Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
Who didnt see that coming.Im just wandering if they will wait till next year or will they implement it mid year so Ducati can retain the title.Now it will be the Japanes turn to threaten a pull out and we can go back to the Ducati Cup like before.Or here is what will probably happen.Honda wins this year,next year the Ducati will be given the advantage and it will flip flop from year to year to keep everybody happy.Of course this argument has been had many time over about why 4 makers play with one set of rules and 1 with another.
Joined Mar 2006
1K Posts | 71+
US
I'm not convinced that the 1200 machine will be THAT much of a threat to the series. Obviously as a Bayliss / Ducati fan I'd love to see it in, but from a "trying to remain objective" point of view, I don't think it will have the impact that some people fear.
The World SBK series was on a real high during the Fogarty era through to the Bayliss v Edwards era, then it nosedived into a bit of a farce during the so called "Ducati Cup" era, and the entire series almost went to the wall. I'm sure that the authorities won't let this happen again, and will apply the relevent legislation to the new machine.
It's interesting that the rules have been implemented into the British series already, and there hasn't been that much fuss, especially regarding teams pulling out etc.
Watching interviews and reading articles, the lads from Ten Kate ain't happy, but haven't reached the level of Francis Batta yet who's in danger of rolling around the floor and having a hissy fit. He's the main antagonist to the whole scenario (in my opinion), and he's also an arse (in my opinion). He's got no loyalty to his riders never mind the series (ask Troy Corser), so expect him to pull out if things ain't going his way !!!!
In short. If Batta weren't moaning I'm not sure there'd be all the fuss. I'm sure the guys that run the series won't let it decend into a one breed of horse race again !!!!
The World SBK series was on a real high during the Fogarty era through to the Bayliss v Edwards era, then it nosedived into a bit of a farce during the so called "Ducati Cup" era, and the entire series almost went to the wall. I'm sure that the authorities won't let this happen again, and will apply the relevent legislation to the new machine.
It's interesting that the rules have been implemented into the British series already, and there hasn't been that much fuss, especially regarding teams pulling out etc.
Watching interviews and reading articles, the lads from Ten Kate ain't happy, but haven't reached the level of Francis Batta yet who's in danger of rolling around the floor and having a hissy fit. He's the main antagonist to the whole scenario (in my opinion), and he's also an arse (in my opinion). He's got no loyalty to his riders never mind the series (ask Troy Corser), so expect him to pull out if things ain't going his way !!!!
In short. If Batta weren't moaning I'm not sure there'd be all the fuss. I'm sure the guys that run the series won't let it decend into a one breed of horse race again !!!!
Everyone other than Ducati is pissed off. They design, develop and eventually manufacture a bike, THEN ask for the rules in WSB to be changed to accomodate it. Cheeky fuckers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ May 17 2007, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Of course this argument has been had many time over about why 4 makers play with one set of rules and 1 with another.....a very reasonable and logical question to ask.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Baylistic @ Jun 12 2007, 08:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>He's the main antagonist to the whole scenario (in my opinion), and he's also an arse (in my opinion). He's got no loyalty to his riders never mind the series (ask Troy Corser), so expect him to pull out if things ain't going his way !!!!
yeah right, you ain't a Ducati fan by any chance?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Baylistic @ Jun 12 2007, 08:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>In short. If Batta weren't moaning I'm not sure there'd be all the fuss.Not so sure about that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ May 17 2007, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Of course this argument has been had many time over about why 4 makers play with one set of rules and 1 with another.....a very reasonable and logical question to ask.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Baylistic @ Jun 12 2007, 08:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>He's the main antagonist to the whole scenario (in my opinion), and he's also an arse (in my opinion). He's got no loyalty to his riders never mind the series (ask Troy Corser), so expect him to pull out if things ain't going his way !!!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Baylistic @ Jun 12 2007, 08:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>In short. If Batta weren't moaning I'm not sure there'd be all the fuss.Not so sure about that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skidmark @ Jun 13 2007, 09:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>QUOTE(povol @ May 17 2007, 06:49 PM)
Of course this argument has been had many time over about why 4 makers play with one set of rules and 1 with another.
....a very reasonable and logical question to ask.
Oh, sorry I must have missunderstod. The new ruels Ducati ask for clearly states that Ducati and Only Ducati are allowed to compete with twins?
Or does it say that Ducati and only Ducati can use 1200cc engines in their perferred configuration?
