, CCC, MTC, Graves, Yoshimura, and many other's over the pond (I've provided you with an exte ... xhausts and manufacturers and you'll see the amount of dyno time they put into their exhausts to improve both power AND torque, they bring a whole host of benefits..
Weigh less than standard
Produce more power/more torque
Look nicer
Sound nice
It just shows how LITTLE you know when you refer to slip on's as "backboxes".
But some of us are more beligerant than others.
Ahh, I see now. As did oh, say about 3 other people.
For the record, most standard motorcycle exhausts are "carefully" designed to reduce emissions and reduce noise, not to maximize horsepower.
Hence why nearly every single manufacturer offers a factory optional exhaust made (normally) by a 3rd party (IE one of the manufacturers listed above).
As is often the case, the factory also tends to offer a remap to match these option exhausts, which can boost power even further.
No that's certainly not what I meant, the tyres remain absolutely critical to any vehicle. My point was that two different types of similarly constructed tyres both designed with the same set of design criteria should behave so similarly as good new matched sets that the difference between them is largely perceived in road driving.
Who knows topics are far more interesting when they go off topic
I certainly wouldn't say that about road cars, get it properly wrong on a country road and the car is the last thing you need to worry about. The same applies to road cars on tracks, they are not safe by any stretch of the imagination, sadly someone left the last trackday I did in a body bag.
It's a tempting offer that I might just take you up on some time.
Trail braking is still going to give you a small advantage on corner entry when you look at it from a physics perspective and I'm sure professional riders do trail brake at times, as well as using the brakes mid corner to balance the bike. Given that it's not uncommon for bike racers to fall off from misjudging use of the brakes mid-corner they were clearly trying to use them in the first place.
Indeed if the compounds are the same/similar and are constructed using the same methods they may indeed offer similar grip, however it's not just the compound and construction that matters.
Let me digress : - As motorcycle tyres are rounded, you can adjust the properties of the turn in by either making them "more pointy", where the tyre would be more like this : V - OR, more rounded, so it would be like this : U.
The tyres shaped like the V are generally the more 'high performance' tyres and tend to last for less time. They turn in quickly because of their profile.
The tyres shaped like U tend to be more sport-touring based tyres and last longer, while not offering the outright grip.
Motorcycle tyres tend to square off from constant town use or motorways. The latest generation of multi-compound tyres uses a harder center and softer edges to give both long life and resistance from squaring off and gives the grip you'd need when on the side part of the tyres in the corner.
Hehe, agreed. (sometimes anyway) :o
One may argue it's sometimes safer to crash on a bike as you're flung free of the machine. Depends if there's a tree in the way or not.
I was just comparing the two forms and (personally) consider trackdays in cars to pose less of a risk of 'crashing' (IE hurting yourself or your machine)
Yup, I never said (at least I don't think I did o.o) that racers don't use it, just rather that it's a technique most road users don't use on motorcycles because it's such a pain.
I tried it once a while back on my Aprillia, and found that with very light pressures it would feel more stable on the front end, but it would be much harder to turn in and felt horrible while actually turning. It was the only time I ever tried it as it's counter intuitive to what I would normally do.
A tiny dip in torque at that engine speed would be barely noticeable, and I wouldn't really consider it a 'flatspot', but 'negligable'.
Yes (but less so on the different tyres)
But you didn't give up in the end...
Rubbish. They are not worked far harder. Similar frequencies, smaller displacements, lower loads...
Ah, the common claim from a biker. Remember, I have been a biker, and would love to return to being a biker. But I am discussing this from an engineering point of view, not a car driving point of view per se.
But having two contact patches whilst sat in a chair controlling them through several mechanical linkages makes them really critical? I think you over value the effect they actually have. When people say it's a night and day difference then they're talking in nuances. A poor rain tyre still probably produces 95% of the grip of a great one. Same with cars - anyone who says one brand is particularly shit in the wet is probably a terrible driver in the first place. There just isn't that much room in a competitive market to produce a genuinely crap tyre. If you despute that, I'd love to see data proving stability, friction and wear rates between brands (and I don't mean simplistic magazine tests written by journalists that ride around far slower than they claim in their copy).
So being say in my car, feeling every single bump and ripple through my arse and feeling every tiny slip and slide in my car gives me less feel? You haven't got a clue what you're talking about, have you?
You mean latest as in the last fifteen to twenty years?
But it's there, so there you go. As said I have experienced having flatspots on 2 of my bikes and can say they are noticeable. But that's not a valid point in your eyes.
And may I ask what kind of riding was it? Was it just up and down the road, or was it round a car park, did you have to ride in the rain, cold, did you ride at higher speeds and generate some meaningful force on the tyres?
Well I was fed up of seeing the bullshit.
