From: Dirt on
On Sep 17, 2:30 pm, Mark N <menusb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 10:21 am, Dirt <christopher.l.ca...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There was a story on Motorcycle Daily (link below) that suggests
> > Hayden and his crew have done nothing more revolutionary than raise
> > the center of gravity of the bike to increase weight transfer.  The
> > theory being that an extremely low COG has prevented sufficient weight
> > transfer to allow the tires to heat up for anyone but Stoner.
>
> > I'd wager there's merit in that theory but I'd also find it difficult
> > to believe it's that simple a fix.
>
> Yeah, I've heard about the tire temperature thing, and I have a hard
> time buying that's remotely what the whole issue has been. If that was
> the case I'd think we's see times that Hayden is faster, almost as
> fast as Stoner, where the tires happen to be operating at optimum, and
> we'd also see him much closer when running softer tires, certainly
> last year with Melandri when there were many more tire options, and
> that hasn't been the case. I'd also think there would be times when
> Casey is really struggling, because even he wasn't getting enough heat
> into the tires. And one would think that the tire technicians would
> know what was happening, even if they didn't know why. It just seems
> more like a bandaid approach to a larger problem.

Perhaps there's more merit to the tire load rather than the tire
temperature. I've read an interview with Rossi in Roadracing World(?)
where he talks about keeping the tire loaded at all times being an
absolute requirement to get things to work. Perhaps this is a related
extension of the changes Burgess made to Rossi's machine when they
switched to Bridgestones, i.e. to keep the tires loaded and working.

-Dirt-
From: Bruce Richmond on
On Sep 17, 2:44 pm, Dirt <christopher.l.ca...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 1:18 pm, pablo <pa...(a)simplyhombre.net> wrote:
>
> > I think you underestimate the development that happens from year to
> > year, and the fact the 1000cc's themselves would naturally get faster
> > aorund corners, too. That is a development priority. So I think
> > cornering speeds get faster no mater what. It was not because it was
> > an 800. It was because of development that would benefit a 1000cc too.
>
> There's valid reason behind the notion that nothing more than a
> reduction in engine size will enable a bike to go around corners
> faster.  I don't understand it fully, so I'll keep it simple as much
> for my own explanation as anything, but...

I don't think it is engine size so much as power, or power to weight.
The rider experiments to find out what works best and finds that for a
lower powered bike it is best not to slow down any more than you have
to.

The higher the cornering speed the greater the commitment of the rider
to accept risk of falling in the turn. On the more powerful bike the
rider has the option of slowing a bit more, cornering at reduced risk,
and still getting back up to speed. The lower speeds can also
translate into sharper but shorter turning. That allows it to spend
more time upright where it can play its trump card of acceleration.
It could quite likely corner as fast as the less powerful bike, or
very close to it, but doing so would limit its acceleration leaving
the turns. The more traction you are using for lateral forces the
less you have left for acceleration. If the less powerful bike slows
down to the same speed as the more powerful one it gets left behind in
the drag race out of the turn.

Bruce

> The rotational inertia of a system can be roughly described as:
>
>      I = k * m * r^2
>
> Where:
>
>      I = moment of inertial
>      k = a constant
>      m = mass
>      r = the radius of the object
>
> The constant "k" is related to the object's shape and will remain the
> same.  I'll make a couple of assumptions, again for the sake of
> simplicity.  One is that the mass of the 990 and the 800 rotating
> components remains constant.  The other is that the bore/stroke ratio
> remains constant between the two motors.
>
> What I found is that a 20% reduction in capacity equates to a 12%
> reduction in rotating inertia with the constraints above.
>
> If you can achieve a 10% mass reduction in the 800 cc motor (which I
> think is realistic), then the rotating inertia is reduced by almost
> 22% compared to the original 990 cc motor.  A 22% reduction in
> rotating inertia is substantial.  I don't know if you've ever done the
> high school science experiment in which you try to change the
> direction of a rotating bicycle wheel while holding each end of the
> axle, but I assure you it's not easy.  The force that is no longer
> required to change the direction of the motor within the chassis is
> now available for side grip.  The overall rotating inertia of the
> motorcycle won't go down that much (engine, wheels, chain, etc) but
> it's reasonable to assume that a simple engine mass reduction will
> allow a corresponding increase in corner speed because there's less
> resistance to the directional change.
>
> -Dirt-