Of course this argument has been had many time over about why 4 makers play with one set of rules and 1 with another.
....a very reasonable and logical question to ask.
Oh, sorry I must have missunderstod. The new ruels Ducati ask for clearly states that Ducati and Only Ducati are allowed to compete with twins?
Or does it say that Ducati and only Ducati can use 1200cc engines in their perferred configuration?
Or could Ducati have built a 4 cylinder 1000cc bike like everyone else chose to do thereby abiding by the rules? ....... moaning pricks ' Mah mah mah change the rules for us!! I'd tell them to F off out of it.
You can see my views on this matter are strong, and I work at a Ducati dealership.
You can see my views on this matter are strong, and I work at a Ducati dealership.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rgvneil @ Jun 13 2007, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Or could Ducati have built a 4 cylinder 1000cc bike like everyone else chose to do thereby abiding by the rules? ....... moaning pricks ' Mah mah mah change the rules for us!! I'd tell them to F off out of it.
You can see my views on this matter are strong, and I work at a Ducati dealership.
But the real moaners are you and all the others that bicker about Ducati's request of rule change.
It's all up to the rule makers to decide. If they thought it was without significance to have various engine configurations we wouldn't even have this discussion. My "guess" is that they think this is significant and SBK/WSS has been and allways should be a mirror of the sportsbike market. And so they adjust the rules according to a changing market and availability of models.
BTW, why stop at 4 cylinders?
Only IL4 allowed, only 4 valves per sylinder
Only spring operated valves
Only one spesific bore.
Only one spesific set of gears.
One rev limit on all bikes.
Only on brand of tires. Opps that's allready there, sorry.
.....
I'm sure we'll se a lot of developement.
Considering who oppose these changes here on the forum it's quite amusing to see the same downplay the Ducati's performance in MotoGP.
Coincidence?
let the flamewar begin
You can see my views on this matter are strong, and I work at a Ducati dealership.
But the real moaners are you and all the others that bicker about Ducati's request of rule change.
It's all up to the rule makers to decide. If they thought it was without significance to have various engine configurations we wouldn't even have this discussion. My "guess" is that they think this is significant and SBK/WSS has been and allways should be a mirror of the sportsbike market. And so they adjust the rules according to a changing market and availability of models.
BTW, why stop at 4 cylinders?
Only IL4 allowed, only 4 valves per sylinder
Only spring operated valves
Only one spesific bore.
Only one spesific set of gears.
One rev limit on all bikes.
Only on brand of tires. Opps that's allready there, sorry.
.....
I'm sure we'll se a lot of developement.
Considering who oppose these changes here on the forum it's quite amusing to see the same downplay the Ducati's performance in MotoGP.
Coincidence?
let the flamewar begin
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 15 2007, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But the real moaners are you and all the others that bicker about Ducati's request of rule change.
It's all up to the rule makers to decide. If they thought it was without significance to have various engine configurations we wouldn't even have this discussion. My "guess" is that they think this is significant and SBK/WSS has been and allways should be a mirror of the sportsbike market. And so they adjust the rules according to a changing market and availability of models.
BTW, why stop at 4 cylinders?
Only IL4 allowed, only 4 valves per sylinder
Only spring operated valves
Only one spesific bore.
Only one spesific set of gears.
One rev limit on all bikes.
Only on brand of tires. Opps that's allready there, sorry.
.....
I'm sure we'll se a lot of developement.
Considering who oppose these changes here on the forum it's quite amusing to see the same downplay the Ducati's performance in MotoGP.
Coincidence?
let the flamewar beginc'mon fish, you're stirring!
It's all up to the rule makers to decide. If they thought it was without significance to have various engine configurations we wouldn't even have this discussion. My "guess" is that they think this is significant and SBK/WSS has been and allways should be a mirror of the sportsbike market. And so they adjust the rules according to a changing market and availability of models.
BTW, why stop at 4 cylinders?
Only IL4 allowed, only 4 valves per sylinder
Only spring operated valves
Only one spesific bore.
Only one spesific set of gears.
One rev limit on all bikes.
Only on brand of tires. Opps that's allready there, sorry.
.....
I'm sure we'll se a lot of developement.
Considering who oppose these changes here on the forum it's quite amusing to see the same downplay the Ducati's performance in MotoGP.
Coincidence?
let the flamewar begin
c'mon fish, you're stirring!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 15 2007, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Considering who oppose these changes here on the forum it's quite amusing to see the same downplay the Ducati's performance in MotoGP.
