Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:33 am
by Neka79
Stereo wrote:Bartofsky wrote:still not as fast as a bike though. But it is a seriously nice bit of kit... for a car.
Its faster than a fair few bikes...
depends who riding the bike i reckon...
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:38 am
by Stereo
Lambourghini Diablo
0-60 mph: 3.6 sec
0-100 mph: 8.8 sec
Quarter Mile: 12 sec @ 122 mph
Skidpad: .97g
Top Speed: 205 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 109 ft
Slalom Speed: 70 mph
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:53 pm
by mobile
Yeah, but where's the spot to carry the bike, after all when you get tired of driving, you'll have to ride the bike
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:31 pm
by Neka79
Stereo wrote:Lambourghini Diablo
0-60 mph: 3.6 sec
0-100 mph: 8.8 sec
Quarter Mile: 12 sec @ 122 mph
Skidpad: .97g
Top Speed: 205 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 109 ft
Slalom Speed: 70 mph
i dunno my 0-60 speed...but i kno my 1/4 time is 11.1 sec...
interesting....
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:05 am
by aardvark
neka79 wrote:i dunno my 0-60 speed...
Most bikes have a 0-60 (Close enough to 0 - 100km/h to not make a difference) of around 3 seconds... give or take.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:28 am
by Stereo
Not many bikes have a top speed of 205 MILES per hour
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:47 am
by mick_dundee
aardvark wrote:Most bikes have a 0-60 (Close enough to 0 - 100km/h to not make a difference) of around 3 seconds... give or take.
Jase, figures from Stereo are in MILES per hour, bit of a diff b/n 60kmh and 60mph I suggest.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:15 am
by aardvark
mick_dundee wrote:aardvark wrote:Most bikes have a 0-60 (Close enough to 0 - 100km/h to not make a difference) of around 3 seconds... give or take.
Jase, figures from Stereo are in MILES per hour, bit of a diff b/n 60kmh and 60mph I suggest.
Errr, yeah, right. And?
Hence the reason I said "0-60 (Close enought to 0-100)"
60mph is 96.56kmh. Most bikes do the 0-100km/h or 0-60mph in around 3 secons. Some slightly less, some slightly more.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:07 am
by hidepenny
Most bikes have a 0-60 (Close enough to 0 - 100km/h to not make a difference) of around 3 seconds...
definitely not my bike
even it was 0-60kph
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:53 pm
by Gosling1
Stereo wrote:Not many bikes have a top speed of 205 MILES per hour
*rubs belly*.....* gazes out window at ZX12R*.....*rubs belly*
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:48 am
by sneakypete
neka79 wrote:cambo: version 2 wrote:u have no idea what i would do for a chance to drive one of them...... nice ride
blow your own trumpet??
if i could do that, i wouldn't have gotten married!!!!
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:39 am
by Neka79
Stereo wrote:Not many bikes have a top speed of 205 MILES per hour
yea..but not many bikes cost $500,000 either...
and for the top speed difference (my blade does 290)....the $485000 DIFFERENCE IS...WELL U FIGURE IT OUT...
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:42 am
by ZX10R King
neka79 wrote:Stereo wrote:Not many bikes have a top speed of 205 MILES per hour
yea..but not many bikes cost $500,000 either...
and for the top speed difference (my blade does 290)....the $485000 DIFFERENCE IS...WELL U FIGURE IT OUT...
Also, don't forget fuel economy. In something like the Lambo, u give it a thrashing and u r lucky to get 4km/l. Even when ya thrash a bike, ya gotta get atleast twice that?