800cc

Any of you guys know what the factories are doing about this 800cc rule? I can only get sketchy details and rumours. I suspect the manufacturers are being tighter than a ducks butt when it comes to info, and so they should be. Its gonna cost them all millions in R&D, and they have habbits of copying each other, so why let someone steal an idea you've spent a fair wad of cash to come up with by bragging about it? The downside is, I can't find out what anyone's doing! (Reckon they'd tell me if I promised to keep it secret?)

Being intrested in the technical side of motorsport, I'm eager to find out more about this, and im desperately looking for every scrap of info I can find. So far this is all I've managed to come up with:

-Rumours say Honda are building a 210hp V3 (Due to the weight advantages of having less cylinders) taliored to suit "smaller riders" (Gee I wonder who they had in mind) HRC have said, however, that they would not be building a "Scaled down RCV to suit Dani Pedrosa"

-Yamaha officially think an 800cc limit is "a bit strange"

-Kawasaki have been providing chassis and running gear for the guys who made McLaren's F1 engine to try out a 800cc V4, but neither party has commited to the sale of the engine to Kawasaki.

-HD SUCK

-So does Petronas

-I can't find anything on a GP7

-Fogarty thinks the new rule will help boost SBK back up to the limelight

Anybody know anything ese?

There is a small rumor that says Ducati, Kawasaki, and Suzuki will "boycott" the 2007or 2008 season if costs are too high to develop a new competitive bike.

I think it is ridiculous to boycott the series but I also think its ridiculous to have a bike capacity for 5 years and change it right as we are starting to get into the good development phase and only great things can come.

The costs are extremely high and now are going to increase even more.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xB Rida @ Jan 15 2006, 12:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There is a small rumor that says Ducati, Kawasaki, and Suzuki will "boycott" the 2007or 2008 season if costs are too high to develop a new competitive bike.
i sure hope this stays a "small" rumor! this would suck BIG TIME if it turned out to be true!!!

I would be very surprised if Suzuki or Kawasaki boycotted the 800cc rule because they voted in favour of it. Only Ducati clearly opposed to it.

I know Honda are planning a 3 cyl, but the rumour I read talked about a 3 inline, not V, a V3 would be strange. Though Honda likes doing crazy things from time to time (NR 500).

Yamaha are going for a 4 inline.

I know some F1 engine manufacturer (dunno if it was Cosworth or Illmor) is designing a motogp engine.

Ducati is the team that should be more worried because IF the engines start to hit high revs (17000 +), they are screwed, the Desmo doesn't work, you need pneumatic valve closing system. Luckily for them it seems the high revving stuff implies bad throttle sensitivity (that is what killed the Aprilia RS3 project) so maybe the others won't go there.

Honda should have no problem with high revving engines, they have lots of F1 experience and money, Yamaha built their own F1 engines in the nineties plus they have a link with Toyota F1 so they should be OK too. Suzuki's and Kawasaki's plans are unknown, but if they voted YES I guess they are capable of building competitive engines.

The good part is that Aprilia may come back thanks to the economical backing of Piaggio (new owners) and their previous experience with Cosworth building a F1 type engine.

Ducati did try to get pneumatic valves banned. They really do rely on the desmocratic valvetrain to keep up, which I personally think is a very innovative way of doing away with valve springs. pneumatic or electical solenoid systems are even better, but Ducati's concern would be the development cost of such a system, which, being a small company, they would stuggle to achive. It would also render their desmo system obselete, and they'd lose a big edge over the competition.

Just like 990s, 800s is going to play right into Honda's hands. They have F1 experience with high revving engines, they sink more money into motoGP than any other manufacturer, and they're grroming a midget racer who, with a phisically smaller and lighter bike, could very well become a new premier class dominator.

On that subject, teo, ive seen a sketch of a 45 degree V3 800, with two cylinders mounted in the front bank and one in the back, under the front of the seat, ready to blow Dani's balls off in the likely event of a 17,000+ rpm "Head gasket failure" Then agin, it could have been an artist's impression. But the rumour I heard was definately a V3. And Honda do have a reputation for "Unconventional" engine configurations, 6 cylinder 250cc four strokes, 15cc bikes making 7hp (The equivalent of 250bhp per litre), 5 cylinder bikes (Got nothing against the RCV, but it is unconventional) Not to mention road bikes like the CBX1000, CX500, Goldwings, VF750 (V4's were unconventional back then)

all im gunna say on this stupid 800 cc idea is after the 800 cc bikes where do we go next???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

