Moto1
Julian Bond
>So the magic bullet is a max bore size of 81mm. I bet we can all think
>>of some unintended consequences of that.
Essential reading
http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/12/20/peter_clifford_interview_
part_1_there_s_.html
http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/12/21/peter_clifford_interview_
part_2_the_priv.html
Trying to make sense of all this. I think Honda-Yamaha-Ducati, and
possibly Suzuki with a little of that VW money, will build prototypes.
They'll be chasing 17k rpm, air-desmo valves, 260bhp, 2500km rebuild
intervals and 21L of fuel. That's going to cost them at least as much as
it costs them now, plus all the costs of the redesign. And Vale won't be
able to resist trying to win back to back 800-1000 races and
championships.
But that leaves a bunch of questions.
- What will Aprilia do?
- Is there really any more chance of an Illmor or KR appearing? The task
just got more difficult, didn't it, not less?
- Is there any chance of a WCM appearing, and if they did, which engine
would they start with? Because none of the current 1000 engines looks
suitable.
- Is there any chance of a major manufacturer offering a part built or
fully built engine as a starting point? Perhaps Kawasaki?
- Will any of the manufacturers deliberately build a 2012 road bike that
is a good starting point. The one that feels possible is Yamaha. What if
there's a 2012 R1 that has a reverse rotation crank, offset cam drive,
81mm bore and ancilliaries stuck behind the block rather than on the end
of the crank? That would fit in with the R1 product cycle.
- What if Ducati do another 500-1000 run of an updated Desmosedici?
- How about BMW and Aprilia? Could they manage a small batch run of
modified/altered engines
I have this depressing thought that Suzuki will finally just pull out.
We'll be left with 15 on the grid and nobody will even attempt any of
the options above. The 3 big manufacturers left will just have to suck
up another big round of costs in the change and then suck up the same
ongoing costs they have now. It's all doom, I tell you.
And all this was supposed to be cheaper?
- All the manufacturers will build prototypes
- Which means new prototypes, and new work on the electronics. Which all
costs lots of money
- They now have to cope with engine life limits, the same fuel
restrictions, but worse than that they'll be trying to work out how to
push the engine rev limits with a fixed bore and stroke. Producing
competitive prototypes didn't get any easier or cheaper, it just got
harder.
So I can't see how it's going to be any easier to find 260hp than it
currently is to find 220hp. So I can't see how it will be any cheaper.
In theory, it will be possible to start with a production engine but
you'll still need an electronics package and a lot of modification.
Given how far an 81mm bore is from any production engine, I'm not sure
anyone is actually going to try. Even if you did, you'll be at the back
of the pack. So what if Yamaha (say) produce a set of prototypes for
their main teams and then produce a limited run modified R1 engine for
their privateers. They've now got to produce what is effectively two
prototypes and support them. More expense.
The "cheaper" argument depends on there being more than enough power so
you can be competitive without chasing ultimate top end. Except I don't
remember 990cc avoiding a horse power race. The moment Ducati can pass
people at will on the straight, everyone else will spend money to try
and stay with them.
So I don't buy this "cheaper" argument. I think it has no clothes.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Seasoning
Champ
<julia...@voidstar.com> wrote:
>Given how far an 81mm bore is from any production engine...
Is it? <googles>
ZX10R : 76mm
GSX-R 1000: 73mm
R1 : 77mm
Fireblade: 75mm
Hmm, see what you mean. Even the closest (the R1) is 4mm off, which I
guess is a significant amount.
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Julian Bond
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:16:57 +0000, Julian Bond
><julia...@voidstar.com> wrote:
>
>>Given how far an 81mm bore is from any production engine...
>
>Is it? <googles>
>
>ZX10R : 76mm
>GSX-R 1000: 73mm
>R1 : 77mm
>Fireblade: 75mm
>
>Hmm, see what you mean. Even the closest (the R1) is 4mm off, which I
>guess is a significant amount.
Yup. 4mm is a huge amount when you've already optimised down cylinder
sleeve thickness in the faster-better-cheaper cycle. The old days of
buying a set of TTS pistons and getting an extra 150cc with a rebore are
over.
