2012 1000cc? Not end of world?

Can someone tell me again how 21 liters of fuel saves money? The R&D spent on this alone is probably enough to get some countries out of bankruptcy

Qualifying is not fuel restricted so qualifying may prove to be the best session. The 1000s will be allowed to run wide open which won't necessarily create fantastic rear end slides, but it will give the riders the option to explore those lines and techniques if they think it will lead to additional speed.

Basically more ........ Dorna bollocks.......... fuckheads!!





All we are gonna get is more of the same ..... just with slightly faster lap times, 5 times the amount of crashes & riders in hospital too!



All in aid of the engineers & their quest to make the riderless motorcycle.......... idiots!!!

If it is only worth watching for Quali then we already have 2 wheeled F1



MOTOGP = RIP

johnnyvvc said:

If it is only worth watching for Quali then we already have 2 wheeled F1



MOTOGP = RIP

Click to expand...

It's an impossible situation: MotoGp is supposed to represent the cutting edge of technology (like F1) and this is a showcase for high tech bikes (and not riders). The MSA doesn't give a rip about how entertaining the show is. From my perspective, I would rather see 1000cc bikes with as much fuel as they want, smaller rear rim size and no electronics, but it ain't gonna happen!

We fans want to see powerslides and wheelies, but that's being ruined even in WSB, so I'm about to throw up my hands and accept the show they give us - at least it's better than Nascar......

Jumkie said:

Motomatters.com





I knew that a reincarnation of the 990cc formula was NOT on the cards, but am I reading this right, are we basically gonna have more of the same with a slightly larger displacement?



And..the end of the world has been moved up? WTF



Discuss...

Click to expand...

This has always been the case. I have found it quite funny reading how we are returning to the 'big boy bikes' etc. The only change we will see in 2012 is that the field will spread out again as one of the manufacturers gets it right and the others play catch up.



All this is is another change of rules and we know what a change of rules does....it ..... up the racing.



The only good that is coming from the change is the CRT (which is a really bloody stupid name for it) rules. Although I hold a big fear that the caveat that is in the CRT rules which allows the CRT status to be withdrawn due to performance will see the death of any CRT that dares to win a race. Krop gives a set of circumstances that it can be withdrawn but I think there is still an elephant in the room. That elephant is what happens when a CRT rider wins a race? I think the MSMA will not tolerate that at all and 6 engines and 3 litres will be pulled quicker than they can get back to victory lane.

Mental Anarchist said:

The only good that is coming from the change is the CRT (which is a really bloody stupid name for it) rules. Although I hold a big fear that the caveat that is in the CRT rules which allows the CRT status to be withdrawn due to performance will see the death of any CRT that dares to win a race. Krop gives a set of circumstances that it can be withdrawn but I think there is still an elephant in the room. That elephant is what happens when a CRT rider wins a race? I think the MSMA will not tolerate that at all and 6 engines and 3 litres will be pulled quicker than they can get back to victory lane.

Click to expand...

The series will have four parts. I will cover what happens when a CRT rider wins in part 3. Next week sometime, probably. (I'm moving house, so I've got other stuff to do...)

Kropotkin said:

The series will have four parts. I will cover what happens when a CRT rider wins in part 3. Next week sometime, probably. (I'm moving house, so I've got other stuff to do...)

Click to expand...

Sorry if I let the zoo out of the bag....

Mental Anarchist said:

Sorry if I let the zoo out of the bag....

Click to expand...

Not at all, that's the most interesting part ...

Actually, the CRT would be THE formula we like: 24 liters, 12 engines, 1000cc..

But the factories are ruled out of it.

They will have to oppose them with (basically) 900cc, 21 liters, 6 engines.

Both would be limited to 4 cylinders and 81mm pistons.





Now, since there is no word that the engines used by CRTs must be derived from stock, on paper nothing prevents a well-funded CRT team to come up with a 100% prototype bike independently of any manufacturer, and therefore free of the 21 liters-6 engines restrictions.



What is still missing to make it look realistic is one (or more) independent technology company (like Cosworth was for F1 once upon a time) supplying good competitive engines to the CRT teams.



Should that happen, a CRT bike could win the title. The manufacturers would slowly retire or evolve into engine suppliers (or try to change the rules again).



The MotoGP of the future could be made just of Teams and Sponsors, without (or with a minority of) real manufacturers. Look at F1 -- not so unlikely. Do you see a Red Bull MotoGP bike on the horizon?

scary said:

MotoGp is supposed to represent the cutting edge of technology (like F1) and this is a showcase for high tech bikes (and not riders)

Click to expand...

Sad part is, MotoGP is not really high tech. Simple design elements like oval pistons, variable intake, and hydraulic 2-wheel drive are banned. They can't even use titanium to build a chassis (but they can use carbon fiber, go figure). The amount of technology that the MSMA supress is staggering. Furthermore, almost all forms of rider aids (electronic steering dampers, electronic suspension, ABS, auto gearboxes, etc) are banned except for TC and all throttle rider aids. What the hell is that? Throttle is the most important rider skill.