Coincidence?
Wrong!! I am hugely impressed with Ducatis performance in motopg, and i think it makes their behavior towards the superbike championships even less credible.
Coincidence?
Wrong!! I am hugely impressed with Ducatis performance in motopg, and i think it makes their behavior towards the superbike championships even less credible.
Oh alright then...
Ducatis performance in motoGP has got nothing to do with it Tom, he's just sore
. It would be no different if Honda built and developed a 1300cc V6 racer, let the whole world know all about it, and THEN ask the evil Flaminni twins to change the regs for them so they could race it and kick everybody's arse. Who's gonna buy that crap? Or imagine if Kawasaki had said in 1998 that they had built a 1000cc race bike called a ZX10 and in testing, it was a fair bit quicker than their 750 that, funnily enough, wasn't winning anything in WSB....oh by the way, any chance of changing the regs so we can race it? Piss off!
Ducatis performance in motoGP has got nothing to do with it Tom, he's just sore
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skidmark @ Jun 15 2007, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Oh alright then...
Ducatis performance in motoGP has got nothing to do with it Tom, he's just sore
. It would be no different if Honda built and developed a 1300cc V6 racer, let the whole world know all about it, and THEN ask the evil Flaminni twins to change the regs for them so they could race it and kick everybody's arse. Who's gonna buy that crap? Or imagine if Kawasaki had said in 1998 that they had built a 1000cc race bike called a ZX10 and in testing, it was a fair bit quicker than their 750 that, funnily enough, wasn't winning anything in WSB....oh by the way, any chance of changing the regs so we can race it? Piss off!
All your examples fail on the same point:
Ducati had to redisign and increase the diplacement on their street bikes, to sell any of them. The 999 never cought on like the 916-series bikes and even if they did they were no match for the new main class in sportsbikes, the litre fours. So they came up with the 1098 and it became an instant hit.
In other words, the bike is there, it's selling, while the 999 is dead and burried. I'm not saying I agree 100% with Ducati's ultimatum like demand, but strongly disagree with anyone saying "build a IL4 and shut up". Maybe the limit should be equal to their new model: 1098cc but to ask two cylinder-engines to compete with fours at the same diplacement and other regulations are just as unfair as normal engines competing with turbo-engines with the same displacement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jun 15 2007, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Wrong!! I am hugely impressed with Ducatis performance in motopg, and i think it makes their behavior towards the superbike championships even less credible.
He he, your feelings about the Ducati performance don't get expressed well in writing
But how do their performance in MotoGP make their WSB behaviour less credible? When they entered MotoGP with a competetive package the very first year, that was to me evidence that their success in WSB was not all about displacement advantage and the best riders, but also about how damned good they are at making high performance machines.
Ducatis performance in motoGP has got nothing to do with it Tom, he's just sore
All your examples fail on the same point:
Ducati had to redisign and increase the diplacement on their street bikes, to sell any of them. The 999 never cought on like the 916-series bikes and even if they did they were no match for the new main class in sportsbikes, the litre fours. So they came up with the 1098 and it became an instant hit.
In other words, the bike is there, it's selling, while the 999 is dead and burried. I'm not saying I agree 100% with Ducati's ultimatum like demand, but strongly disagree with anyone saying "build a IL4 and shut up". Maybe the limit should be equal to their new model: 1098cc but to ask two cylinder-engines to compete with fours at the same diplacement and other regulations are just as unfair as normal engines competing with turbo-engines with the same displacement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jun 15 2007, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Wrong!! I am hugely impressed with Ducatis performance in motopg, and i think it makes their behavior towards the superbike championships even less credible.
He he, your feelings about the Ducati performance don't get expressed well in writing
But how do their performance in MotoGP make their WSB behaviour less credible? When they entered MotoGP with a competetive package the very first year, that was to me evidence that their success in WSB was not all about displacement advantage and the best riders, but also about how damned good they are at making high performance machines.
Fish, to say that Ducati had a right to design what motor they wanted is correct. To then ask for a rule change so they could race it is taking the piss, especially when a few years previously the rules were changed away from Ducatis favour.
To argue that they should have built an engine to comply with the rules is the thought of a rational person to argue otherwise is unfair and blinkered and pathetic if I may say.
Do you have shares in Ducati by any chance?
To argue that they should have built an engine to comply with the rules is the thought of a rational person to argue otherwise is unfair and blinkered and pathetic if I may say.