The only one that's close is the new BMW. Which makes to wonder. The
other problem I think is the sheer width of production engines. The two
straight 4s in MotoGP had done a lot of work to move the cam drive and
all the ancillaries away from the sides of the engine. And at least in
Endurance the teams using R1s were having trouble with ground clearance.
That's going to be that much more of a problem with MotoGP spec tyres.
Which all leaves Aprilia. And who knows where the Piaggio group are
going to jump or if they can find the money under a pillow somewhere.
I think what's really puzzling is that Dorna-FIM-MSMA must all know this
stuff. And there must have been some hints and promises from the
manufacturers that they might help in some way. It's just not clear what
that might have been or what it might turn into when 2012 comes round.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Less Filling
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <24c4j5hto6d7jaeue...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:16:57 +0000, Julian Bond
><julia...@voidstar.com> wrote:
>>Given how far an 81mm bore is from any production engine...
> Is it? <googles>
> ZX10R : 76mm
> GSX-R 1000: 73mm
> R1 : 77mm
> Fireblade: 75mm
> Hmm, see what you mean. Even the closest (the R1) is 4mm off, which I
> guess is a significant amount.
But they're all eligible, surely? 81 mm is a _maximum_, not
mandatory.
--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Howard Kveck
Julian Bond <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote:
(many good points and questions snipped)
> So I don't buy this "cheaper" argument. I think it has no clothes.
Top level racing ***never*** gets cheaper. The people who suggest it can be made
cheaper must surely be smoking crack. Example: the rules in F1 restricting how many
engines teams can have. Once you make the tooling to create engine parts (like blocks
/ cases, heads, pistons, etc) or write programs for CNCs to machine various pieces,
the price per unit *drops* rather fast. Technology continues to march along and
people get used to the power advantages they had with a set of rules, so when rules
are written to "make racing cheaper," those people will spend as much as they have to
in order to continue to get the same power out of their engines.
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Champ
<Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>Given how far an 81mm bore is from any production engine...
>
>> Is it? <googles>
>
>> ZX10R : 76mm
>> GSX-R 1000: 73mm
>> R1 : 77mm
>> Fireblade: 75mm
>
>> Hmm, see what you mean. Even the closest (the R1) is 4mm off, which I
>> guess is a significant amount.
>But they're all eligible, surely? 81 mm is a _maximum_, not
>mandatory.
Of course. But if the factories run prototypes built up to the 81mm
limit, then they're going to get revs and power which you're not going
to get anywhere near with 76 or 77mm bore. So you're very firmly in
the second division before the lights change.
Mark N
> Essential reading
> Trying to make sense of all this.
So was I, and came to the conclusion that Clifford is just a whiner,
another guy who lost out trying to beat people with lots more money and
resources. So it will always be in racing. I particularly liked this:
MM: What do you think of the concept [Moto2] - apart from its
sensitivity to political interference?
PC: Well it's not Grand Prix racing, is it?
MM: Because it's got a spec engine?
PC: Yes, exactly. It's a cup. You know, we've got the Rookies' Cup, and
now the Moto2 Cup. What it is, if you have such a thing at a national
level, it's fantastic, because it does allow people to go racing, build
bikes. In many, many respects it's great, but it's not a Grand Prix class.
MM: Because the whole bike should be a prototype and not a spec engine
in a chassis someone has built?
PC: Well, you should be allowed to do whatever you like. That was the
whole beauty of Grand Prix racing, there were so few rules that you
could do whatever you liked.
And then this:
PC: I think that that is more difficult to arrive at now because of the
electronics... Now, since then, the rider aids - you know, where you
just get it into the middle of the corner, whack the throttle open and
the electronics does it - that is completely unobtainium, and that is
going to make the life of anybody else trying to do what we did, harder
even than it was for us, and that would be very daunting.
MM: You can try to make all sorts of things cheaper but the only way to
really cut costs would be to have a spec ECU, which the MSMA will simply
never agree to?
PC: No, because that would level the playing field and that's the last
thing they would ever want.
So in a support class spec motors are bad, but in the premier class spec
ECUs are good? You should be able to do whatever you want, but not when
it comes to electronics? A spec motor doesn't help level the playing
field? Hmm...
