the origins of Formula 1 were people building and designing their own cars, basically 5 dudes in a garage making something that would go quick our of random engines, welding steel, wheels, suspension, whatever..
so 4 wheels, one seat, pedals, steering wheel, like this_(3955971732).jpg)
there was only one driver so you'd never build out a second seat nevermind rear seats
then they figured out having the engine in the back directly connected to the rear wheels is much better for weight distribution, center of gravity, and overall design simplicity, so this
then they figured out wings pressed the car into the ground and made cars even faster so more like this
and on and on..
this is where we get a 'single seater' car there are lots of single seaters besides just an F1 car but generally they're all race cars not practical 'go pick up your kids' cars, they're build around one driver and one driver who is strapped in and not doing anything but steering and braking
there are plenty of race cars that are built off production cars that look as similar to a normal car than a motogp bike looks to a normal bike, I mean even your average Porche or Ferrari are 'normal' cars, GT3 cars are the race version, Nascar uses production cars as a base, plenty (if not most) race cars are built up from the base of a normal car
NASCAR are basically 0% road car, they are pure race cars.
The simply put a bunch of stickers on the body that mimic the design of a road car, with the shape of the lights and grille etc. But these are only stickers!
That's a great writeup on the history of why the cars look the way they do.
Well done, u/jbaird.
Actually NASCAR is pretty much as purpose built racecar as you can get. Welded steel tube for the chassis that would be impossible to manufacture at scale.
GT3 is still based on a heavily modified production car, but most of the additions are for safety and utility such as roll cages and the automatic jacks.
Actually that's nonsense. Shit loads of race cars are tube framed, it's hardly exclusive to nascar. Furthermore NASCAR cars looks like regular cars, and thats part of the regulations for a reason
You should look up NASCAR history
Caterham has produced quite a few road going tube framed road cars as did TVR. Not at the scale that say vw produces cars but still.
If you wanna go exotic then look at the porsche 917hk. It has a pressurised magnesium tube frame.
There's a lot of tube chassis racecars, but he said at scale. Ford sells like a million F-150s a year, but they're spot welded sheet metal because it would be way too expensive to build them out of fully welded tubing.
No he said NASCAR was about as purpose built as a race car cam get, which was what I was disagreeing with.
Thanks so much! Photos were a nice touch!
One thing everyone’s missing here: moto GP bikes have very specific size, shape, and aero regulations to keep costs “reasonable” and increase safety, which generally standardizes the “look” of the bikes a bit. I guarantee that if the regs didn’t exist (especially the aero regs) the bikes would look a heck of a lot more different than regular production bikes. Another thing IMHO is that gran prix motorcycle racing for a LONG time had the “race on Sunday, sell on Monday” ethos, meaning; manufacturers believed, and likely saw, that if they won races, people would buy their bikes, so there is a bit of an incentive to keep the overall look of the bikes they sell and race somewhat similar. It should be noted that even up until maybe the late 80’s early 90’s, GP bikes and production bikes were pretty similar, so much so that certain manufacturers sold ALMOST exact replicas of their GP bikes to the public. F1 never really had that pretense: they were always prototype race cars whereas GP moto racing always kinda had one foot in the production world
Another thing IMHO is that gran prix motorcycle racing for a LONG time had the “race on Sunday, sell on Monday” ethos
In bicycle racing, this isn't even an ethos. Bicycles used in UCI competitions (like the Tour de France, for instance) must be publicly available production models - they're not for competition only.
This would be argument more akin to WSBK which is based on homologation models. WSBK bikes for that reason are way closer in design to sport bikes you can buy from the dealer.
I mean I think WSBK bikes quite literally ARE production bikes! That’s what makes that series so cool, although a homologated WSBK Ducati or Aprillia is going to cost some SERIOUS money hahaha
They are closer now than ever early 2000 they had so much factory changes and ran so hot they were a slight animga vs street versions. Look at the Ducati RS race bikes from like 2004, on paper yes they met rules and were somewhat based on the 999r models but they were also not quite the same.
That happens in a lot of racing series that aren't F1. In fact most race series are homologated. Meaning that if you want to race a car, you need to sell a certain amount of that model that are street legal.
It's how we got some of the most amazing road cars: Lancer Evo and WRX STi, McLaren F1, E90 M3, 190 E Evo.
