800's to end in 2011

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 01:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>

Good one ... I was wondering what you were going to dream up but thats pretty funny


insightful reply berry

But i guess i will have to give you some more time to google something to back up your reduce cc to 750 to save money because its cheaper to get hp out of small engines theory

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Jul 19 2009, 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>insightful reply berry

But i guess i will have to give you some more time to google something to back up your reduce cc to 750 to save money because its cheaper to get hp out of small engines theory

ok lets try it this way Rog. ......... we know that in the future MGP is going electric.......

why would they make a last dash gasp at fuel guzzling beasts prior to heading toward a modern fuel efficient engine

Why don't they go 1300, 1400"s if there plan is to not be caught up by WSBK.

The aim of MGP is to stay at the forefront of development, it could be argued that Dorna has crueled this a bit, but they are still a development series. Contemporary development includes working to make the bikes as fuel efficient as possible. Since they have been using the same base electronics package since 990's, they real development has been in software and how they use the electronics.

If 990's were so great, why have the 800's produced faster bikes? and far better racing?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>ok lets try it this way Rog. ......... we know that in the future MGP is going electric.......

why would they make a last dash gasp at fuel guzzling beasts prior to heading toward a modern fuel efficient engine

Why don't they go 1300, 1400"s if there plan is to not be caught up by WSBK.

The aim of MGP is to stay at the forefront of development, it could be argued that Dorna has crueled this a bit, but they are still a development series. Contemporary development includes working to make the bikes as fuel efficient as possible. Since they have been using the same base electronics package since 990's, they real development has been in software and how they use the electronics.

If 990's were so great, why have the 800's produced faster bikes? and far better racing?
maybe one day they will be electric but that's not really the point of this debate .

So you think a 200hp 750 cc would be more fuel efficient than a 200hp 1000cc, you also say its cheaper to get 200hp from a 750 than from a larger engine. stick to your original argument mate rather than switch this debate to something that's not lightly to happen for many years. Where talking about cost cutting now to save the series that is in danger of this years becoming the last.
Todays 800's maybe faster than yeseryears 990's but as what cost ? look whatr happened to teams like KR and Ilmore, look at how uncompetitive the sat teams are now compared to the 990 years. Its down to cost and the 800's have been the most expensive in gp history and you think a further reduction to 750cc will solve it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Jul 20 2009, 12:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>maybe one day they will be electric but that's not really the point of this debate .

So you think a 200hp 750 cc would be more fuel efficient than a 200hp 1000cc, you also say its cheaper to get 200hp from a 750 than from a larger engine.

Yes Rog. I do ....... why do you think otherwise?

Have you discovered a magic counter for friction? for momentum? for inertia?



You are just Blabbing for the sake of Blabbing again Rog.

Its the same as that wacko "Gyro's to find position n track notion" ...... based on shear Scifi and lack of knowledge

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yes Rog. I do ....... why do you think otherwise?

Have you discovered a magic counter for friction? for momentum? for inertia?



You are just Blabbing for the sake of Blabbing again Rog.

Its the same as that wacko "Gyro's to find position n track notion" ...... based on shear Scifi and lack of knowledge
Well the debate about gyro's was not with me so why bring it up ?

if smaller engines were cheaper to get power from and more fuel efficient then i guess moto2 will be turning faster lap times soon

school us then berry , if you can !

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If 990's were so great, why have the 800's produced faster bikes? and far better racing?

You sir, are a complete and utter fool.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 18 2009, 04:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Do they turn faster lap times now? 800 - 750 isn't a far stretch.

You guys are all bangin away about "bring back the 990's!" ....... claiming it will make it all better.

Its never been so exiting!.

Both MGP and FI are development series. They start out with big engines and as the power increases they drop the capacity. When has that not been the case?

What you are suggesting is like F1 turning into Indy cars ....... well gee thats real good.


Why the F@#K would you want to bring back an engine size that has already been superceded and made for nothing but better straight line drag racing?

Bring back Bentley to F1 I suppose too

It is all about cost cutting and I think TP70 brings up a good point, ie. can they get cost savings across Motogp1 and 2 .......... well I can see it as not being a far stretch from 600's to 750. And Also 750 was historically a size that was "out there" at the re-establishment of 4 strokes as a powerplant in bikes again. They are still pretty available now ....... so it also brings it closer to a capacity that the "wanabe" public need. How many guys out there felt "alienated: with their R1's when they went 800's. And for that market .... the "wanabe market" 800's are a dead loss. to get back some "wanabe connection" 750's is the go.

