800cc is dead.
- Thread starter two-stroke
- Start date
I'll believe it when I see it, but I still extremely happy. Long way to go, I hope the manufacturers go along with the plan.
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ogunski @ Nov 8 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I will dance an Irish Jig if this comes to fruition.
+ 9,000,0000
GSFan - your hallowed era and sacred emsaculated formula may well soon be consigned to a lame soporific DVD history of largely precessional uninspired unenthralling oblivion.
And while we're at it -reinstate Suzuka, sack Uncini and Butler, and accept that Dia-Chan's demise was .... all to do with the scapegoat, blame allocation, and supposed culpability of both circuit and the formula.
GSFan - your hallowed era and sacred emsaculated formula may well soon be consigned to a lame soporific DVD history of largely precessional uninspired unenthralling oblivion.
And while we're at it -reinstate Suzuka, sack Uncini and Butler, and accept that Dia-Chan's demise was .... all to do with the scapegoat, blame allocation, and supposed culpability of both circuit and the formula.
What makes you think the new 1000cc class is going to be any different to the out going 800's? Unless there's a ban on electronics which is near impossible to police (unless there's a control ECU) the 990/1000cc are going to be the same as the 800's. The way tyre's and electronics are evolving upping the capacity is not the right answer. Why not leave the 800 formula and change the rules?? Uping fuel limit to 23L, getting rid of the 6 engine limit per season,lifting the test ban etc.
Joined May 2008
3K Posts | 79+
Southern Aridzona - Hell's doorstep.
The asinine fuel limit is WORSE than the displacement drop. God only knows how many millions Honda (and everyone else) spent tweaking their pneumatic engine to the point that it would reach the finish line without Nicky needing to push the damn thing. Even now, giving the teams another 1 or two liters would allow the the riders to push as hard as they want for the entire distance. I think the need to conserve gas is one of the major reasons we don't see as much wheel-to-wheel action these days. Trading blows costs too much fuel.
Simply raising the displacement won't do much in and of itself, IMO.
Simply raising the displacement won't do much in and of itself, IMO.
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alex29 @ Nov 8 2009, 02:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What makes you think the new 1000cc class is going to be any different to the out going 800's? Unless there's a ban on electronics which is near impossible to police (unless there's a control ECU) the 990/1000cc are going to be the same as the 800's. The way tyre's and electronics are evolving upping the capacity is not the right answer. Why not leave the 800 formula and change the rules?? Uping fuel limit to 23L, getting rid of the 6 engine limit per season,lifting the test ban etc.
Certainly, repeal the engine limitations along with the ludicrous testing ban - I agree.
What makes me think that the return of the litre formula will be different? -because precisely as you say, i believe there will be a control ECU imposed, the electronics will be reduced, and as Lex said in a recent post, a resurgent Dorna, intent on engendering and recapturing racing from 2006, one of the best motorcyling championship seasons we have ever witnessed, and commited to the commercial and corporate interests of the sport will finally curtail the technocratic dominance of the MSMA.
HRC contrived this pocket bike Mickey Mouse circus, and the Pedrocycle of the inaugural '07 season - the product of their conniving political machinations, will forever remain their bête noire, A sheer debacle, and a shadow of the mighty 990 V5 RC211V. It's a travesty that there were ten times the casualties in Tokyo over the abortive oval piston NR500 white elephant in 1979. They should have been throwing themselves on ther swords en-masse over the piece of ..... that Nicky was forced to ride in the first year of the very very .... 800cc fiasco.
Certainly, repeal the engine limitations along with the ludicrous testing ban - I agree.
What makes me think that the return of the litre formula will be different? -because precisely as you say, i believe there will be a control ECU imposed, the electronics will be reduced, and as Lex said in a recent post, a resurgent Dorna, intent on engendering and recapturing racing from 2006, one of the best motorcyling championship seasons we have ever witnessed, and commited to the commercial and corporate interests of the sport will finally curtail the technocratic dominance of the MSMA.