Do you have shares in Ducati by any chance?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 15 2007, 07:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But how do their performance in MotoGP make their WSB behaviour less credible? When they entered MotoGP with a competetive package the very first year, that was to me evidence that their success in WSB was not all about displacement advantage and the best riders, but also about how damned good they are at making high performance machines.
There performance in motogp shows that they obviously have some very good designers who know how to make bikes go very very welll (we already knew that i guess). The thing that makes their attitude to world superbike less credible is that they are continueing with an out of date and out classed design for the sake of "tradition" and having the cheek to ask for a capacity hike when we have clearly seen they have what it takes to do things properley. Just frustrates me.
There performance in motogp shows that they obviously have some very good designers who know how to make bikes go very very welll (we already knew that i guess). The thing that makes their attitude to world superbike less credible is that they are continueing with an out of date and out classed design for the sake of "tradition" and having the cheek to ask for a capacity hike when we have clearly seen they have what it takes to do things properley. Just frustrates me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jun 16 2007, 01:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There performance in motogp shows that they obviously have some very good designers who know how to make bikes go very very welll (we already knew that i guess). The thing that makes their attitude to world superbike less credible is that they are continueing with an out of date and out classed design for the sake of "tradition" and having the cheek to ask for a capacity hike when we have clearly seen they have what it takes to do things properley. Just frustrates me.
I assume that you by out of date design mean the L-twin?
That's a pretty bold statement considering the amount of L-twin sports-bikes sold each year.
A competetive design are decided by the rules. Look at Le-mans, the diesels are much faster than their petrol competitors. Does that mean that the petrol design are outdated?
BTW when were the L-twin outdated?
When they dicovered the relationship between power and the number of cylinders about 110 years ago?
Isn't fours also outdated? in the 60's Honda made 6 cylinder 125cc's that was beating everything. The time for really "competetive" engines ended between WW I and WW II. That's when they raced with 25 litre aircraft engines with 16 cylinders. Then the rulemakers then set a limit of 3.5 litres.
Compared to the rotation engines the normal otto engine has a pathetic power output pr. cc. Doesn't that mean that the otto is outdated?
It all depends on what outer limit you set for a competetive series. If that is capasity, sylinders, fuel, aspriation, rev limits, intake limits, type of engine and so on. All this is what deside how "outdated", to use your word, the design is.
SBK operate with a market-driven class. If sport-twins disapear from the market so would the do from the racing in SBK. Meanwhile they have a room right there and that has nothing to do with outdated design what so ever.
Taliking about outdated. As Ronald ten Kate said when giving his opinion about the twin capasity: It's not easy as the bottom end on the twin are so strong it's not at all only about maximum power output. The are allready winning with a lot less top end power.
Isn't the fours outdated that need such a power-advantage to even be competetive?
I assume that you by out of date design mean the L-twin?
That's a pretty bold statement considering the amount of L-twin sports-bikes sold each year.
A competetive design are decided by the rules. Look at Le-mans, the diesels are much faster than their petrol competitors. Does that mean that the petrol design are outdated?
BTW when were the L-twin outdated?
When they dicovered the relationship between power and the number of cylinders about 110 years ago?
Isn't fours also outdated? in the 60's Honda made 6 cylinder 125cc's that was beating everything. The time for really "competetive" engines ended between WW I and WW II. That's when they raced with 25 litre aircraft engines with 16 cylinders. Then the rulemakers then set a limit of 3.5 litres.
Compared to the rotation engines the normal otto engine has a pathetic power output pr. cc. Doesn't that mean that the otto is outdated?
It all depends on what outer limit you set for a competetive series. If that is capasity, sylinders, fuel, aspriation, rev limits, intake limits, type of engine and so on. All this is what deside how "outdated", to use your word, the design is.
SBK operate with a market-driven class. If sport-twins disapear from the market so would the do from the racing in SBK. Meanwhile they have a room right there and that has nothing to do with outdated design what so ever.
Taliking about outdated. As Ronald ten Kate said when giving his opinion about the twin capasity: It's not easy as the bottom end on the twin are so strong it's not at all only about maximum power output. The are allready winning with a lot less top end power.
Isn't the fours outdated that need such a power-advantage to even be competetive?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 16 2007, 11:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. I assume that you by out of date design mean the L-twin?
That's a pretty bold statement considering the amount of L-twin sports-bikes sold each year.
