<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (K.J. @ Apr 20 2007, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i miss the 990's as much as the 500's.
the 800's lack character.
How are they supposed to have found their character after two races.
The 500's are superior to all but i am not willing to rubbish the 800's yet.
the 800's lack character.
How are they supposed to have found their character after two races.
The 500's are superior to all but i am not willing to rubbish the 800's yet.
Maybe its just me then? or is everyone else trashing them too? i haven't been able to read much on here lately.
They just don't seem to have that little bit more that the old bikes have had.
I swear im getting jaded. I didn't watch the supers last week on purpose for the first time since i don't know when.
They just don't seem to have that little bit more that the old bikes have had.
I swear im getting jaded. I didn't watch the supers last week on purpose for the first time since i don't know when.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (K.J. @ Apr 20 2007, 10:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Maybe its just me then? or is everyone else trashing them too? i haven't been able to read much on here lately.
They just don't seem to have that little bit more that the old bikes have had.
I swear im getting jaded. I didn't watch the supers last week on purpose for the first time since i don't know when.
No most people are complaining too. My point is that if somebody had asked what i thought of the 990's two races into 2002 i would have told you they were dull boring and lacked character. But roughly a year later they were rocking my world. For that reason i am giving the 800's a chance.
They just don't seem to have that little bit more that the old bikes have had.
I swear im getting jaded. I didn't watch the supers last week on purpose for the first time since i don't know when.
No most people are complaining too. My point is that if somebody had asked what i thought of the 990's two races into 2002 i would have told you they were dull boring and lacked character. But roughly a year later they were rocking my world. For that reason i am giving the 800's a chance.
fair point mate... im not a bopper and im not giving up on them just yet.
EDIT: thats aimed at someone...
still miss the 500's and 990's though...
EDIT: thats aimed at someone...
still miss the 500's and 990's though...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (K.J. @ Apr 20 2007, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>still miss the 500's and 990's though...
Definately
Definately
Joined Mar 2006
1K Posts | 71+
US
I wish the 500s still roamed the GP circuit. I love how they buck and toss the rider around, like a horse that only wants the best rider, so he throws the pretenders to the ground until a worthy pilot finally saddles up.
It seems like the 500s were the last bastion of evil, bad-... racing machines. Can-Am, Turbo F1 cars, Group C prototypes, Group B rally cars, 900+hp turbo indy cars, and 500cc GP motorcycles. sigh...
It seems like the 500s were the last bastion of evil, bad-... racing machines. Can-Am, Turbo F1 cars, Group C prototypes, Group B rally cars, 900+hp turbo indy cars, and 500cc GP motorcycles. sigh...
Joined Oct 2006
3K Posts | 197+
Living the dream in Scotland
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Apr 20 2007, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I wish the 500s still roamed the GP circuit. I love how they buck and toss the rider around, like a horse that only wants the best rider, so he throws the pretenders to the ground until a worthy pilot finally saddles up.
It seems like the 500s were the last bastion of evil, bad-... racing machines. Can-Am, Turbo F1 cars, Group C prototypes, Group B rally cars, 900+hp turbo indy cars, and 500cc GP motorcycles. sigh...
Very well put Mr Shupe, racing needs less valves and more smoke!
Seriously though, I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, racing has moved away from the more extreme machines, and it's an age of motorsport that I miss greatly.
A couple of years ago, I saw Colin McRae wrestling a 6R4 round a forest rally in Perthshire, and it made the modern machines seem almost tame! Reminded me of watching guys wrestle 500 2 strokes around the track, racing has to evolve, but there was no greater point to prove than winning with machinery like that.
Pete
It seems like the 500s were the last bastion of evil, bad-... racing machines. Can-Am, Turbo F1 cars, Group C prototypes, Group B rally cars, 900+hp turbo indy cars, and 500cc GP motorcycles. sigh...
Very well put Mr Shupe, racing needs less valves and more smoke!
Seriously though, I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, racing has moved away from the more extreme machines, and it's an age of motorsport that I miss greatly.