> It's all doom, I tell you.
> So I don't buy this "cheaper" argument. I think it has no clothes.
I think you're looking at this all wrong. To start with, none of the
factories are going to race a production-based motor in 2012, they'll
all be running pure prototypes. The bore limit is to limit the rev
chase, and to some extent it will have to work. If 17k is all they can
do, there's little point in pneumatics, right? The production motors
serve to tempt in BMW and Aprilia, at least on some level, and also a
few teams that might try to build something starting with this.
Down the road things are bound to change further. Maybe we'll see
control electronics, which will be easier to apply with a more
standardized motor spec. Maybe we'll see a hard rev cap. Maybe we'll see
a requirement to run production-based motors, or a tighter prototype
spec that opens up proddy motors for lease teams. High-mileage motors
just get them closer to production-spec, and have to be cheaper
eventually, and open up the possibility of more bikes. Running an open,
pure prototype class is easy, as long as that is a viable form of
racing; once the cracks appear, it gets a lot tougher and the rules need
to be managed with more care, to be changed to suit the situation more
regularly. Any superbike series knows this, and GP is learning.
Under prototype rules no manufacturer is likely to build a small-batch
roadbike for the purpose of "homologating" a production motor, they'd
more likely make a smaller run of lower-spec race-only motors, sort of
like the Moto2 Honda motor. The only way they do anything like this is
if the make a homolgation special for WSB that also has this intent, but
current WSB rules make that tougher than it used to be, due to the
homologation number level.
This is just a first step, and it's intended to improve the racing as
much as to make it cheaper, and to hopefully expand the grid some. So
what is the alternative, leave things as they have been? How does that
solve anything? The racing isn't going to get any better or cheaper,
Suzuki would surely leave eventually, so would more satellite teams, and
eventually the grid might get down to a half dozen bikes, as long as
Honda, Yamaha and Ducati/Marlboro continue to pay the freight, that is.
So what's the right answer?
It may well be that the factories are headed toward getting out of
racing completely, that's happened before, and it certainly seems
possible if Clifford is right about racing just being a boardroom hobby.
For GP that means death unless they have a formula that allows the
series to survive at a much reduced level. What Moto2 has shown is that
it all comes down to the motor - if there is a cheap, readily available,
competitive option, people will race. So GP needs to start to move in
this direction, especially given the WSB complication, because a
production base is really the only answer. They may never need it, but
until they open up the option they are operating without a net up there...
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <5vc6j51u8dlhmvfp5...@4ax.com>:
OK, I see your point I guess. I make a four with max bore having
a stroke of 48.5 mm. Is that bore/stroke ratio (1.67:1) feasible? OTOH,
I guess twins are right out, with a min stroke of 97 mm. Triples are min.
64.6 mm (b/s=1.25), but I guess that'd still be too low-revving.
Mark N
> Champ :
> > "Dr Ivan D. Reid" wrote:
> >>>>Given how far an 81mm bore is from any production engine...
> >>> Is it? <googles>
> >>> ZX10R : 76mm
> >>> GSX-R 1000: 73mm
> >>> R1 : 77mm
> >>> Fireblade: 75mm
> >>> Hmm, see what you mean. Even the closest (the R1) is 4mm off, which I
> >>> guess is a significant amount.
> >>But they're all eligible, surely? 81 mm is a _maximum_, not
> >>mandatory.
> > Of course. But if the factories run prototypes built up to the 81mm
> > limit, then they're going to get revs and power which you're not going
> > to get anywhere near with 76 or 77mm bore. So you're very firmly in
> > the second division before the lights change.
>
> OK, I see your point I guess. I make a four with max bore having
> a stroke of 48.5 mm. Is that bore/stroke ratio (1.67:1) feasible? OTOH,
> I guess twins are right out, with a min stroke of 97 mm. Triples are min.
> 64.6 mm (b/s=1.25), but I guess that'd still be too low-revving.
So what is the minimum displacement under the new rules? One way to
keep the revs up is to shorten the stroke, no matter what the bore is.
So does anyone run a 900 or even an existing 800? What sort of bore
size and ratio do the current 800s have?
