MotoGP Forum  

Go Back   MotoGP Forum > MotoGP Forum > MotoGP

MotoGP MotoGP Forum - MotoGP Class Motorcycle Racing Forum


Like Tree38Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
May 17th, 2018, 02:52 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Little Walter's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Stratosphere

Posts: 676
Likes: 277

I Ride: Whatever I can steal
Quote:
Originally Posted by synn View Post
I donít mind technical innovation in prototype racing as long as it trickles down to production vehicles. USD forks, radial brakes etc are good examples. Stupid boxes in front of the fairing? No production bikes are going to have that. Only Aprilia has done it so far and they have clearly stated that the boxlets on the RSV4 have no aerodynamic purpose and are only there to create a resemblance to the GP bike. Look at the front of an F1 car. Looks like a joke. No production car, not even a LaFerrari or P1 have anything even close to that.

I would much rather see them invest in engine and chassis technology. Bring back V5s, V3s.. let them go crazy. Or alternate suspension Tech, two wheel drive etc.

Not stupid winglets.
Still don't understand the objection to wings. Mostly, the only thing people don't like about them is their aesthetic. I have yet to seen anybody quote any reliable figure for the costs related to their use and development. Materials can't be very expensive. All factories already possess wind tunnels and computers for assessing their effectiveness.

What makes one innovation more desirable than another? If aerodynamics are a less expensive a solution than others, that should be considered clever. I could care less if Moto GP grade technology (in the usual watered down version) is applied to street bikes. Street bikes are already loaded with more sophisticated technology than any street rider can use. Moreover, that technology is the reason they're so outrageously expensive to own and yet again, more expensive to maintain and service.
Little Walter is offline  
 
May 17th, 2018, 07:30 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
JPSLotus's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Madison Square Garden 1973

Posts: 5,324
Likes: 2548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Walter View Post
Still don't understand the objection to wings. Mostly, the only thing people don't like about them is their aesthetic. I have yet to seen anybody quote any reliable figure for the costs related to their use and development. Materials can't be very expensive. All factories already possess wind tunnels and computers for assessing their effectiveness.

What makes one innovation more desirable than another? If aerodynamics are a less expensive a solution than others, that should be considered clever. I could care less if Moto GP grade technology (in the usual watered down version) is applied to street bikes. Street bikes are already loaded with more sophisticated technology than any street rider can use. Moreover, that technology is the reason they're so outrageously expensive to own and yet again, more expensive to maintain and service.
The wings start turning it into the same garbage that made F1 unwatchable. Dirty air coming off the wings will impact the rider behind in the slipstream depending on how crazy they get. They never should have been allowed period.

Aerodynamic development is never a less expensive solution, it turns into a highly expensive one that will start to favor the teams with the most money when it turns into an arms race.

Millions went into developing this kind of crap...

Theo and danski like this.
JPSLotus is offline  
May 17th, 2018, 09:05 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Earth

Posts: 1,677
Likes: 683

I Ride: Your mom on most days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPSLotus View Post
The wings start turning it into the same garbage that made F1 unwatchable. Dirty air coming off the wings will impact the rider behind in the slipstream depending on how crazy they get. They never should have been allowed period.

Aerodynamic development is never a less expensive solution, it turns into a highly expensive one that will start to favor the teams with the most money when it turns into an arms race.

Millions went into developing this kind of crap...

Exactly my point.
Thanks for the visual demonstration. Look at that crap.
Theo and JPSLotus like this.
synn is offline  
May 17th, 2018, 05:38 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Iamapony's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: Santa Cruz, Cal

Posts: 594
Likes: 219

I Ride: BMW, Honda, and another Honda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Walter View Post
Still don't understand the objection to wings.
You make some good points. Like I said, it may have to do more with selling bikes than racing bikes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPSLotus View Post
The wings start turning it into the same garbage that made F1 unwatchable.
It started LONG before the wings became the focus, only because everything else was taken away. For example: Turbos. Because turbos were kicking-behind, Bernie in his ignorance, banned them, when actually it is more expensive to make h.p. without turbos. Thus, he actually helped the richer teams. The same applies to displacement. It is much more expensive to create 800 h.p. out of smaller displacements.

