How to save MotoGP

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 13 2009, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A top speed limit is ....... gay and all those who like that idea are ....... gay and should be taken out back and beaten with a ....... motorcycle chain...

You want it safer... bring back massive horse power of the 990..hell kick it up to 1200cc...It's not top speed that is the issue..its corner and entry speed... .......

Curve, what do you think 800cc was all about?

The power a bike puts down after the apex is governed by the tires and the TC. The move to 800cc and 21 liters of fuel was entirely about reducing 990 top speeds which had a tendency of growing about 2-3% every season.

I don't like a top speed limit either, but you have to come to grips with the fact that our lust for raw power and speed has outpaced our ability to protect our bodies or even our ability to build a properly designed racing circuit.

If given the choice between a top speed limit or further displacement cuts, I will take the top speed limit every time.

The bikes go 215mph they have for several seasons now. The goal was to cut 10-15mph of the top until circuits and equipment can adjust. They should just do it already and quit ruining the sport with rules that don't work.

BTW I said Kropotkin was an imbecile for increasing bike weight; however, his remarks were made assuming that horsepower has been made sufficiently cheap. The idea is much more palatable given that hp is cheap; however, I don't understand why he suggests increasing weight.

Right now tire performance is more than what the bikes can handle. Power is so great that bikes wheelie all over the track. Furthermore, the brakes are so good and the tires so sticky that riders can easy flip the bike over the front wheel under braking (as seen in Catalunya 2006).

During acceleration and braking (a majority of the race) having a mobile ballast would actually be beneficial to lap times. The only mobile ballast is the racer himself. Without fuel and displacement regulations, it should prove beneficial for riders to be larger than they are now. Keeping bike weight down while allowing displacement and fuel to be significantly higher should also help solve the bulimic midget problem that also plague the sport.

what you fail to understand is that you don't dive into a corner as fast or as hard on the 990 as you do with the 800...you points are crap...but i still love you.

Whats your excuse for WSBK?...they're getting to the 990 realm of horse power and speeds...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 13 2009, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>what you fail to understand is that you don't dive into a corner as fast or as hard on the 990 as you do with the 800...you points are crap...but i still love you.

Why don't you understand that they can't brake as deep and apex late anymore because there isn't enough fuel or a big enough power band to support that type of riding.

Diving inside of someone who rides cornerspeed is extremely easy, but if you don't have low end power to shoot out of a late apex, you'll lose the position. In the 800s the problem is so severe a rider often loses multiple positions when taking a late apex.

Love you to, honey.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 13 2009, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Curve, what do you think 800cc was all about?

The power a bike puts down after the apex is governed by the tires and the TC. The move to 800cc and 21 liters of fuel was entirely about reducing 990 top speeds which had a tendency of growing about 2-3% every season.
Repeating a lie still doesn't make it true. It was about taking speed down on evey straight. Of course they failed on all points but that's a different matter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Right now tire performance is more than what the bikes can handle. Power is so great that bikes wheelie all over the track. Furthermore, the brakes are so good and the tires so sticky that riders can easy flip the bike over the front wheel under braking (as seen in Catalunya 2006).
Just bad examples or little knowledge. You so the same thing with road tires and it have been so for quite som time. At least about 10 years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>During acceleration and braking (a majority of the race) having a mobile ballast would actually be beneficial to lap times. The only mobile ballast is the racer himself. Without fuel and displacement regulations, it should prove beneficial for riders to be larger than they are now. Keeping bike weight down while allowing displacement and fuel to be significantly higher should also help solve the bulimic midget problem that also plague the sport.

Good point.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 13 2009, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Whats your excuse for WSBK?...they're getting to the 990 realm of horse power and speeds...

It simply reinforces the fact that there is an optimal amount of power a bike can affectively use.

WSBK bikes have slightly larger capacity than the 990s and more fuel. Since WSBK bikes are heavier, optimal power is actually higher than it was for a 990cc MotoGP bike.

MotoGP bikes were limiting power during the 24 liter days. It's a big part of the reason the bikes didn't slow down one bit when they dropped fuel to 22 liters in 2005.

There is only so much power a bike can use. Make it cheap by capping speeds. At 90% of the tracks it won't even come into play.

Do you know which tracks the 990s used to make 200mph?

There were only 5.

Qatar
Shanghai
Mugello
Catalunya
Estoril

They probably would have hit 200mph on race day at PI in 2006, but it rained.

You wanna know the coolest thing about a top speed limit?

IT'S ADJUSTABLE.

That means they wouldn't have to kick tracks off of the calendar for having mildly dangerous construction. They could simply clip 5mph off of the top and let em race.

It would open motogp up to more venues!

Can you think of any you would like to see them run?

I can.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 13 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Repeating a lie still doesn't make it true.