Julian Bond
>So was I, and came to the conclusion that Clifford is just a whiner,
>another guy who lost out trying to beat people with lots more money and
>resources. So it will always be in racing. I particularly liked this:
Undoubtedly a whiner. But a whiner who was forced out of the game.
>I think you're looking at this all wrong. To start with, none of the
>factories are going to race a production-based motor in 2012, they'll
>all be running pure prototypes. The bore limit is to limit the rev
>chase, and to some extent it will have to work. If 17k is all they can
>do, there's little point in pneumatics, right?
The problem is it's not a rev limit or a technology limit. It's an
imposed restriction to be worked round with money and development. The
current state of piston and rod technology means anything up to 17900
might be possible. Except it's also linked to an engine lifetime limit.
All that is really going to tax the manufacturers and can only be solved
by throwing money at it. Anything over 16k rpm and possibly even lower
and desmo or air valves help; On things like friction losses, valve
spring life, cam profile design. Now they've all got the tech, I can't
see any of them giving that up. And not while Ducati continues to use
Desmo.
>Under prototype rules no manufacturer is likely to build a small-batch
>roadbike for the purpose of "homologating" a production motor, they'd
>more likely make a smaller run of lower-spec race-only motors, sort of
>like the Moto2 Honda motor.
I think this may be what the bigwigs are all hoping will happen. Kind of
like the Honda V-2 two stroke. Everyone keeps backing away from leasing
full prototype engines. But perhaps one or more of the factories could
do a short run of race only engines loosely based on production tech.
And perhaps Ducati are the best placed to do this; Resurrect the
Desmosedici production line and supply engines for sale with MotoGP spec
compression ratios and cams with an ECU supply agreement from their
friends at Magnetti Marelli.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Smooth American Blend
Mark N
> Mark N
>> another guy who lost out trying to beat people with lots more money
>> and resources. So it will always be in racing. I particularly liked this:
>
> Undoubtedly a whiner. But a whiner who was forced out of the game.
Sort of, but certainly less obviously so than, say, Sito Pons. So what
has Sito said about the rules and how MotoGP works? It seems to me
people are using WCM to stir up some sort of controversy that really
isn't there.
>> I think you're looking at this all wrong. To start with, none of the
>> factories are going to race a production-based motor in 2012, they'll
>> all be running pure prototypes. The bore limit is to limit the rev
>> chase, and to some extent it will have to work. If 17k is all they can
>> do, there's little point in pneumatics, right?
>
> The problem is it's not a rev limit or a technology limit. It's an
> imposed restriction to be worked round with money and development. The
> current state of piston and rod technology means anything up to 17900
> might be possible. Except it's also linked to an engine lifetime limit.
> All that is really going to tax the manufacturers and can only be solved
> by throwing money at it. Anything over 16k rpm and possibly even lower
> and desmo or air valves help; On things like friction losses, valve
> spring life, cam profile design. Now they've all got the tech, I can't
> see any of them giving that up. And not while Ducati continues to use
> Desmo.
Which brings up an interesting aspect of all this. People tend to focus
on the Japanese and in particular Honda regarding all the issues with
MotoGP, the money spent, the changing rules, etc. But what is the
reality? It's common knowledge that in the beginning the factories had
some sort of informal agreement on maximum horsepower, believed to be
220. The factory that didn't seem to be observing that initially was
Aprilia, who built a very fast triple going up against fours and fives.
Then came Ducati, and they blew right through that cap, forcing the
Japanese to respond or get left in the wake, and the 990 horsepower wars
were in full swing. That may ultimately have resulted in the move to
800s, if one believes the "too fast to be safe" notion, but when they
roll out the 800s Ducati has done it again, built a bike focused on
maximum horsepower through maximum revs and necessarily controlled via
electronics, immediately creating the new battlefield, which results in
the Japanese (Yamaha and Honda) switching to pneumatics and developing
control electronics to match Ducati, and that gives us the mess we have
today. Same story in WSB, the rules are always driven by what Ducati is
doing with twins, with the definition of what mods are allowed to be
done to fours based on limiting them so they wouldn't be faster than
Ducati under the preexisting rules, etc. Which is where we previously
saw a rev cap, with a limit of 14k for fours (over a certain
bore-to-stroke ratio, I think).