A couple of years ago, I saw Colin McRae wrestling a 6R4 round a forest rally in Perthshire, and it made the modern machines seem almost tame! Reminded me of watching guys wrestle 500 2 strokes around the track, racing has to evolve, but there was no greater point to prove than winning with machinery like that.
Pete
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Apr 21 2007, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I wish the 500s still roamed the GP circuit. I love how they buck and toss the rider around, like a horse that only wants the best rider, so he throws the pretenders to the ground until a worthy pilot finally saddles up.
It seems like the 500s were the last bastion of evil, bad-... racing machines. Can-Am, Turbo F1 cars, Group C prototypes, Group B rally cars, 900+hp turbo indy cars, and 500cc GP motorcycles. sigh...
Even if the 500 were still around that period would be gone. At this period of technology all kind of motor racing see that driveability is more important than pure power. The 300HP WRC cars of today are faster than the 700hp rally cars of yesterday. Even if the 500s stayed you still would have only the sound and the smell to remind you of the old days "of evil, bad-... racing". Even as they left the scene they were very drivable. With todays electronics they would be tamed beasts, just like the 990s and 800s. It wouldn't surprice me if the bigest difference between the 990s and the 800s in trems of entertainment is the difference in electonics. Get over with it and enjoy development and faster bikes.
It seems like the 500s were the last bastion of evil, bad-... racing machines. Can-Am, Turbo F1 cars, Group C prototypes, Group B rally cars, 900+hp turbo indy cars, and 500cc GP motorcycles. sigh...
Even if the 500 were still around that period would be gone. At this period of technology all kind of motor racing see that driveability is more important than pure power. The 300HP WRC cars of today are faster than the 700hp rally cars of yesterday. Even if the 500s stayed you still would have only the sound and the smell to remind you of the old days "of evil, bad-... racing". Even as they left the scene they were very drivable. With todays electronics they would be tamed beasts, just like the 990s and 800s. It wouldn't surprice me if the bigest difference between the 990s and the 800s in trems of entertainment is the difference in electonics. Get over with it and enjoy development and faster bikes.
Babel is right! with chassis electronics and tire technology developing at the speed it is, coupled with the focus on drivability in engine characteristics, the bikes would be very similar now even if they were two strokes. They would no longer be the wild beats we so fondly remember. Its a shame, but thats progress.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phleg @ Apr 19 2007, 07:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>With the 800's, the rich teams gain the advantage, I bet I can guess which teams get the top step this year:
Ducati, Honda and Yamaha.
What?!
Ducat?! That nearly bankrupt one-building factory in Bologna that has about 3% global market share and can barely afford to race in two world class series' is now a rich motorcycling powerhouse?
I love Ducati, and I hope they do become a motorcycling powerhouse, but don't get the depth of their press coverage confused with the depth of their pocketbooks--they're poor and tiny. The last time the company turned a profit was in 2001 when all 1,100 employees managed to make 2 million euros, lol. Even BMW sells twice as many bikes as Ducati (all that is changing with the 1098).
Interestingly though, if you had bought Ducati stock in July of 2006, you would already have doubled your money.
I miss the 990's, but the smaller the engine the better desmo gets, so I guess as long as Ducati are performing well I can stomach the change.
Hmmmm.......food for thought. Has anyone heard Mark @ motogp.com use the phrase "take the bull by the horns" this season? I'm not sure there are any bulls in the paddock this year.
Ducati, Honda and Yamaha.
Ducat?! That nearly bankrupt one-building factory in Bologna that has about 3% global market share and can barely afford to race in two world class series' is now a rich motorcycling powerhouse?
I love Ducati, and I hope they do become a motorcycling powerhouse, but don't get the depth of their press coverage confused with the depth of their pocketbooks--they're poor and tiny. The last time the company turned a profit was in 2001 when all 1,100 employees managed to make 2 million euros, lol. Even BMW sells twice as many bikes as Ducati (all that is changing with the 1098).
Interestingly though, if you had bought Ducati stock in July of 2006, you would already have doubled your money.
I miss the 990's, but the smaller the engine the better desmo gets, so I guess as long as Ducati are performing well I can stomach the change.