2. A competetive design are decided by the rules. Look at Le-mans, the diesels are much faster than their petrol competitors. Does that mean that the petrol design are outdated?
BTW when were the L-twin outdated?
3. When they dicovered the relationship between power and the number of cylinders about 110 years ago?
Isn't fours also outdated? in the 60's Honda made 6 cylinder 125cc's that was beating everything. The time for really "competetive" engines ended between WW I and WW II. That's when they raced with 25 litre aircraft engines with 16 cylinders. Then the rulemakers then set a limit of 3.5 litres.
Compared to the rotation engines the normal otto engine has a pathetic power output pr. cc. Doesn't that mean that the otto is outdated?
It all depends on what outer limit you set for a competetive series. If that is capasity, sylinders, fuel, aspriation, rev limits, intake limits, type of engine and so on. All this is what deside how "outdated", to use your word, the design is.
4. SBK operate with a market-driven class. If sport-twins disapear from the market so would the do from the racing in SBK. Meanwhile they have a room right there and that has nothing to do with outdated design what so ever.
Taliking about outdated. As Ronald ten Kate said when giving his opinion about the twin capasity: It's not easy as the bottom end on the twin are so strong it's not at all only about maximum power output. The are allready winning with a lot less top end power.
Isn't the fours outdated that need such a power-advantage to even be competetive?
1. Since the development of chassis, tyre, and electronic advances the advantage of v-twin driveability has been made redundant, this is shown in Hondas choice to move back to 4 cyclinder bikes. The Twins used to be the better racing machine, but not any more.
2. The reason why the diesels have an advantage at Le Mans is because the rules were written that way for political reasons, and i do not approve of this. In most of history racing classes have been defined with a capacity limit because it is the fairest way to restrict engines, it is the manufacturers responsibility to get the best performing vehicle from the rules rather than ask them to be changed.
3. I don't believe Honda did make 6 cyclinder 125cc bikes, but you are right that engineers have been aware of the relationship between cylinders and power for a very long time, why is it Ducati hasn't yet caught on? Except that in motogp with design freedom as it is, Ducati chose not to use their L-twin design, so even they know it is inferior.
4. If superbike is a market driven class then why don't the Japs just start making 1400cc superbikes and ask the rules to be changed to reflect that?
That's a pretty bold statement considering the amount of L-twin sports-bikes sold each year.
2. A competetive design are decided by the rules. Look at Le-mans, the diesels are much faster than their petrol competitors. Does that mean that the petrol design are outdated?
BTW when were the L-twin outdated?
3. When they dicovered the relationship between power and the number of cylinders about 110 years ago?
Isn't fours also outdated? in the 60's Honda made 6 cylinder 125cc's that was beating everything. The time for really "competetive" engines ended between WW I and WW II. That's when they raced with 25 litre aircraft engines with 16 cylinders. Then the rulemakers then set a limit of 3.5 litres.
Compared to the rotation engines the normal otto engine has a pathetic power output pr. cc. Doesn't that mean that the otto is outdated?
It all depends on what outer limit you set for a competetive series. If that is capasity, sylinders, fuel, aspriation, rev limits, intake limits, type of engine and so on. All this is what deside how "outdated", to use your word, the design is.
4. SBK operate with a market-driven class. If sport-twins disapear from the market so would the do from the racing in SBK. Meanwhile they have a room right there and that has nothing to do with outdated design what so ever.
Taliking about outdated. As Ronald ten Kate said when giving his opinion about the twin capasity: It's not easy as the bottom end on the twin are so strong it's not at all only about maximum power output. The are allready winning with a lot less top end power.
Isn't the fours outdated that need such a power-advantage to even be competetive?
1. Since the development of chassis, tyre, and electronic advances the advantage of v-twin driveability has been made redundant, this is shown in Hondas choice to move back to 4 cyclinder bikes. The Twins used to be the better racing machine, but not any more.
2. The reason why the diesels have an advantage at Le Mans is because the rules were written that way for political reasons, and i do not approve of this. In most of history racing classes have been defined with a capacity limit because it is the fairest way to restrict engines, it is the manufacturers responsibility to get the best performing vehicle from the rules rather than ask them to be changed.
3. I don't believe Honda did make 6 cyclinder 125cc bikes, but you are right that engineers have been aware of the relationship between cylinders and power for a very long time, why is it Ducati hasn't yet caught on? Except that in motogp with design freedom as it is, Ducati chose not to use their L-twin design, so even they know it is inferior.
