800cc vs 990cc

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 19 2009, 08:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>...devising rules for a "prototype" class with the current level of technical ingenuity is doubtless a difficult task; however whilst having accountants undertake the task is a novel approach it would not appear to have been successful thus far.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 18 2009, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The way they have achieved the speed both in a straight line and in corners is by designing bikes which would seem to be inherently unstable including extremely peaky engines, which are rideable only because of the electronics, hence crashes which in my view occur at least partly because the rider has little warning when a bike is approaching the limits of adhesion. If the 990 formula had continued with the addition of the current electronics things would likely be even worse it is true, and devising rules for a "prototype" class with the current level of technical ingenuity is doubtless a difficult endeavour; however whilst having accountants undertake the task is a novel approach it would not appear to have been successful thus far.

This seems to be the conventional wisdom, but I'm unconvinced that the 990s would have been worse had the original rules package been left intact.

Cutting fuel, not displacement, is the real gremlin ruining the sport. As soon as engineers are given less fuel they immediately realize they can't waste energy by slowing down. Corner entry speed becomes the most important performance criterion, but unfortunately, corner entry speed is largely dependent upon the quality of the front tire. Performance disparity between Michlin's and Bridgestone's front tires have been the hot topic for the last 2 seasons. Ultimately, the disparity lead to the current 1-make/control tire.

The only thing that has changed in the 800cc era is corner entry. During the 990 era, the riders were trying to see who could brake latest, square the corner the most, then accelerate the hardest out of the turn. It's not an easily repeatable task regardless of the electronic aids, and it's certainly not the best way to make sure you get the bike across the finish line. So 990 racing was mainly about who wanted it most.

In the 800cc era riders still stand the bike up and "shoot" out, but now the emphasis is on braking early, turning in soonest, and holding the line. Though it requires as much courage and skill as late apexing, it doesn't seem to be a particularly difficult skill to repeat. The fastest bike stays fastest all race long, the slowest bike stays slowest all race long.

Corner entry speed had always been more or less a lost cause b/c engineers of years gone by had discovered a bike is slowest when it's at full lean b/c a rider cannot brake or accelerate efficiently. Now that the engineers are not afforded ample fuel to finish a race, they've have to rethink everything they know about braking and maximum lean. The result has been miserable racing.

This isn't progress, this is the engineering solution to a problem that needn't exist.

So, are you saying that you prefer a series of drag races broken up by the intermittent inconvenience of corners?

But seriously, again, interesting points, maybe its just me who likes engineering puzzles? It will (hopefully) give me a job to do some years down the line.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MotoGpDylwah @ Apr 18 2009, 05:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>VERY well said my friend, but I must betray my disagreement; being as I find my interests enraptured within the whimsical technological intricacies of engineering pursuits over the overt flamboyance of motorsport - just as I prefer the delicate brilliance of cornering over burnoutZ and wheelieZ - it is a matter of relative indifference to me that the racing does not display quite the same brutally crude beauty of years past. However, I must admit, for I am both human and male: 'close' racing - resulting in swapped paint, smoking tires and boiling blood - carve a considerably more prominent evil sneer into the corners of my mouth. I love most of all to see - prancing gleefully along with rider skill - the triumph of intellect, innovation, engineering and technology over the stagnant evolution of where we have already been. 990 is the past, smaller displacement/ higher-tech is the future. Oh, and I am quite certain that the 'gyros' of which one spoke are not to keep the bike balanced on its own, but to ascertain the bike's lean angle.

Pertinent quote - to help eloquently illustrate my point - of the day:

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” ~Einstein

And yes, I realize that this quote cuts both ways, I still stand behind it, laughing maniacally, pointing a big foam index finger at you all.