They had to do somthing. The 990s have already claimed the life of one brilliant rider. The simple fact is, they're too dangerous. Yes, theyre sensational bikes an feats of engineering and this is the end of a great era in motorcycling, but these machines are deadly, and I think anybody who wants them to stay should have to convince Daijiro Kato's family why.
A smaller dispacement limit, however, won't fix it. By 2010 Honda will have an 800cc engine making more power than Nicky Hayden's current RCV. And it will be a lot more peaky and high revving, therefore very unfreindly. More Dangerous.
But somthing had to be done. This will cost the manufacturers sqillions of dollars, yes. And it will hit smaller manufacturers and private teams hard. But life wasn't meant to be easy, and the class is far from demise.
I belive power limits are the way to go. This forces manufacturers to concentrate on making a better spread of power, rather than as much peak power as they can produce. It would make the engines more user freindly and easier to ride, in essence the opposite result to developing a high revving 800. Technoligy like this is also more useful for everyday applications. We could return to the days when GP technoligy and sometimes even whole bikes could filter down to our showroom floors. But, right now, Honda will never release any form of road going bike based on the RCV, No matter how many rumours journos start. Simply because no matter how much you detune it, it was built to rev high and go fast, it wouldn't be good for anything else. And if a talented pro kills himself on a secure race track, can you imagine all the inexperienced, unskilled Rossi wannabes on public roads? It would make the release of the Hayabusa look like a public safety campaign.
The 990s are sensational bikes, but its only a matter of time before someone else dies, and as it stands one death is one too many.

The 990cc machines are not the problem nor was the RC211V's horsepower or powerplant responsible for Kato's death. The investigation of the crash at Suzuka showed that Kato began to skid/slide on corner exit and he was attempting to regain his balance and control of the motorcycle in the moments leading up to the crash. That's the way I have understood the evidence anyways.

The real problem in rider safety and in Kato's death is track safety. Today's purpose built racetracks are too small with too little run off room to accomodate the speed of modern GP machines. Where Kato crashed is a one in a million shot but there are countless injuries that could have been prevented simply by improving run off room and obstructions. The corners are where the odds are highest for a rider to crash and as it is that run off space is borderline too small, hence Dorna's request to bump the bikes down to 800cc. Because if they have 190cc less they will inheirently go slower right? The problem is that this will solve very little in rider safety. With a smaller, lighter bike the riders will achieve higher corner speeds and require even more run off room in the corners than there already is. Dorna requested an 800cc limit because something needed to be done to improve rider safety. The best thing they could have done was rennovate the tracks so there was ample run off room in every corner. However, most hosts of the series would rather not shell out millions of dollars so they can continue to host the event. Dorna decided the MSMA would be more willing to shell out money in the name of safety rather than hosts of the series.

This is a cheaper alternative and come four or five years down the road we will be in the same situation. The 800cc rule has solved nothing as we will see higher corner speeds from these bikes and in turn a higher risk of the riders running out of room to slow themselves down before meeting an obstruction. If Dorna, MotoGP and the MSMA really wanted to improve the safety of the riders they would have left the formula alone and injected some of their funds into track improvements. Because after all, isn't rider safety the main point in this 800cc limit?

It is, but Suzuka is a bad example. Bulit in the 60's, having walls that close was ok because the bikes were so slow. Suzuka was (Unbeliveably) one of the safest tracks in the world. And the bigger run off areas you suggest would have astronomical costs. Suzuka is in Osaka, Japan's second biggest city and the price of a townhouse there looks like the third world national debt.
There were a lot of factors in Kato's crash, mainly I think Suzuka, it's a dagerous circut for modern race bikes especially one that weighs less than an avereage road going 250cc motorcycle, with more power than a decent sized truck. Somthing had to be done eventually, or the 990's would end up like mini F1 engines anyway. All the 800 rule is doing is speeding up that process by forcing them to make the same big power from less cubes

Someone actually suggested the best way to make the bikes themselves safer is to put limits on the tyres, but it'll be a cold day in hell before Michelin or Bridgestone let that happen. Control tyres would make motoGP a lot more intresting, though. But I don't think it'll ever happen

ooost ur spot on m8,, 990 r ok and in my view safe, but only in the right hands, moto gp is the top motercycle sport so its got to have the top riders who can ride to their full capabilitys, all in all sports must have a settled base..

I can understand where you are coming from richo but here is my point. As of right now the Ducati has been clocked in the 216mph range officially, Nicky Hayden claims his speedo has read 217mph. Just to make things easy let's assume that in ideal situations in closed testing these machines will do 220mph. These speeds are being attained in the 990's sixth year of development. From what I understand Dorna's goal was to have the bikes running at the speeds the 500's ran at which was at or just below 200mph. Rumors have it that with the weights of the 800's and available four stroke knowledge and technology to the factories, these bikes will be able to attain the same speeds as the original 990cc machines. Which, for Honda was 201mph. So Dorna has hit it spot on, right? Wrong, 500's ran at 200mph at their peak. The 800's will be running at 200mph in their initial runs with potential to run just as fast as the modern 990's but with much greater corner speeds. Dorna have set themselves up for the same situation in five years.

I understand revamping the tracks would cost a fortune but it is the only way to make our sport any safer. The 800 rule is no safer than the 990's, it's just another way for Honda to use trickle down technology to their road bikes and someday create a road going 800cc sport bike.

I don't think the 800cc will help improve safety, as Richo has mentioned, in 3 or 4 years time they will have the same power the 990cc have now.