Are you talking about the lie that is supported by both logic and empirical evidence?

You're going to need some good statistics if you want anyone to believe that maximum horsepower and cornering speed have a strong correlation; especially since the 800cc era only started 2 years ago.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ROCKGOD01 @ Jan 13 2009, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The series is about to die and they still don't realize the series is a prototype series that requires something new and innovative on a daily basis. It would seem that no one gives a .... and that we will all be looking at SBK for our racing fix. Oh by the way roger are you Muslim, Nazi or something with the burning israeli flag?
me, im pro life and anti bullying. bear in mind the death ratio at the moment is 900 to 3, rather disproportionate wouldn't you say. But we cant talk about politics on the forum now by all account 's so we better stay on topic as not to arouse the forum superpower.

i say we take the Israeli approach to saving motogp. we have a couple of Apache gunships and some fighter jets fly over to there head office and blast .... out of dorna, the hospital Clinica Mobile may get hit to if ezy is found to be hiding there

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Jan 13 2009, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>me, im pro life and anti bullying. bear in mind the death ratio at the moment is 900 to 3, rather disproportionate wouldn't you say. But we cant talk about politics on the forum now by all account 's so we better stay on topic as not to arouse the forum superpower.

i say we take the Israeli approach to saving motogp. we have a couple of Apache gunships and some fighter jets fly over to there head office and blast .... out of dorna, the hospital Clinica Mobile may get hit to if ezy is found to be hiding there
agreed except we need to take ezy alive and make sure we get him to reinstate the 990's without the crazy level of TC.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 13 2009, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why don't you understand that they can't brake as deep and apex late anymore because there isn't enough fuel or a big enough power band to support that type of riding.

Diving inside of someone who rides cornerspeed is extremely easy, but if you don't have low end power to shoot out of a late apex, you'll lose the position. In the 800s the problem is so severe a rider often loses multiple positions when taking a late apex.

Love you to, honey.

All i'm saying is when the power is over the top it gets respected more... less danger.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 13 2009, 09:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>All i'm saying is when the power is over the top it gets respected more... less danger.
+1. anyone remember the two stroke 500's? THere is respect there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 13 2009, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>All i'm saying is when the power is over the top it gets respected more... less danger.

I agree. That's why I'm arguing that displacement and fuel limitations must be banned.

I have immense respect for 400hp bikes. Even if they are limited to 215mph.

Don't you?

Here's an idea, why not increase the drag on the bikes? We've heard about how bikes like the Honda are pretty small for riders of Hayden's size (I woulldn't know, not having ridden one ). If you mandated an increase in fairing frontal area you would reduce the top speed for the same power, you may even make the bikes better for taller 'normal' sized people.

Doing this, as we as maybe increasing the weight, could have been cheaper than going to 800cc. Although I appreciate that more wind tunnel work may have been used, there is only so much you can do to reduce the Cd for a vehicle that by it's nature has exposed wheels and lots of unfavourable shapes.

You guys forget that nothing can change until Pedro wins his title.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 12 2009, 12:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Diminishing marginal returns is an extremely simple concept. In motorcycle racing more power isn't always better because you can't run more wing. Furthermore, motorcycles wheelie pretty easily. Additional power won't make much difference until the bikes are north of 150mph, when wheelie control stops cutting power (I'm guessing it's somewhere in that speed range). If you have a top speed limit it won't really matter.



Bike power has gone down since the 990s, yet the bikes are faster through the turns. Obviously, there is no correlation between maximum power and cornering speed. So eliminating displacement rules wouldn't make bikes faster in the corners.





It's going to cost hundreds of millions for Honda to figure out how to fit their bike with a turbo and an intercooler. Really?!

Everyone will copy one another? Yes I remember in 2007 when Casey won. All the manufacturers showed up the following season with 90 degree desmo V-4s. Then I remember in 2008 when Valentino won and everyone switched to pneumatic valved I-4s. Yes, that was bad.

Seriously, Babel.





1. I can promise you a prototype pneumatic valve 800cc MotoGP engine costs more than a WRC engine.

2. Babel please listen to yourself. You say that companies spend because there is money to be spent, but you think the sport can be fixed by cutting costs. Cutting costs is a NECESSITY not a solution. If Honda have 25 million to spend and you reduce the cost of all bike components they will simply spend the savings on the engine.

The engine is THE SINGLE MOST EXPENSIVE component to produce, and in the 800cc era it is the most important part of the bike.

Cutting costs is useless without ensuring that the savings won't lead to further separation amongst the bikes.

Unlimited fuel and displacement both ensure that additional spending has little benefit outside of developing marketable technologies. If you have unlimited fuel you don't need to spend millions developing fuel saving measures like TC or pneumatic valves. Unlimited displacement means you don't have to spend millions developing a perfectly balanced engine and you don't have to spend millions cutting .01 out of your drag coefficient.