Most series have moved towards silhouette racing, mainly in the name of safety.
They're essentially panels shaped like road going vehicles bolted to a purpose built racecar.
True, but manufacturers skirt around this by simply listing the bike for sale on their website (at a ludicrously high price) but it's forever out of stock. If you call the special hotline to buy that particular bike no one will ever pick up. So technically it's publicly available... But it's not.
GCN did a video trying to buy one of the track bikes used in one of the Olympics.
Reminds me of the older touring car racing in Australia. Pretty much the only difference between the cars in the race was the addition of a roll cage and stripping out unneeded parts like passenger seats. If the model won at Bathurst (Australia’s biggest touring car race) you could be guaranteed that the would be a good jump in sales the next week.
This is all correct. There was a very specific time when racers tried to change to something more like F1: the so-called dustbin fairings era. Bike fairings were added that streamlined and covered wheels and rider to various extents. A few of these bikes can be found in museums, not many were built. They had handling problems in cross-winds, and weren't trying to create downforce. But mostly they looked weird, the OEMs jumped in, and the rules were forever changed to prevent this sort of thing, except in land-speed racing. For a while now manufacturers have been experimenting with little winglets and other minimal aero gimmicks, to what advantage I don't know.
MotoGP bikes, like top line motocross bikes have zero production parts, though they do look like production versions.
One more thing, racing a motorcycle requires the rider to shift from side to side, touching knees to pavement, and even elbows (!), and of course the bike leans past 45 degrees, way past.
All this makes much better racing than F1, but less high-tech in many areas.
I do honestly wonder though what these bikes would look like if they were allowed active aero and less restrictive aero dimensions. I’m sure the racing would suck but I wonder how many lap records would be absolutely SHATTERED
Its an interesting problem, for sure. You can see what works on bikes that don't lean, on the LSR racers. But the down force is tough to figure when you lean. I'm not even sure that downforce in the proper direction/time/orientation would help much, unless you could keep it the same in all orientations. The balance of a racing motorcycle footprint is so delicate, and so subject to rider input. And tire technology is already the secret sauce on which everybody depends.
Especially if you get into the active aero shenanigans, even if it's rider controlled to handle leans. Would be very cool
A large portion of it is passenger room and comfort. A street car looks the way it does because it needs room for at least two people, usually 4 or 5, and their stuff.
An F1 car only has to carry it's driver, then you start removing more and more stuff to save weight, you change the shape for aerodynamics, the way that it interacts with the air when it's going really fast.
A street motorcycle is already (generally) a single passenger vehicle and there isn't really a ton of stuff you can remove the way you can with a car, and you can't really add significant downforce generating wings and stuff to a motorcycle because it leans to turn, which would change the direction of the forces generated by the aero, and it would also probably hit the ground while leaning.
Actually, aero on bikes is a thing in MotoGP, and could be used the same way on road bikes.
It just looks weird and no one really wants it though.
A lot of newer bikes have wings so they can use it in production based racing. Ducati, Aprilia, and BMW in particular. The new Yamaha R9 has a wing on the front too.
Ahhh nice, thanks for pointing that out. I don't really follow racing stuff that closely beyond watching Isle of Man clips on Tiktok when they go by. I did some searching and the MotoGP aero and yeah, it kinda looks like something that would have been on 80's cartoon action figure vehicles lol.
The regulations, essentially. F1 regulations stipulate cars must be a certain length, open wheel, open cockpit, with very specific guidelines about chassis and component height, suspension options etc. Designers and engineers play within the parameters of the rules, which essentially define what the car will look like (with minor variations). F1 is by definition a single-seater, open-cockpit competition.
MotoGP meanwhile has its own regulations which strictly limit the size and number of aerofoils (wings) a bike can have. If you look closely you'll see they have them, which you won't see on road bikes. They look like road bikes for the most part, but they aren't identical.
At least as importantly, motorbikes are typically already single-rider machines. Most road cars are not single-passenger.
I think the main difference you see between F1 cars and normal road cars is that F1 cars are "open wheelers", meaning the wheels are outside of the bodywork of the car. The reason for this is simply just regulations. The rules for F1 (and other similar race series) dictate that the cars must be open wheel for tradition reasons. If the manufacturers had a choice, they'd add bodywork over the wheels to reduce drag and allow better control of airflow over the car. It might end up looking something like the Red Bull X2010 concept car, which looks a little bit more like some of the most extreme road legal hypercars.
