If you are ever lucky enough to get a go of a supercar you really won`t want a bike
I'm not really a 'petrolhead', so I'm not bothered about how fast a car is. You're not going to be able to get any fast car up to maximum speed on any British roads (legally), only on a track, which is just going round and round. Motor racing is completely different; that, I can understand.
The primary function of 'supercars' is to serve as an indication of the wealth/economic status of the owner. If you're really into speed, then get into motor racing, or land speed record attempts or whatever. As has been shown on Top Gear, a Caterham or an Ariel Atom is bastard fast, so if speed's your thing then get one of those, maybe. In the hypothetical scenario that you have a free reign to drive a car as fast as you can, on public roads, most people woulds find a modest 'sports car more than enough. Don't kid yourself, that just because you can spin the wheels of your Ford Mundane or get your Nissan Micra sideways, that you could do a Lamborghini Fastbastard justice, you couldn't. You'd crash and burn. Imagine yourself on Lance Armstrong's bike; he'd still cane you on a Ridgeback.
I can appreciate the desire for engineering perfection; a BIC Biro is adequate, so why have a Mont Blanc fountain pen? It's just nice to have nice things. But with cars, most of us would never be able to enjoy what they are really capable of. So, perhaps better to go for something a little more modest, or attainable.
Which is where bicycles come in. For a fraction of the cost of a supercar, you could have an absolutely amazing bike. One which could take you where no Ferrari ever could. To remote places of peace and tranquility. Cars need roads; mountain bikes don't.
It's a bit like houses; why would you want to burden yourself with a 20 bedroom mansion, when a 3 bed house is perfect?
Is it for you, or to impress the neighbours?