modern showroom sportbike vs. older top level racebikes

[shoelace]

okay... i've wondered about this question for years, so much so that i've wanted to write a letter to motorcyclist or some equal magazine to have it answered, but there are so many racers and experts on this board that i'd like your opinion.

here's the question. if you walked into a showroom today and bought a stock top-level sportbike, let's say the rsv4, how many years back to you think you'd have to go for a motogp bike where the rsv4 would win on the track with the same rider? and i'm also not talking about a bike that would come with traction control like an 1198r or something.

i don't think that simple weight and horsepower numbers would definitively answer the question as chassis set up and various other factors play a role. also, because tire technology has changed so much over the last 20 years the assumption would be that both bikes would have the same rubber.

so what do you guys think? how far would you have to go back?

it's really kind of crazy to think what a normal person can buy now without going broke. the bike that this would go against would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.

 

[aszrael1266]

I have wondered that also. I know the D16RR is pretty damn close to modern motoGP bikes. I would think a good way to find out is to look at lap times of say WSBK and motogp at tracks they both use. I would think that most modern top tier 1000's would be on par if not better then the 500cc 2 strokes as well as the early 990's
edit.
I found some lap times to compare
Donington Park last year;

MotoGP: Rossi: 1:28.116
WSBK: Spies: 1:29.846

also race times for Assen
MotoGP: Rossi, 1:36.558
WSBK: Haga, 1:38.680

with those numbers it is a little easier to try and figure out an answer to the gap between a motogp bike and street bike. From interviews Spies gave if I remember right the biggest difference for him was trusting the tires and getting use to the brakes. Out right power I don't think there is too big a gap street bikes are close to 200hp now. Look at the BMW and the new ZX-10. On the flip side I am sure they can make a ton more power on the motogp bikes if they didn't have the fuel restrictions they do. As is I think motogp bikes are around 230hp SBK bikes are around the 220 area.

 

[shoelace]

the desmosedici is the closest thing to a motogp bike, you're right, but that bike is not NEARLY as fast as the actual race bikes that inspired the d16. i'd imagine that the race bike had anywhere between 30-50 more horsepower and would smoke it.

 

[aszrael1266]

I can't find any data about motogp riders testing street bikes on the track. I know Rossi has done laps for promotions as has Spies and Edwards, but no matter how hard I look I can't seem to find what their times are. I do remember reading about Edwards using street tires on a motogp bike and barely getting traction with them. Also the type of track has a lot to do with it too. With a tight track you wouldn't have to go back as far as you would with a track like Singapore, I think that was the one with the huge straight.

the video of Colin with street tires on his motogp bike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alYYU4mTc-g
8 seconds a lap slower on street tires compared to race tires

 

[Zerox]

here's the question. if you walked into a showroom today and bought a stock top-level sportbike, let's say the rsv4, how many years back to you think you'd have to go for a motogp bike where the rsv4 would win on the track with the same rider?

Not too far back, simply because none of us could ride a 500cc two stroke GP bike worth a shit, you should have seen those things, a beast to ride, peaky power delivery that would abruptly jump 50 horsepower from 10k to 11k RPM, where even the world's most talented riders would get kicked up out of the seat 3 times per lap...OH HAY NICE AVATAR. :laughing

To me that's really the difference, as you said the horsepower/weight numbers are not the focal point. It's the "rideability" the modern bikes have, soooooooooo much easier. Every year the technology improvements make the bikes more user friendly, along with the typical faster/lighter/better stuff.

 

[aszrael1266]

Here is a good article about the 09 R1 and how powerful of a bike it is compared to MotoGp bikes.
http://www.fasterandfaster.net/2008/12/2009-yamaha-r1-vs-early-1990s-yamaha.html

The article says the new R1 puts down as much power as the 92 YZR500 that Rainey had.

So after a lot of googling I came across some street bike lap time info that Spies has done. Sadly its not at a motogp track. So at Portimao on a stock 09 R1 he got a 1:43.9 on his WSBK R1 he got pole with a 1:42.4.
Now on Assen Spies got 1.38.7 with his WSBK R1 and with his M1 he got a 1.34.9.

The way I see it a street bike is 1.5 sec slower then the WSBK bike. The WSBK bike is almost 4 slower then MotoGP bike, that makes the street bike roughly 5.5 seconds slower. So just look for a lap time at Assen 5.5 seconds slower then last years and you will have your answer.

 

[Zerox]

So weird to read about Rainey's bike from today's point of view, and 160 hp doesn't seem like much. But 1992 was a long time ago!

 

[louemc]

Several World Champions from the not distance past, have taken a latest Greatest, and with street legal appointments, bike out...and come back, saying...This is better than what I had...I could of Won on this.

Thingy is..It's not just the bike..It took them, and all the support they have around them.

We (mere mortals) are on the best, right now.