~Dylan


I couldn't have said it better myself!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 18 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Jumkie, what make you think that Honda woud think twice about the cost if they could increase the top speed on the 990 with 10km/h as long as it ment that they would have a huge advantage?
To increase power cost the same or slightly less on smaller engines (fewer cylinders, less parts) as long as the engines are on about the same tuning level. The 800's except the Ducati where on about the same level of tuning as the 990's at the start of '07. Hence, if anyone should be blamed for driving cost it shoud be Ducati that took power to a new level. I would never blame them as all they did was to add what the bikes needed the most. Maybe it would have taken a year or two extra with tc, suspension and tire development but sooner then later the 990's would have needed the same power addition.
Add to this, how long would it take for the factories to realize how much the rotational mass in the engines influence corner entry speeds? As soon as they eventually would have found out a new hunt for lower mass in a big engine while maintaining power. A new cost drving development.

Someone said somthing very true about racing and motorcycle in general "Too much power is almost enough"

(bold from above)

Motoczysz anybody... this is the bike that got me into watching MotoGP. I first found out about it and marvelled at it's engineering, I watched the show 'a birth of a racer' and decided that I was going to get into watching MotoGP so that when it did start racing I would know what was going on... but alas... Dorna spoiled it. I hope Micheal Czysz manages the company good enough to survive and be able to one day design a bike that does meet Dorna's standards.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MotoGpDylwah @ Apr 20 2009, 12:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So, are you saying that you prefer a series of drag races broken up by the intermittent inconvenience of corners?

But seriously, again, interesting points, maybe its just me who likes engineering puzzles? It will (hopefully) give me a job to do some years down the line.

That's the trouble isn't it? I do prefer point-and-shoot, but what's preferable has little to do with why the 800s have failed.

Human beings can ride bikes that have over 21 liters of fuel. Human beings can ride bikes with more than 800cc.

But given current safety equipment in MotoGP it is not acceptable for bikes to make 215mph because human beings can scarcely survive a crash (990s). It is not acceptable for bikes to pull 2+ lateral g's because most circuits have several turns that would cause serious injury or death in the event of a highside (800s).

High displacement and large quantities of fuel make cornerspeed obsolete/impossible. So the easiest way to end the problem without compromising the sport is to raise displacement and fuel maybe raise the weight a bit as well (155kg). I've advocated using the tires to control lateral g's but such restrictions would nearly end tire development so it would be hugely unpopular with the participants.

Raising fuel and displacement will lead to unacceptable top speeds, but Dorna should just slap a top speed limit on the sport. A top speed limit would have very minimal effect on the sport because the bikes rarely top out at most tracks. Plus, Dorna do everything else behind closed doors so a top speed limit wouldn't be noticeable to the average fan.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 20 2009, 08:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That's the trouble isn't it? I do prefer point-and-shoot, but what's preferable has little to do with why the 800s have failed.
I mostly see your points, but I can hardly fathom how the 800s have failed. Failed to meet the requirements of your ideal MotoGp? Clearly. Failed to meet your expectations (most likely influenced by your preferences) for 'safety?' Maybe. Failed to cut costs? Obviously. Out-and-out failure? Definitely not, as lap times continue to tumble. I could go on with this list, but I am already knocking upon the door of tedium.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pigeon @ Apr 17 2009, 02:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>fair enough
but if the 990's were still here 3 years later plus any developments that would have involved and with tyre development in that time aswell the top speed would be way higher than that.

and look who broke the record the rider of average weight.ffs lol

i'd like to think what would a 990 do NOW in 2009 if they were still here being developed it would be a lot higher than 334.4km/h (207/8mph
Yup, which is why dorna say they dropped capacity to 800cc

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MotoGpDylwah @ Apr 18 2009, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>VERY well said my friend, but I must betray my disagreement; being as I find my interests enraptured within the whimsical technological intricacies of engineering pursuits over the overt flamboyance of motorsport - just as I prefer the delicate brilliance of cornering over burnoutZ and wheelieZ - it is a matter of relative indifference to me that the racing does not display quite the same brutally crude beauty of years past. However, I must admit, for I am both human and male: 'close' racing - resulting in swapped paint, smoking tires and boiling blood - carve a considerably more prominent evil sneer into the corners of my mouth. I love most of all to see - prancing gleefully along with rider skill - the triumph of intellect, innovation, engineering and technology over the stagnant evolution of where we have already been. 990 is the past, smaller displacement/ higher-tech is the future. Oh, and I am quite certain that the 'gyros' of which one spoke are not to keep the bike balanced on its own, but to ascertain the bike's lean angle.

