The Big Picture
in [Racing]
|
From: Dirt on 16 Sep 2009 07:37 On Sep 16, 2:19 am, Julian Bond <julian_b...(a)voidstar.com> wrote: > Then you look at modern roads and modern traffic and wonder "What is a > GSXR1000 for?" Maybe slow is the new fast. I've owned seven different motorcycles in my lifetime. All were at least 750 cc and five of the seven were open class bikes of 900 cc or more. For me, it's always been about the horsepower. It's not so much that I want to fly about at 130 mph, because I could do that on a 600 cc machine, but that I've always had an irrational addiction to acceleration. I STILL have that addiction and even my current ride, an '09 CBR1000RR, sometimes doesn't completely satisfy this irrational need now that I've acclimated to the sheer mind numbing capability of the thing (I know, I know, I'm bent). And since the vast majority of motorcycle owners in the western world are probably like me and buy a motorcycle not because they NEED one, but because they WANT one, the popular motorcycles will also probably follow irrational trends rather than being Ford Focus or Fiat Panda of motorcycles. If and when the west evolves socially or economically to a point where people buy motorcycles on a mass scale purely for practical reasons or out of necessity, then we'll see volumes of small, light, cheap, low horsepower, practical bikes on the scale you might find outside of the western world. We don't see them now because, from a social/economic perspective, none of us NEEDS a motorcycle. -Dirt-
From: Mark N on 16 Sep 2009 09:57 pablo wrote: > Mark N wrote: >> But the basic physics hasn't changed. When you boil it down, given the >> same level of development, an 800 with change direction more quickly >> and a 990 will have more torque and peak power. And the way to get >> them around the track most quickly will be somewhat different. > > i think that view is outdated. Today's 1000cc are as compact and light > as the 600cc, that is what modern materials and engineering have led > to. It used to be different, it no longer is with modern materials. In streetbike terms and over time you're right of course, but on the margins, where racing operates, I don't believe that's true. In the end the weight of the rotating parts inside a 1000cc motor weigh more than those inside a 600cc or 800cc motor, and travel over a greater distance, which creates the issue with turning that revealed itself when the 800 motors were first tested. At least that's how I understand it. >> And I think the fallacy in your theorem is this: The selection of >> displacement, minimum weight, etc. in the rules is arbitrary or >> largely so, so the move from 990s to 800s was arbitrary and has >> nothing to do with evolving the sport to a higher level. ... > > of course it is arbitrary. as soon as someone decides on something it > is an arbitrary decision, i can't remember it out out to popular vote > and can't remember claiming so. but at the time it seemed the right > decision to make the sport safer, and perhaps more egalitarian. and in > some ways it is. i for one would have not have wanted to wait until > someone gets killed for the sport to make reforms. it's been the case > in the past too often that riders have to die for new safety > regulation to take effect. Okay, so your position is that the switch to 800s was purely a safety move, it was meant to attack a specific serious safety issue, and it was on balance successful in making the racing safer? Because I have my doubts about all of that. >> ... the general opinion since >> then has been that these bikes are actually less safe ... > > I don't think that's the general opinion at all. It's yours. And I > agree the 800s are less safe because they are faster now. But 1000cc > prototypes would be even unsafer. And they'd weight the same, and > corner just as fast. There is no reason why they would corner any > slower. Except real-world experience - the 800s simply went through corners faster than the 990s, and that wasn't because of years of development, that was using essentially the same technology, the same chassis, the same tires. And as soon as that because apparent, people started to question the safety rationale, because the danger in racing is mostly in the corners, where grip is at issue, guys are running together very closely, and runoff is more at issue. Sure, top speed was an issue with 990s, but that's hardly gone with 800s. >> What is highly evolved are the machines themselves, especially the >> elctronics (which also allow for a dumbing down of the human element), > > shame then that hayden isn't dumb enough, eh? oh come on, the > transparent agenda detracts from your valid points. i do agree with a > LOT of what