Anyway, every issue you raise is preexisting in the current 800 rules.
No matter what limit or lack of limit exists on motor mileage, the
factories have to make life limit decisions, and those are driven by
cost, and are usually defined by revs. Factory motors largely have
differed from lease motors on rev limits, and that directly connected to
refresh requirements, factory motors getting rebuilt more regularly
(which means capping revs should make lease bikes closer to factory
bikes). The way to increase motor mileage right out of the box was to
reduce revs. I don't know that the factories are going to have to invest
in huge amounts of R&D to figure out how to increase mileage, they work
with those issues every day in racing and in product production, and if
you throw a bore limit on top of that, it must eliminate some of the
issues. None of the Japanese felt pneumatics was absolutely necessary at
990cc with no limit on bore, and being at 1000cc with a limit (and a
very real one) makes them seem even more unnecessary. And are pneumatics
fundamentally more reliable that metal springs, at reduced rpms? If it
wasn't for Ducati and desmodromics the rules would likely outlaw valve
pneumatics, just as they do for any other purpose. That Ducati problem
again.
Anyway, I don't buy the argument that limiting motors will actually make
racing more expensive. It may not cut costs as much as desired, but it's
probably a good route to go for a number of other reasons.
>> Under prototype rules no manufacturer is likely to build a small-batch
>> roadbike for the purpose of "homologating" a production motor, they'd
>> more likely make a smaller run of lower-spec race-only motors, sort of
>> like the Moto2 Honda motor.
>
> I think this may be what the bigwigs are all hoping will happen. Kind of
> like the Honda V-2 two stroke. Everyone keeps backing away from leasing
> full prototype engines. But perhaps one or more of the factories could
> do a short run of race only engines loosely based on production tech.
> And perhaps Ducati are the best placed to do this; Resurrect the
> Desmosedici production line and supply engines for sale with MotoGP spec
> compression ratios and cams with an ECU supply agreement from their
> friends at Magnetti Marelli.
I don't think anyone is really backing away from leasing prototype
motors, the three factories that have done so are putting a total of 15
bikes on the grid next year, which is right at their all-time maximum.
There is a definite cost/irritation aspect to this, and I'm sure they
wish it wasn't entirely necessary to sustain the series, but the problem
with grid size and competitiveness is the others, the factories who
can't build good-enough bikes (Suzuki, Kawasaki) or don't show up at all
(Aprilia, KTM, BMW, now Kawasaki, plus the KRs, WCMs, etc.). That's a
money issue as much as anything, so a formula needs to be developed that
reduces the cost of GP racing, and ultimately competitive GP racing.
Production-based motors is the most-obvious route, and GP is now moving
in that direction, only limited by the factories' desire to push the R&D
envelope (and justify the cost) and those damned FIM contracts. Both
Moto2 and the new 1000 Moto1 rules are first steps, and I don't know
that we can really predict where this ends up eventually. But there is
no doubt that Dorna wants someone to build production motors into
racebikes, either individual teams that want to get in the game or a
factory running a small batch of for-sale race motors for those teams,
to fill out the grid and maybe to test IMS' resolve on production
motors, to get that issue settled once and for all.
I wonder, though, if Ducati is really the best candidate for this. They
have the biggest stake in WSB and the coziest relationship with the
Flamminis, so will they push this issue? I have my doubts...
Julian Bond
>I don't think anyone is really backing away from leasing prototype
>motors, the three factories that have done so are putting a total of 15
>bikes on the grid next year, which is right at their all-time maximum.
The only factory in recent times to lease engines only is Honda to KR.
Over the last year there's been rumours that they were all asked if they
would do it again and nobody came through. Of course that may also mean
that no KR has appeared to request them. Leased engines are nearly as
bad as leased satellite bikes for the manufacturers. It forces them into
a second product cycle in parallel with their main product cycle. They
don't want them to be too competitive but they also don't want them to
moan too much.
>I wonder, though, if Ducati is really the best candidate for this. They
>have the biggest stake in WSB and the coziest relationship with the
>Flamminis, so will they push this issue? I have my doubts...