 

[Banjoboy]

okay... i've wondered about this question for years, so much so that i've wanted to write a letter to motorcyclist or some equal magazine to have it answered, but there are so many racers and experts on this board that i'd like your opinion.

here's the question. if you walked into a showroom today and bought a stock top-level sportbike, let's say the rsv4, how many years back to you think you'd have to go for a motogp bike where the rsv4 would win on the track with the same rider? and i'm also not talking about a bike that would come with traction control like an 1198r or something.

i don't think that simple weight and horsepower numbers would definitively answer the question as chassis set up and various other factors play a role. also, because tire technology has changed so much over the last 20 years the assumption would be that both bikes would have the same rubber.

so what do you guys think? how far would you have to go back?

it's really kind of crazy to think what a normal person can buy now without going broke. the bike that this would go against would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.

Good question, but the first thang you must realize; we have what we have today, because of what "they" were doing in racing.
Tires are the big factor, race bikes are pretty much built around tire technology. I think if you took a 10 year old GP bike and put modern slicks on, it'd be weird?
I'd think you'd have to go back at least 10 years before an RSV4 will beat a GP bike but only the fellers who have ridden both could tell you. I recon an RSV4 is way easier to ride to it's potential too.

 

[hophead]

So weird to read about Rainey's bike from today's point of view, and 160 hp doesn't seem like much. But 1992 was a long time ago!

well don't wanna hijack but what's even weirder is yeah 1992 was a long time ago but to me seems like just yesterday lol! ugh....

 

[flying_hun]

I think if you took a 10 year old GP bike and put modern slicks on, it'd be weird?

This.

 

[russ69]

A race prepped street bike, with slicks, Ohlins shocks and forks, aftermarket fairings, and an exhaust pipe, make for a pretty fast bike. We have no direct data points because the really fast guys are not likely to ever ride anything other than their GP race bikes. We can look at the Isle of Man, where 500cc bikes have shown up from time to time but have failed to place well even when ridden by the best riders.
I don't think there is a definitive answer but today's street bikes are very very good bikes.

 

[Zerox]

well don't wanna hijack but what's even weirder is yeah 1992 was a long time ago but to me seems like just yesterday lol! ugh....

Yah we're not 21 anymore, hell I was watching Rainey's last GP race live on Eurosport when he crashed!

I still think of the '93 CBR900RR as a ground-breaking motorcycle on the technology front, not because it was the fastest and lightest bike of 1993, but because it had such a huge storage space under the hinged passenger seat. :laughing

 

[Carlo]

How far back do you want to go?
You wouldn't have to go very far to find a point where modern sportbikes out perform older racers.

What's amazing about older race bikes is how good the performance of them was, even in comparison to modern bikes.
The Norton Manx racers with somewhere on the order of 45-50 HP could hit 140 mph. There were 50cc racers that could do 100.

I think the most important gains have been in reliability, not performance.
None of the old-time racers could hold up for more than a couple of races before needing a rebuild.

 

[radvas]

Back in the day I read that the Honda big band motors were putting down well north of 200hp (one rumor was that they were putting down about 235 :wow). I have some vague memory that one of the reasons other companies' 500cc GP bikes had lower peak hp was that they just couldn't get that kind of power to the ground. The engines could deliver the power, but they just couldn't hook it up. And of course because the big bang motors could get more power to the ground, they were able to dial up the engine output to get a lot more power out of them. Or so goes the theory anyway.

 

[rritterson]

The article says the new R1 puts down as much power as the 92 YZR500 that Rainey had.

Not to be a buzzkill, but rephrased you say that a 21-year old kid can walk into a dealer, not show proof of license or ability, and get a bike we used to reserve for world champion level racers.

It's a blessing and a curse.

 

[KazMan]

Having been gone from racing for 21 years, the last bike I rode was a 1988 Yamaha TZ250. 21 years later, I purchase a Yamaha R6. The suspension was better than my 250 and making about 40 more hp. In my mind, my R6 was equipped very much like the factory bikes back in the late 80s. And it seems the club level lap times are about the same.

In my opinion, a well setup 2010 R1 would have given a standard 1988 500cc GP bike a run for it's money.

 

[Busy Little Shop]

I've only had the pleasure of talking with Kevin Schwantz once... it
was in a bar as he sat on my bike going on and on about past Gp
machines... Kevin was his old mischievous self... full of fun but
still longing to get back on a race track... any track any place... as
long as he on something new to which to explore...

I think Kevin Schwantz is addressing the fact that the V4s sports a
shorter crankshaft which has less distance to travel and thus takes
physical effort to change direction than a long beam I4 crankshaft...
so given equal engine capacity Kevin is dealing with less gyroscopic
procession in the V4 than he does in an I4 which compliments his
learned Gp style of changing direction...

1993 World 500cc Champion on my Honda inside a bar...

 

[ohio]

Seems like finding historical GP times that match last years' AMA SuperBike times on a track that hasn't changed between the years would do the trick. AMA SuperBike is relatively close to showroom stock, and certainly buildable/attainable by the public. Who wants to do the research?

 

[joespeedfast]

I think Kevin Schwantz is addressing the fact that the V4s sports a
shorter crankshaft which has less distance to travel and thus takes
physical effort to change direction than a long beam I4 crankshaft...
so given equal engine capacity Kevin is dealing with less gyroscopic
procession in the V4 than he does in an I4 which compliments his
learned Gp style of changing direction...

:wtf... :rofl... :rolleyes... :laughing


Awesome 80's footage of Schwantz. Thanks number 6! :thumbup