you say, you'd be surprised, as far as the entertainment > and spectacle goes. i just find the conspiracy against the naturally > superior speedway bred US racer laughable when you start to get going, > as you regularly do when you write more than 100 words. Be fair, Pablo. I can just as easily say you defend the way things are now because Spanish riders are dominant or at least more successful than they ever have been, that you recognize that it wouldn't likely be the case on more powerful machines, that your claim of today's MotoGP being more highly evolved and the way these machines operate being inherently superior, etc., is really based on them matching the style and skills developed on the "purebred racing machines" in 125 and 250 that you love, that Spain loves. And I'd probably be more right than wrong... Anyway, I do think the Ducati matter is one of the most intriguing things I've seen in racing. This year it became obvious that it's largely a machine problem, and even Ducati doesn't seem to have much idea what it is, or why Stoner is immune, which amazes me. So no one wants to ride that bike except Stoner - and then suddenly he has a health problem which no one can diagnose (life imitates sport), or maybe even he doesn't want to ride for Ducati any longer. In any case, the Ducati drama has just been fascinating. And somehow I have to believe all this is connected to the 800 switch, this could never have happened with a 990... > it is a very complex problem. if you wrere in charge of Dorna and had > to balance business interests and sports popularity you'd find > yourself wondering yourself, as evidenced by... > >>> .... we want >>> prototypes and the most sublime engineering and the highest possile >>> pace, and yet we want the racing to be very close and entertaining. >> Agreed. > > Bingo, we agree. what's so hard about that? i want to see more riders > from more places and closer racing. i do *NOT* want to see spanish and > italian guys winning - have watched racing since the 80s and i have > cheered for the americans and australians and in fact a brit is > actually the guy i cheered for the most back in the day. i could not > care less if the next world champion is from nepal. i want fun racing. > and *SAFE* racing. i don't want the sport to ignore riders' safety > concerns, ever. C'mon, Pablo, tell the truth... >> ... It seems the issue of the day mostly revolves around >> electronics, just as it has in F1 prior to this. The problem is that >> it is a worthwhile pursuit from a production streetbike standpoint, so >> a legitimate R&D pursuit, and it's almost almost impossible to >> regulate. ... > > agree. agree, agree. > > so what is the more desirable thing - a series with *one* spec bike, > every inch and screw identical to the other? or a total unlimited > protoype, ie "if you want to strap your behind to a rocket and kill > yourself be our guest" series? the slide rule between the two is > complex... Well, I think Dorna and the factories are doing a very good job of finding their way in the longer run, the bigger picture, in certain aspects. I think 125s and 250s have to go, I loved the original GP2 concept, I understand the issue with the FIM deals on production bikes, I think they got around it very well as an initial step, I think what is happening with MotoGP endurance motors makes a lot of sense, pure unlimited prototypes isn't sustainable. But 800s were a mistake, and I think if you took a pole of MotoGP fans everywhere the vast majority would vote for 1000s without electronic rider aids. I think in the longer run a better, more successful MotoGP requires the broadest possible fan base, which requires the broadest possible rider pool, riders with different styles and backgrounds and machines that allow them that individuality. But the series is moving in the opposite direction today. The answer isn't totally obvious, but they either have to admit 800s were a mistake and increase displacement (even with restrictions that might help the top speed problem), or they have to find a way to limit the electronics on the 800s. They are headed in the right direction with GP2, no doubt in my mind, and I think maybe a 400cc spec motor GP3 would be a great 125 replacement, or maybe a spec 500-600cc twin built by Aprilia - the spec motor thing really blow the cap off this 125 problem. Dorna is mindful of the need to keep riders from all racing countries involved, and it's nice to see someone like Suppo recognizing that as well. I think there's a lot of good stuff to build on or toward, but right now in my mind they are at a low point in many respects, certainly in the MotoGP era, teetering on the edge of a cliff. And they still could go over.