Motorcycle Racer has the expected Alan Cathcart article about Ducati and
Yamaha at the post-Portimao journalist test. You can take it all with
the usual huge pinch of salt. There's a lovely quote from one of the
high-ups at Ducati. "The problem is we're too good at our job of racing
twins. You watch if and when KTM try and fail".
I don't believe any independent is going to try and build Moto1 motors
based on production parts as those production motors stand now. So the
only way I can see this happening is if a factory produces a short run
of race engines loosely based on tech they already have. And doing that
in a way that isn't going to screw up too much their involvement in true
production based racing.
- Honda. A Blade engine with a top end from their last valve spring
engine.
- Yamaha. A 2012 R1 that looks like a valve spring M1. Produced in two
versions, one for SBK and one with much more exotic cams and components
for Moto1
- Suzuki. Nothing.
- Kawasaki. Sells the rights to their MotoGP engines along with all the
tools and dies to somebody like Suter or Petronas who then conjure money
out of nothing to pay for it all?
- Aprilia. Kind of like Yamaha. They go racing with an RSV4-R in SBK and
an RSV4-Moto1 in MotoGP. Somewhere in there Aspar finds the money to run
their team
- Ducati. Spin off a corner of the industrial estate to make replacement
engines for Desmosedici owning track day addicts. Spend enough money and
they'll build you a full on MotoGP engine good enough to match Kallio.
Speak nicely to them and have the right friends and they'll sell you a
replacement frame made from CF. That story begins to look like one of
those car or powerboat series for European playboys where everyone races
a Ferrari! It's almost believable. And I think more so than any of the
other scenarios above.
Mark N
> Mark N
>> motors, the three factories that have done so are putting a total of
>> 15 bikes on the grid next year, which is right at their all-time maximum.
>
> The only factory in recent times to lease engines only is Honda to KR.
> Over the last year there's been rumours that they were all asked if they
> would do it again and nobody came through. Of course that may also mean
> that no KR has appeared to request them. Leased engines are nearly as
> bad as leased satellite bikes for the manufacturers. It forces them into
> a second product cycle in parallel with their main product cycle. They
> don't want them to be too competitive but they also don't want them to
> moan too much.
Thought you were talking about leasing motors as part of a complete
motorcycle there. The factories have never really leased a version of
their best stuff, so I don't think they're backing away from it, they
just don't do it, never have. Part of the issue no doubt is that by
leasing a complete motorcycle they have a certain level of control over
performance, they can lease a motor that is just off the best level, and
the same for the chassis. But an independent team always threatens the
possibility of making a better chassis and beating the factory with
their stuff, and the factory can't claim it as their own.
Now, I don't think that's necessarily that likely, the closest we've
ever seen to that was Estoril '06, when Roberts nearly won that race,
but both Honda factory riders were out and the race was won by a Honda
pure lease machine. A team like that needs real resources and a
race-winning rider, and KR was the perfect storm in that regard, not the
least being having an experienced championship-level rider (who the
factory teams didn't want because of passport inadequacies and his
relationship to a non-factory cowboy). I think a more realistic concern
is poor performance, and the factories don't really want their stuff
stained by that.
>> I wonder, though, if Ducati is really the best candidate for this.
>> They have the biggest stake in WSB and the coziest relationship with
>> the Flamminis, so will they push this issue? I have my doubts...
>
> Motorcycle Racer has the expected Alan Cathcart article about Ducati and
> Yamaha at the post-Portimao journalist test. You can take it all with
> the usual huge pinch of salt. There's a lovely quote from one of the
> high-ups at Ducati. "The problem is we're too good at our job of racing
> twins. You watch if and when KTM try and fail".
Uh-huh. Like Honda and Aprilia a decade ago? Honda raced a $10k
streetbike-derived twin for three years in WSB and won two
championships, and they also won an AMA championship, something Ducati
never did with their 916/998/999 machines. Twins are the ticket in SB
because WSB has made them so, and not because Ducati is "too good at our
job". Unless that includes backroom wheeling and dealing...