I can go on for paragraphs about how incredibility stupid F1 has been, INCLUDING SPEC-ECUs. This is the most ignorant thing of all, because everyone expects better electronics on their street vehicles but racing organizations are making them worst. I-n-s-a-n-e contrived racing for boneheads.
Iamapony is offline  
May 17th, 2018, 06:04 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
JPSLotus's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Madison Square Garden 1973

Posts: 5,324
Likes: 2548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamapony View Post
You make some good points. Like I said, it may have to do more with selling bikes than racing bikes.

It started LONG before the wings became the focus, only because everything else was taken away. For example: Turbos. Because turbos were kicking-behind, Bernie in his ignorance, banned them, when actually it is more expensive to make h.p. without turbos. Thus, he actually helped the richer teams. The same applies to displacement. It is much more expensive to create 800 h.p. out of smaller displacements.

I can go on for paragraphs about how incredibility stupid F1 has been, INCLUDING SPEC-ECUs. This is the most ignorant thing of all, because everyone expects better electronics on their street vehicles but racing organizations are making them worst. I-n-s-a-n-e contrived racing for boneheads.
The FIA banned turbos and went to the 3.5 liter Formula for 1989 and onwards with cylinders being 8, 10, or 12.

Keep in mind the turbocharging in the 80s was getting out of control that they had to clamp down on boost pressure because of the engines putting out 1200+HP in qualifying trim. Gerhard Berger when he was driving the Benetton-BMW in 1986 at the old Osterreichring (Red Bull Ring now) was producing in excess of 1300HP with the BMW 4 cylinder. Heading down to the Bosch Kurve he said it was like driving a go-kart with a jet engine strapped to the back. Plus you factor in what happened with Group B rally where they wound up banning everything because of the power output, it was inevitable the same would happen in F1. Of course the switch to the 3.5L formula was a joke because the cars just became faster albeit with less power, but the aero was improving significantly. No more barn door sized rear wings did wonders for reducing drag.

But yeah F1 is dumber than a sack of shit, and the FIA is to blame for all of that, not Bernie.
JPSLotus is offline  
May 18th, 2018, 03:18 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
birdman's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Dont Know

Posts: 1,398
Likes: 803

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPSLotus View Post
The wings start turning it into the same garbage that made F1 unwatchable. Dirty air coming off the wings will impact the rider behind in the slipstream depending on how crazy they get. They never should have been allowed period.

Aerodynamic development is never a less expensive solution, it turns into a highly expensive one that will start to favor the teams with the most money when it turns into an arms race.

Millions went into developing this kind of crap...

I actually find it interesting given a certain restriction what an engineer is capable of designing to offer an advantage over his/her fellow engineer. TBH motorsport to me has always been as much about the engineering competition as it is the pilot. Hence constructors championship, once far more prestigious a title. Yes yes I know, in this day and age a very unpopular opinion. Who cares about the geeks?

What is very interesting is that Honda as a company absolutely loath the humble two stroke. Its too simple, too devastating, to cheap. It has been their mission for many a year to attempt to prove a 4 stroke is superior. This whole wing crap is simply a diversion from the simple truth. The 500cc two stroke always was and will be the superior weapon. Oh, what about the 990 V5 you say? Better than a 500? Absolute bullshit. Honda was yet again on a mission to prove something. Namely, that if double the capacity, and you invest 3 times as much, you can get something in the ballpark of a two stroke race machine.

Yamaha and Suzuki were left scratching their collective heads when Honda rolled out the RCV V5 4 stroke. This machine had at a minimum double the investment of Yamaha, whom rolled out a souped up roadbike by comparison. Make no mistake, if Barros' NSR two stroke had of received even half the funding of the four stroke V5, what we would all remember now rather than the Rossi epic rides of 2002 would be Barros winning every single race of the year by a country mile.