Hmmmm.......food for thought. Has anyone heard Mark @ motogp.com use the phrase "take the bull by the horns" this season? I'm not sure there are any bulls in the paddock this year.
Joined Oct 2006
3K Posts | 197+
Living the dream in Scotland
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 28 2007, 10:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Even if the 500 were still around that period would be gone. At this period of technology all kind of motor racing see that driveability is more important than pure power. The 300HP WRC cars of today are faster than the 700hp rally cars of yesterday. Even if the 500s stayed you still would have only the sound and the smell to remind you of the old days "of evil, bad-... racing". Even as they left the scene they were very drivable. With todays electronics they would be tamed beasts, just like the 990s and 800s. It wouldn't surprice me if the bigest difference between the 990s and the 800s in trems of entertainment is the difference in electonics. Get over with it and enjoy development and faster bikes.
Well thats us told eh? What are we supposed to be getting over? the fact that some of us have an opinion that we favour a time when it was the rider who did all the traction control with his wrist, and race machines were scarier, even to look at?
Time moves on, and no one here is saying things shouldnt progress. My problem is that the demise of the 2 stroke engine has been political, not environmental, and that I believe that racing, and indeed, all 2 strokes had a future.
Wasnt to be, I know that, so I dont have to get over anything. Its an opinion.
Pete
Well thats us told eh? What are we supposed to be getting over? the fact that some of us have an opinion that we favour a time when it was the rider who did all the traction control with his wrist, and race machines were scarier, even to look at?
Time moves on, and no one here is saying things shouldnt progress. My problem is that the demise of the 2 stroke engine has been political, not environmental, and that I believe that racing, and indeed, all 2 strokes had a future.
Wasnt to be, I know that, so I dont have to get over anything. Its an opinion.
Pete
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Apr 29 2007, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Time moves on, and no one here is saying things shouldnt progress. My problem is that the demise of the 2 stroke engine has been political, not environmental, and that I believe that racing, and indeed, all 2 strokes had a future.
Pete, i would love for you to disclose more about the "political" demise of the two stroke because i know little of this. I think the significant blows to two strokes were the shrinking market for them (blame superbike racing or mighty Mick Doohan) and the fact that the biggest bike manufacturer in the world actively disliked them.
Pete, i would love for you to disclose more about the "political" demise of the two stroke because i know little of this. I think the significant blows to two strokes were the shrinking market for them (blame superbike racing or mighty Mick Doohan) and the fact that the biggest bike manufacturer in the world actively disliked them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 29 2007, 11:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Pete, i would love for you to disclose more about the "political" demise of the two stroke because i know little of this. I think the significant blows to two strokes were the shrinking market for them (blame superbike racing or mighty Mick Doohan) and the fact that the biggest bike manufacturer in the world actively disliked them.
Except for the 50cc and 125cc there are exactly 0% market for 2-stokes right now and has been a couple of years. In USA they have been out of the market for many years and in Europe they went out, I think, two or three years ago due to enviromental demands. None have so far been able to create a street machine with direct injection and exhaust gases that go through the regulations.
That can of cource be called politics but non the less the reason why they are out of the comercial market.
Except for the 50cc and 125cc there are exactly 0% market for 2-stokes right now and has been a couple of years. In USA they have been out of the market for many years and in Europe they went out, I think, two or three years ago due to enviromental demands. None have so far been able to create a street machine with direct injection and exhaust gases that go through the regulations.
That can of cource be called politics but non the less the reason why they are out of the comercial market.
If there was still a market for 2 strokes then the factories would have put more money into developing cleaner burning engines to keep them going within the environmental limits. That is unless the cleaner burning technology simply does not exist, but i have heard Pete say otherwise a few times before.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Apr 29 2007, 09:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well thats us told eh? What are we supposed to be getting over?
That 2-stroke is some kind of magic key to great racing as I've seen in some posts here. 500 racing today would be very similar to 800 racing, just slower and smellier.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>the fact that some of us have an opinion that we favour a time when it was the rider who did all the traction control with his wrist, and race machines were scarier, even to look at?
