Will the motorcycle replace the car for performance-minded drivers?
by Jeremy Korzeniewski on Feb 5th 2008 at 7:02PM 
We ran across an interesting question posed by Paul Crowe over at The Kneeslider and decided to see what our readers thought: Are motorcycles the future of performance? This question seemingly has some merit due to the tighter CAFE requirements that the government is forcing upon automakers. General Motors cannot afford to sell hundreds of thousands of Camaros at great prices, no matter how many consumers want them. Instead, it seems that the highest-performing Camaro could be a hybrid, which would undoubtedly cost more than an SS with a V8 engine. Rumors are circulating that the Corvette ZR1 will be the last one powered by a larger-displacement V8 engine. Motorcycles, on the other hand, have so far slipped under the radar. Although it is probably not necessary since most bikes get pretty good fuel economy anyway, CAFE does not exist in the motorcycle market. Is the performance car going to go down in smoke in the wake of increasing fuel mileage? If so, will speed junkies make the switch to motorcycles?
[Source: The Kneeslider]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Viktor 7:08PM (2/05/2008)
A speed junkie already drives a motorcycle.. you get the performance of a veyron for 1/100 the money.
Reply
almost Dr. G.. 7:09PM (2/05/2008)
good point viktor.
but safety.. yeaa.. big drawback imo..
the people in my city drive like animals..
Reply
2004m3driver 7:12PM (2/05/2008)
I have one, but I don't think its as fast as a Veyron. that 100-200mph part would kill me. But then again I only have a 675cc not a Kawa ZX14 beast or Busa. Both of them have some qualities that would never be replaced. I wouldn't dream of only riding my bike.
Reply
SkyAl 7:18PM (2/05/2008)
You forgot the dirty little secret about bikes though - they get good mileage, but if the government gets ahold of them, the performance there will die too, as the emissions of motorcycles is pretty awful. How else do you get close to 180+ hp out of 998ccs. It's not by being a "clean" motor.
Most bikes don't have catalysts, except in California.
Reply
Kevin 7:18PM (2/05/2008)
"Will the motorcycle replace the car for performance-minded drivers?"
Not anyplace where people drive the way people drive here in California, they won't. I wouldn't mind riding a bike, but not around here. There are too many retards and incompetents on the road around here. It's not safe.
Reply
racer01 7:18PM (2/05/2008)
No.
Reply
bert 7:21PM (2/05/2008)
Like Victor mentioned people who care about the adrenaline rush of power and the thrill of cornering like you and the machine are one, already ride bikes today. I don't really think dumbing down cars will change that, though perhaps people will be more disposed to riding bikes if they made all cars slow. In the end though it boils down to a status thing. Few people buy fast cars because they are fast - they buy them because they cost $$$. Those people won't buy bikes when a guy on minimum wage can afford a superbike
Reply
Pat 8:44AM (2/06/2008)
I like 4 wheels. How about lighter cars? And diesel engines? (see LeMans for proof of high performing diesels)
Reply
DMC-12 7:26PM (2/05/2008)
Don't get me wrong, I think motorcycles are great, but there is something different about driving a car, which cannot be replicated with a motorcycle, no matter how fast they may be.
Reply
BartMack 7:26PM (2/05/2008)
where are they gonna put the cupholders -?
Reply
Aetius 7:28PM (2/05/2008)
No. I'm sure bike are fantastic but nothing beats a good sports car.
Reply
David Wiles 7:29PM (2/05/2008)
It depends on what we mean by high performance. There will still be fast cars. They may simply not be as fast as they are now.
There are sedans and station wagons being sold right now with more horsepower than mid-sixties LeMans winning GT40's and Ferrari P4's, not to mention pre-turbo era F1 cars. This has been the golden age of big horsepower, low 0-60 times and 200+ mph top speeds. It may be ending but would a return to the high performance benchmarks of the sixties be that bad?
All the bad boy cars of that era were faster than they could be driven legally anywhere in the US. Once upon a time a sub 6 sec run to 60 was considered quick and a 160mph top speed was considered fast. If we return to that, how much will we really be losing in terms of really usable (as opposed to bragging rights) real world performance?
Reply
Paul P. 7:39PM (2/05/2008)
If that's the case, than one could say speed boats will replace fast cars as well.
It won't happen as they just aren't the same type of vehicle. I have a bunch of fast snowmobiles, that I love racing, but they aren't the same as racing a car, and never will be. People don't buy motorcycles when they want a car, they buy a motorcycle when they want a motorcycle.
