Its extremely relevant, Des. Those fingers on Top Gear have resolutley denied the exsistance of bikes. They did a 'race' from one end of London to the other, one on the tube, one in a speedboat down the Thames and one... on a pushbike! The tube won (HaHa) the pushbike not far behind, a rev and go 50cc would have tramped all over them. But no, the obvious method of travelling congested cities was completely ignored.
This is a very influential show, young lads see image after image of high power, extremely expensive supercars dangled before them, in their impressionable minds, this is cool. Once they see a few of two wheels hyper offerings, they might just be persuaded to take a look.
I guess I meant to me, the result is irrelevant. I don't really care how sports bikes compare against cars costing 10x more. They are 2 very different things. I think riding a bike will almost always be more exciting though.
You may have a point in drumming up a bit of interest in motorcycling.
I agree it'll be entertaining to see how the 2 compare, and a lot of people will have asked the question so there is some value in finding the result, out of curiosity if nothing else. That Ariel Atom will take some beating!
However, I don't think that there are many car vs bike races out there (Dakar rally maybe?). And in the real world, on the road, bikes may be quicker in some cases, cars in others.
Hammond and May ride bikes themselves don't they? And they did that Vietnam special on bikes which was entertaining. Clarkson has even been around Monaco on a Ducati, I think.
I saw the London one either on Friday or yesterday, and I did wonder why they didn't use a motorcycle. That's where the benefits of a bike would be most pronounced. IIRC, Hammond on the pushbike won, then Clarkson in the boat, then the Stig on public transport.... and then May in the car. They should have included a powered 2-wheeler.