I was surprised they stopped off at 800's, and moreso that they are going 600 for Moto2

Cos to me the sensible capacities are, 750, 500 and 250. And I would love to see the formula whereby 250's are 2 X 125 pots, 500's 4 X 125, 750's ( yeah!! I'd love to see 6 X125 pots, but only as an option ie. anthing from 3 to six pots )


But 990's again!! why!!??? they'd be nothing more than drag bikes.

Why are you equating displacement with engine technology? 990cc is just a volume---a measure of space. It has nothing to do with technological progress. The new technology developed for the 800s won't suddenly disappear if MotoGP goes back to 1 liter. The 990s are also more durable than the 800s at a given power output.

Why would mandating 4 cylinders create IRL rules? All of the 800s are currently 4 cylinders. Mandating the number of cylinders is just a way to impose a rev limit more easily.

You guys obviously don't get the "efficiency" thing so lets try this example. .......

You say that a bigger engine will run more efficiently on the "new technology" they have gleaned ..... well how about we put 21 litres in this ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHvY-zY9hA

ok thats a tad over-obvious, but the same thing applies to a 800 v's 750, its not just less space but there is less friction and less mass ...... get it yet?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You guys obviously don't get the "efficiency" thing so lets try this example. .......

You say that a bigger engine will run more efficiently on the "new technology" they have gleaned ..... well how about we put 21 litres in this ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHvY-zY9hA

ok thats a tad over-obvious, but the same thing applies to a 800 v's 750, its not just less space but there is less friction and less mass ...... get it yet?
im assuming you say less friction because of less surface area of the piston diameter in the bore ? But to get the same power from a smaller engine it would have to rev higher increasing friction .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You guys obviously don't get the "efficiency" thing so lets try this example. .......

You say that a bigger engine will run more efficiently on the "new technology" they have gleaned ..... well how about we put 21 litres in this ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHvY-zY9hA

ok thats a tad over-obvious, but the same thing applies to a 800 v's 750, its not just less space but there is less friction and less mass ...... get it yet?

yes barry, we get it. now show me the part where they make a high revving 750 produce 220 odd hp
FOR LESS MONEY than a slower revving 1l....

The future of motogp as barry sees it.



7470:SEGWAY_RACE.jpg]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 06:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You guys obviously don't get the "efficiency" thing so lets try this example. .......

You say that a bigger engine will run more efficiently on the "new technology" they have gleaned ..... well how about we put 21 litres in this ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHvY-zY9hA

ok thats a tad over-obvious, but the same thing applies to a 800 v's 750, its not just less space but there is less friction and less mass ...... get it yet?

No, I don't get it.

Displacement limited engines are about revs. Achieving max revs involves minimizing piston velocity at a given engine speed. Decreasing piston velocity is about shortening the stroke, increasing the bore, and finding the lightest strongest materials on earth to build the engine internals.

New 750s would probably be de-stroked 800s. They wouldn't have less reciprocating mass or less friction. The benefits of even more exotic materials to reduce reciprocating mass and achieve higher revs would be even greater than they are now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jul 19 2009, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No, I don't get it.

Displacement limited engines are about revs. Achieving max revs involves minimizing piston velocity at a given engine speed. Decreasing piston velocity is about shortening the stroke, increasing the bore, and finding the lightest strongest materials on earth to build the engine internals.

New 750s would probably be de-stroked 800s. They wouldn't have less reciprocating mass or less friction. The benefits of even more exotic materials to reduce reciprocating mass and achieve higher revs would be even greater than they are now.
and i wonder how many teams that would bankrupt.

Come on berry, explain to us how your 750's will be faster cheaper and more fuel efficient than the 800's or 990's . explain to me about this and the differences between 800 and 750 cc in this area.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Have you discovered a magic counter for friction? for momentum? for inertia?

or did you just google some big words to hide you ........ so far you have not answered one question. you just post a youtube of some huge ship engine !

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Jul 20 2009, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>and i wonder how many teams that would bankrupt.

Come on berry, explain to us how your 750's will be faster cheaper and more fuel efficient than the 800's or 990's . explain to me about this and the differences between 800 and 750 cc in this area.


or did you just google some big words to hide you ........ so far you have not answered one question. you just post a youtube of some huge ship engine !