Now Im not even including how Honda screwed amateur dirt bike riders out of millions by laying waste to the 250cc MX class. Every rider, pro and amateur alike, will attest to a 250cc two stroke as the ultimate MX/SX race weapon. I was luccky to be geriatric enough to own a CR250. By coincidence I think it was either 1987 or 1989? Without peer. Again, to beat them, Honda was forced to double the capacity, double the investment. They had to do this since their previous attempts to build an equivalent capacity 4 stroke to beat a 2 stroke were laughable.

Which brings me back to my teenage years. Where we once blatted around pimply faced and absolutely obliterated the 4 stroke poser brigade on much looked down on dirty RGV250 two strokes. Absolute killer of a motorcycle. And in my time, learner legal!! And just to rub it in, my all time fav bike I've ever owned? NSR250. I cant post a digital photo for the younger peeps, it predates the modern iphone age. But yes it did exist, and a more precise weapon to this day does not exist imo. 110kg. End of. My four strokes, even my 170kg 1000cc Kwaka, effin great bike but a shopping trolley by comparison.

Wings? Meh. Still dont believe me. Cutting edge tech looks like this.

Aero wings gone for 2019-honda-nsr-500-e.lawson-1989-max-moto-modeling-hasegawa-01.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_NSR500

The 1989 500cc weight limit was 115kg. 115 kg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eddie fucking Lawson. Steady? Hahahahahahahahaha. Makes me laugh to this day. Insane talent, only man alive that made riding these things look easy. 2018 motogp 165kg, wtf. Not cutting edge tech Honda, not even close. Wings? Meh, I don't care. I'm too old? Hahaha hell no I was blessed to be born when two stroke dinosaurs roamed the earth.
michaelm, Keshav, #22 and 6 others like this.

Last edited by birdman; May 18th, 2018 at 03:22 AM.
birdman is offline  
May 18th, 2018, 03:41 AM   #27
#22
Senior Member
 
#22's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
From: In Cider

Posts: 3,994
Likes: 1769

Indeed Birdman. 2 Strokes were shit canned mainly for emissions reasons, but had their development been allowed to continue the 500cc 2 strokes would be quicker than a 990 4.

They are lighter, less moving parts and frictional losses and when ported correctly, can produce insane amounts of power for their displacement. There are of course negatives, such as being extremely peaky and not as fuel efficient, but then a lot of that could have been addressed with the electronic control the 4's now have.

We still use 2 strokes in shifter karts, because no 4 stroke have come close yet to performance.
#22 is offline  
May 18th, 2018, 03:53 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Keshav's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
From: Nu Yawk City

Posts: 9,352
Likes: 1339

I Ride: DRZ400sm and KTM SXF450sm
Quote:
Originally Posted by birdman View Post
I actually find it interesting given a certain restriction what an engineer is capable of designing to offer an advantage over his/her fellow engineer. TBH motorsport to me has always been as much about the engineering competition as it is the pilot. Hence constructors championship, once far more prestigious a title. Yes yes I know, in this day and age a very unpopular opinion. Who cares about the geeks?

What is very interesting is that Honda as a company absolutely loath the humble two stroke. Its too simple, too devastating, to cheap. It has been their mission for many a year to attempt to prove a 4 stroke is superior. This whole wing crap is simply a diversion from the simple truth. The 500cc two stroke always was and will be the superior weapon. Oh, what about the 990 V5 you say? Better than a 500? Absolute bullshit. Honda was yet again on a mission to prove something. Namely, that if double the capacity, and you invest 3 times as much, you can get something in the ballpark of a two stroke race machine.

Yamaha and Suzuki were left scratching their collective heads when Honda rolled out the RCV V5 4 stroke. This machine had at a minimum double the investment of Yamaha, whom rolled out a souped up roadbike by comparison. Make no mistake, if Barros' NSR two stroke had of received even half the funding of the four stroke V5, what we would all remember now rather than the Rossi epic rides of 2002 would be Barros winning every single race of the year by a country mile.