Pertinent quote - to help eloquently illustrate my point - of the day:

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” ~Einstein

And yes, I realize that this quote cuts both ways, I still stand behind it, laughing maniacally, pointing a big foam index finger at you all.

~Dylan

Very possibly the most articulate and cogent post I have ever read on this forum - superb

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MotoGpDylwah @ Apr 23 2009, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I mostly see your points, but I can hardly fathom how the 800s have failed. Failed to meet the requirements of your ideal MotoGp? Clearly. Failed to meet your expectations (most likely influenced by your preferences) for 'safety?' Maybe. Failed to cut costs? Obviously. Out-and-out failure? Definitely not, as lap times continue to tumble. I could go on with this list, but I am already knocking upon the door of tedium.

Because the 800s are the product of a broken philosophy, a lack of leadership, and the endless pursuit of vanity.

Instead of openly admitting that man is a creature limited by his own physical capacity, we have decided to engineer a new set of problems that will reduce performance so we never have to come to grips with our limitations.

You can eloquently describe the beauty of the psychotropic-engineering-trip as much as you'd like, but in the end, our preference for ethereal engineering is not solving anything or producing anything for subsequent generations. The trip is only leading to very serious health issues within the sport.

The whole developed world is stuck in the same ideological blackhole. We are not engineering anything useful, we are creating ways for us to spend more on less b/c we want our consumption habits to be limited by our income and not our common sense. We want to continue buying/building everything we desire regardless of sensibility. It's not progress, it's stupidity of the highest level---the kind of stupidity that can only be achieved by highly-educated individuals and individuals who vote Democrat because they don't understand elementary economics.

Self restraint? Why? We can simply create rules that reduce the inputs of production and quadruple costs so we can't achieve as much! At least we will never have to admit that freedom involves restraint

The economic/technological/entertainment shortcomings of the 800cc formula pale in comparison to the poor decisions made by the blithering idiots in charge. Relatively speaking, the 800s are not a failure when compared to the leadership of DORNA, MSMA, IRTA, and the FIM.

Yey?

Yey,

It is clear that we are locked in a battle of wits where neither party is unarmed, which if nothing else, is entertaining. 'mylexicon,' a writer? English teacher? Journalist? Clearly a pedantic elitist, just as I am.

I wonder how you suggest that we stimulate engineering with more pertinent value? It is becoming more and more clear to me - in spite of one's possession of valid justifications, one still cannot account for taste - that you just prefer 990s, and you will bend and smoke screen the issues to make them more far-reaching; but I would bet that you would be singing the praises of the engineers if the 990s were still growling about, only with corner speeds and lap times we see now in the 800s. Lets play Devil's Advocate, say DORNA had ulterior motives - aside from the claimed: 'to reduce top speeds' - what could they be? To make the bikes faster? Success. To breed evolution and a bit of revolution? Win. Please tell me why else they would have conspired to abolish your 990s. You point your foam finger of self-righteousness at that which you oppose but refuse to acknowledge the inherent dangers present with the 990s and all motorcycles, especially those of mercurial quickness.

"Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere. As soon as you discard scientific rigor, you're no longer a mathematician, you're a numerologist" (Sol Robeson, 'Pi').

Humans need to come to grips with their inherent vulnerability, mortality and limitations? Okay, I can get on board with that, so long as you repave that road so it is no longer a dead end.