I answered it Rog. I answered it well ...... you should "get it" but sadly you don't, as I've said to you once or twice before, I bothered to study some of those concepts for a few years, how about you get off the couch, stop sooking and do something to learn.

You proposition that 750's will have higher friction says it all

you had better warn them in motogp2 class about your theory, not sure they are aware of that one so probably will have problems seeing as though they are likely going to rev hard.

Since I'm apparently missing something you guys are seeing, I just figured out you guys must have seen cases of engines getting bigger in capacity and becomeing more fuel efficient because of that!

So what are these examples?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Jul 19 2009, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>and i wonder how many teams that would bankrupt.

Come on berry, explain to us how your 750's will be faster cheaper and more fuel efficient than the 800's or 990's . explain to me about this and the differences between 800 and 750 cc in this area.


or did you just google some big words to hide you ........ so far you have not answered one question. you just post a youtube of some huge ship engine !
dont worry rog, he has the most comprehensive knowledge of sweet FA full of big words and no real understanding...a real waste of time

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chockmoose @ Jul 19 2009, 07:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>dont worry rog, he has the most comprehensive knowledge of sweet FA full of big words and no real understanding...a real waste of time
he does entertain us here he says its cheaper to get more power from a small engine because of friction and inertia but cant explain how or why but hey its only barrybullshit so no worrys

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 10:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Since I'm apparently missing something you guys are seeing, I just figured out you guys must have seen cases of engines getting bigger in capacity and becomeing more fuel efficient because of that!

So what are these examples?

If Yamaha stroked their engine to 990cc, it would be much more efficient because a longer stroke allows more complete combustion.

Unfortunately, Yamaha's long stroke 990cc engine would generate much higher piston velocities at a given rev level when compared to the 800cc version with identical bore. The 990cc engine would fail at lower rpm and it would probably yield lower peak power numbers. To achieve 800cc reliability the 990cc engine would have to be backed off of its rev limit which would further reduce its relatively small peak power numbers. Though the 990cc engine would be far more efficient, it would be a terrible racing engine.

Short stroke engines are far better for racing. Unfortunately, short stroke engines require larger heavier pistons to achieve max displacement. To reduce piston weight manufacturers often use exotic materials or they decrease bore and add more cylinders. Adding cyclinders increases the number of moving parts and raises costs significantly. In normal short stroke racing engines, engineers are not terribly concerned with fuel economy so they don't care that hard acceleration sends unburned fuel vapors out the exhaust pipe. Strict fuel restrictions like those in GP require engineers to lean the fuel mixture to improve economy. When they lean the fuel mix they decrease peak power and accleration. In order to achieve better power without wasting fuel they raise the rev limit even further by using exotic lightweight materials or they add even more cylinders (to increase the number of times the engine fires per crank rotation). The ridiculous pursuit of peak power per liter is made possible by electronics.

Is it any wonder that costs have spiraled out of control so rapidly in the 800cc era?

The most efficient naturally aspirated engines have a long stroke and few cylinders. They run at very low operating speeds. They yield poor performance, but they sip fuel.

Decreasing GP to 750s would probably not improve fuel economy, but it would definitely increase costs as the teams tried to find ways to achieve even higher revs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 07:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I answered it Rog. I answered it well ...... you should "get it" but sadly you don't, as I've said to you once or twice before, I bothered to study some of those concepts for a few years, how about you get off the couch, stop sooking and do something to learn.

You proposition that 750's will have higher friction says it all

you had better warn them in motogp2 class about your theory, not sure they are aware of that one so probably will have problems seeing as though they are likely going to rev hard.
what i said was a smaller engine would not produce less friction than a larger one if it had to rev higher to produce the same power. The higher revving piston would have to travel further over race distance than a lower revving engine's piston producing more friction and more wear. That would also drive up costs. Plus camshafts valves ect ect would also be moving more causing even more friction.
As lex said, racing engines are normally over square due to high revs but it is a bit of a trade off. but putting the fuel issue a side you still have not told us how your 750 idea will save money and still be as fast .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 19 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Since I'm apparently missing something you guys are seeing, I just figured out you guys must have seen cases of engines getting bigger in capacity and becomeing more fuel efficient because of that!

So what are these examples?


You are exhausting!! This is such a simple concept. Making more power from a small power plant is more expensive than making the same power from a larger power plant.

Now get lost!