From: Julian Bond on
Mark N <menusbaumNYETSPAM(a)earthlink.net> Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:33:56
>Just so I'm clear on this, here is what I'm talking about:
>http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2006/Nov/tb/061101e.htm

Oh right. Damn near 3 years ago then.

--
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
Speed Checked By Radar
From: Dirt on
On Sep 17, 10:04 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:

> The higher the cornering speed the greater the commitment of the rider
> to accept risk of falling in the turn.  On the more powerful bike the
> rider has the option of slowing a bit more, cornering at reduced risk,
> and still getting back up to speed.  The lower speeds can also
> translate into sharper but shorter turning.  That allows it to spend
> more time upright where it can play its trump card of acceleration.
> It could quite likely corner as fast as the less powerful bike, or
> very close to it, but doing so would limit its acceleration leaving
> the turns.  The more traction you are using for lateral forces the
> less you have left for acceleration.  If the less powerful bike slows
> down to the same speed as the more powerful one it gets left behind in
> the drag race out of the turn.

Well, you've got a point, but I still maintain that the bike with the
smaller engine will be quicker into and through the corner because
there's less gyroscopic effect and because it requires less physical
force to tip in, less tractive force to maintain a turn and is easier
to adjust mid-corner.

-Dirt-
From: Mark N on
Bruce Richmond wrote:
> Dirt wrote:

>> There's valid reason behind the notion that nothing more than a
>> reduction in engine size will enable a bike to go around corners
>> faster. I don't understand it fully, so I'll keep it simple as much
>> for my own explanation as anything, but...
>
> I don't think it is engine size so much as power, or power to weight.
> The rider experiments to find out what works best and finds that for a
> lower powered bike it is best not to slow down any more than you have
> to.
>
> The higher the cornering speed the greater the commitment of the rider
> to accept risk of falling in the turn. On the more powerful bike the
> rider has the option of slowing a bit more, cornering at reduced risk,
> and still getting back up to speed. The lower speeds can also
> translate into sharper but shorter turning. That allows it to spend
> more time upright where it can play its trump card of acceleration.
> It could quite likely corner as fast as the less powerful bike, or
> very close to it, but doing so would limit its acceleration leaving
> the turns. The more traction you are using for lateral forces the
> less you have left for acceleration. If the less powerful bike slows
> down to the same speed as the more powerful one it gets left behind in
> the drag race out of the turn.

The problem with this, I think, is that it would take experimentation to
arrive at an approach which would result in maintaining the old lap
times, and there probably would be a certain amount of crashing in that
process, it seems. Plus there almost certainly would have been younger
125/250-bred riders who would have already been doing this on 990s, just
because it would have been more like what they were used to. And yet
what it appears we saw in late '06 was guys hopping on the bikes and at
speed immediately, not really losing anything from day one, and then
reporting the bikes were simply faster in the corners. That sounds like
a physics difference, they went into the corners and immediately
discovered they could turn the bikes more quickly, they didn't have to
fight the momentum of the bike as much as they were used to. They would
certainly then have to figure out how to fully optimize this change, but
its impact would be felt immediately, just as an increase in
displacement/power would be felt, first time they twisted the throttle.
The 800s still make a huge amount of power, and guys coming from SBs
would likely have continued to use an approach more like the 990s, a
style also more like they used in SB, where the power was similar to or
less than the 800s, but they really didn't, they were also cornering
fast enough not to lose lap time, and right away.