4. If superbike is a market driven class then why don't the Japs just start making 1400cc superbikes and ask the rules to be changed to reflect that?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jun 16 2007, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. Since the development of chassis, tyre, and electronic advances the advantage of v-twin driveability has been made redundant, this is shown in Hondas choice to move back to 4 cyclinder bikes. The Twins used to be the better racing machine, but not any more.
Wrong, Honda left the twin long before they used any traction control in SBK. They left the twin as they bored their long lived king of sportsbikes, the Fire Blade 900. Unfortunatly there were no defined 900 class for road sportsbikes, the blade was alone, and thereby no class to put that legend into high profile racing.
The 1000 on the other hand got it's top SBK class as all the japanese brans started to revamp their product lineup, and the rule change no doubt were pushed forward by those whining japanese companies. Who are they to dictate the rules, eh?
Wrong, no electronics are able to simulate the twin pulse operation.
Big bang configuration do a decent job but still lack a bit, and they have AFAIK problems to put that into a stret bike version anyway.
Proof: Ducati is currently competetive with a lot less horse powers, traction control or not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>2. The reason why the diesels have an advantage at Le Mans is because the rules were written that way for political reasons, and i do not approve of this. In most of history racing classes have been defined with a capacity limit because it is the fairest way to restrict engines, it is the manufacturers responsibility to get the best performing vehicle from the rules rather than ask them to be changed.
Political or not the rules were written that way. The petrol cars are slower, ergo they must be yesterdays technology, or?
Capasity is of no use without further limiting the number of cylinders, and the type of engine used. A 800cc Vankel rotor engine would blow Ducati and the rest by a mile. A 6 cyl. Otto (i.e. the normal combustion engine) would also blow Ducati away, but they put a heavy wehight penalty on those bikes, and HONDA made sure the 5 cyl got the same penalty the second they left that configuration themselves (Those whining .......s or what ever you prefer to call Duacati today. It applies just as well to any of those companies, doesn't it.). How about turbos and blowers? They must clearly be part of a superior technology as they develop a lot more power under the same capasity.
In other words, capasity is only one tiny parameter among a dozen that limit the power and create close racing. There is not one single good reason why that parameter should be absolute, just like there often are varying limits for weight, cylinders, air intake size to name a few.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>3. I don't believe Honda did make 6 cyclinder 125cc bikes,
You're right, I was conviced it was the 125, but that only made it to 5 cylinders, while the 250 and 350 had 6.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>but you are right that engineers have been aware of the relationship between cylinders and power for a very long time, why is it Ducati hasn't yet caught on? Except that in motogp with design freedom as it is, Ducati chose not to use their L-twin design, so even they know it is inferior.
No less inferiour than the 4 is compared to an 8 cylinder. However, other rules make sure it can't compete. Weight, weight limits, and gas tank sizes make sure of that. Even a 6 cylinder would blow the fours away. The RULES just make sure they are not competetive. The RULES make sure the fours are the best compromize, not the capacity, that is by no means a proof that it is the best configuration, it just the best (compromize) under those spesific rules.
To make a firework of a 6 cylinder engine, compact and light enough would be no match for Honda, assuming the RULES would favor that configuration. But it would drive cost up a big step, and that's another very important limitation that the organizers want to keep a firm grip on, to make sure smaller teams and companies can afford to compete. Again, fours seems to be a good cost effective compromize. But in a prototype seiris like MotoGP that shouldn't really be an issue, should it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>4. If superbike is a market driven class then why don't the Japs just start making 1400cc superbikes and ask the rules to be changed to reflect that?
IF? don't be silly. This series is based on mass produced bikes and it's part of it's huge popularity
1400 don't get buildt because you and I wouldn't buy those monsters. Some morons by the Hayabusa 1300 to be fast but anyone (with a 600)can drive around that monster on a track.
Wrong, Honda left the twin long before they used any traction control in SBK. They left the twin as they bored their long lived king of sportsbikes, the Fire Blade 900. Unfortunatly there were no defined 900 class for road sportsbikes, the blade was alone, and thereby no class to put that legend into high profile racing.
The 1000 on the other hand got it's top SBK class as all the japanese brans started to revamp their product lineup, and the rule change no doubt were pushed forward by those whining japanese companies. Who are they to dictate the rules, eh?
Wrong, no electronics are able to simulate the twin pulse operation.