"Maximillian Cohen: It's more than that, Sol.
Sol Robeson: No, it's not. It's a dead end. There's nothing there.
Maximillian Cohen: It's a door, Sol. It's a door.
Sol Robeson: A door at the front of a cliff. You're driving yourself over the edge. " ('Pi')

I get it, you long for the entertainment of the 990s and absolutely detest everything that MotoGp and the 800s have come to be and represent. Let's not make this about pseudo-marxism, or technocentric-darwinism (just came up with that one, impressed yet?), but see your displeasure for what it is, and analyze the sport for what is truly important: the racing. You liked it then, you like it less now. Fin.

Neigh? (yes, like a horse)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MotoGpDylwah @ Apr 24 2009, 07:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I get it, you long for the entertainment of the 990s and absolutely detest everything that MotoGp and the 800s have come to be and represent. Let's not make this about pseudo-marxism, or technocentric-darwinism (just came up with that one, impressed yet?), but see your displeasure for what it is, and analyze the sport for what is truly important: the racing. You liked it then, you like it less now. Fin.

Neigh? (yes, like a horse)

I'm glad you're tiring of the 990s vs. 800s debate; especially since it has little to do with my disgust for DORNA.

How can someone who claims to be a fan of engineering support a class that produces such similar bikes? All machines are 800cc. All machines use 4 cylinder engines. All machines use 21 liters of fuel. All machines use the same tires. The whimsical nuances of engineering are always present regardless of the formula, but now that the 800cc formula has destroyed substantial levels of variation between the machines, nuances are all that's left to enjoy. The 800s haven't accentuated fine engineering, they've increased its notoriety by eliminating the competition (innovation/variation).

4 strokes are horrible racing engines. They're heavier than two strokes and they have higher reciprocating mass than rotary engines. Natural aspiration is inferior as well. A supercharger or a turbocharger would allow even smaller displacement with more power and more flickability.

MotoGP is 4 strokes b/c 4 stroke technology is common. 4 stroke technology has established the norms for pollution legislation as well. I thought MotoGP was a prototype class.

The problems started way before the decrease in displacement and fuel. They started in 2002, but they weren't evident because the 990cc formula was healthy and produced good racing.

Before the 800s, the great racing minds of MotoGP had realized that 145kg MotoGP bikes with 22L of fuel were only capable of using 230hp given current tire technology and the circuits on the calendar. More power simply caused the bikes to use more wheelie control.

Interestingly enough the 800s only make good use of about 230 peak hp. Without dropping displacement, teams could easily have built 800cc bikes. So why didn't they?

1. They cost more to produce and they require more frequent rebuilds.
2. 800s are only faster if you have a tire manufacturer who will build a special front tire suited for cornerspeed riding
3. The teams didn't want to dump tens of millions developing new bikes that may not prove to be faster

The sport has been ruined because we refuse to admit that human beings are actually limiting the machines. DORNA have refused to limit top speeds via the rules and they have refused to control cornerspeeds by using the control tire or other rules. They want to preserve the marketing allure of unrestricted prototyping, but the facade is crumbling faster than it can be repaired.

Free up the engineers by controlling only maximum speed and cornering g-force (keep the hidden equipment rules like conventional forks and manual gearshift). What's the worst that could happen? The manufacturers redefine the modern sports bike with their new found freedom?

Under my rules package the 800s can stay, but they'll have to hold their own against a plethora of different designs.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

I think you and I have more interest in common than our disagreements let on. 800cc 8 cylinder supercharged über-motor, anyone?

Hahaha. I've got to come back to this thread. Lex, have you bought someone you know to argue with you on this thread? Same style of writing......

Seriously..... I like it, it's like Salmon Rushdie arguing with his brother over the merits of..............................................................................
... nothing, or maybe something like Karl Marx's critique of Ronald Reagon's acting career.


Continue please, because I've had a few and I can feel something profound is going to be written by someone here....





like me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MotoGpDylwah @ Apr 25 2009, 01:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>800cc 8 cylinder supercharged über-motor, anyone?
No thanks . 1100cc smoker triple in GP trim... A fiesta of resplendent sensory overload.

