Didn't want to let this get too crazy, but I couldn't reply earlier.

Tx is correct. Someone mentioned trap times etc, and I simply made the comment at high speeds, these trap times and 1/4 mile times mean very little. High higher speeds, their trap speeds don't reflect their capabilities in the least. Therefore, the argument is not which is more aerodynamic than the other, but which one has the best power to aerodynamic ratio for the speed traveled.

So you have a 12 second truck, vs an 11 second motorcycle, but if the rider has big feet, it can slow him down by a few mph, that's how much it effects a motorcycle. Yes, that is a little silly, but it drives my point home. Not to mention, put me on a bike, and chances are it's slower than most typical riders (200lbs), where as in the truck, we probably won't see a difference.

 

this thread went to **** so i didnt read all the way through, but badass kill for a big hoe to be walkin a bike on the interstate! a turbo anything is gonna pull hard at those speeds so im sure it happened (plus you have posted for a while and seemed like an honest guy)

either way cool kill man its nice to put someone in their place! oh and as said before get a gun just in case!

 

There is very little out there, but, drag coefficients are typically rated with a number. The higher the rating, the more the drag. A high performance sports car might have about a .3-.4, a sports bike rates at 1 or more. An actual brick would rate close to 1.2.

Too many rough edges, holes, bumps, the rider, very little about a bike screams slippery. If it's makes you feel better, I ride a Harley...the aerodynamics of a house. lol

 

I read about the aerodynamics of a bike being very poor as well. But at the speeds where that comes into play it's really a moot point for most riders.

 

I know some good people locally (not ricers) that you would probably enjoy hanging out with. PM me your cell cause any 6000lb SUV in the 12's is pretty damn impressive!

 

Bike areo's are very poor. They really don't hurt much till the 160mph range. It only takes 150rwhp to go 180mph on a bike but it takes 200rwhp to go 200mph..

 

Your analogy is close but too liberal. Feet won't cause you to lose MPH...Maybe .xx MPH. This isn't land speed racing above 160(ish) mph so. I drag raced cycles for over 4 years and no matter how i sat on the bike it never affected MPH by more than 1mph...

 

Sport Rider-Testing Suzuki Hayabusa and Kawasaki ZX-12R aerodynamics in the wind tunnel

 

I'd like to meet some new people around here. Most of my car buddies live in texas now. We all got transfered around being navy and all. And it's very hard to find truck guys that actually have a damn clue. And you usually figure it out in about 2mins into the conversation. I have one friend here that has. 4.3 turbo silvy I built an a 97 seria with a 383 ls1 I helped build and that's about it.

For the record, I looked up some pic of the bike I raced. It was a model from the 90's from what I could tell. Still fast but I'm sure not tip top shape.

 

That was an awesome read, never looked at it from that side. I think everyone is caught up in the power to weight ration game and don't take that into consideration.