I would also point to LMP1s and LMHs/LMDhs as real-world examples. They still look otherworldly, but I think the general public would point to those closed-wheel, closed-cockpit prototypes as looking closer to production cars than F1 machines.
F1, from its first day, is a rich boys car club. They are not meant to look like normal cars in the slightest.
What is a "normal" bike? MotoGP looks nothing like a dirt bike, cruiser, adv. They're all single track so they're going to share the things they must, like try not to be a giant sail if possible.
It’s not hard to make the logical conclusion of F1 car to ‘standard’ road car, and MotoGP bike to ‘standard’ road bike. I.e., one that a kid would draw off the top of their head.
Right, sorry, I'm referring to sport motorbikes
In that case, sport bikes look like sport bikes the same as midsized luxury sedans look like midsized luxury sedans. F1 cars aren't street legal, or some jerk would be driving it. They do buy multimillion dollar GT cars though. So the answer is basically, F1 cars aren't street legal., while homologated bikes are.
MotoGP bikes aren't street legal either though
Race replicas are, and most people can't tell the difference by looking at them, they're all just those bug looking bikes.
Wanted to add, in order to make an F1 street legal, you'd need to add a LOT of weight and structure for mandatory safety features, to the point, it wouldn't look like an F1. For a bike, most of that disappears and its basically just a detune and part swap for some.
in most countries you'd have to enclose the wheels somewhat, which is kinda a defining feature of the F1 design
For cars, this is what top performance looks like, for bikes, this what top performance looks like.
Now seriously, normal cars must be able to perform a lot more tasks than speed and handling, while F1, all they hato do is speed and handling, very oversimplified, but this is the gist. Racing bikes, are mostly racing bikes, their main purpose, weather on the track or on the road is to be fast. Plus, not all bikes are the similar, dirt bikes are different from choppers and both of these are very different from racing bikes
I dont actually know but would assume that normal cars also have to serve the purpose of being affordable and spacious to carry passengers and objects, plus being safe and comfortable.
Cars and bikes serve very different purposes. A car is mostly utilitarian, so its design is to provide comfort, space, impressive looks, etc. Bikes, on the other hand, are mostly wanted for their sportsy characteristics, being naturally more aerodynamic, for instance.
For a car to get “sportsy”, especially at F1’s, it can’t look nothing like a regular car. You have to remove seats, height, useless space, etc. Most bikes are already somewhat in that place.
Another thing to keep in mind: F1 cars are built to a rules standard, and while they’re unbelievably highly optimized within that standard, some parts of it disallow what might be an optimal engineering solution.
Without any rules, your fastest car probably looks a lot more like a Porsche 919 Evo or VW ID.R - open wheels are aerodynamically horrible.
You’ll notice that’s a similar shape to a McLaren P1 or Mercedes-AMG One.
The main reason for the difference is lack of wheel covers on an F1 car. If you look at the 2024 LeMans Porsche 963 it actually looks similar to a super car like Lamborghini or Aston Martin Valkyrie, but if you remove its bodywork it suddenly looks a lot like a Formula 1 car with all its wheels and wishbone suspension exposed.
Also keep in mind the size of the cockpit. F1 car barely fits a driver, and roadcars has room for a minimum of two side by side.
Street legal motorbikes are already optimized for speed, and a minimalist approach to design that copies racing bikes. If you make a comparison to cars you could say that a Ducati Panigale V4 is similar to a Aston Martin Valkyrie while the rest of us in regular SUVs and cars drive around in Honda Gullwings, if taht makes sense
Aero not generating massive downforce on bikes so shape looks similar to street bikes
An F1 car (or any open wheel race car) is more of a giant go-kart than it is a passenger car.
4 wheel vehicles can't lean in turns the way a 2 wheel vehicle can, so to go really fast they need aerodynamic down force to give them better grip with the tires. F1 cars have a variety of wings and aerodynamic effects to generate downforce, which a 2 wheel vehicle wouldn't benefit nearly as much from.
This is just plain wrong. Cars have better grip than motorcycles in almost any circumstance. Its all about the size of the contact patch - cars have four large contact patches, motorcycles have two small ones. Motorcycles are all about power to weight ratio, so they can accelerate better, but cars have the potential to carry far more speed in corners.