I understand your arguments and mostly even agree. I think tracktion control is a disfavour of the very best riders. But right now 500 would be just as tamed as the 4-strokes. If you miss the action blame the traction control not the 4-strokes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Time moves on, and no one here is saying things shouldnt progress. My problem is that the demise of the 2 stroke engine has been political, not environmental, and that I believe that racing, and indeed, all 2 strokes had a future.
I'm not ruling 2-stoke totally out, but as of now they make little sense for the factories. When there are proven concepts that work on both street and track and that are eviromental acceptable they may come back.
With the political part of the removal of the 2.stroke I assume you mean that the environment rules doesn't apply on the race track but that the big four wanted them gone anyway? Sure, they have a market to tend to and no 2-stokes to sell. They are in this for the money, not for the racing. Thats called kapitalism I think.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Wasnt to be, I know that, so I dont have to get over anything. Its an opinion.
You simply want to go 10 years back if I get you right?
That 2-stroke is some kind of magic key to great racing as I've seen in some posts here. 500 racing today would be very similar to 800 racing, just slower and smellier.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>the fact that some of us have an opinion that we favour a time when it was the rider who did all the traction control with his wrist, and race machines were scarier, even to look at?
I understand your arguments and mostly even agree. I think tracktion control is a disfavour of the very best riders. But right now 500 would be just as tamed as the 4-strokes. If you miss the action blame the traction control not the 4-strokes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Time moves on, and no one here is saying things shouldnt progress. My problem is that the demise of the 2 stroke engine has been political, not environmental, and that I believe that racing, and indeed, all 2 strokes had a future.
I'm not ruling 2-stoke totally out, but as of now they make little sense for the factories. When there are proven concepts that work on both street and track and that are eviromental acceptable they may come back.
With the political part of the removal of the 2.stroke I assume you mean that the environment rules doesn't apply on the race track but that the big four wanted them gone anyway? Sure, they have a market to tend to and no 2-stokes to sell. They are in this for the money, not for the racing. Thats called kapitalism I think.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Wasnt to be, I know that, so I dont have to get over anything. Its an opinion.
You simply want to go 10 years back if I get you right?
Joined Oct 2006
3K Posts | 197+
Living the dream in Scotland
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 29 2007, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That 2-stroke is some kind of magic key to great racing as I've seen in some posts here. 500 racing today would be very similar to 800 racing, just slower and smellier.
I understand your arguments and mostly even agree. I think tracktion control is a disfavour of the very best riders. But right now 500 would be just as tamed as the 4-strokes. If you miss the action blame the traction control not the 4-strokes.
I'm not ruling 2-stoke totally out, but as of now they make little sense for the factories. When there are proven concepts that work on both street and track and that are eviromental acceptable they may come back.
With the political part of the removal of the 2.stroke I assume you mean that the environment rules doesn't apply on the race track but that the big four wanted them gone anyway? Sure, they have a market to tend to and no 2-stokes to sell. They are in this for the money, not for the racing. Thats called kapitalism I think.
You simply want to go 10 years back if I get you right?
Want to go 10 years back? Nah dont think so!
By the politics, I mean that there have been 2 stroke engines built (Ive gone into this in detail in other posts) that are cleaner and more efficient than 4 strokes, but dissapeared without trace. Why would a more efficient engine be sidelined? As I have said before, GP racing is about prototypes, I used to drive a renault, but it had nothing in common with Alonsos car. GP and F1 are about corporate posturing to improve sales. I think any of us who buy a vehicle because of success in the prototype classes are a bit deluded!
The technology is out there to build efficient 2 strokes, the Honda EXP2 was a lean burn 2 stroke 400 that finished top 5 in the Dakar against the open class twins, around 95 for example.
The orbital 2 stroke car engine is another example.
the truth is out there.
Pete
I understand your arguments and mostly even agree. I think tracktion control is a disfavour of the very best riders. But right now 500 would be just as tamed as the 4-strokes. If you miss the action blame the traction control not the 4-strokes.
