Engine Usage, Any updates?

Dr No · Oct 20, 2015

First of all. Lubrication performance depends surface finish.
No oil will protect against something machined in a 50 year old Bridgeport and run at race duty.
And wear = lack of lube.
Pretty simple.

I've mentioned inspection ports and how sealed doesn't mean you can't get in there to inspect on several occasions. But what are they looking for?

But snark aside, genuinely interested in what has been done since engine quantity was a concern. Are all the cam buckets DLCd? Are wear limits that well known and understood? 22, you mentioned dyno tests, but that will just tell you (mainly) the degree of power drop-off not necessarily the cause of it.

Finally, most race engineers couldn't give a .... how it translates into real world. Otherwise we'd have the Supersport class running on a single oil change and set of plugs per season

#22 · Oct 20, 2015

Dr No said:
Thanks 22 and Prop.
I did think MMC etc were banned, but didn't have the specifics on hand.
Agree with you both.
Until we see wear/lube/metallurgy issues with road engines, I don't see a super-surface finished engine being an economically or engineeringly (good word, eh) response.
To reiterate Prop's point
Road vehicles will increasingly be about exhaust emissions (Hi Winterkorn). Super smooth finishes will be wayyy behind exhaust treatments to address this. Have you seen the processes to get a super nice finish on a surface? kerchingg! huge expensive from Capital expenditure and machining time

Oh yes, emissions emissions emissions. In fact if the 'environmentalists' let car manufacturers make engines without all these restrictive emission control systems, they would actually be a lot more efficient. It's like the recent VW saga shows: Car manufacturers make cars to meet the certain 'lab' criteria which bear no relevance to the conditions they actually see on the road.

"Near enough" is how machining works for mass production.

propagandhi said:
Good example doc. I really miss the times when the first thing you did to your bike was polish whatever you can. On the inside

I still do, the trumpet of my kart engine still gets polished like a mirror!

Kropotkin said:
What I have been saying for about the past five years. Professional sports are soap operas for men. Jumkie whines and ....... about the whole thing being rigged, but it really is just motorized entertainment, unscripted drama.

I asked three different manufacturers if they could quantify the R&D benefits they got from racing. They went "harumph harumph harumph proprietary information harumph harumph".

As for reliability, I believe they are not just doing it through super finishes on al parts. They looking at design and materials, improved lubrication, that sort of thing. At least, that's what the engineers tell me, and they were really quite enthusiastic about it. They could be lying, of course. As you are obviously a ....... genius, perhaps you can point out who I can tell the difference? What is true is that servicing intervals in modern sportsbikes are really quite remarkable.

As for inspection, the difference between a MotoGP engine and a WSBK engine is that if you know the engine is going to be sealed, you design it with inspection access in mind. Cam covers are sealed? Well, what we really need is a nice broad oil pathway to help lubricate the cams. Oh, and an endoscope fits up there? Goodness, who would have thought it?

Good post. of course it's not just through imporved maching. It's a combination of things such as machining, materials, lubrication et al. Also, you'd be amazed at how even cutting the revs by a few percent adds orders of magnitude of life to components, especially items such as conrods. However,, Krop is right. Just as roadcar manufacturers build engines to meet the emissions criteria, MotoGP teams build engines that they can strip as much as possible without breaking seals, and shove borescopes the size of Willski's turds up. Why do that with a road bike or WSBK when you don't have those requirements? This is my issue with the $188,000 RCV 'replica'..there's no way for the requirements on the road that it is anywhere near the GP bike except for the name and it has 2 wheels. But that's a whole other beef.

So, in summary. What the manufacturers get from it is a chest puffing, that's all.

JPSLotus · Oct 20, 2015

Kropotkin said:
What I have been saying for about the past five years. Professional sports are soap operas for men. Jumkie whines and ....... about the whole thing being rigged, but it really is just motorized entertainment, unscripted drama.

I asked three different manufacturers if they could quantify the R&D benefits they got from racing. They went "harumph harumph harumph proprietary information harumph harumph".

As for reliability, I believe they are not just doing it through super finishes on al parts. They looking at design and materials, improved lubrication, that sort of thing. At least, that's what the engineers tell me, and they were really quite enthusiastic about it. They could be lying, of course. As you are obviously a ....... genius, perhaps you can point out who I can tell the difference? What is true is that servicing intervals in modern sportsbikes are really quite remarkable.

As for inspection, the difference between a MotoGP engine and a WSBK engine is that if you know the engine is going to be sealed, you design it with inspection access in mind. Cam covers are sealed? Well, what we really need is a nice broad oil pathway to help lubricate the cams. Oh, and an endoscope fits up there? Goodness, who would have thought it?

The truth about motor racing at all levels is that it is a colossal waste of money.

The R&D benefits are minimal more so now than they ever were because of the technical regulations forcing manufacturers into the same bottlenecks for the most part so as to maintain parity among the engines in a given series.

