[CaptainPanic]

I think the question of the thread is not clear anymore.

Are we discussing a real-life maximum speed for surviving a fall off a moving motorcycle, as stated in the OP?
Answer: not so fast. Most people will have serious injuries at regular highway speeds. There is a reason that driving a motorbike is 35 times more often fatal than a car. (wikipedia)

Quote

Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists' risk of a fatal crash is 35 times greater than a passenger car.

Or are we discussing a sci-fi (but real physics) top speed for a (ground?) vehicle?
If so, the question is not clear. What is important? Should it just be cool? Should it be as fast as possible? Should it be able to move everywhere? Should it be practical? Should it corner, or just go like hell on the straight? Is the road perfectly smooth? And why can it not be an airplane (which can land vertically)? What's the reason to stick to a surface?

I mean, yes, you can build a maglev motor for 1 person sitting in a half-open cabine, with multiple thrusters... If designed with future materials and methods, the laws of physics don't stop you. So, we can only discuss the practical side of this, which brings us to the question: "WHY?"

Because a single-seat electric chair with rockets attached to it doesn't sound like a practical means of transportation to me

[TransformerRobot]

I want it to be cool, AND possible.

Just look at what these people built:



Look at it and tell me that's not the Spider Mech from Wild Wild West.

The laws of physics today are different from what we'll have in the future, assuming the laws of physics will change in the future.

Skipping the laws of physics is for Transformers and My Little Pony, not for a serious story about high speed racing. A friend told me yesterday that Pod Racing was so exciting because of how many drivers got hurt in all the action.

If I don't make racing faster in my story it may not be as exciting, and would be dismissed as just like today's Superbike competitions, and nothing more.

Most of all, by applying real physics to the story people would actually think I'm smart, and not just some ordinary reporter using his imagination to create an ideal world.

Specifically this, without the annoying tractor beams:

[Moontanman]

TransformerRobot, on 3 January 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

Thank you all for your input and feedback, but now I think I should ask this:

Is more speed really what motorcycle racing needs to be more exciting?

First look at footage of this REAL race in Ontario:



Now look at this VIRTUAL race on the Nintendo GameCube:



After watching them both, which was more exciting?

I've raced, trust me it is far more exciting that playing a video game.... I get the impression not a lot of experienced bikers here... riding motorcycles is a skill set not everyone can master, they are dangerous but also safer, I sounds like a contradiction but it's very true. If you know how to take advantage of the advantages a motorcycle has it can be safe and fun... till some a-hole pulls out in front of you and you t-bone him....

BTW, motorcycle racing is about as fast as it can get with the technology available to the builders, at this point tire wear seems to be the most limiting factor.... The rear tire on a powerful motorcycle looses traction quite easily and spends a lot of time spinning faster than the front tire.

TransformerRobot, on 3 January 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

If I don't make racing faster in my story it may not be as exciting, and would be dismissed as just like today's Superbike competitions, and nothing more.

Superbike racing is dismissed? Not by motorcycle fans, it is far more serious racing than the whole NASCAR go fast turn left crap....

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 3 January 2012 - 04:17 PM

[TransformerRobot]

Moontanman, on 3 January 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

I've raced, trust me it is far more exciting that playing a video game.... I get the impression not a lot of experienced bikers here... riding motorcycles is a skill set not everyone can master, they are dangerous but also safer, I sounds like a contradiction but it's very true. If you know how to take advantage of the advantages a motorcycle has it can be safe and fun... till some a-hole pulls out in front of you and you t-bone him....

BTW, motorcycle racing is about as fast as it can get with the technology available to the builders, at this point tire wear seems to be the most limiting factor.... The rear tire on a powerful motorcycle looses traction quite easily and spends a lot of time spinning faster than the front tire.



Superbike racing is dismissed? Not by motorcycle fans, it is far more serious racing than the whole NASCAR go fast turn left crap....

Did I ever mention I hate NASCAR? No? Well I'm saying it now. I think it's a load of horse crap full of drunken white trash bums, constant left turns, and that it only generates so much revenue because of corporate sponsorship. Might as well change the acronym to say Non Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks (I read that one on Urban Dictionary).

[dimreepr]

TransformerRobot, on 3 January 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

I want it to be cool, AND possible.

Just look at what these people built:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lezLpOmdZUw

Look at it and tell me that's not the Spider Mech from Wild Wild West.

The laws of physics today are different from what we'll have in the future, assuming the laws of physics will change in the future.

Skipping the laws of physics is for Transformers and My Little Pony, not for a serious story about high speed racing. A friend told me yesterday that Pod Racing was so exciting because of how many drivers got hurt in all the action.

If I don't make racing faster in my story it may not be as exciting, and would be dismissed as just like today's Superbike competitions, and nothing more.