There is a YouTube video that covers this. It has an F1 car and a MotoGP bike race around a road track. From the start the bike takes off you'd think the F1 could never catch it from the distance the bike had but within 2 laps the F1 passes the bike easily. Quite interesting!!
I've watched MotoGP for years, but any time I see an F1 car going through a corner, the video looks like its on fast forward.
I have zero interest in the world of racing, BUT I absolutely love MotoGP, there is just something about those speeds on a bike is crazy!!
Maybe not the video you referenced, since this doesn't show the start from a standstill, but same idea:
https://www.redbull.com/us-en/formula-1-vs-motogp-speed-comparison
The bike pulls ahead slightly after the first turn, but the f1 car ends up catching up in the slight bends and pulls ahead when they go into the turns.
I mean, being light helps in turns too, and in the absence of downforce and road imperfections contact patch doesn't matter (F=μN after all)
But the combination of downforce and great power-to-weight is something bikes can't match. Plus, their aerodynamics are nowhere near as good at high speed.
contact patch doesn't matter.
Contact patch is the only thing that allows acceleration to happen. It's how the vehicle communicates with the surface its its operating on. Its literally the only thing that matters.
And to be clear, when I say "acceleration" I'm referring to the physics definition: Speeding up, slowing down, or changing direction. If you do not have clear communication with the surface, you cannot do any of these things. The size of your contact patch ensures this clear communication. More is better.
The physics definition? F=μN.
Coefficient of friction is (mostly) a function of materials. Normal force is (usually) generated by gravity.
A larger contact patch lets you support a heavier vehicle at a given tire pressure, and makes you less vulnerable to surface imperfections.
Note that racing bicycles, which accelerate much faster than mountain bikes (at roughly similar total vehicle weights), have super skinny tires at high pressures.
Also note that train locomotives generate tons of pulling force using quite small steel-on-steel contact patches.
in the absence of downforce and road imperfections
Which is nowhere that road vehicles operate.
Contact patch is the most significant consideration of acceleration performance. No racing engineer will tell you otherwise.
That's very interesting, but "not nearly as much" is still very important when you're talking about state of the art motorsports, isn't it?
F1 cars vs. normal cars:
One seat vs two or more
Space for only the driver vs. space for storage
No room for the driver to move vs. room for the driver
Smaller engine size vs. large engine (1.6 liter vs. at least 2.0 liter)
A normal bike doesn't have much seating/storage space to begin with or super huge engines. There's not much of the appearance to change.
Because you can make a sport bike look like a moto gp bike since they are the same concept.
A car and a formula 1 car are completely different things
Motogp bikes look nothing like normal bikes that are made for utility. Sport bikes (which are very popular) look like Motogp bikes.
You are probably comparing Motogp to a gsxr600 or an r1. When the real Toyota camrys of the bike world is more like a Harley, gold wing, mt-09, ect.
It’s because F1 cars are single seaters while Bikes well you really can’t optimize designing a bike anymore lol
Also don’t get it twisted even if Normal bikes and MotoGP bikes looks the same they’re still way way different and normal bikes wouldn’t even touch MotoGP bikes
It all depends on the formula. MotoGP bikes only look similar to normal bikes where you live. F1 sells technology, whereas MotoGP sells bikes. There’s a saying in MotoGP: “win Sunday, sell Monday.” So a person can go out and buy a winning bike, though it only looks like one. Nobody would expect to buy an F1 car, but they do buy F1-derived technologies.
Because MotoGP are motorcycles where as F1 cars are go-karts, not cars.
A lot of people are giving good answers. But most seem to be missing the extremely obvious. Formula 1 is a formula series, as the name suggests. They are built to a formula. Even if a road car was quicker, they wouldn't be able to run one due to technical regulations.
that and open wheels aren't road legal in a lot of countries, so we don't see those F1 designs being translated into road legal production "cars"
road bikes are more evolved than road vehicles if your purpose is speed around a racetrack
Simply because cars and motorcycles are different. We can’t always compare them to each other in a pertinent way.
But cars are enclosed now (they weren’t always like that), so that’s where most of the difference comes from. Take a look at a KTM X-bow, Lotus (or Caterham) Seven, and you’ll see some cars are closer to F1.