> I don't believe any independent is going to try and build Moto1 motors
> based on production parts as those production motors stand now. So the
> only way I can see this happening is if a factory produces a short run
> of race engines loosely based on tech they already have. And doing that
> in a way that isn't going to screw up too much their involvement in true
> production based racing.
> <snip>
> It's almost believable. And I think more so than any of the
> other scenarios above.
Well, I think the main reason no one would build and run a proddy-based
motor right now is economics, the recession has made the already
difficult job of obtaining enough sponsorship almost impossible. But no
factory is going to spend money building one for them if there's no one
to race it, and it has the same downside as leasing out factory motors,
they look bad when it inevitably loses. Unless one factory does it as
their visible contribution to the series, like Yamaha allowing their
YZR500 to be copied and sold in the early '90s, or Honda building their
production twin a decade ago, or building the CBR600 variant for Moto2.
Right now GP might be mostly hoping for a couple bikes, just to get the
numbers back to the FIM-required 18, and to test the waters with IMS, to
get that contractual wording tested and determined and out of the way.
Yes, Ducati would seem to be the factory that has the most GP-like motor
out there on a production basis, but I don't know that it's enough of a
difference to really matter. Ducati is maybe less likely to spend on
that than one of the Japanese, and a private effort might be more
inclined to go with something else than to have to try to come up with
at least six of those. But some sort of backdoor effort supported by
Aprilia or BMW seems as likely as anything, to get their toe in the door
on a very unofficial basis, at least get their name mentioned in
connection with MotoGP.
Again, ultimately I think it comes down to the next step. And that might
well be a requirement that Moto1 and Moto2 are both open but require
production-based motors, with differing levels of modification. That's
when the factories become very, very interested in modifying their
production stuff. But the FIM contractual issue has to be cleared up
before then, which may be what this is about as much as anything.
Champ
<julia...@voidstar.com> wrote:
>So I can't see how it's going to be any easier to find 260hp than it
>currently is to find 220hp. So I can't see how it will be any cheaper.
>
>In theory, it will be possible to start with a production engine but
>you'll still need an electronics package and a lot of modification.
>Given how far an 81mm bore is from any production engine, I'm not sure
>anyone is actually going to try. Even if you did, you'll be at the back
>of the pack.
I've thought about this a bit further, and now, playing devils
advocate slightly, I'm going to put the other side of the coin...
An engine built to WSB spec nowadays makes a little over 200bhp, yes?
And this with some tuning restrictions. So I think it should be
possible to get 230 or more from a production based engine. Now, that
will definitely be down on the factory bikes, but 260bhp is so much
that the only place that extra 30 or so bhp will tell is down the
straights. And I think it's close enough that a decent rider supported
by a good team will be able to get amongst the factory bike and get a
few scalps. Such a bike wouldn't challenge the aliens, but I think
would definitely be able to run with the 2nd division.
Julian Bond
>An engine built to WSB spec nowadays makes a little over 200bhp, yes?
>And this with some tuning restrictions. So I think it should be
>possible to get 230 or more from a production based engine. Now, that
>will definitely be down on the factory bikes, but 260bhp is so much
>that the only place that extra 30 or so bhp will tell is down the
>straights. And I think it's close enough that a decent rider supported
>by a good team will be able to get amongst the factory bike and get a
>few scalps. Such a bike wouldn't challenge the aliens, but I think
>would definitely be able to run with the 2nd division.
At this point somebody is going to point out that a GSXR1000 SBK bike is
quicker round Philip Island than the MotoGP Rizla GSVRs. Oh. Wait.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Accepted By The American Dental Association
Mark N
> At this point somebody is going to point out that a GSXR1000 SBK bike is
> quicker round Philip Island than the MotoGP Rizla GSVRs. Oh. Wait.
Suzuki's best result of the year was at PI, Neukirchner finishing 2nd
and 0.032 second behind Haga in race one, and his race fast lap was a
1:32.877. Vermeulen finished last at PI in MotoGP and his best lap was
a 1:32.815, and Capirossi, who finished 12th, had a 1:32.555. Kagayama
finished 3rd in that race and did a 1:32.801, but Corser did race fast
lap, at 1:32.726. The MotoGP fast lap was Rossi at 1:30.085.