I'm not ruling 2-stoke totally out, but as of now they make little sense for the factories. When there are proven concepts that work on both street and track and that are eviromental acceptable they may come back.
With the political part of the removal of the 2.stroke I assume you mean that the environment rules doesn't apply on the race track but that the big four wanted them gone anyway? Sure, they have a market to tend to and no 2-stokes to sell. They are in this for the money, not for the racing. Thats called kapitalism I think.
You simply want to go 10 years back if I get you right?
Want to go 10 years back? Nah dont think so!
By the politics, I mean that there have been 2 stroke engines built (Ive gone into this in detail in other posts) that are cleaner and more efficient than 4 strokes, but dissapeared without trace. Why would a more efficient engine be sidelined? As I have said before, GP racing is about prototypes, I used to drive a renault, but it had nothing in common with Alonsos car. GP and F1 are about corporate posturing to improve sales. I think any of us who buy a vehicle because of success in the prototype classes are a bit deluded!
The technology is out there to build efficient 2 strokes, the Honda EXP2 was a lean burn 2 stroke 400 that finished top 5 in the Dakar against the open class twins, around 95 for example.
The orbital 2 stroke car engine is another example.
the truth is out there.
Pete
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Apr 30 2007, 08:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Want to go 10 years back? Nah dont think so!
By the politics, I mean that there have been 2 stroke engines built (Ive gone into this in detail in other posts) that are cleaner and more efficient than 4 strokes, but dissapeared without trace. Why would a more efficient engine be sidelined? As I have said before, GP racing is about prototypes, I used to drive a renault, but it had nothing in common with Alonsos car. GP and F1 are about corporate posturing to improve sales. I think any of us who buy a vehicle because of success in the prototype classes are a bit deluded!
The technology is out there to build efficient 2 strokes, the Honda EXP2 was a lean burn 2 stroke 400 that finished top 5 in the Dakar against the open class twins, around 95 for example.
The orbital 2 stroke car engine is another example.
the truth is out there.
Pete
Regarding Renault I agree, with bikes I'm not so sure. Ducati's sales are linked to races success, so are Ferarri's. A 1000cc R-bike of today is very close to the real deal and no doubt I see lot's of guys identifying with the manufacturer and their victories just as much in GP as in SBK.
When it come to 2-strokes, if someone could build a more efficient engine in the 90's why isn't that in the 250s now? I've done no resarch on the topic and all I've seen is the stuggle to manage direct injection, something that bankrupted Bimota. They are getting closer, and I've seen they are arriving on low power, low rpm, "big bore" outboard engines but that's all I've heard of any revolutionary 2-stroke. So i'm curious, do you have references to these projects?
By the politics, I mean that there have been 2 stroke engines built (Ive gone into this in detail in other posts) that are cleaner and more efficient than 4 strokes, but dissapeared without trace. Why would a more efficient engine be sidelined? As I have said before, GP racing is about prototypes, I used to drive a renault, but it had nothing in common with Alonsos car. GP and F1 are about corporate posturing to improve sales. I think any of us who buy a vehicle because of success in the prototype classes are a bit deluded!
The technology is out there to build efficient 2 strokes, the Honda EXP2 was a lean burn 2 stroke 400 that finished top 5 in the Dakar against the open class twins, around 95 for example.
The orbital 2 stroke car engine is another example.
the truth is out there.
Pete
Regarding Renault I agree, with bikes I'm not so sure. Ducati's sales are linked to races success, so are Ferarri's. A 1000cc R-bike of today is very close to the real deal and no doubt I see lot's of guys identifying with the manufacturer and their victories just as much in GP as in SBK.
When it come to 2-strokes, if someone could build a more efficient engine in the 90's why isn't that in the 250s now? I've done no resarch on the topic and all I've seen is the stuggle to manage direct injection, something that bankrupted Bimota. They are getting closer, and I've seen they are arriving on low power, low rpm, "big bore" outboard engines but that's all I've heard of any revolutionary 2-stroke. So i'm curious, do you have references to these projects?
Some scooters are fuel injected, but it seems for racing performance it is still better to use carbs.