Also, motorcycles, unlike cars, have not evolved much in concept. Cars started as a steamrollers with three rollers (over 200 years ago), and passengers on top, remained so for a long time. Eventually, it became apparent that people may have wanted to be covered, so folding and other types of roof became a thing, and eventually, the norm become to fully enclose passengers, because it’s easy to achieve on a car.
For motorcycles, that’s “impossible” to achieve without compromising what people want or need from a motorcycle (only one I know is the BMW C1, and they aren’t making it anymore). So motorcycles are more bare, therefore, leaving less to change between street and racing motorcycles.
Many comments here on practicality and utility. I would like to add that F1 cars don’t meet the safety regulations, not even close anyways. No room for crumple zones, air bags, very small surface for driver assistance tech, too many sharp angles, no pedestrian safety features, etc.
You don’t need all that on a motorcycle, just slap some lights on the MotoGP bike and it’s generally fine for street use (exaggerating though).
Why do marathon runners not look like obese people even though they are the same species?
Normal cars are designed for four passengers + luggage + safety + others whereas F1 cars are designed to carry only the driver as fast as possible more or less on a track
Sport bikes are designed to carry only the driver as fast as possible on a track. MotoGP bikes are designed to carry only the driver as fast as possible on a track
The "formula" of Formula 1 is a set of rules that includes how an F1 car is built. Thus, they end up looking a certain way according to these rules.
MotorGP bikes looks nothing like normal bikes. Take a closer lock and you will see that every part of the bikes are specifically made "by hand" and for a purpose. That is not the thing With normal bikes.
Both have 2 wheels and one engine.
Geometrically the bike is smaller and narrower versus the size of the rider so there is less freedom and variation in shape that you can fit into that volume.
A street bike is already a pretty minimalistic approach to transporting a single person. It’s a frame, an engine and some bodywork. There is very little in the name of luxury or comfort. A road car has all kinds of things that make it more user friendly and comfortable but ultimately slower, like a door and a roof and windows and an air conditioner and multiple seats.
The wings on a formula 1 car, or an Indy car have more than 1 g force pushing down on the car for traction. This means that at full speed, the cars could actually drive upside down on the roof of a tunnel. Motorcycles can lean into the corners.
Edit: (not that anyone is actually going to read my comment, but) when the Brickyard, the Indy 500 track, started the Brickyard 400 Nascar race, the changed how the corners were banked so the Nascar drivers wouldn’t have to slow down too much to go into the corners. Now Indy cars barely need to slow down when cornering there. Kinda ruined the Indy 500 for me as all the drivers just floor it now, there is less skill involved.
Because road bikes are much more closely related to motoGP bikes in performance and purpose in general than road cars are to F1 cars. People largely buy bikes because they want to feel sporty and go fast, essentially what uou want from a motoGP bike too. People buy cars because they want a practical mode of transport, usually wanting the option to take passengers and cargo. This is very much NOT what you want from an F1 car.
Why do Dragbikes look so different from normal motorcycles, yet NASCAR cars look very similar to normal cars?
It's because there are lots of different types of bikes and lots of different types of cars, and you randomly picked some that look like other ones.
Because motorcycles, especially "sport" motorcycles already have made significant compromises for performance and recreation over utility. 90% of the cars sold (that's a very loose estimate) are not recreational vehicles - they are necessary transport for people and cargo. A forumla 1 car makes no concessions for transporting anyone other than its driver, and there are no considerations for carrying cargo.
Most people don't consider a motorcycle to be a utility vehicle. At best they can carry one passenger, and most motorcycles aren't suitable for carrying even small volumes of cargo.
That's the kind of limited in-the-box thinking that holds you back from unlocking your true potential.
I was going to mention - there are certainly places in the world where two wheeled vehicles are certainly utility vehicles - but they're usually scooters. And yea, they pack a bunch of people on them!
Scooters are really only good for commuting, the gear box is not good enough to haul anything around. Motorbikes are used for utility, like mini trucks, and also moto taxis are usually motorbikes. (Here in Vietnam)
That guy clearly has not been to Vietnam lol. We use motorbikes to carry everything, from one person, to a fridge, to another motorbike if needed
But then that’s not the motorbike.. that’s people converting recreational and performance advantage to utility.. that’s a tuk tuk now with a nice sounding engine .. still way faster than off the shelf? Tuk tuk but not as fast as the bike it came from
No it’s a utility vehicle. Outside of the west, motorbikes are utility vehicles. It’s used to carry people and things.