With that said, you wouldn't catch me on a murdercycle in NJ/lower NY/eastern PA. It's too dangerous with all the nuts on the road around here. At least with a car you have a bit more mass, stability, and more in the way of safety features. Now, if I lived out in the middle of nowhere, then I would consider owning a motorcycle. It wouldn't replace my cars though.
Reply
Jeff 7:44PM (2/05/2008)
No way. Motorcycles are in a whole different catigory its a dumb comparison anytime some idiot or uninformed website tries to bring it up. I have a Ninja zxr10 and every now and then cars want to race me. I live work in a wealthy area and I've had both a farrari and bentley GT coupe try to race me and although it was the bentley when I got pulled over (because the cop so me first cuz I was ahead) and I didn't get a ticket, but he could have towed my bike. I will never race a car again. Almost no car (except a bugatti) can beat a bike. I ride a bike and I can tell you that bikes are way to dangerous to go mainstream. You have to have a love for riding that allows you to overcome the danger and outweighs the risk of injury.
Reply
2004m3driver 7:51PM (2/05/2008)
A fast car is completely different than a fast bike. Bikes will never corner faster than a car that can pull over 1g. They don't have the downforce for it. But not too many cars can pull over 1g haha. But yeah, bikes will never replace sport cars. Especially in California. Mainly because who the hell wants to carry around a bunch of gear all the time. When I ride, its only to ride from A to A. Carrying around leather and a helmet sucks.
Reply
spdracerut 8:12PM (2/05/2008)
Maybe for straight line junkies.... but the feel between a car and a bike are completely different.
I find it interesting that two others have posted that they prefer the feel of a car. Ususually, it's the other way around. I've been riding bicycles/mtn. bikes since I was four and got a motorcycle while I was in grad school.
I much prefer the feeling of being on two-wheels and the openness of a motorcycle; somewhat like the open air feel of a convertible. Also, riding a motorcycle is a much more involving experience requiring a lot of body input.
While any street bike can kill any street car in daily driving acceleration situations, that's not what makes the bike more fun for me.
On a twisty road, I can go much faster in my Evo than on my CBR just do to the fact that there's a much greater margin of error. You hit a patch of dirt, oil, etc on the bike and you're screwed. But there NOTHING like being cranked over in a corner and hanging off the bike. I just get a bigger sense of involvement and freedom on the bike.
Reply
Peter L 8:15PM (2/05/2008)
I have a 650 twin, a sports car and a V6 sedan. Each serves a purpose and drives differently. Each is set up to stick to the road and handle, sheer speed is not needed, all are fast enough. As others have stated, a bike, even a lightweight 650 twin will easily out accelerate and out brake almost any car for sale to the public. Pick the day, purpose and choose the most appropriate.
See for yourself @
Youtube C2100
Reply
Buckus 8:21PM (2/05/2008)
"If you don't learn the lessons from history, you are bound to repeat it."
Journalists and automotive experts predicted the end of the muscle car in the late 70's due to tighter emissions regulations, yet here we are with cars easily getting 30-50% more HP while using less gas and spewing fewer noxious fumes.
It may take some time, but the performance car will still be around in 15-20 years, it just might look or sound different than we're used to. It might be an all-electric car with a 500KW motor capable of 0-60 in 1 second or something.
Reply
husam666 8:43PM (2/05/2008)
in response to bikes getting neutered once they have emmissions requirements: BMW K1200S has a catalytic converter, puts out 160hp, and runs on the other side of 170mph.
bikes do have some physical limitations, most notably wheelying during hard accel. but in general they will smoke any car around any track. the only thing that can beat an 800cc motogp bike is a formula one car (and they literally cost 100x as much).
and bear in mind, all these cheap bikes with outrageous performance figures are NORMALLY ASPIRATED. God knows what they could do with turbos.
Reply
Franz 8:28PM (2/05/2008)
I agree with Viktor. As a self proclaimed speed junkie with one 500hp car in my stable (Evo IX), I also have a GSX-R 600. As fast as the bike is though, I never ride it as fast as I drive my cars. I just get the feeling that if something goes wrong, I'll miss the crumple zones and airbags.
But speed is addictive... that's why I stay away from Hayabusas and other über bikes. It's hard to have something capable of such staggering performance and not be tempted to push it to it's limits. I hit 170mph once on a borrowed 'busa in the blink of an eye... the speedo seemed to be in sync with the tach... and it completely warped my view of speed, making even the Evo feel like a slug. Scary.
As a side note though, I've found a reasonable compromise in quad bikes. I've got a 350cc Yamaha Warrior bored out 2mm and I have to say it's the most fun ride I've got. And dirt and grass is a lot more forgiving than tarmac whenever I have what I like to call an "oh sh*t" moment.
Reply