The Big Picture
in [Racing]
|
From: pablo on 15 Sep 2009 00:01 On Sep 14, 4:30 pm, Mark N <menusb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > But it's now 2009. Try and imagine what a 990 would look like now if the > > development between late 2006 and now had been applied to them. We'd > > have the advances in electronics, fairing design, tyres, all of which > > have come on so far that the 800s are turning faster lap times. All that > > stuff would have been applied to the 990s. And a 2009 990 would be > > cornering just as fast as the 800s are now. > > Again, I don't buy that, because the basic physics are the same and > won't change, whatever caused 800s to corner more quickly than 990 > using the same chassis and tires ... Beep?! Same chassis and tires? You are out...
From: Mark N on 15 Sep 2009 02:18 pablo wrote: > Beep?! Same chassis and tires? You are out... If you recall, when the first Yamaha and Suzuki 800s were tested in the fall of 2006 they were running them in the latest 990 chassis, and the tire manufacturers hadn't yet built any tires specifically for the 800s. Honda obviously had an all-new bike, and I don't recall what Ducati and Kawasaki ran - seem to recall Kawi's 800 motor wasn't ready for testing right after Valencia, but I may be wrong about that. But the word from the regulars right away was that the new bikes were faster in the corners, and they would have to be ridden more like 250s because of that advantage and the lack of jump off the corners, plus the shorter braking zone because of the lower top speeds and higher cornering speeds. And the lap times had hardly slowed at all. So it was immediately a different world and just based on the basic nature of the motors, nothing else had appreciably changed.
From: Julian Bond on 15 Sep 2009 03:27 Mark N <menusbaum(a)earthlink.net> Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:34:57 >On Sep 14, 12:15�am, Julian Bond wrote: >> Mark N >> >Me, I want to see Team Roberts with their chassis and Josh Herrin and >> >Blake Young in the saddles. Mostly I just want to see GP2 with lots of >> >chassis, lots of bikes, and teams and riders from somewhere other than >> >250 and 125. Pretty psyched about this class, and would love to see it >> >eventually exported to the national championships in some form, >> >probably at its best those chassis housing WSS/FX-level production >> >motors of different brands. Now there's a DSB class I could get behind... >> >> The engineer in me wanted to see unlimited tuning of production motors >> from any factory. And some Triumph 675-3s. > >Unlimited tuning is an expense problem; if it is truly unlimited, then >you're talking about prototypes. Gotta have limitations, I think, and >for national-level racing, rather low ones. 675cc triples, sure, and >also 750cc twins. Are we talking about Moto2 or a Moto2 derived national formula or a Moto2 derived club formula? Because I was talking about Moto2. And in Moto2, I don't really like the spec engine thing. I wanted to see engines from all the major manufacturers and I didn't want to see the kind of tuning restrictions we see in WSS on cam shape and so on. Perhaps there should be just one restriction: valve springs, so no desmo or pneumatic valves[1]. The danger in that is the cost issue you bring up that progress would push development towards 500km rebuilds. But it looks like they couldn't get past the Dorna-FIM-WSB agreement about prototypes without the spec engine. So we're left with an artificial formula with Honda controlling the engine supply. And even though the spec engine is the same size and shape and mounting points as a CBR this filters down to National in that we have easily available chassis but they only fit a Honda CBR engine. None of us want to see the whole world's national 600 racing end up as a Honda cup. >> But in the long term that may >> not have been in the best interests of the sport. > >Not following you there. As above. Too few restrictions and cost spirals out of control and we're back where we were. [1] I wonder about this thing about valves. All the 800s now use desmo or pneumatic valves. So there is scope there for a different capacity limit in Moto1 for steel valve springs. It's revs that cause engine rebuilds and lifetime problems. And steel valves + a larger capacity limit revs. Somewhere around 900-1000cc there's a capacity where the trade off between cc and revs means lap times are about the same as the 800s with the same fuel limit. It might be feasible to fill up the back of the MotoGP grid with prototype chassis and steel valve engines of ~1000cc with no restrictions on where the original engine came from. And there's enough knowledge about very highly tuned production based engines from WSB. And it would provide a route for Aprilia and BMW to get into MotoGP. I'd really like to see an Aprilia RSV4-RRSP in MotoGP. If only we could just get past that Dorna-FIM-WSB agreement. -- 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 Follow Dosage Below
