Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 23 2008, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>LINK
I thought there were some interesting comments about the use of TC. As well as comparison of the 800s to a “super 250”. And the proposal that the fuel limit has been the most challenging aspect of the changes.
Your thoughts.
Same fuel limit, no TC
or
23(or 25) ltr fuel, with TC
...
That'll worth to wait.
Let's see the rookies then.
I thought there were some interesting comments about the use of TC. As well as comparison of the 800s to a “super 250”. And the proposal that the fuel limit has been the most challenging aspect of the changes.
Your thoughts.
Same fuel limit, no TC
or
23(or 25) ltr fuel, with TC
...
That'll worth to wait.
Let's see the rookies then.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 23 2008, 07:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>LINK
I thought there were some interesting comments about the use of TC. As well as comparison of the 800s to a “super 250”. And the proposal that the fuel limit has been the most challenging aspect of the changes.
Your thoughts.
Quite a few people have now said that greater power under race conditions with the fuel restrictions was ducati's big advantage last year; it seems like a reasonable theory to me. It also seems plausible that this still applied at qatar this year. It will be interesting to see what happens at the upcoming power circuits, although if the gp08 continues to handle as badly as at estoril and jerez power may not be much help.
I thought there were some interesting comments about the use of TC. As well as comparison of the 800s to a “super 250”. And the proposal that the fuel limit has been the most challenging aspect of the changes.
Your thoughts.
Quite a few people have now said that greater power under race conditions with the fuel restrictions was ducati's big advantage last year; it seems like a reasonable theory to me. It also seems plausible that this still applied at qatar this year. It will be interesting to see what happens at the upcoming power circuits, although if the gp08 continues to handle as badly as at estoril and jerez power may not be much help.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 23 2008, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>LINK
I thought there were some interesting comments about the use of TC. As well as comparison of the 800s to a “super 250”. And the proposal that the fuel limit has been the most challenging aspect of the changes.
Your thoughts.
I bet this new kids except for JT can't ride those 990 V5 GP of the Rossi era..this 800 is much less torque and power together with TC which able to save tire. Plus with much reduced weight n fuel, 800cc is more of 250 bike or 600 ccsupersports
I say bring back the V5 990 tire eater and power sliding bike and we will sure know who can ride. As I quote from superbike soup, " anybody can ride the supersports bike. We need the 1000cc bike"
I thought there were some interesting comments about the use of TC. As well as comparison of the 800s to a “super 250”. And the proposal that the fuel limit has been the most challenging aspect of the changes.
Your thoughts.
I bet this new kids except for JT can't ride those 990 V5 GP of the Rossi era..this 800 is much less torque and power together with TC which able to save tire. Plus with much reduced weight n fuel, 800cc is more of 250 bike or 600 ccsupersports
I say bring back the V5 990 tire eater and power sliding bike and we will sure know who can ride. As I quote from superbike soup, " anybody can ride the supersports bike. We need the 1000cc bike"
Being fortunate enough to have Julian on our TV coverage these things have all been suggested in his commentary. But it was a good article.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#46 @ Apr 23 2008, 06:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Same fuel limit, no TC
or
23(or 25) ltr fuel, with TC
...
That'll worth to wait.
Let's see the rookies then.
I'll say they'll be lapping the old guys who have been used to TC and fuel limitted 1000's for years!!
Given that the 250 guys are least used to TC .........
Wow you'd need to change the whole field ....... bring in all new guys who can ride without TC .
The 1000's must have been so detuned in comparison to the state of tune or development of the 800's if they still completed the race distance with a bike 20% bigger but only an extra <5% fuel. ......... I don't know if you guys know about the relationship between energy in and energy out, but given that it seems that fuel consumption is the biggest deal here, the 1000's must have been pretty detuned when one thinks about it. In the end out of all those figures ( 1000cc, 1 L, 21 L, 20%, 5% ) I'd say the 5% is the most vaild change due to the other figures...... given that they are running closer to the limit of fuel consumption on the 800's.
I'm kinda surprised they took so long to go 800's really
I can see why they changed though ..... that extra 200cc was superfluous ..... it was just a waste of money and time.
Good article seems all pretty straight forward.
or
23(or 25) ltr fuel, with TC
...
That'll worth to wait.
Let's see the rookies then.
I'll say they'll be lapping the old guys who have been used to TC and fuel limitted 1000's for years!!
Given that the 250 guys are least used to TC .........
Wow you'd need to change the whole field ....... bring in all new guys who can ride without TC .
The 1000's must have been so detuned in comparison to the state of tune or development of the 800's if they still completed the race distance with a bike 20% bigger but only an extra <5% fuel. ......... I don't know if you guys know about the relationship between energy in and energy out, but given that it seems that fuel consumption is the biggest deal here, the 1000's must have been pretty detuned when one thinks about it. In the end out of all those figures ( 1000cc, 1 L, 21 L, 20%, 5% ) I'd say the 5% is the most vaild change due to the other figures...... given that they are running closer to the limit of fuel consumption on the 800's.