Most of all, by applying real physics to the story people would actually think I'm smart, and not just some ordinary reporter using his imagination to create an ideal world.

Specifically this, without the annoying tractor beams:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-YFWgJplzGo

the basic laws of physics such as pauli's and hiesenburg's principles will always be correct and cannot be otherwise. you can't just ignore what is fundamentally true.

This post has been edited by dimreepr: 3 January 2012 - 06:13 PM

[TransformerRobot]

But there will always be new principles. We don't know everything about the universe, especially not all the different ways we can keep racers on their bikes.

Scientists out there are working on new advancements in technology all the time. How else did we end up with wearable airbags?



It's very likely that someone else, or even the same inventor, is working to improve upon the concept. That would certainly help the bikes allowance for extra speed.

[Schrödinger's hat]

There are thing you can do to make a conventional motorcycle go faster.
There were some experiments with using aerodynamics to help cornering, but the extra expense (and potential dangers of travelling faster) resulted in it being banned.
There are also engine technologies and materials that are banned from conventional racing, again largely for reasons of cost (otherwise even fewer groups could compete) and to reduce top speeds slightly (safety). (Think a turbine powered vehicle with flaps to help it corner made out of exotic, toxic and expensive alloys).

If we ever get a good solution to the battery problem, the fastest vehicles will be electric; electric motors have been better than anything involving combustion for a very long time.

This being said, there are only certain levels of acceleration a human being can endure, and races are boring without corners.
Look at the Formula 1 cars for something approaching the extremes of what could be achieved and have the rider keep hanging on.

You could get higher speeds, but your races would wind up as boring as the nascar go straight turn left.

Traction is a big issue, getting the acceleration required to corner would require a lot of thrust (something maglevs are not great at, and very expensive fuel-wise if you're doing it with rockets or directed air). So tires are probably the best bet, and as moontanman said, tire technology is one of the limiting factors there.

Short of the long:
Anything 'like motorcycle racing' will be like motorcycle racing.
If it's all about speed and less about corners, you could probably do something with maglev/mhd/some kind of ground effect vehicle, but I don't see how anyone rational would make a vehicle that travels much over 400km/h with an open top.

[TransformerRobot]

Can I have an exciting, fun to watch and attractive-to-millions-of-people hoverbike sport while keeping the speeds the same as Superbike racing?

If yes, then I'll actually say something nice about a famous person I don't like.

[Schrödinger's hat]

I would conjecture that on a similar track (number and tighness of corners even if they're made of different materials), something with tires would be faster for a given weight/engine power.

Maglevs -- as far as I've seen -- produce low thrust and rely on the lack of friction and low frontal surface area for high speed. I don't know whether this is strictly because of weight/energy issues or whether it's also a matter of not needing the extra power in existing implementations.

If you had enough thrust from some kind of thruster to out-manouvre modern wheeled vehicles, then the vehicle would be more helicopter than hover vehicle. Staying on the ground would only be a matter of control systems rather than any limitations of the vehicle.

Something with wing-like control surfaces may be manouvrable without needing to produce that much thrust. I'd imagine it would be difficult to control though, and getting near another such vehicle would be exceedingly dangerous/difficult to manage.

[TransformerRobot]

Well maybe give them rudders on their rear ends like in various aircraft.

Because they have lower friction than motorcycles I could give them small, but somewhat powerful, turbine engines (Notice the blue flames coming from the rear end of my example). I was thinking of the same method jet aircraft used to slow themselves down when I came up with the idea.

Basically I was hoping for them to be land vehicles that didn't have wheels, but still moved in 2 dimensions like a car or motorcycle.

[CaptainPanic]

But isn't a maglev restricted to its tracks? It would be pretty boring if the drivers were stuck to the tracks, and wouldn't have to steer? It would be something like this:

<-- boring

But since wheels are obviously very normal, I dismiss ordinary wheels too - I've understood we're looking for something extraordinarily cool and perhaps exotic.

So, how about a pumped up version of hovercraft racing?

<-- not boring

I don't really care how the vehicles would hover - either some wonderful trick with magnets (make sure you don't flip over, this would suddenly attract the vehicle rather than repel it), or the hovercraft technology. If we don't care about the costs, it could be cool to have the track made of something like an air hockey table:

<-- brilliant

And steering can be done by one thruster at the back with thrust vectoring, effectively making it a very powerful version of the hovercraft racing I showed... Or simply put two thrusters on the sides of the vehicle, with separate controls, so that there is only a forward (no reverse), and the vehicle steers like a tank: go left by getting more power from the right thruster than from left, and right by getting more power from the left than from the right.

Obviously, acceleration should be huge, but there are no laws of physics that prevent that.

That should be fun on a good race track with tight corners and some straights.

[TransformerRobot]

But what if the race was supposed to go off-road in certain parts?