HRC contrived this pocket bike Mickey Mouse circus, and the Pedrocycle of the inaugural '07 season - the product of their conniving political machinations, will forever remain their bête noire, A sheer debacle, and a shadow of the mighty 990 V5 RC211V. It's a travesty that there were ten times the casualties in Tokyo over the abortive oval piston NR500 white elephant in 1979. They should have been throwing themselves on ther swords en-masse over the piece of ..... that Nicky was forced to ride in the first year of the very very .... 800cc fiasco.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Geonerd @ Nov 7 2009, 06:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The asinine fuel limit is WORSE than the displacement drop. God only knows how many millions Honda (and everyone else) spent tweaking their pneumatic engine to the point that it would reach the finish line without Nicky needing to push the damn thing. Even now, giving the teams another 1 or two liters would allow the the riders to push as hard as they want for the entire distance. I think the need to conserve gas is one of the major reasons we don't see as much wheel-to-wheel action these days. Trading blows costs too much fuel.
Simply raising the displacement won't do much in and of itself, IMO.
That's why I'm still a bit guarded as well. If they continue 21L rather than finding a way to control specific power output (like rev limits or air restrictors), the sport will make minor cost improvements, imo.
In a perfect world, the engines would be so cheap to build and have such good engine life that each manufacturers could even explore the possibility of running multiple different engine configs. V3s, I3s, V4s, I4s, V5s, V6s with lots of different firing arrangements and V-angles etc. I might even go so far as to mandate spring valves or desmo. I would also definitely create engine homologation rules to stop engine development wars during the season. New engines can be unveiled at the start of every season.
If I were Dorna I would also definitely secure a customer engine from someone like Ilmor or any other team that has the capacity but doesn't currently operate a team.
Simply raising the displacement won't do much in and of itself, IMO.
That's why I'm still a bit guarded as well. If they continue 21L rather than finding a way to control specific power output (like rev limits or air restrictors), the sport will make minor cost improvements, imo.
In a perfect world, the engines would be so cheap to build and have such good engine life that each manufacturers could even explore the possibility of running multiple different engine configs. V3s, I3s, V4s, I4s, V5s, V6s with lots of different firing arrangements and V-angles etc. I might even go so far as to mandate spring valves or desmo. I would also definitely create engine homologation rules to stop engine development wars during the season. New engines can be unveiled at the start of every season.
If I were Dorna I would also definitely secure a customer engine from someone like Ilmor or any other team that has the capacity but doesn't currently operate a team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Nov 7 2009, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>as Lex said in a recent post, a resurgent Dorna, intent on engendering and recapturing racing from 2006, one of the best motorcyling championship seasons we have ever witnessed, and commited to the commercial and corporate interests of the sport will finally curtail the technocratic dominance of the MSMA.
If I could have one gift during the drafting of the new technical regulations, I would LOVE to see them raise the minimum dimensions for the machines and maybe even adopt a min wheelbase (for safety on the straights
).
I don't expect that anyone of my size will ever be able to ride a GP bike, but it bothers me that normal sized human beings are quickly becoming ineligible for participation because they are of average size. Riders who are in the 5'10 range should fit comfortably on the bikes instead of requiring a specially built Yamaha (designed for Rossi). The bigger the talent pool, the better the competition, and the more worthy the champion.
A bike/rider min weight would probably improve the sport as well. It seems like at least 1 rider every round shows up sick due to lack of body mass and a grueling schedule. Let em put on 5 lbs so they don't take 3 races of to get over fatigue problems.
Its good for them, it's good for the fans, and it doesn't negatively affect the sport.
If I could have one gift during the drafting of the new technical regulations, I would LOVE to see them raise the minimum dimensions for the machines and maybe even adopt a min wheelbase (for safety on the straights
I don't expect that anyone of my size will ever be able to ride a GP bike, but it bothers me that normal sized human beings are quickly becoming ineligible for participation because they are of average size. Riders who are in the 5'10 range should fit comfortably on the bikes instead of requiring a specially built Yamaha (designed for Rossi). The bigger the talent pool, the better the competition, and the more worthy the champion.
A bike/rider min weight would probably improve the sport as well. It seems like at least 1 rider every round shows up sick due to lack of body mass and a grueling schedule. Let em put on 5 lbs so they don't take 3 races of to get over fatigue problems.
