Engine rule

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Feb 23 2010, 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The only time they get a penalty is when they use engine #7,8,9 etc. They can use all 6 engines on the same weekend if they want. Not sure what is so difficult about that to understand.

thats what i meant my typo.
its all still stupid.

if a teams on engine six and during a flag to flag race need to do a bike change
they do the bike change then do a ride through as well,no point in doing that

a rider might as well ride on and hope to stay upright

or pull in and take engine 7 in the next race and start from pit lane.

that's better than a bike change and a ride through as well

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Feb 23 2010, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You could say that they have 2 engines that have to last 6 races as a pair. I think they will run one engine for practice and qualifying and then keep the fresher engine for the race and just swap the engines between the #1 and #2 bikes as needed.

A hypothesis:

Use 2 engines (detuned) for all practice sessions over 18 races = approx 6300k or 3150k per engine.

Use 4 engines (full power) for all 18 races = approx 2700k or 675k per engine.

With this strategy we would see slow times in practice sessions and then a big jump come race day which would leave everyone guessing. If a manufacture/team could pull this type of strategy off then on race day they could have a significant hp advantage. Also if there was a flag to flag then they could use the practice engine in the wet bike and not lose to much.

2010 the year of C.E.F (Catastrophic engine failure )in motogp.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alex29 @ Feb 23 2010, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>2010 the year of C.E.F (Catastrophic engine failure )in motogp.
Oh yes, that was my initial reaction to these rules. In practice they will push these engines to the end, literally. A major engine blow up are always impressive to watch, let's just hope that it doesn't create to many injuries.

I find TP70 theory interesting, I just dont know how much control over longlivety they've got. Will it be enough to adjust a rev-limiter and some mappings? If that's all it takes I suspect he is right. Use the first two engine in the first two races and then retire them as practice only engines with lower rev-limit.

Do they actually have two bikes ready for each rider or must the second one stay in pieces with the new rules?

Do you think we will see a team strategically taking a new engine so they can run harder at more rounds? For example (and not said as a means of glorifying Stoner so relax Talpa), Stoner is arguably one of the fastest wet weather rider out there, just look at Sepang 09 when he cleared out nearly 20sec. Would a rear of the grid start in a wet race mean that Stoner couldn't still win the race? Donnington 08 or 09 he passed 10 riders on the first lap in the wet! There is only 17 and he doesn't have to pass himself! So by backing your riders ability to come through the pack and win, a strategic new engine could have a big impact on the level of tune you can run your engines on because you effectively reduce their required mileage by 15%.

If you are a glass half empty type of person you can find lots of reasons for anger at the rules. If you choose to look at it positively then there are a lot of new angles to the season. After all, prototype racing is about the technology and engineering as well as the racing. If you just want racing then watch WSBK or one make racing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pigeon @ Feb 23 2010, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>how does this read..so switching bikes is classed as an engine change ?so they do a separate ride through as well ....no point in switching ride till you fall off
uh..fed up of reading stupid ....


If the extra engine is taken during the race (i.e. by switching bikes during a flag-to-flag race), then the rider will be given a ride through penalty. The ride through penalty rules state that riders may not swap bikes during the ride through, so they can't take advantage of the penalty to swap bikes again.

.... it

i'd rather have puig in charge of motogp than those now
The only time they get a penalty is when they use engine #7,8,9 etc. They can use all 6 engines on the same weekend if they want. Not sure what is so difficult about that to understand.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Feb 23 2010, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Do you think we will see a team strategically taking a new engine so they can run harder at more rounds? For example (and not said as a means of glorifying Stoner so relax Talpa), Stoner is arguably one of the fastest wet weather rider out there, just look at Sepang 09 when he cleared out nearly 20sec. Would a rear of the grid start in a wet race mean that Stoner couldn't still win the race? Donnington 08 or 09 he passed 10 riders on the first lap in the wet! There is only 17 and he doesn't have to pass himself! So by backing your riders ability to come through the pack and win, a strategic new engine could have a big impact on the level of tune you can run your engines on because you effectively reduce their required mileage by 15%.

If you are a glass half empty type of person you can find lots of reasons for anger at the rules. If you choose to look at it positively then there are a lot of new angles to the season. After all, prototype racing is about the technology and engineering as well as the racing. If you just want racing then watch WSBK or one make racing.

Took me some time to get what you meant. Taking the penalty of an extra engine in a rain race could be a strategic way of minimizing the loss but I doubt we will see this. It's hard to plan for such an event as very few races go under steady rain and with those conditions for-casted with any certainty.
They would have to bring the extra engine and make up excuses for not having one of the sealed engines available...
I also think you put too much emphasis on the engine/mileage/tune. They have good engineers but I doubt they can tune an engine to any close range mileage. They need huge safety margins so the engines should be designed to go the double or tripple of the theoretical minimum required.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Feb 22 2010, 06:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You could say that they have 2 engines that have to last 6 races as a pair. I think they will run one engine for practice and qualifying and then keep the fresher engine for the race and just swap the engines between the #1 and #2 bikes as needed.

A hypothesis:

Use 2 engines (detuned) for all practice sessions over 18 races = approx 6300k or 3150k per engine.

Use 4 engines (full power) for all 18 races = approx 2700k or 675k per engine.

With this strategy we would see slow times in practice sessions and then a big jump come race day which would leave everyone guessing. If a manufacture/team could pull this type of strategy off then on race day they could have a significant hp advantage. Also if there was a flag to flag then they could use the practice engine in the wet bike and not lose to much.

Burgess already said how Yamaha plan to do it.

Fresh engines will be used for races, while "high mileage" engines will be used practice (possibly QP).

It is supposed to go something like this:

Round 1: Practice, Qualifying, WUP, Race on engine 1
Round 2: Practice, Qualifying, WUP, on engine 1. Race on engine 2.
Round 3: Practice, Qualifying, WUP, on engine 1. Race on engine 2.

Engine 1 does the long stint, the other engines are conscripted into practice duty after 3 races.

There is no restriction in gasoline during practise which could mean that the tired engine could get a different map to make it more powerful. And restricting the fuel means lean engine conditions so a rich engine could last longer & the practise mule could go quite a way. Sort of not great when you get on the lean engine for racing but starting from the 3rd row means little chance of a podium.

the whole thing is BS

first rider killed because an engine goes bang will get my "it was the luge competitor's own fault he died" special award...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lad @ Feb 23 2010, 09:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>the whole thing is BS

first rider killed because an engine goes bang will get my "it was the luge competitor's own fault he died" special award...

What about the people who died or crashed b/c the engine had to last 1 race? On whom are we going to blame their deaths?

If extending engine life is dangerous than shortening engine life is safer. The safest engine life is clearly 0km.

Perhaps we ought not proliferate the myth that long distance = dangerous. There is probably a statistical correlation between race distance and engine failure, but distance isn't the cause. The cause of failure will always lie at the manufacturers' feet. The manufacturers are responsible for creating something that can travel the required distance. They have the ability to increase capacity and reduce revs whenever they want.

800cc is the max capacity lex

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lad @ Feb 24 2010, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>800cc is the max capacity lex

Who made it that way. Dorna?

They can change the rules whenever they want with a unanimous GPC vote. Raising capacity would be ratified immediately if the MSMA were onboard.