Now Im not even including how Honda screwed amateur dirt bike riders out of millions by laying waste to the 250cc MX class. Every rider, pro and amateur alike, will attest to a 250cc two stroke as the ultimate MX/SX race weapon. I was luccky to be geriatric enough to own a CR250. By coincidence I think it was either 1987 or 1989? Without peer. Again, to beat them, Honda was forced to double the capacity, double the investment. They had to do this since their previous attempts to build an equivalent capacity 4 stroke to beat a 2 stroke were laughable.

Which brings me back to my teenage years. Where we once blatted around pimply faced and absolutely obliterated the 4 stroke poser brigade on much looked down on dirty RGV250 two strokes. Absolute killer of a motorcycle. And in my time, learner legal!! And just to rub it in, my all time fav bike I've ever owned? NSR250. I cant post a digital photo for the younger peeps, it predates the modern iphone age. But yes it did exist, and a more precise weapon to this day does not exist imo. 110kg. End of. My four strokes, even my 170kg 1000cc Kwaka, effin great bike but a shopping trolley by comparison.

Wings? Meh. Still dont believe me. Cutting edge tech looks like this.

Attachment 12701

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_NSR500

The 1989 500cc weight limit was 115kg. 115 kg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eddie fucking Lawson. Steady? Hahahahahahahahaha. Makes me laugh to this day. Insane talent, only man alive that made riding these things look easy. 2018 motogp 165kg, wtf. Not cutting edge tech Honda, not even close. Wings? Meh, I don't care. I'm too old? Hahaha hell no I was blessed to be born when two stroke dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Absolutely. The current generation of street riders will always be missing that part of the racing DNA that comes from riding a TZ250 or even an RZ350. Not to mention the smell. Mmmmmm...

I had an R6 and absolutely hated it. That a 600cc bike should be that heavy is ludicrous. How is that progress?
Keshav is offline  
May 18th, 2018, 04:08 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Fremantle, Australia

Posts: 1,532
Likes: 579

I'm younger than most here, on the advice of a semi-friend when I wanted to get into racing got a RGV250 to race in historics and what a great fucking bike to ride. It might not take off as quick as my 600 but man it was fun to ride. My dream bike is a 250GP bike, corners on a race track is where the fun is, not standing the bike up and shooting it out.

I will admit the bike that I've had that I hated the most was an NSR150 it was an absolute piece of shit. It could be a cunt to start, it got blown all over the road and honestly took away some of the joy of riding as I never felt particularly safe or in total control because I always felt like I was a strong gust of win away from being blown into a new lane.
Barbedwirebikerr likes this.

Last edited by p4p1; May 18th, 2018 at 04:10 AM.
p4p1 is offline  
May 18th, 2018, 05:01 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Earth

Posts: 1,677
Likes: 683

I Ride: Your mom on most days.
Some of the most fun I have had on two wheels was on an Aprilia RS125.
It’s so much fun to push a little stroker to the limit than a big multi cylinder 4 stroke at 60-70% of what it can do.
Barbedwirebikerr likes this.
synn is offline  
Reply

  MotoGP Forum > MotoGP Forum > MotoGP

Tags
2019, aero, wings



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It's now official - Tech3 Join with KTM for 2019! Macca MotoGP 50 May 3rd, 2018 10:38 AM
Another Piece Falls Into Place - Marquez Stays With Honda for 2019/2020 Macca MotoGP 46 March 5th, 2018 07:30 AM
Wings revisited povol MotoGP 20 May 17th, 2017 07:30 PM
Red Bull Gives Team SUZUKI MotoGP Wings in America Moto GP News Bot MotoGP 0 June 10th, 2005 09:07 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2018 Powerslide. All rights reserved.
MotoGP Forum is a MotoGP enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent MotoGP or Dorna Sports, S.L. of Madrid, Spain.