Northwest, maybe.
Down here in Southwest, aka Brazil, Venezuela, Argentine and others, motorbikes are everywhere as utility vehicles, and twice as much after the COVID plague.
Nope, tuktuks are a type of taxi in Thailand. People here load more stuff onto the back of Honda cubs than most Americans will ever put in their F150s.
Rickshaws have two rear wheels.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MotorcycleLogistics/
Right, but those aren't built like sport bikes either.
Which is why I didn't include those in my initial comment.
During ww2 they were often used for utility
Anything can be a utility in the very specific needs of a military conflict.
However, lightweight, multi-terrain personal transport does not equate to utility for most civilian customers. This is a silly argument.
This is a very western argument. They are absolutely utility vehicles for the majority of buyers
Not even western but US and possibly Canadian centric. Even in Europe they are used for daily transport by millions, to go to work, do their shopping, meet friends etc..
How is personal transportation not utility?
Utility is carrying shit that is not yourself or other people. Tools, cargo, supplies. Hauling, towing, dumping etc.
You can carry cargo on or with a motorcycle.
Do motorcycles that carry a significant amount of cargo still look like motogp bikes or do they use a different design?
Depends. My husband has a motorcycle that has multiple variants; there's a track version and a touring version. They look mostly the same except the touring version came with bags and touring tires (which last longer). I have seen someone in my town add bags to what is very clearly a track bike and it looks ridiculous.
At least historically its pretty much just a standard bike. There are examples like the kettenkrad, a German half-tracked motorcycle, but mostly two wheeled bog standard army bikes
A regular motorcycle with an attached trailer.
Not usually be design, aftermarket yes. Unless you’re talking about tour bikes.
I mean... Yes, you caaaan.
But it's much easier to in a van, or ute, or even hatchback.
Your typical tradesman's toolboxes could be strapped to a motorbike, especially if you had the pannier racks etc on there, but... It's not gonna be as easy as chucking you shit in the boot, y'know?
So what im hearing is, despite not being the best in most cases, bikes are adequate utility vehicles
It's not as good at it as other things, to a degree important enough that you need to be serious for a second and stop arguing for the sake of arguing
Just like a car is not as good at hauling things as a truck. It doesn't mean it's not fulfilling that task.
Yes, but notice how those no longer resemble GP bikes, which reinforces the point.
I dunno, you can fit two people in a Kawasaki Ninja.
It doesn't really require much in the way of compromise to add a small back seat, so I think OP is right.
example photo https://i.ibb.co/Kx2W5JQR/image.png
Pshhhh, children aren’t people
Which is why they don't need helmets..
The driver should be wearing one tho
For sure. Safety first!
No need! That's what the children are for, impact buffers
Give that suspension an applause.
Only limited by your imagination!!
I wonder what track they’re racing on.
MotoGPillion
I fully agree
The worst are those that are so high performance that they can only carry 1.3 gerbils - they crash. A lot.
I love that this link is already purple for me.
Also REGULATIONS: aerodynamicists would opt for closed wheel in a second.
And wings!
There was a few years where aerodynamics research went wild and the gain of tiny wings was insane, but it created a disparity in teams who compounded prize money into more wins, and the wings tended to snap off in crashes which was a major safety hazard.
Closed wheels, VVTi, CVTs, ABS, traction control, active aero,
The issue is that now you've made a plane with wheels.
That will be part of the rules next year, although of course also heavily regulated.
As a corollary, F1 cars are designed for one very specific driving surface, with somewhat limited change in elevation. There are production cars that in some ways mimic F1 characteristics, but even those need to make some concessions for real-life road conditions.
*Laughs in Spa Francorchamps*
Yeah there are a bunch of different tracks with elevation changes
There’s also a bunch of street circuits which is where they drive on public roads that have been sectioned off to make a track lol. It was even a problem in Vegas last year when manhole covers were getting sucked out of the road and hitting the bottom of the cars 💀💀💀
People go on and on about road surfaces and elevation, but the really kicker is driving one. They are jarring, uncomfortable, and actively trying to kill you. No power brakes, and even if one can manage that, the G forces on your internal organs are no joke.