As long as top speed is unlimited and displacement and fuel are heavily limited, there will always be enormous benefit to developing more power. Power comes from THE MOST EXPENSIVE component on the bike. Continuation of the current rules package will only make matters worse, especially if they continue to cut the cost of everything else.

Cutting the cost of everything else only helps satellite teams. It does nothing for the major manufacturers.

Good post

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (browney @ Jan 13 2009, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Here's an idea, why not increase the drag on the bikes? We've heard about how bikes like the Honda are pretty small for riders of Hayden's size (I woulldn't know, not having ridden one ). If you mandated an increase in fairing frontal area you would reduce the top speed for the same power, you may even make the bikes better for taller 'normal' sized people.

Doing this, as we as maybe increasing the weight, could have been cheaper than going to 800cc. Although I appreciate that more wind tunnel work may have been used, there is only so much you can do to reduce the Cd for a vehicle that by it's nature has exposed wheels and lots of unfavourable shapes.

I wonder if the bikes could even make it to the finish line with only 21 liters of fuel onboard. I think it's also too hard to police.

Drag coefficient needs to be less important, but I'd kind of like to think that GP can still prototype drag. Aerodynamics is still one of the last things in GP that is directly related to the production market.

If you find a slippery shape, it could be featured in next year's production lineup. Assuming it isn't too hideous of course.

I doubt you can do much to change the Cd of a motorcycle with a fairing that fits the rules, hence increasing the frontal are will just proportionally increase the drag. This means we would see lower maximum top speed for a given tractive force, which I beleive was the objective of the 800cc change.

The Cd can't really be helped that much more when you have exposed spinning wheels and a rider . I figured that is why the 'humps' on that used to be seen ion the back of bikes have disapeared, there is no way that flow is still attaced after passing over the screen, helmet and rider.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (browney @ Jan 13 2009, 06:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I doubt you can do much to change the Cd of a motorcycle with a fairing that fits the rules, hence increasing the frontal are will just proportionally increase the drag. This means we would see lower maximum top speed for a given tractive force, which I beleive was the objective of the 800cc change.

The Cd can't really be helped that much more when you have exposed spinning wheels and a rider . I figured that is why the 'humps' on that used to be seen ion the back of bikes have disapeared, there is no way that flow is still attaced after passing over the screen, helmet and rider.

Their is plenty of room for improvement in MotoGP aero. The rules about fairings are relatively lax b/c the FIM/DORNA know that each rider often needs his own aero package. Furthermore, have you noticed how stubby bike fairings are getting?

Exhibit A would be Honda's new CBR's, or the 2007 RC212V's tail section. Now that tire tech is good and cornerspeeds are high, manufacturers are actually looking for ways to reduce aerodynamic drag by reducing a bikes profile from the top or more appropriately from the angle of maximum lean.

Many GP teams have changed fairing packages since the beginning of the 800 era. The most drastic of which, imo, was Suzuki's original 2008 aero package. Loris didn't like it so they ended up trashing it, but the profile of the bike was significantly different than the 2007 package.

I still think drag is too hard to police. Even if you used something simple like total frontal area teams would simply make parts of the fairing out of extremely flexible material so they would tuck back at high speed. There would be more rules written to police the original rule.

And we still haven't even addressed the complications with engine config. Would anyone even bother to run a V-4 if it didn't give them an aerodynamic advantage? I couldn't tell you, but messing with aerodynamics would probably have an impact on a manufacturers engine of choice since it has a big impact on total frontal area.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 13 2009, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I agree. That's why I'm arguing that displacement and fuel limitations must be banned.

I have immense respect for 400hp bikes. Even if they are limited to 215mph.

Don't you?

dude the last 990s were pushing 220-240 HP... you'd never see a 400HP GP bike that would last a full race..... a speed limit is not needed...they have speed limits..the length of the straights

I also DO NOT like is the fact that "Premiere" championship bikes will only be 200cc bigger than what MotoGP2 will be...gay.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 14 2009, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>dude the last 990s were pushing 220-240 HP... you'd never see a 400HP GP bike that would last a full race..... a speed limit is not needed...they have speed limits..the length of the straights

I also DO NOT like is the fact that "Premiere" championship bikes will only be 200cc bigger than what MotoGP2 will be...gay.
When you go back and watch some of the vids for the old 500's there is a sence of all hell breaking loose, a sence that disaster is impending. These bikes look so smooth and ridable that anyone could be on it that has ridden a bike and could run a decent lap time. .... look at Michael Schumacher. It should go back to the scary as hell bike and the safety factory will rear it's head in the form of the right wrist.