<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (teomolca @ Nov 29 2006, 11:12 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No, take for example Sachsenring,in 2002 the brand new MotoGPs were barely 1 second faster than 250cc in that track, that's with 250cc being restricted to 2 cylinders, iron brake disks, crap Dunlop tyres and supposedly worse riders than MotoGP. Since then the gap has increased, but so have the difference in budgets and restrictions. A high tech 4+ cyl 250cc with modern Michelins and carbon discs and all the electronic aids would make 990cc 4strokes look like elephants on ice compared to them.
And many times in the past the 250cc were quicker than 500cc, it just takes a twisty track with many corners and short straights.
Remember a 2 stroke is a real racing engine
You make some intresting points there, Teo. But I'm sure there's more to it than that. Remember, in 2002 the 990s were babies, only at the beginning of thier development stage. I know more money and time has been put into them now, but you can't expect a new bike to be fast out of the box.
I guess it depends on the budget, like I said before. A 4 stroke prototype needs a lot of money to go fast, a 250 dosen't (In comparison), so below a certain figure (I don't know what it is, HRC aren't exactly public about their accounting) you could develop a faster 250, but if you set that restricted budget to an astronomical amount and told the engineer to "Just build the fastest bike you can", I think the 800 would come out on top. I know there's a lot more to it than this, but considering Power and Weight (The basic building blocks of fastness) A four stroke engine is going to be heavier, but what's it got that a 2 stroke hasn't? An oil system and a valvetrain, right? If you were building a race bike outta the most whiz bang, super strong/light materials that NASA found in the moon, how much is a few springs, some valves and a couple of cams gonna weigh in at? Then there's the oil system to take into account, and the oil itself can't be made lighter, but two strokes carry a supply of oil too. The four stroke would also give away weight in other areas like the reqirement of a stronger chassis to hold a fatter engine, so the two stroke will have it's nose in front in the weight department, but how much would it be considering the entire weight of the bike? I know every kilo counts, but is its gonna be a wipe-the floor advantage on a fully loaded bike plus 60 odd kilos of Spanish/Italian meat and talent in the seat? I belive the superior power of the four stroke would make it a winner. Remember, you said a 250 against a MotoGP bike. Regardless of whether it's a 990 or an 800, it's gonna make more power. In theory, 2 strokes should be able to make 100% more power than a four stroke, in practice, you yourself have said it's closer to 70%. That makes a 250cc 2 stroke engine the equivalent of a 425cc four stroke, or a 500 in a perfect world. That gives away at least 300cc to the prototype. Which, going by numbers is a 60% advantage for the four stroke. A two stroke might be able to get a weight advantage over a four stroke, but will it be in the vicinity of 60%? I don't think so. A four stroke will also have a smoother power curve, which is an advantage for the rider.
It would also depend on the track. 250s have gone faster than MotoGP bikes IIRC, in the right conditions. A 250 would thrash a 990 on a go kart track, but if the made a raceway out of an airport runway, the 250 wouldn't be anywhere near as scary. That's how I see it anyway. I know it's all theory and on-paper stuff, but we're never gonna get to see it put to the test in practice anyway. The reality is, Honda dosen't like two strokes. And When Honda dosen't like somthing, it hasn't got a chance. Just as Max Biaggi or a 500
I guess it comes down to prefrence. I agree that a two stroke naturally makes a better race engines, but the MotoGP prototypes aren't natural. They're incredibly amazing machines, and in my opinion, they're better racebikes than any two-stroke powered motorcycle.