I don't think the power is the danger, riders crash while cornering, and cornering speed is not related to peak power. Crashes related to power happen on straights (eg Nakano's 300km/h crash in Italy) and they are due to tire failures or dangerous manouvers.

I think MGP riders are lucky guys because they race in safe circuits (most of them) compared to SBK or old times circuits (Isle of Man). But still more can be done to improve track safety.

So I think power limitation would be useless and manufacturers wont allow it.

The way to go in my opinion is tire control and track improvements, along with developing safety measures like airbags or HANS that can reduce the damage in crashes.

I saw a Pon's interview somewhere, where he said the good thig about 990's is they are heavier than the 800 and riders now tend to lose the front and slide off and a lot less injuries than there use to be in the 500. He beleives the 800 will have more high sides so more injuries. Wish I could find that article.

Ooost you must know where it is

Can't say that I've read it Marbs, although I do remember the MotoGP website doing an interview with him so perhaps it's there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (teomolca @ Jan 17 2006, 04:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't think the power is the danger, riders crash while cornering, and cornering speed is not related to peak power. Crashes related to power happen on straights (eg Nakano's 300km/h crash in Italy) and they are due to tire failures or dangerous manouvers.

That's true, but engine tuning is always a compromise. More top end, less midrange and low down. Higher revs, less usuable torque. And these bikes are tuned for that top end power, so their power delivery in corners where they're not at full throttle isnt as smooth and forgiving as when they are doing 300+ down straights like the ones at mugello and Shanghai.
I'm no advocate of the 800cc rule, don't get me wrong. That's what happens when you let manufacturers, not a proper saftey commitee, choose the regulations.
The bikes needed to be changed somewhat, or eventually with a power war going on, they would end up with the same high revving character engine that we expect the 800s to be, only with 190cc extra. And we all know what genius motoGP engineers could do with 190cc's. I'd say in just over a decade from now with no rule changes, and they'd have 300hp motorcycles.
There's not many people who think the 800cc rule is a good idea, but in the opinion of the racers (Rossi included), who actually have to ride these things, somthing had to be done to the bikes themselves. Track safety is a great idea and is probably the best way to improve saftey, but some limit has to be put on these bikes beofore they really start to become dangerous. You can't blame track safety (or lack of it) totally for serious crashes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rossi 46 winner @ Jan 17 2006, 01:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>ooost ur spot on m8,, 990 r ok and in my view safe, but only in the right hands, moto gp is the top motercycle sport so its got to have the top riders who can ride to their full capabilitys, all in all sports must have a settled base..

What about Rossi's little smash with Melandri at Motegi? Even the best of them make mistakes sometimes, bro Not to mention technical problems that cause crashes (Tyres, engines, chassis, and in Gibber's case, mechanincs)

ah just let em race mopeds. then no 1 will get hurt & track upgrades would be totaly unnesesary.

Nothing wrong with injuries, only permanent stuff like Brain damage, Paralysis and (God forbid) Death. Anything else goes under the title "Pain is weakness leaving your body" Look at what some guys have done while riding with injuries (Winning races with broken backs in particular), It's like the opposite of Soccer.
Injuries are part of the sport, but some injuries are absolutely devestating and should really be avoided.

Just found this: Suzuki's 800 motor will be based around the 1100cc 24 valve inline six Stratosphere concept bike powerplant. That definately counts them in for 2007.
An inline six is a notoriously wide motor (Look at the CBX100 and Z1300) but apparently this one will be narrower than an inline four. I dont how theyre going to make an 800cc, severly oversquare bored inline six do that, but theyre the qualified ones, not me.
Suzuki know the GSV's problem is power, and a six will certainly help them in that respect, but a six cylinder machine will also incur pretty severe weight penalties, so I wouldnt expect to see Hopper and CV involved in many of these high corner speed incidents.

OJ's mouthing off about Kawa's 800 too, so the guys in green aren't boycotting (Thank god)
What about Ducati? Still can't find my GP7

I've heard nothing about a GP7 but then again I hadn't heard anything regarding Suzuki or Yamaha's plans until this thread. I can't believe Suzuki will go with an inline six cylinder, it just seems too complicated to pull off with any success. With the reduction to 800cc the big thing will be keeping weight down to take advantage of higher corner speeds so I believe Honda will be immediately fast with a lighter three cylinder. If Suzuki really are going the direction of six cylinders they are in trouble... again.

Especially an inline 6. A V6 would be so much more complicated. But Suzuki really wanted to fix their power problem, and I guess that's the price they're going to pay. But, in theory on the straights it should leave a puny 3 cylinder for dead.
Having a higher cylinder count also means a smoother engine running at higher RPM, due to the short strokes they can use because they get 3 power pulses per revolution.
But short strokes means big bores. which mean wider cylinders. Don't know how theyre going to make this engine compact. They'll probably go with tiny gaps beween cylinders like they did in the GSXR1000 to make the engine phisically smaller. But in a motoGP, with heat-producing cylinders that close, they'd have to be using nitrogen to keep the thing cool. It looks like this bike will have the smoothest, most powerful engine at the expense of physical size, weight and reliability