Yeah. I drove go karts that were moderately faster than the kid's karts, going about 30 mph top speed. I was sore as shit after that, the amount of effort it took just to make sure the kart went where I wanted it to go. I can't imagine how hard that would be going 100-200 mph doing the same thing.
I think Etsy they mean it's there's no changes in height of the SURFACE.
Ie, the track is smooth with minimal bumps.
Also, many of the designs are made around specific rules. F1 still does not permit variable valve timing which every vehicle now has as it helps tuning. They also prohibit ABS, traction control, CVTs, excessive fuel, E85 ethanol fuel, etc.
A unlimited money racecar with the only requirement that it is road legal would likely be faster than today's F1 cars.
Nah, that just gets you a Caparo T1/BAC Mono or similar, and they’re not F1 car level. The biggest limitation being ‘18,000rpm and straight cut gears aren’t going to be road legal’.
F1 cars do have plenty of rules intended to make them slower though, the obvious one being bans on downforce fans. A true no-rules, just go fast vehicle would look like the Red Bull X2010. Problem there though is that it’s so fast nobody could actually drive the thing - even Vettel struggled with a PlayStation model of it, let alone the real deal.
Downforce fans are only one thing, for peak performance you also want control surfaces like a plane.
Especially with current technology, it would be possible to get the optimal downforce at any point and deliver some truly crazy speeds.
A true no rules car would have a jet engine in it or two and would literally just be an airplane without wings.
Forget a jet engine, Mount a rocket on it.
That wouldn't work for Le Mans. Gotta make sure your car can handle Le Mans.
Road legality means no true slick tires. And even the best road legal trackday tires will have far less grip than an F1 slick at operating temperature. Not to mention the F1 tires are made to withstand up to ~3000kg of downforce and 5-6G in cornering and braking which is well beyond what anything road legal could handle. Not to mention other constraints such as ride height, crash safefy, etc would severely limit being able to generate remotely F1 levels of downforce and push the weight much higher.
Just look at something like an Aston Martin Valkyrie, originally intended to offer as close to F1 level track performance as possible in a road car, designed by one of the greatest F1 car designers of all time. By the time it made it into production and could be certified as road legal, it ended up 300kg heavier than planned and its laptimes are closer to an F3 car than F1.
The McMurtry Spéirling already exists.
Isn't it worse for performance anyway?
No E85 is higher octane, with higher octane you can have a more agressive tune and higher compression. It’s why performance cars require 91/93 (or whatever the high octane in your country is) if the octane is too low and the compression is too high the fuel mixture will detonate prematurely and that messes all kinds of shit up.
Exactly what this comment says. F1 cars are all utility with no excess mass beyond what is needed for a single operator, a motor, and wheels, just like most motorcycles.
Look at a tuk tuk. Those are basically motorcycles with passenger compartments and cargo areas.
This is wrong, a race car built without concessions would look VERY different to an F1 car. F1 cars are built within a very rigid set of design rules. Open wheels and open cockpits are aerodynamically terrible, but they are mandated because that's how F1 is.
If you look at events with less regulation, like endurance or unlimited hillclimbs, the cars look a lot closer to production cars.
An example of the weirdness of F1 rules is the six wheeled cars of the late 70s like the P34 - strict limitations on width made this make sense briefly, but F1 changed the rules again to stop it. A 6 wheeled racecar isn't optimum beyond the artificial constraints of F1 at the time
That's actually a very good reason, thanks!
https://media1.tenor.com/m/ECVL9TxEh7kAAAAd/motorcycle.gif
So ridiculous, and funny.
I've seen a bike carrying 5 people
But that doesn't answer the question fully. Just because they have made some compromises doesn't mean they can't make more improvements.
Why not bring enclose the entire bike to increase aero dynamics? Currently all the handle bars, suspension, exhaust etc are exposed. And the moist significant one: the rider is also only behind a small wind shield. Why not put him in a teardrop (or aeroplane nose) shaped canopy?
Why not use disc wheels instead of spokes?
Why not add retractable fins that can function like air brakes?
A lot of these things are done for certain concept bikes or other special purposes (Iike setting landspeed records). You lose some things on a track with turns though. MotoGP race times aren't really top speed limited and decreased drag is less helpful than improving cornering speeds and acceleration at the corner exit. If a rider can't use their body to facilitate that, they will be slower. A cockpit hurts both their handling and their vision.