MotoGP hasn't been about high-techology since the 1950s and 1960s before they wrote the 4-cylinder rule, and I don't see any reason to continue the high-tech masquerade that so many people are eager to buy into. Maybe you could make the argument that MotoGP was high-tech during the NR500 days. Prototypes are just the first run of a concept. They are high-tech (sometimes) and high-performance not by definition, but b/c they are not bounded by the sensibilities of the production market. In fact, mass production parts have been banned in prototype racing for decades b/c major manufacturers are not required and they are not supposed to utilize economies of scale (yeah right).



There is no reason why MotoGP cannot race 1000cc prototypes without rev limits or fuel limits. If they are worried about top speeds and engine speeds they can reduce the number of gears or homologate gearboxes. They can also increase minimum dimensions (OMG, that's way too hard) so that the bikes are taller and wider and have more frontal area. They can move the front of the fairing a few cm backwards so that the bikes have worse drag coefficients as well (too hard, boo hoo).



MotoGP is not stuck in an impossible situation. MotoGP is run by impossibly stupid people at the MSMA who are obsessed with preserving the xenophobic country club they have created. Dorna act as the enabler b/c they are too spineless to turn away the money the manufacturers dump into the sport.

.I say all the GP riders boycott and head to WSBK

the part that i don't get about the factory machines however is how they are supposed to have a higher fuel consumption if they go up in displacement



less revs,less friction?

i always thought that for example , a 1000cc engine running at 13k is more fuel efficient than a 800cc running at 15k or whatever engine speed , based on my belief that the closer the displacement of a single combustion chamber is to the 400-500cc mark the more efficient the combustion is

cliché guevara said:

the part that i don't get about the factory machines however is how they are supposed to have a higher fuel consumption if they go up in displacement

less revs,less friction?

i always thought that for example , a 1000cc engine running at 13k is more fuel efficient than a 800cc running at 15k or whatever engine speed , based on my belief that the closer the displacement of a single combustion chamber is to the 400-500cc mark the more efficient the combustion is

Click to expand...

AFAIK, true statement.



IIRC, engine friction is dependent upon fluid dynamics (micro oil film on reciprocating engine parts) so friction is reduced even if the stroke is increased. Furthermore, longer stroke engines can be more efficient b/c take longer to go from TDC to BDC so they extract more of the combustion force and they don't push expanding gasses out of the exhaust port.



Here's the tricky part, imo. Torque = force x radius so if you add 10mm of stroke, you're adding a lot more torque. Sounds nice, but wheelie control is already working overtime to rein in the 800s. If the bikes are more prone to wheelie, they will be slower for two reasons. First, wheelie control is cutting additional power to counteract the additional torque. Second, the engine takes longer to extract the combustion work so it doesn't rev as freely and it may even accelerate a bit slower than an 800 or a 900 with the same bore. They can shift more weight over the front to keep the bike level during acceleration, but I think that will lead to handling problems.



The 81mm conundrum has been analyzed by Ducati who claim that 900-930cc is the optimal range for an 81mm MotoGP engine. Imo, it is the displacement at which Ducati is comfortable with fuel consumption and valve surface area to cylinder displacement ratio. It probably allows them to run the engine wide open without worrying about engine reliability restrictions. It's a mess.

mylexicon said:

What the hell is that? Throttle is the most important rider skill.

Click to expand...

I disagree, i think the riders use of his body weight is the most important skill

mylexicon said:

AFAIK, true statement.



IIRC, engine friction is dependent upon fluid dynamics (micro oil film on reciprocating engine parts) so friction is reduced even if the stroke is increased. Furthermore, longer stroke engines can be more efficient b/c take longer to go from TDC to BDC so they extract more of the combustion force and they don't push expanding gasses out of the exhaust port.



Here's the tricky part, imo. Torque = force x radius so if you add 10mm of stroke, you're adding a lot more torque. Sounds nice, but wheelie control is already working overtime to rein in the 800s. If the bikes are more prone to wheelie, they will be slower for two reasons. First, wheelie control is cutting additional power to counteract the additional torque. Second, the engine takes longer to extract the combustion work so it doesn't rev as freely and it may even accelerate a bit slower than an 800 or a 900 with the same bore. They can shift more weight over the front to keep the bike level during acceleration, but I think that will lead to handling problems.



The 81mm conundrum has been analyzed by Ducati who claim that 900-930cc is the optimal range for an 81mm MotoGP engine. Imo, it is the displacement at which Ducati is comfortable with fuel consumption and valve surface area to cylinder displacement ratio. It probably allows them to run the engine wide open without worrying about engine reliability restrictions. It's a mess.

Click to expand...

i already had that in mind,seems like the factories need to choose between an easily high rev engine and additional torque. but thanks very much for the explanation, didn't have the wheelie problems in mind!





but then again why is the article mentioning increased fuel consumption?thats the only part i don't get, i always thought that would be the trump card because they could manage the 21 liters better

Tom said:

I disagree, i think the riders use of his body weight is the most important skill

Click to expand...

its true because electros control everything else down to tyre wear