Now PI is a very fast track, and acceleration probably means less
there than almost any track, with it's flowing nature. But peak
horsepower probably does matter more than a lot of places. It's also
the one place where the WSB track record actually bested the 500
record at one point, about ten years ago, IIRC.
So this shows that under optimal conditions (PI) the Suzuki superbike,
which has been very fast, can lap almost as fast as the Suzuki GP
bike, which hasn't been nearly as good, relatively-speaking. Even
though the tires aren't as good. But what happens when the GP bikes
move back to 1000cc? In 2006 the fastest warmup lap (the race was wet)
was Stoner's 30.32, and qualifying best was a 29.02 by Hayden; in 2007
at 800cc Stoner's best in the warmup was a 30.86 and the Q best was
Pedrosa's 29.20. Even this year's warmup best was a 30.8, and top
qualifying was in the 30s (with no Q tires). That leads me to the
conclusion that the new 1000s will make a jump there over the 800s.
That said, the current WSB regs on motor modification are notably more
restrictive than what almost anyone would do with a MotoGP motor
derived from a production motor, even at relatively modest cost. I
wouldn't be all that surprised if a decent rebuild could get one up to
240-250 horsepower or very close to that.
Julian Bond
>Julian Bond wrote:
>> At this point somebody is going to point out that a GSXR1000 SBK bike is
>> quicker round Philip Island than the MotoGP Rizla GSVRs. Oh. Wait.
>
>Suzuki's best result of the year was at PI, Neukirchner finishing 2nd
>and 0.032 second behind Haga in race one, and his race fast lap was a
>1:32.877. Vermeulen finished last at PI in MotoGP and his best lap was
>a 1:32.815, and Capirossi, who finished 12th, had a 1:32.555. Kagayama
>finished 3rd in that race and did a 1:32.801, but Corser did race fast
>lap, at 1:32.726. The MotoGP fast lap was Rossi at 1:30.085.
You'll have to go and find it. But an Aus National championship race ran
at the MotoGP. The fastest Suzuki in that race ran a faster lap than the
fastest Suzuki in the MotoGP race. Or maybe it was practice. Or
something.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Consult Statement On The Back Of Keyboard
Champ
<menu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>That said, the current WSB regs on motor modification are notably more
>restrictive than what almost anyone would do with a MotoGP motor
>derived from a production motor, even at relatively modest cost. I
>wouldn't be all that surprised if a decent rebuild could get one up to
>240-250 horsepower or very close to that.
Yep, that's my view. Which means, I think, that a privateer team
could get on the grid with a bike good enough to challenge for the top
10, with a budget probably less than that required to lease a
satellite bike from a factory. And, perhaps more importantly,
complete autonomy - such a team could run whatever kit they wanted.
I think it could be promising. But it requires a few things to fall
into place yet.
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
> >That said, the current WSB regs on motor modification are notably more
> >restrictive than what almost anyone would do with a MotoGP motor
> >derived from a production motor, even at relatively modest cost. I
> >wouldn't be all that surprised if a decent rebuild could get one up to
> >240-250 horsepower or very close to that.
>
> Yep, that's my view. Which means, I think, that a privateer team
> could get on the grid with a bike good enough to challenge for the top
> 10, with a budget probably less than that required to lease a
> satellite bike from a factory. And, perhaps more importantly,
> complete autonomy - such a team could run whatever kit they wanted.
>
> I think it could be promising. But it requires a few things to fall
> into place yet.
I think the two biggest barriers for such a team, once you get beyond
the budget to build this machine, are having a rider good enough to
run that high and to have an electronics package sufficient to result
in that sort of performance. Really those two things come down to
money as well, but any independent team with that sort of budget is
almost certainly going to be running a satellite factory bike or maybe
a factory lease prototype motor in their own chassis (like KR). So the
basic performance of the motor probably won't be that much of an
issue, you give this sort of team a factory motor (sans electronics)
and they still end up at the back end of the grid. Which is why it's
worth opening things up for these kinds of efforts, it's just ends up
with the inevitable impact of expanding the grid, last place is lower
in the order than it used to be...