The biggest thing you could do for moto gp track times would be to find a way to deliver downforce in a corner in such a way that it reliably improves traction in corners. The issue right now is that, at full lean, a wing's downforce (if it's directed straight down to the wheels) is actually pushing you toward the outside of the corner. So motogp wings are all about wheelie control (allowing you to put more power down on corner exit without looping or compromising control).
The lack of aero downforce for actual cornering accounts for much of the disparity in lap times between racing bikes and cars...alongside track design itself: they race on the same tracks, which are designed for large F1 and other cars to have enough room to race, and are relatively safe for bikers, but take away any advantage bikes would have on a narrower track from having better race lines to choose from. A superbike would perform much closer to a fast sport car if neither had meaningful downforce and they were on something as tight as Monaco (without the concrete barriers that might guarantee death for any biker who crashes at speed). A lot of people who don't really know what they're talking about vaguely attribute it to size of contact patches and having four of them, but contact patch size is really just a function of vehicle weight and tire pressure.
Ok everything you said makes sense.
If a computer can fly an F-16 that doesn't want to stay straight, I'm sure they can get the computer to adjust fins to direct down force vertically (or whatever is the best direction) regardless how the bike leans. That technology is 1980s military cutting edge. You'd think 4 decades later the racing world would have learnt how to copy it.
It isn't 100% correct though
Moto GP bikes and a lot of superbikes are designed so that the aero works best under lean. If it worked that way it was stated they wouldn't have them at all. No racing team would want aero that goes in the wrong direction.
One of the issues of this means that they aero on bikes is actually terrible for tootling to the cafe to show off your new Ducati.
https://youtu.be/438Opa7XXSo?si=amZKNfPJbqJ8Nco-
A motorcycle can carry a lot of cargo if you attach a trailer to it.
They don't even have indicators, literally no idea when a car is going to make a turn.
You could jam at least three midgets in an f1 car
And in Brazil, the rider and that passenger are the harbingers of doom.
This is a totally wrong answer.
F1 cars look different, while bikes look mostly the same, for two reasons.
Also F1 care are handmade custom jobs from the fasteners up. Moto GP bikes aren’t nearly as custom and are much simpler. They are much closer to street bikes than F1 cars are to anything. F1 cars don’t share anything with anything you can drive around.
MotoGP bikes are as custom as F1 cars. Per the constructor rules, no MotoGP bike can have any part from any production vehicle.
I think he's mixing up super bikes and motogp, but frankly Superbikes are already heavily optimized for racing so the point still stands.
Moto GP bikes are bespoke prototypes down to the bolt and don’t share a single component with any production bikes
Then proceeds to repeat the answer, while adding a wrong fact.
GT racing cars have a shitload of aeros and they look like regular cars. It all depends on the “formula.” MotoGP has some aeros, but most are banned. MotoGP has a hole shot device that literally squats the bike on the floor so they can launch without wheelieing at the start.
Was this a response to the OP, or a warning about your own reply?
It's also an entirely different set of safety regulations they're built to compared to road cars. Race car drivers are in a racing suit and strapped in hard with a helmet that likely even is linked to the car.
Motorcycles meanwhile were from the start for people who had completely given up on safety, so that's less of a concern.
A lot of motorcycles have the ability to carry a passenger behind the rider. You can also get saddle and tail bags if you want to carry more than what you can in a backpack.
I did a double take on that as well, but I think they intended it as one driver and one passenger, otherwise the 'at best' doesn't make a ton of sense (we don't typically see motorcycles going around carrying zero people),
Are confusing at best with at least? Otherwise that could be said to any vehicle, you need at least the driver
Yes, i agree, but then they are not very similar to a MotoGP anymore. They are only similar when the rider is alone without backpack, since everything you add alters the outer dimensions.
haha you're funny. "most" bikes actually can carry more than 2-3 passengers and his amounts of cargo. the majority of bikes are not in the US or Europe pal, where they are used for single person fun
As someone who rode only bike for 2 years, even the cargo part is false.
For proof, see r/MotorcycleLogistics
You've never been or seen asia obviously. they beg to differ regardless of your experience.
If you paid attention at all to their comment, much less followed the link, your confusion would have been cleared up promptly.
I meant OP's amount of cargo, if you actually checked out the sub you'ld know whay I mean.
But thanks for the downvote anyway!
You're both on the same side of the argument...