However, the manufacturers can't call it what it really is - a .... measuring contest between each other to see who can beat the other. If they really were honest about it, they'd not have motorsport programs anymore since the shareholders would whine to no end about it being a waste of money.

Dr No · Oct 20, 2015

22, your point re: Emissions.
While it's true that the conditions for the emissions tests are "artificial", how else are you going to get a repeatable result? You'll be waiting a while for a 23degC day with 50%RH humidity.
And like safety, without some regulation, do you think the OEMs would spend money on reducing NOx? I sincerely doubt it.
As for VW, they weren't a little bit out in their NOX numbers, they were 40 times the limit. So while every other diesel maker (we assume) busted their arses to meet requirements (as unrepresentative those numbers might be), VW in their ego driven quest to be number 1, decided to skip all that, chuck some cheat software in, and save the development costs and $400 per urea system per car. More heads need to roll over there

#22 · Oct 20, 2015

Dr No said:
22, your point re: Emissions.
While it's true that the conditions for the emissions tests are "artificial", how else are you going to get a repeatable result? You'll be waiting a while for a 23degC day with 50%RH humidity.
And like safety, without some regulation, do you think the OEMs would spend money on reducing NOx? I sincerely doubt it.
As for VW, they weren't a little bit out in their NOX numbers, they were 40 times the limit. So while every other diesel maker (we assume) busted their arses to meet requirements (as unrepresentative those numbers might be), VW in their ego driven quest to be number 1, decided to skip all that, chuck some cheat software in, and save the development costs and $400 per urea system per car. More heads need to roll over there

Oh no, I agree...you have to have some form of repeatable test conditions. Hell we do it where I work but my point was more that some of the emissions targets, regulations, whatever you want to call it, are completely unrealistic/unrepresentative and have only been pushed into place by tree huggers who ironically step into their gas guzzlers to go get the paper each morning.

I agree that legislation IS needed and I also agree that VW were taking the piss with their defeat devices while simultaneously claiming their engines were so clean they didn't need urea or adblue systems. However, on the flipside is do you think any car manufacturer with a model that had a bad safety record or poor emissions/fuel efficiency would last long in the current competitive marketplace? Technology and progress is driven by customer demand, not PURELY legislation.

VW have publicly stated that 'only a few engineers' were involved in this. Personally that's BS, something as well thought out and severe to blatantly cheat federal regulations stems from a systemic culture within VAG that most, if not all the top brass knew about, if not actively approved of.

Dr No · Oct 20, 2015

I agree that legislation doesn't and shouldn't be the driver of technology, as an example of a non-legislative change take safety, only a few manufacturers really did anything seriously about it.
Then along came NCAP. Which introduced real customer demand plus competitiveness between manufacturers. You only have to watch the online NCAP crash tests of early 2000s cars to see how far structures have come. It was kinda (very kinda) a big deal when the Laguna hit 5 star. Now almost every one has it - price of entry. So as a benefit, it was there. Unfortunately, it is now getting into the realms of over-reach. But would NOX be treated in the ae way as crash trauma? Doubt it would sell, hence legislation

As for VW and the rogue engineers. 100% agree that it's a load of bollox. It would be way up the tree. I know of big knobs (above Eng Exec Dirs) over there getting involved in pissy leather grain approvals....a scheme that saves billions....they'd be driving the ....... thing.

Jumkie · Oct 20, 2015

Kropotkin said:
What I have been saying for about the past five years. Professional sports are soap operas for men. Jumkie whines and ....... about the whole thing being rigged, but it really is just motorized entertainment, unscripted drama.

That's twice. Ya tryin to get lil'o me's attention? 3rd time's the charm.

Dear forum self-appointment nannyK, please don't go crying when the .... gets hot. ... for tat and all that noise.

If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.

Dr No · Oct 21, 2015

Did I miss the answer to the original question?
#5 of five implies they are getting through them, but are they withdrawn or shelved?

#22 · Oct 21, 2015

They don't get withdrawn unless they fail. Marquez had a failed unit in Austin practice, leaving him with 4 motors.

Being on #5 (of 5) just means they are out of 'fresh' motors, theough they get rotated to ensureone doesnt get excessive mileage on it.

Dr No · Oct 21, 2015

Since we're being engineery nerds, I will draw you to the concept that Marquez' motorbicycle is indeed proambulated by an Engine, not a Motor.
For shame, Sir, for shame.

(maybe that'll bring Lex out of the woodwork, eh?)

#22 · Oct 21, 2015

Ok, you got me..ENGINE.

Isn't it fun being nerdy?

Search

Search

Engine Usage, Any updates?

Dr No

#22

JPSLotus

Dr No

#22

Dr No

Jumkie

Dr No

#22

Dr No

#22

Similar threads

Recent Discussions