Development Rider

Tom · Nov 14, 2011

chopperman said:
I dont believe the 06 hrc was so different from rossi's bike that it can be called (quite a different beast). If you have knoledge to prove otherwise than please post and i will concede.I cant see that their was anything that radically different apart from pneumatic valves?

The 06 Honda didn't have pneumatic valves, Honda were testing them in 2008, if you recall when Nicky ran out of gas at Assen and lost 3rd place to Colin on the line.

Hayden's 2006 RCV was totally different to the other bikes basically as an answer to the work that had been going on at Yamaha. Honda always had trouble getting their V5 into corners well, if you remember the begining in 02 Rossi was backing it in everywhere, so Yamaha exploited this with a bike that got into corners extremely well, allowing Rossi to get in front of the Honda's even if they could post a better lap time than him. HRC stole the idea, they made the motor taller but shorter with an all new gearbox and a clutch designed specifically for smooth corner entry then put a new chassis on with an extra long swingarm. It also had different fairings. The result was a bike that was much slower down the straight and not quite as quick on an ultimate laptime, but it could get much closer to what the Yamaha was doing.

Austin said:
it was the first bike to be raced featuring Honda's mass centralization theory,

I'm pretty sure the original V5 was the start of the mass centralisation thing, it was part of the reason they chose the V5 layout. Also why they made the bike so compact, to the extent the Rossi had to demand they made it bigger because he felt he didn't fit.

chopperman · Nov 14, 2011

Tom said:
The 06 Honda didn't have pneumatic valves, Honda were testing them in 2008, if you recall when Nicky ran out of gas at Assen and lost 3rd place to Colin on the line.

Hayden's 2006 RCV was totally different to the other bikes basically as an answer to the work that had been going on at Yamaha. Honda always had trouble getting their V5 into corners well, if you remember the begining in 02 Rossi was backing it in everywhere, so Yamaha exploited this with a bike that got into corners extremely well, allowing Rossi to get in front of the Honda's even if they could post a better lap time than him. HRC stole the idea, they made the motor taller but shorter with an all new gearbox and a clutch designed specifically for smooth corner entry then put a new chassis on with an extra long swingarm. It also had different fairings. The result was a bike that was much slower down the straight and not quite as quick on an ultimate laptime, but it could get much closer to what the Yamaha was doing.

I'm pretty sure the original V5 was the start of the mass centralisation thing, it was part of the reason they chose the V5 layout. Also why they made the bike so compact, to the extent the Rossi had to demand they made it bigger because he felt he didn't fit.

Yeah, thats why i put a ? next to that as i could not remember the year of that change.

Austin · Nov 14, 2011

chopperman said:
See if Levi can smuggle you over in the cargo hold

Need a few other cards to fall into place before even thinking of such luck. Even then, a European round is probably 99 percent out of the question for me.

Tom said:
I'm pretty sure the original V5 was the start of the mass centralisation thing, it was part of the reason they chose the V5 layout. Also why they made the bike so compact, to the extent the Rossi had to demand they made it bigger because he felt he didn't fit.

Yup, you're right. I forgot about how much Rossi complained about the size of that bike. If I remember correctly, he requested a bigger fairing, but the bike didn't handle correctly with it.

chopperman · Nov 15, 2011

Austin said:
Need a few other cards to fall into place before even thinking of such luck. Even then, a European round is probably 99 percent out of the question for me.

Yup, you're right. I forgot about how much Rossi complained about the size of that bike. If I remember correctly, he requested a bigger fairing, but the bike didn't handle correctly with it.

Im sure you ment to say Hayden and yes he did look out of place on that bike.

Tom · Nov 15, 2011

chopperman said:
Im sure you ment to say Hayden and yes he did look out of place on that bike.

No no, he means Rossi in 2001

Austin · Nov 15, 2011

chopperman said:
Im sure you ment to say Hayden and yes he did look out of place on that bike.

Tom said:
No no, he means Rossi in 2001

Yup.

RCV600RR · Nov 19, 2011

BarryMachine said:
And yet they have visibly thrown the most into the effort compared to all the other factories.

How many other teams have requested all the extra changes to test times?

How many frames have Ducati thrown in this year?

They even had to start in the pit lane because they had to change so much.

What an irrelevant response.

I didn't say Ducati didn't try hard, or didn't provide enough solutions. I said they failed to provide the 'correct' solution - that necessarily implies that the quality of the solution is what we are discussing, not the quantity:

" the factory being unable (logistically, practically or financially) to provide the correct solution to the feedback is the foremost one in my mind."

We can all remember the number of frames they tested, which Rossi quickly dismissed as not fixing the central issue of understeer and lack of front feel. Feedback that the bike is not working correctly is just as valid as feedback that the bike is working...or else, they'd still be chasing solutions with the Airbox frame concept. It's due to Rossi's feedback that they have moved on.

The rider must be able to transmit the positives and negatives of a design - the more precision, the better. The issue of how to address that feedback is the role of the factory - they weren't successful in addressing the issues.

BarryMachine · Nov 19, 2011

RCV600RR said:
What an irrelevant response. ( well let me suggest that in future its probably best to not show any relevance in "irrelevant responses"

)

I didn't say Ducati didn't try hard, or didn't provide enough solutions. I said they failed to provide the 'correct' solution - that necessarily implies that the quality of the solution is what we are discussing, not the quantity:

" the factory being unable (logistically, practically or financially) to provide the correct solution to the feedback is the foremost one in my mind."

We can all remember the number of frames they tested, which Rossi quickly dismissed as not fixing the central issue of understeer and lack of front feel. Feedback that the bike is not working correctly is just as valid as feedback that the bike is working...or else, they'd still be chasing solutions with the Airbox frame concept. It's due to Rossi's feedback that they have moved on. And the point is that in "moving on" ......... they have gone the wrong way

as the evidence of a year of results have shown.

The rider must be able to transmit the positives and negatives of a design - the more precision, the better. The issue of how to address that feedback is the role of the factory - they weren't successful in addressing the issues.

Search

Search

Development Rider

Tom

chopperman

Austin

chopperman

Tom

Austin

RCV600RR

BarryMachine

Similar threads

Recent Discussions