The TSS1100GP is intriguing to say the least:
(from the Two Stroke Shop's website [link]

"My Ducati 1098R bores me... I want a bike that's so exhilarating it'll have me giggling like a schoolgirl... and I won't care", sensible, reasoned words, that any red-blooded motorcyclist might utter.

Thus the Two Stroke Shop 1100GP Kawasaki Triple project was born. It's simple really, machine triple billet cases to accept 3 x 366cc two-stroke cylinders with extravagant cutting-edge porting characteristics.

The target is 250 rear wheel horsepower at 9500rpm, and just shy of DOUBLE the torque of the original ZX-10R motor. This will be easily achievable, with an engine that weighs 25kg less than the outgoing four-stroke 1000cc engine.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Apr 25 2009, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No thanks . 1100cc smoker triple in GP trim... A fiesta of resplendent sensory overload.

The TSS1100GP is intriguing to say the least:
(from the Two Stroke Shop's website [link]

"My Ducati 1098R bores me... I want a bike that's so exhilarating it'll have me giggling like a schoolgirl... and I won't care", sensible, reasoned words, that any red-blooded motorcyclist might utter.

Thus the Two Stroke Shop 1100GP Kawasaki Triple project was born. It's simple really, machine triple billet cases to accept 3 x 366cc two-stroke cylinders with extravagant cutting-edge porting characteristics.

The target is 250 rear wheel horsepower at 9500rpm, and just shy of DOUBLE the torque of the original ZX-10R motor. This will be easily achievable, with an engine that weighs 25kg less than the outgoing four-stroke 1000cc engine.
You serious about getting one of those babys mick ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Apr 25 2009, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You serious about getting one of those babys mick ?
£30,000 (I was going to say in real money - that's a laugh - I'm thinking in terms of before sterling was transformed overnight into monopoly money by our banking buffoons), anyway...£30,000... what's that in Bhats Mick?

This is hilarious. This guy Steve Rothwell is so contemptious of four strokes, that he branded the '06 zx10 the 'slowest fast bike I've ever ridden' - So suitably underwhelmed by the sloth-like characteristics of our favorite Ninja this is his prescribed succor, a shot in the arm to remedy the contagion he brands as 'the plague of four strokes' -a two stroke rocket up your ....

So it seems Rothwell was involved in perfecting the Britten motor...as if you needed any better reason to buy one

83ftlb of torque capable of 250bhp at the back wheel, and the bike weighs 150kg?????!!!

Forget anything vaguely resembling linear power delivery...I mean, imagine the 'lightswitch' powerband on this thing...and I used to think the RG500 gamma carried a kick

What's all this crap about the Otto cycle being divided into four anyway's

Keep it simple - and while you're at it, bring back the 500's

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Apr 25 2009, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>£30,000 (I was going to say in real money - that's a laugh - I'm thinking in terms of before sterling was transformed overnight into monopoly money by our banking buffoons), anyway...£30,000... what's that in Bhats Mick?

This is hilarious. This guy Steve Rothwell is so contemptious of four strokes, that he branded the '06 zx10 the 'slowest fast bike I've ever ridden' - So suitably underwhelmed by the sloth-like characteristics of our favorite Ninja this is his prescribed succor, a shot in the arm to remedy the contagion he brands as 'the plague of four strokes' -a two stroke rocket up your ....

So it seems Rothwell was involved in perfecting the Britten motor...as if you needed any better reason to buy one

83ftlb of torque capable of 250bhp at the back wheel, and the bike weighs 150kg?????!!!

Forget anything vaguely resembling linear power delivery...I mean, imagine the 'lightswitch' powerband on this thing...and I used to think the RG500 gamma carried a kick

What's all this crap about the Otto cycle being divided into four anyway's

Keep it simple - and while you're at it, bring back the 500's
and they say the 800s need electronics to be able to ride them...pfft!

this is the only type of bike IMO that actually needs an electronic "nanny" to prevent accidental orbit....

"No Replacement For Displacement"