Big bang configuration do a decent job but still lack a bit, and they have AFAIK problems to put that into a stret bike version anyway.
Proof: Ducati is currently competetive with a lot less horse powers, traction control or not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>2. The reason why the diesels have an advantage at Le Mans is because the rules were written that way for political reasons, and i do not approve of this. In most of history racing classes have been defined with a capacity limit because it is the fairest way to restrict engines, it is the manufacturers responsibility to get the best performing vehicle from the rules rather than ask them to be changed.
Political or not the rules were written that way. The petrol cars are slower, ergo they must be yesterdays technology, or?
Capasity is of no use without further limiting the number of cylinders, and the type of engine used. A 800cc Vankel rotor engine would blow Ducati and the rest by a mile. A 6 cyl. Otto (i.e. the normal combustion engine) would also blow Ducati away, but they put a heavy wehight penalty on those bikes, and HONDA made sure the 5 cyl got the same penalty the second they left that configuration themselves (Those whining .......s or what ever you prefer to call Duacati today. It applies just as well to any of those companies, doesn't it.). How about turbos and blowers? They must clearly be part of a superior technology as they develop a lot more power under the same capasity.
In other words, capasity is only one tiny parameter among a dozen that limit the power and create close racing. There is not one single good reason why that parameter should be absolute, just like there often are varying limits for weight, cylinders, air intake size to name a few.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>3. I don't believe Honda did make 6 cyclinder 125cc bikes,
You're right, I was conviced it was the 125, but that only made it to 5 cylinders, while the 250 and 350 had 6.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>but you are right that engineers have been aware of the relationship between cylinders and power for a very long time, why is it Ducati hasn't yet caught on? Except that in motogp with design freedom as it is, Ducati chose not to use their L-twin design, so even they know it is inferior.
No less inferiour than the 4 is compared to an 8 cylinder. However, other rules make sure it can't compete. Weight, weight limits, and gas tank sizes make sure of that. Even a 6 cylinder would blow the fours away. The RULES just make sure they are not competetive. The RULES make sure the fours are the best compromize, not the capacity, that is by no means a proof that it is the best configuration, it just the best (compromize) under those spesific rules.
To make a firework of a 6 cylinder engine, compact and light enough would be no match for Honda, assuming the RULES would favor that configuration. But it would drive cost up a big step, and that's another very important limitation that the organizers want to keep a firm grip on, to make sure smaller teams and companies can afford to compete. Again, fours seems to be a good cost effective compromize. But in a prototype seiris like MotoGP that shouldn't really be an issue, should it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>4. If superbike is a market driven class then why don't the Japs just start making 1400cc superbikes and ask the rules to be changed to reflect that?
IF? don't be silly. This series is based on mass produced bikes and it's part of it's huge popularity
1400 don't get buildt because you and I wouldn't buy those monsters. Some morons by the Hayabusa 1300 to be fast but anyone (with a 600)can drive around that monster on a track.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 16 2007, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. Proof: Ducati is currently competetive with a lot less horse powers, traction control or not.
2. 1400 don't get buildt because you and I wouldn't buy those monsters. Some morons by the Hayabusa 1300 to be fast but anyone (with a 600)can drive around that monster on a track.
1. I thought the whole point of this discussion is that you felt that Ducati should be allowed to increase their capacity to make them more competative and the racing fairer. I was arguing that if ducati do not feel that they are competitive (which i do not necessarily agree with), then they should not bend the rules to suit them. However your 'proof' quoted above makes this whole discussion obsolete as you have just said that a 999 is currently competive. I suppose you, like ducati just want it to be more competitive than all the other bikes.
2. How many people where buying 1200cc twin superbikes before ducati decided they needed this advantage in wsbk?
2. 1400 don't get buildt because you and I wouldn't buy those monsters. Some morons by the Hayabusa 1300 to be fast but anyone (with a 600)can drive around that monster on a track.
1. I thought the whole point of this discussion is that you felt that Ducati should be allowed to increase their capacity to make them more competative and the racing fairer. I was arguing that if ducati do not feel that they are competitive (which i do not necessarily agree with), then they should not bend the rules to suit them. However your 'proof' quoted above makes this whole discussion obsolete as you have just said that a 999 is currently competive. I suppose you, like ducati just want it to be more competitive than all the other bikes.
2. How many people where buying 1200cc twin superbikes before ducati decided they needed this advantage in wsbk?