Its good for them, it's good for the fans, and it doesn't negatively affect the sport.
Joined Jul 2008
2K Posts | 14+
Tweed Valley Australia
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Geonerd @ Nov 8 2009, 01:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The asinine fuel limit is WORSE than the displacement drop. God only knows how many millions Honda (and everyone else) spent tweaking their pneumatic engine to the point that it would reach the finish line without Nicky needing to push the damn thing. Even now, giving the teams another 1 or two liters would allow the the riders to push as hard as they want for the entire distance. I think the need to conserve gas is one of the major reasons we don't see as much wheel-to-wheel action these days. Trading blows costs too much fuel.
Simply raising the displacement won't do much in and of itself, IMO.
Give them a bit more fuel then the race would be tyre conservation on a control tyre.
This would work no matter the capacity. Some guys would throttle on and wear it out, some guys would surge at the end, the fuel limit is the pits.
Simply raising the displacement won't do much in and of itself, IMO.
Give them a bit more fuel then the race would be tyre conservation on a control tyre.
This would work no matter the capacity. Some guys would throttle on and wear it out, some guys would surge at the end, the fuel limit is the pits.
and too bad that Rossi is already gone by then, but still better to go that way, when we see that the 990 cc were so much more exiting than these 800's.
at least the empty place of Vale can be taken by better championship.
at least the empty place of Vale can be taken by better championship.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy Roo @ Nov 8 2009, 06:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Give them a bit more fuel then the race would be tyre conservation on a control tyre.
This would work no matter the capacity. Some guys would throttle on and wear it out, some guys would surge at the end, the fuel limit is the pits.
I agree that the fuel limit has been perhaps the major detractor from the racing, but fuel efficiency is probably the main objective still worthy of development by prototype racing, given that the 990s etc very likely already surpassed the limitations of human physiology, and definitely the run-off areas of most current tracks.
This would work no matter the capacity. Some guys would throttle on and wear it out, some guys would surge at the end, the fuel limit is the pits.
I agree that the fuel limit has been perhaps the major detractor from the racing, but fuel efficiency is probably the main objective still worthy of development by prototype racing, given that the 990s etc very likely already surpassed the limitations of human physiology, and definitely the run-off areas of most current tracks.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (two-stroke @ Nov 8 2009, 04:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/07..._from_2012.html
Well , have to see first. But since MotoGp is all about Prototype..it's better be prototype bikes and nothing to do with production bikes..that's the way to go..Maybe 1000 cc with a diesel engine installed into prototype chassis, energy recovery system..V2, V3, V5, V6 configuration...
Well , have to see first. But since MotoGp is all about Prototype..it's better be prototype bikes and nothing to do with production bikes..that's the way to go..Maybe 1000 cc with a diesel engine installed into prototype chassis, energy recovery system..V2, V3, V5, V6 configuration...
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
2012 is the earliest date it is possible to make the change, as the current 5 year contract that exists between Dorna, the FIM and the MSMA expires at the end of 2011. That contract states that no changes may be made to the engine capacity without a unanimous decision by all of the manufacturers in the MSMA.
So IF they can get everyone on board,why not 2011.
So IF they can get everyone on board,why not 2011.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Nov 9 2009, 07:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>2012 is the earliest date it is possible to make the change, as the current 5 year contract that exists between Dorna, the FIM and the MSMA expires at the end of 2011. That contract states that no changes may be made to the engine capacity without a unanimous decision by all of the manufacturers in the MSMA.
So IF they can get everyone on board,why not 2011.
Please make it 2010 for 990 comeback!
(It’s sad that I am only joking and it cannot be real).
So IF they can get everyone on board,why not 2011.
Please make it 2010 for 990 comeback!
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Nov 9 2009, 07:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>2012 is the earliest date it is possible to make the change, as the current 5 year contract that exists between Dorna, the FIM and the MSMA expires at the end of 2011. That contract states that no changes may be made to the engine capacity without a unanimous decision by all of the manufacturers in the MSMA.
So IF they can get everyone on board,why not 2011.