From: Mark N on 16 Sep 2009 10:39 Julian Bond wrote: > pablo <pablo(a)simplyhombre.net> Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:28:23 >> That is why a machine as capable >> as the Suzuki 750, which used to be a brilliant middle step, has >> become an obsolete concept in production machines. Modern 1000cc are >> lighter, nimbler and far more powerful. > > Careful there, or you'll start stepping on the toes of GSXR750 owners > (hint. I am one.). 750s are mostly an obsolete concept because of racing and market realities. The 750 class that we know/knew really started with the CB750 in '69, and after that sportier bikes tended to be built around three or four displacement levels, 350-400cc, 500-550cc, 750cc and 900-1100cc. At that time the Japanese were shotgunning the market with huge numbers of models, and racing wasn't much of a consideration. But in the '80s that evolved into a more rigid structure, with 750s becoming the most advanced models because of SB racing (which shifted to 750s in '83 here, the year of the VF750F Interceptor), literbikes tending to be softer and much heavier, and middleweights generally somewhat more economically viable based on lower technology. Eventually SB racing kind of started killing the 750 class because the factories moved toward race homologation specials like the OW01 and RC30, while at the same time the middlweights had evolved toward 600cc (starting with the FJ600 in '84 and original 600 Ninja in '85), which got carved in stone with the advent of SSport racing, in '87 over here. That in turn created serious competition among the factories, and over time they became as advanced as the more slowly evolving 1000s, which were becoming more sporty at the 1000cc level and more powerful and bulky at higher displacement levels. Now racing has carved in stone the 1000 class as well, with the shift of SB racing to that class in 02-03, which followed the R1's challenge to the CBR900 and GSX-R1000 at the sportiest end of the literbike spectrum a few years earlier. Because the Japanese all have to build bikes for these two classes, because they have become so extreme in terms of form and function, because they have also become more expensive as a result, and because of displacement creep in the middleweight class, 750s as a supersport class became obsolete. Although it really wasn't fully confirmed until the late '90s, the roots of that date back to the late '80s, in 87-88, when SSport racing arrived, Honda and Suzuki released the CBR600 and GSX600 Katana to complete that class, 750 quasi SB homologation specials were released by Suzuki and Yamaha and followed by the real thing by Honda. And the Harley Tax at that time that limited some 750s to 700cc and added cost to true 750s didn't help that class any. At that point the literbikes were still overweight pigs, for the most part, and had little to do with it. At least that's what I think...
From: pablo on 16 Sep 2009 13:35 On Sep 16, 12:19 am, Julian Bond <julian_b...(a)voidstar.com> wrote: > pablo <pa...(a)simplyhombre.net> Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:28:23 > > >That is why a machine as capable > >as the Suzuki 750, which used to be a brilliant middle step, has > >become an obsolete concept in production machines. Modern 1000cc are > >lighter, nimbler and far more powerful. > > Careful there, or you'll start stepping on the toes of GSXR750 owners > (hint. I am one.). "All the worst aspects of a 600 and a 1000 in one > convenient package". I do miss the Aprilia RS250 and further back, > things like Ducati singles and Moto Morinis. Even the Yamaha SD200. But > the days when a properly ridden Ducati 250 could walk all over a Honda > CB750 are long gone. It's pointless chasing corner speed on the road > with a lightweight when a heavyweight can corner just as fast. That's the thing - with traction control the theory is that you could have a 1500cc turbocharged engine on the bike doing 400hp and you still could whack the throttle wide open without wearing your sportsbike as a hat more often than not. There were two reasons why bikes smaller than the 1000cc macho man bike were always so enjoyable for purists was because of (a) a more manageable and realistic powerband of the engine and (b) lighter weight and thus more agility. In *theory* both are fading now, but hey, I am not yet subscribing to the theory I need over 150hp in a bike. And while devleopment in racing now seems to prioritize traction control over ABS, I think for street bikes the priorities ought to be the other way around. The throttle is easier to control than a panic stop. So I will pick a torquey enginbe with a very manageable powerband every time over a peaky engine, and while I regard ABS as a mandatory feature in my main commuting bike these days, I don't think I feel traction control is as important (the first time I make a turn off a traffic light on a rainy fall evening may make me tell you differently if we have a beer right afterwards, though :). It aloso used to be that the 1000cc engines overpowered tires and chassis and were a handful to ride fast, but that all stopped too. 1000cc engines are darlings to ride these days, with flexible powerbands and a very forgiving ability to inch your way to your riding limit (raise your hand all those who regulalry exploit the bike's limit!). So if the current streetbike reality kinda leaves me struggling to explain my preferences (yeah, so I still like a 470lbs package with about 100hp) I think things may be quite disorienting to people putting together racing regulations.
From: Dirt on 16 Sep 2009 13:46
On Sep 16, 12:35 pm, pablo <pa...(a)simplyhombre.net> wrote: > (raise your hand all those who regulalry exploit the bike's limit!). Well, I'm bumping the upper limit of the RR's fuel mileage capability... -Dirt- |