From: Mark N on 15 Sep 2009 10:30 Julian Bond wrote: > Are we talking about Moto2 or a Moto2 derived national formula or a > Moto2 derived club formula? Because I was talking about Moto2. And in > Moto2, I don't really like the spec engine thing. I wanted to see > engines from all the major manufacturers and I didn't want to see the > kind of tuning restrictions we see in WSS on cam shape and so on. > Perhaps there should be just one restriction: valve springs, so no desmo > or pneumatic valves[1]. The danger in that is the cost issue you bring > up that progress would push development towards 500km rebuilds. If there was nothing beyond economics to limit what they ran in this class I'd say run middleweight motors with the old SB tuning level, basically just the production cases and stock specifications of certain parts - size, materials, that sort of thing. In reality I think that's a bit too expensive, though, and having the motors spec set at something the good teams could do well themselves is probably about right, something that would enhance balance. Given the way that Honda has dominated WSS over the years, perhaps WSS is actually too much tuning, something more like the old AMA SSport spec might be better. > But it looks like they couldn't get past the Dorna-FIM-WSB agreement > about prototypes without the spec engine. So we're left with an > artificial formula with Honda controlling the engine supply. And even > though the spec engine is the same size and shape and mounting points as > a CBR this filters down to National in that we have easily available > chassis but they only fit a Honda CBR engine. None of us want to see the > whole world's national 600 racing end up as a Honda cup. I think they way one has to look at it is it's a chassis-builder's and rider's class, and the motor is just something hidden under the bodywork that makes it go round. As long as there aren't any material motor performance differences or failures, no one will really care what's under there after a while. Although the bikes will all sound the same, I guess, but that's pretty much true in 250, right? The three big advantages of this approach are cost control and certainty, performance equity and the resulting close racing, and the ability to absolutely control the electronics. As a starting point that's not a bad tradeoff. The main problem is no factory investment and no brand attachment for fans, but it's not like those things were really present in 250 in any major way either. My guess is the chassis will pretty easily be modifiable to fit other IL4s, and if a national championship wanted to run them the chassis builders would do the necessary modifications of design. The bigger question is, will a national championship run a class which both has little appeal to the factories (not their whole bikes) and can only include the Japanese motors? If the chassis are cheap enough it can develop as a support class, but may have the same problem as middleweight FX had here - almost all the factory support remained in more established SSport, and it was cheaper for privateers as well. > [1] I wonder about this thing about valves. All the 800s now use desmo > or pneumatic valves. So there is scope there for a different capacity > limit in Moto1 for steel valve springs. It's revs that cause engine > rebuilds and lifetime problems. And steel valves + a larger capacity > limit revs. Somewhere around 900-1000cc there's a capacity where the > trade off between cc and revs means lap times are about the same as the > 800s with the same fuel limit. It might be feasible to fill up the back > of the MotoGP grid with prototype chassis and steel valve engines of > ~1000cc with no restrictions on where the original engine came from. And > there's enough knowledge about very highly tuned production based > engines from WSB. And it would provide a route for Aprilia and BMW to > get into MotoGP. I'd really like to see an Aprilia RSV4-RRSP in MotoGP. > > If only we could just get past that Dorna-FIM-WSB agreement. I see GP2 as an evolving concept, and I would be very surprised if in 2015 they're still running a spec motor. And what happens there will have an impact on MotoGP eventually, I think the current unlimited prototype approach doesn't have long-term legs, especially if GP continues down their current rider path, electronic continue to take the fun out of it, and if an eventual Rossi departure has a real impact on interest. Simply put, Super250s ridden by inbred jockeys just isn't the long-term answer. In the end motors will likely become more stock or stock-like, more controlled and probably bigger again. How and when are the only questions, and watch GP2 for the clues...