I was wondering the same thing. Maybe I misread but I thought in today's Kropotkin article featuring information coming from Dennis Noyes there was a bit that said the MSMA are not opposed to the change.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin)<div class='quotemain'>The discussions at the moment are based around racing four-cylinder four-strokes, limiting the number of permitted cylinders in an attempt to cap costs.
I would assume this has something to do with waiting until 2012. Ducati would need to get their ducks in a row and either dust off the old plans for their 990cc Desmo or finally develop a 1000cc V4 engine. As it stands, they don't have a production engine that would be eligible to race.
So IF they can get everyone on board,why not 2011.
I was wondering the same thing. Maybe I misread but I thought in today's Kropotkin article featuring information coming from Dennis Noyes there was a bit that said the MSMA are not opposed to the change.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin)<div class='quotemain'>The discussions at the moment are based around racing four-cylinder four-strokes, limiting the number of permitted cylinders in an attempt to cap costs.
I would assume this has something to do with waiting until 2012. Ducati would need to get their ducks in a row and either dust off the old plans for their 990cc Desmo or finally develop a 1000cc V4 engine. As it stands, they don't have a production engine that would be eligible to race.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Nov 9 2009, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I was wondering the same thing. Maybe I misread but I thought in today's Kropotkin article featuring information coming from Dennis Noyes there was a bit that said the MSMA are not opposed to the change.
I would assume this has something to do with waiting until 2012. Ducati would need to get their ducks in a row and either dust off the old plans for their 990cc Desmo or finally develop a 1000cc V4 engine. As it stands, they don't have a production engine that would be eligible to race.
Nope,that is exactly what it said. Obviously we are not getting all the info on why this could not be accelerated to 2011. I do have worries about this move. As of now, GP bikes are a couple of seconds faster than WSBK. I can see this becoming a rival Superbike series with very little difference in performance. Keep in mind the 800's are considerably faster the 990's were,and if they limit electronics,they will that much slower.This could turn into a survival of the fittest for GP and WSBK.Probably come down to who has the most star power and who is paying the most.
I would assume this has something to do with waiting until 2012. Ducati would need to get their ducks in a row and either dust off the old plans for their 990cc Desmo or finally develop a 1000cc V4 engine. As it stands, they don't have a production engine that would be eligible to race.
Nope,that is exactly what it said. Obviously we are not getting all the info on why this could not be accelerated to 2011. I do have worries about this move. As of now, GP bikes are a couple of seconds faster than WSBK. I can see this becoming a rival Superbike series with very little difference in performance. Keep in mind the 800's are considerably faster the 990's were,and if they limit electronics,they will that much slower.This could turn into a survival of the fittest for GP and WSBK.Probably come down to who has the most star power and who is paying the most.
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Nov 9 2009, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Nope,that is exactly what it said. Obviously we are not getting all the info on why this could not be accelerated to 2011. I do have worries about this move. As of now, GP bikes are a couple of seconds faster than WSBK. I can see this becoming a rival Superbike series with very little difference in performance. Keep in mind the 800's are considerably faster the 990's were,and if they limit electronics,they will that much slower.This could turn into a survival of the fittest for GP and WSBK.Probably come down to who has the most star power and who is paying the most.
It's a very interesting and potentially frightening proposal. There needs to be some sort of differentiation between the two series' other than the production vs. prototype chassis. I think the leased engines with in-house chassis is a great idea, Kenny Roberts and Peter Clifford had it right. I just have the same fears you do about using production 1000cc engines that are identical to what is in SBK as the basis for this formula. I'd like to see some sort of special, limited production powerplant made available rather than standard 1000cc engines off the showroom floor. Although then you get back to the whole cost reduction argument and you're back to where we began.
Regardless, it can't get any worse than 800s.
It's a very interesting and potentially frightening proposal. There needs to be some sort of differentiation between the two series' other than the production vs. prototype chassis. I think the leased engines with in-house chassis is a great idea, Kenny Roberts and Peter Clifford had it right. I just have the same fears you do about using production 1000cc engines that are identical to what is in SBK as the basis for this formula. I'd like to see some sort of special, limited production powerplant made available rather than standard 1000cc engines off the showroom floor. Although then you get back to the whole cost reduction argument and you're back to where we began.
Regardless, it can't get any worse than 800s.