Smaller shocks. Exposed to road shit much more so. Much more finely set up than many cars, so while you may not notice a 5% detoriation from your cars suspension, you would certainly notice it on a bike.
What common claim? You're just being obtuse. Most motorcyclists (such as myself) have single seat units because they look good and we have an excuse to not have to take the missus out on the back. They serve no other real puporse
Steering on a motorcycle is direct. There's no linkages to go through in 95% of cases.
There's indeed a night and day difference between the Bridgestone BT014 and the Continental Road Attack. The Continentals offers less maximum grip, but warms up twice as quickly, runs hotter and works 5 times better in the wet. It also has more feedback, however it does seem to follow the ruts in the road a little more.
That's not taken from the bumf of a magazine, or copy pasted from the internet. That's my opinion and a big **** you if you think it's invalid or because I "can't ride".
In a recent test of the Dunlop Roadsmart against it's other rivals, it was found to be over 2 seconds faster round a wet track. I don't think that's 95%. Not to mention how a "poor" tyre would give you FAR less confidence
Perhaps anyone who says "one brand is shit" is not a terrible driver, perhaps they have a valid opinion, especially if it's shared by many people it's unlikely to be "they're all very shit drivers". I find your cynicism is becoming weary.
Tyres are the single biggest contributing factor towards a motorcycles handling and braking.
If you could get the same experience on a car, then no it wouldn't give you less feel. But you can't, so you haven't. And ditto.
Dual compound tyres have only been commonly avalible, fitted and financially viable for the last, ohh IDK 5-10 years or so for the road. I'd imagine they've been around in racing before that. I believe the first dual compound tyre released for road use were the Avon Roadrunners in 1970's but then again I'm probably wrong. I don't imagine them to have been that good, considering now Avon are one of the few manufacturers to stay away from the dual compound way of thinking, instead using 0 degree variable belt construction, which apparently helps stop squaring off by spreading the load over the tyre more evenly.
I doubt you have experienced anything caused by something like in your pic - that wouldn't be noticeable. Sure, you can probably get rid of it, but it'll cost you money for no gain whatsoever.
Well, I owned a 250 of my own for 4 years, and I since rode various bikes between 400cc and 600cc for a couple more year, although they weren't registered in my name (or paid for by me ). For several years they were my primary form of transport (and I have scars to prove it ), and used in all weathers from full on (English) snow to bright sunny days, on back roads and motorways, on the way to work and on ride outs with friends. Alas, money and girlfriends (and racing cars) forced me to switch to cars for the time being, but I still hanker after owning a nice Kwack 600.
Stop writing it then and thinking that owning a bike means you know about them.
Yup, smaller. But when did that mean they have a harder life. And how do you know that you can feel 5% deterioration in shock performance? Granted, you will notice eventually, but probably more like 50%. And that applies to cars as well. Why are bike dampers exposed to 'shit' more? Have you not seen the state of many car wheel arches recently - it's not a luxurious dry, clean environment, but one of salt and mud and water and turbulence and 'shit'. I will agree, however, that bikes are more sensitive to damping than most family cars, but I think you lucked into that rather than actually knowing anthing about damping or bike dynamics.
Most bikers use the claim 'you drive cars, so you don't understand'. Just like you did. But you forget that I did ride bikes, and I still want one. Plus I know how they work (although not up to the standard of building one from scratch, but then neither do you).
Which part of a rack and pinion steering system do you not understand? In fact, which part of linkages and their uses/effects do you understand?
Twice as fast? Runs hotter? 5 times better? Can you give me a source of these claims please (but not from a bike magazine - it's like trusting what a car magazine claims about Zonda handling - they've doubtfully got to within 50% of it's ability).
So it's unfounded nonsense that you made up?
How long was the track and how wet was it. It could be 95%, if the lap time was around 40 seconds (and it was probably longer, so 2 seconds becomes more than 95%). Let's assume a 1 minute lap; two seconds slower is 96.7% as good. Confidence from the riding alone, or confidence because you've read it's not as good, and think that the claims made in the magazine mean you'll die at the first sign of drizzle? You see how the magazines saying 'this tyre is rubbish; looks it's over 2 seconds per lap slower' actually means 'this tyre is near identical, and whilst you might notice a difference on a track you'll never tell the difference even in an emergency situation on the road'.
And I find your 'I ride bikes, therefore I know all there is to know about them' is weary. But the fact is most riders and most drivers are crap. Quantity doesn't equate to quality. If 5000 boy racers tell you that neon washer jets are good for 50hp would you believe them too?
Let's sack the chassis and dynamics people at the motorcycle factories then. And ban all form of setup adjustment in MotoGP. Or you could start to understand what makes vehicles work in reality.