Besides, I wanted to see about maglev because air cushion vehicles touch the ground too much. To me that's not a "hover" craft, that's just a boat that can go on land.

I know maglev today is restricted to the direction of the track, but what if the track was wider than the magnets supporting the bikes? That's why I figured they'd levitate on the electric field created by 2 superconductor systems, 3 lanes apart, while the bikes were only 2 or 3 feet wide. That way we could fit more vehicles on the same track.

After all, the giant air hockey table idea would require just as much energy as the superconductors, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it also be much louder? If you, however, have the statistics to show which uses less energy between maglev and air hockey, by all means show me.

This post has been edited by TransformerRobot: 5 January 2012 - 04:24 PM

[DrRocket]

TransformerRobot, on 3 January 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

I want it to be cool, AND possible.


The laws of physics today are different from what we'll have in the future, assuming the laws of physics will change in the future.
...

Skipping the laws of physics is for Transformers and My Little Pony, not for a serious story about high speed racing.

...

If I don't make racing faster in my story it may not be as exciting, and would be dismissed as just like today's Superbike competitions, and nothing more.

The laws of physics as known to Newton and Maxwell arre still valid today and are quite adequate for the technology that is relevant to your OP. Those laws may have been extended by quantum electrodynamics and relativity, but within their domain of validity they remain as valid as ever and will in the future.

Physics does not overturn laws so much as revise and extend them to every more general settings; e,.g. the very small, the very fast, regions of extrarordinary gravitation, etc. But for normal conditions the classical physics of 100+ years ago remains valid and in fact is the basis for the vast majority of engineering.

TransformerRobot said:

Most of all, by applying real physics to the story people would actually think I'm smart, and not just some ordinary reporter using his imagination to create an ideal world.

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time -- Abraham Lincoln

[CaptainPanic]

TransformerRobot, on 5 January 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

But what if the race was supposed to go off-road in certain parts?

Besides, I wanted to see about maglev because air cushion vehicles touch the ground too much. To me that's not a "hover" craft, that's just a boat that can go on land.

I know maglev today is restricted to the direction of the track, but what if the track was wider than the magnets supporting the bikes? That's why I figured they'd levitate on the electric field created by 2 superconductor systems, 3 lanes apart, while the bikes were only 2 or 3 feet wide. That way we could fit more vehicles on the same track.

With 2 superconductors providing a magnetic field, the field will not be uniform along the width of the track, and your drivers will hate you for that.

Also, I don't know if you have played with magnets a lot, but a magnetic field strength drops really quickly when you move away from the magnet. I don't think your drivers would be much further off the ground than on an air cushion. Obviously, you can pimp it by just putting a lot more superconductors and more power. More power will solve a lot of theoretical problems, and since you don't really need to solve the practical ones, you're safe.

TransformerRobot, on 5 January 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

After all, the giant air hockey table idea would require just as much energy as the superconductors, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it also be much louder? If you, however, have the statistics to show which uses less energy between maglev and air hockey, by all means show me.

I don't think there are many publications comparing transportation on an air hockey table with superconducted maglev transport... so I cannot do statistics for you.
LOL, can I congratulate you btw for even asking that? I mean, read the question again, and marvel at its originality:

TransformerRobot, on 5 January 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

If you, however, have the statistics to show which uses less energy between maglev and air hockey, by all means show me.

It's gonna keep me smiling for the rest of the day.

[TransformerRobot]

I was referring to the GIANT air hockey table idea you proposed.

Yes, I suppose I'd need a few more superconductors to keep the bikes levitating.

Is there a way for them to float freely above the electric field instead of being stuck on a restricted line like a train?

Or what if a hovercraft had it's skirt inflated using jet turbines?

[Schrödinger's hat]

TransformerRobot, on 6 January 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

I was referring to the GIANT air hockey table idea you proposed.

Yes, I suppose I'd need a few more superconductors to keep the bikes levitating.

Is there a way for them to float freely above the electric field instead of being stuck on a restricted line like a train?

I guess you could have a big ol' magnetic track (at immense expense) and superconductors on the bikes.
Thinks would not go well if they got too close though....

Quote

Or what if a hovercraft had it's skirt inflated using jet turbines?

You would....melt the skirt?

I think the concept of a ground effect vehicle (pretty much an aircraft, but the aerodynamics are such that it has trouble getting more than 20ft off of the ground) race would be pretty neat.
Ludicrously dangerous though.
Again this is somewhat incompatible with an extremely high power/thrust to weight vehicle. Given sufficient thrust and energy, you don't really care about the ground, other than avoiding it.

[TransformerRobot]

Schrödinger, on 11 January 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

I guess you could have a big ol' magnetic track (at immense expense) and superconductors on the bikes.
Thinks would not go well if they got too close though....

That's what I was thinking, but the other way around, thanks.