From: Julian Bond on 15 Sep 2009 12:24
Mark N <menusbaumNYETSPAM(a)earthlink.net> Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:30:44 >If there was nothing beyond economics to limit what they ran in this >class I'd say run middleweight motors with the old SB tuning level, >basically just the production cases and stock specifications of certain >parts - size, materials, that sort of thing. In reality I think that's >a bit too expensive, though, and having the motors spec set at >something the good teams could do well themselves is probably about >right, something that would enhance balance. Given the way that Honda >has dominated WSS over the years, perhaps WSS is actually too much >tuning, something more like the old AMA SSport spec might be better. You seem to want to dumb it down but this is a support class that is part of the pinnacle of the sport show not a support class in AMA. Now go back and look at WSS this year. Ten Kate are nowhere. The fastest Honda is a private team. A Yamaha is leading the way. A Kawasaki is frequently in the leading bunch. So WSS tuning levels are too expensive for Moto2? I don't think so. And it should be apparent by now that I want to go the other way. Because I want to find out just how fast a production engine based 600 can be made to go with a prototype chassis and slicks. And the cost limitation at this level is rebuild intervals not raw parts so the danger is that they push revs to the point where 500km rebuild intervals are commonplace. >My guess is the chassis will pretty easily be modifiable to fit other >IL4s, and if a national championship wanted to run them the chassis >builders would do the necessary modifications of design. And these days that means a whole new design, but one that at least uses experience gained. There's too many differences in mounting points to just modify to suit. >The bigger question is, will a national championship run a class which >both has little appeal to the factories (not their whole bikes) and can >only include the Japanese motors? If the chassis are cheap enough it >can develop as a support class, but may have the same problem as >middleweight FX had here - almost all the factory support remained in >more established SSport, and it was cheaper for privateers as well. That's an AMA perspective not a world perspective. Whether it's better or worse, it's different. In the rest of the world, senior club racing and national championships all run to WSS rules with sometimes a 600 superstock class in parallel. And there is no factory support at all, at all, in any of it. Even in WSS there's precious little factory involvement. It's just irrelevant. If a national organiser wants to provide a clear route from Club to National to Moto2 so that new national riders can get into the GP paddock, then sure, they'll run a national Moto2 championship. Expect to see a Spanish and Italian national Moto2 championship next year. Which will mean yet more Spanish and Italian riders jumping straight into Moto2 the year after. Right now the first Moto2 bikes are being raced in Spain to shake all the bugs out. Of course their using WSS engines since the fly in the ointment is exactly when Honda turn up with the 50 or so that will be needed. Will it Jan or Feb next year? >> [1] I wonder about this thing about valves. All the 800s now use >>desmo or pneumatic valves. So there is scope there for a different >>capacity limit in Moto1 for steel valve springs. It's revs that cause >>engine rebuilds and lifetime problems. And steel valves + a larger >>capacity limit revs. Somewhere around 900-1000cc there's a capacity >>where the trade off between cc and revs means lap times are about the >>same as the 800s with the same fuel limit. It might be feasible to >>fill up the back of the MotoGP grid with prototype chassis and steel >>valve engines of ~1000cc with no restrictions on where the original >>engine came from. And there's enough knowledge about very highly >>tuned production based engines from WSB. And it would provide a route >>for Aprilia and BMW to get into MotoGP. I'd really like to see an >>Aprilia RSV4-RRSP in MotoGP. >> If only we could just get past that Dorna-FIM-WSB agreement. >I see GP2 as an evolving concept, and I would be very surprised if in >2015 they're still running a spec motor. And what happens there will >have an impact on MotoGP eventually, I think the current unlimited >prototype approach doesn't have long-term legs, especially if GP >continues down their current rider path, electronic continue to take >the fun out of it, and if an eventual Rossi departure has a real impact >on interest. Simply put, Super250s ridden by inbred jockeys just isn't >the long-term answer. In the end motors will likely become more stock >or stock-like, more controlled and probably bigger again. How and when >are the only questions, and watch GP2 for the clues... In case you hadn't noticed this is happening right now with a suggestion for stock based motors in MotoGP for next year running around the paddock right now. And that whole para was about MotoGP not Moto2. Then we have the same old, same old, Mark N obsession with "Super250s ridden by inbred jockeys". Jeez, why do I bother. -- 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 More Y2K Action Urged |