But what if I had? Like a Formula 3 car? Or an Exige? Or a Seven? Or a G4R? Or a Noble? Or a Griffith? Or a... should I go on???
So you're saying dual compound tyres have only been available for the last 5 - 10 years and since the 1970s. Things like the Battleax range (for example) which has been available since the early 90s I believe.
Oh there is, probably more so for cars than bikes, there's a whole world of sub budget tyres coming China that really are third rate and shockingly bad, Autocar did so reasonably good testing on them not very long ago, they compared four Chinese tyres and a set of Continentals everyday road tyres, the Chinese tyres produced substantially reduced lateral acceleration both in the dry and especially the wet, they also failed frighteningly quickly after being pushed slightly beyond their load speeds. However, if you don't buy tyres from a third world dictatorship where the standards they're meant to meet are completely ignored, everyday road tyres meet the same standards, have very similar construction and tread pattern as a result of having exactly the same criteria (low noise, economy and wet performance), the actual difference between premium brand tyres is very small.
Smaller shocks for less loading, whatever you say you cannot ignore physics and argue that a smaller loading over a smaller displacement produces more mechanical work, it's just total nonsense. Quiet where you get this idea that bike shocks are more exposed from I do not know, car shocks are hidden inside the wheel well that acts as a trap for water, mud and salt to get stuck in. If you've ever cleaned the wheel wells on a car you'll find huge heaps of crap, none of which really does any harm other than slowly eating away at the bodyshell, the mechanical components are not normally effected by it badly, hence why nobody looks at car shocks like bikers do with the things stuck in the open.
So you're pulling about 4G in the wet on the Continentals then? No, your regurgitating crap and making up numbers...
A good rider/driver feels the level of grip and behaviour of the tyre, if you fall off on a different set of tyres you're just a shit driver/rider who went beyond your limit.
Stop taking things way out of context and quit the bullshit Alex.
Indeed, you may be. Some tyres lose grip more progressively than others. Some also gain it more predicatbly than others. I resent your implication, having crashed myself... however I can look back and laugh and hold my hands up it was my fault. But cold supersports tyres are not grippy at all.
Would you rather have 4 good contact points or 2 very good ones? Oh I keep forgetting you have a Lada, you'd be better off with none.
__________________________________
As I knew you'd dismissed my opinions because they don't suit you.
Oh? Then either you've "forgot" or you're just being a pita.
I'm not the one that thinks people buy single seat units for aerodynamic reasons. Lulz
My point is made. You can't just admit that perhaps I actually know something.
I know my way around a bike enough to do most jobs myself, or if I had the correct tools to do so. But most car drivers don't understand, that's why most of them are so ignorant.
Google.
You're really pathetic Tristan, you know?
It's unfounded nonsense that having done 3500 miles on my Z with the Bridgestones and approaching 2500 on my SV with the Continentals is just made up crap. I have approached the limit on both tyres and using my bike every day means you really get to know them.........Just because it doesn't suit you or receive your approval doesn't make it invalid.
Confidence is from the tyre.... from the construction... and the compounds. Heard of silica? Know what it does? Know that different tyres have different amounts?
You know what I find weary? Your constant "I am best" attitude, your constant "unless it meets my approval it's an invalid point", the constant "you read about it in a magazine". Just let's say I don't eat jaffa cakes off of MY copy of MCN.
I don't know all, about them, but I think it's fair to say I know more about motorcycles of present than you, however I'm still learning. But I'd say I have a good, rounded knowledge of them.
Any sources you can back up your statements with? And no, your example is completely irrelevant as my opinions aren't formed from what some magazine writes about them, or what someone else says.
If other people are happy with them (for example the Avon Storms on the SV650 forum, Almost every person who uses them has nothing but praise to say) I'll tend to trust them at large until I've tried myself and can form my own opinion.
Didn't know that I raced to work............for the road the best way to improve your grip is to fit better tyres.
You can't possibly "directly" compare 4 wheels to 2. I didn't know accelerating over bumps in a car can cause a tankslapper.. or that overbanding can present such a problem. The worst bike will have better feel than almost any car..if you start comparing them to formula cars, then it's unfair as you should then only compare them to a supersports bike such as a Desmosedici, or even better a racing bike.
Battlax is a "range" of tyres. Not all are dual compound, equally as with Dunlop, their range of tyres are the "Sportmax"...off the top of my head the BT016s are multi-compound, the BT021 (replacement for the BT020 which IIRC was also dual compound.
Don't make up numbers then tell me I'm the one bullshitting when I use logic rather than 'what someone told me'.
All road tyres have very similar slip ratios and characteristics, tyres that bite without warning simply don't exist. If you spin or fall off without a structural failure of the tyre then the tyres can never be to blame the operator has simply pushed them too far and failed to save the situation, they have suddenly run out of skill, not the tyre. I'm not trying to imply I'm any good at driving, it's knowing that I am an inexperienced and do not possess god like driving ability that has kept me largely out of trouble, in the same way I've seen and known plenty of people who don't know their own limits and have got hurt or killed (mostly on the road but it happens on track as well) because they drive beyond them, they may be far better drivers than me but that is beside the point, I used a bit of extra caution and didn't hit that tree.
The same laws of physics apply to a Lada as your bike, in fact just as you were going on about feel and control, I've learnt far more about car control in the time I've driven the Lada than I ever did driving the Focus. My track experience is made up of the Focus and Morgan and I've rallied the Lada, it was about the fastest thing on a snowy 12 car I did in it, with narrow tyres, high ground clearance and rear wheel drive it was getting held up by fully prepared stage rally 205s and Saxos on large semi-slick tyres that were hopeless in the conditions, all that is completely irrelevant to this discussion though, as is any of our experiences when discussing basic physics.
No you've failed badly.
Assuming the damper as a simple spring in this case given that we now the applied load and displacement.
Force = k x Displacement
Work = k x Force x Displacement x Frequency
Are we agreed that load is much greater in car dampers, by approximately a factor of at least 2? Displacement is greater as well and frequencies are similar.
Therefore for the same damper with a higher load and displacement and the same frequency the work done is greater, afraid physics has defeated biker knowledge again...
I use experience. 4g lol, just simply lol. As said I have run my own bikes on these tyres and I'm fully able to give MY opinion.
Ok.
Hmm no they don't. You don't turn left by steering to the right, do you? Just for a start.
I'm sure an experienced bicyclist could outpace any car on semi slick tyres on snow. I didn't say you can't have a feel for a car, but you have more feeling of what's going on underneath you on a bike.
I'd personally consider the Focus a better car to drive than the Lada, and that is from the reviews lol
You don't sit in a bike, you sit on it, which is my point
I have not a blind clue what you're on about. All I know is that motorcycle shocks are very susceptible to the elements and are worked just as hard, if not harder than cars. As Tristan also said (in a way) I was right about how important suspension is. I can fiddle with preload, rebound and compression damping and I tried a variety of settings before reverting to what the previous owner had found as for bumpy road use, it was the best.
You stated your tyres were 5 times better in the wet, assuming a reasonable set of tyres is going to pull a peak lateral load in the range of 0.5-1g in the wet it only makes sense that if grip is lateral acceleration is used to quantify the tyres performance they'll be pulling g forces in the region of 2.5-5g, have to say I'd like some of those tyres you've got there. Of course your just making crap up and exaggerating as per usual.
It's commonly accepted in engineering circles that bikes, cars and even Ladas follow Newton's laws of motion. Engineers and rational people apply science to a situation so they can have an understanding to what is going on, being able to do the maths isn't important to actually get a basic understanding of the situation. Blindly ignoring Newton's laws and arguing that a smaller force over a smaller displacement at the same frequency will result in more work being done is just plain stupidity.
Is the Focus more competent? Of course it is, that's the main reason why it requires very little car control to drive on the road. Any idiot can drive it effortlessly and cover ground quickly whilst returning reasonable economy, older cars have to be pro-actively driven all the time in order to maintain reasonable pace and economy and when driven quickly they're far more involving.
Fine, they aren't "5 times" better in the wet, no. They inspire 3 times the confidence and probably have twice the grip.
If I were studying for a degree in Physics I'd agree with you. I never was one for science. I'm more of a "blow shit up" sort of guy.
Maybe everyone wants to get about in a timely fashion, in safety, in comfort and without feeling tired. Besides, the increase in safety, performance, speed, economy, comfort and just a general feeling of well being are surely worth losing 15% of the total possible driving pleasure...
So they probably have more grip than racing slicks in the dry? Stop making numbers up.
You don't need a degree in physics to understand it, they teach this stuff to twelve year olds, without understanding the definition of acceleration, velocity, force, displacement or work you have no hope of having a sensible discussion without trying to argue ridiculous ideas.
You were talking about car control, not what makes a better all round car for the general public. I'm not going to try and argue that the Focus isn't a better car in many people's books, simply that driving it teaches you more about car control, something which you implied the opposite of earlier.
Sigh.... in the wet the Continental Road Attack has more grip than the BT014. It is more of a "sports touring" tyre instead of a supersports tyre, and is designed to work across a wider variety of weather and temperature ranges.....
Please stop being deliberately difficult (and making bullshit up)
You must have gone to a special school then.
A car needs skill to be driven safely and quickly. The Focus is (apparently) a very sweet steering car and would require no less skill to drive as quckly (all relative)
(sometimes anyway) :o
). For several years they were my primary form of transport (and I have scars to prove it 