I'm kinda surprised they took so long to go 800's really
Good article seems all pretty straight forward.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 23 2008, 12:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The 1000's must have been so detuned in comparison to the state of tune or development of the 800's if they still completed the race distance with a bike 20% bigger but only an extra <5% fuel.
Interesting point. I'm not an engine expert but perhaps you (or someone else) might know if a 1% inrease in capacity would necessarily require a 1% increase in fuel to achieve the same level of tuning?
Interesting point. I'm not an engine expert but perhaps you (or someone else) might know if a 1% inrease in capacity would necessarily require a 1% increase in fuel to achieve the same level of tuning?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 23 2008, 03:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The 1000's must have been so detuned in comparison to the state of tune or development of the 800's if they still completed the race distance with a bike 20% bigger but only an extra <5% fuel.
800 to 990 = 23.75% bigger.
990 to 800 = 19.89% smaller.
800 to 990 = 23.75% bigger.
990 to 800 = 19.89% smaller.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 23 2008, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interesting point. I'm not an engine expert but perhaps you (or someone else) might know if a 1% inrease in capacity would necessarily require a 1% increase in fuel to achieve the same level of tuning?
The fuel is the energy ..... the same type of fuel gives a set energy per volume.
Some calorific values ....
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_11/3_11_4.html
The air fuel mix ratio is identical .... but dependent on air density and temperature ... and to some extent ..... replacememnt of oxygen etc. by pollutants ( minimal though ).
So in reality its all down to the engine designers to see what they can do to minimise the energy losses and convert as much of the energy in the fuel into work ... power.
I think generally, if friction losses are disregarded, the larger an engine the more loss is incurred. Eg. by pushing more inertial forces ..... but in reality friction is also an opposing force that can must be minimised as well. The forces opposing the free rotation of a crank after the fuel ignites are what all the debate about spring or pneumatic valves v,s Desmodromic valves v's sliding v's spinning cylinder v's spherical ... is all about.
but in the end it comes down to:
22 litres of fuel has about 752.4 MJ
21 ................................ 718.2 MJ
energy from fuel taken from: http://svc184.wic010v.server-web.com/transport/technical.asp
Thats available energy ...... to make power ...... and as we all know we can't make up energy ( power ) as energy can neither be created nor destroyed ..... so again its all in how well they make the engines.
But basically were the 990's tuned to the level of the 800's ..... they would have run out of fuel quite a few laps from the finish.
So really all the "bring back the 990's!" ... is not as dramatic a change as one thinks. Matter of fact I'd go as far as to say the 800's could feel a "wilder" ride than the 990's were. especially if the weight reqiurements where lessened.
The fuel is the energy ..... the same type of fuel gives a set energy per volume.
Some calorific values ....
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_11/3_11_4.html
The air fuel mix ratio is identical .... but dependent on air density and temperature ... and to some extent ..... replacememnt of oxygen etc. by pollutants ( minimal though ).
So in reality its all down to the engine designers to see what they can do to minimise the energy losses and convert as much of the energy in the fuel into work ... power.
I think generally, if friction losses are disregarded, the larger an engine the more loss is incurred. Eg. by pushing more inertial forces ..... but in reality friction is also an opposing force that can must be minimised as well. The forces opposing the free rotation of a crank after the fuel ignites are what all the debate about spring or pneumatic valves v,s Desmodromic valves v's sliding v's spinning cylinder v's spherical ... is all about.
but in the end it comes down to:
22 litres of fuel has about 752.4 MJ
21 ................................ 718.2 MJ
energy from fuel taken from: http://svc184.wic010v.server-web.com/transport/technical.asp
Thats available energy ...... to make power ...... and as we all know we can't make up energy ( power ) as energy can neither be created nor destroyed ..... so again its all in how well they make the engines.
But basically were the 990's tuned to the level of the 800's ..... they would have run out of fuel quite a few laps from the finish.
So really all the "bring back the 990's!" ... is not as dramatic a change as one thinks. Matter of fact I'd go as far as to say the 800's could feel a "wilder" ride than the 990's were. especially if the weight reqiurements where lessened.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L8Braker @ Apr 23 2008, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>When you have to conserve fuel during a race, I think that sucks! Give them enough fcking fuel to go full out the entire race, it racing for fcks sake!
Well they limit the amount of air they are allowed in the combustion process ... so whats wrong with a limit on the fuel?
Well they limit the amount of air they are allowed in the combustion process ... so whats wrong with a limit on the fuel?
Joined Sep 2007
2K Posts | 60+
here
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 23 2008, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well they limit the amount of air they are allowed in the combustion process ... so whats wrong with a limit on the fuel?
Without an RPM limit the amount of air is not completely limited, and you said no to an rpm limit when that was discussed.
You were also very vocal when the advanced electronics on the bikes were discussed that this is prototype racing and the electronics shouldn't be limited.
So why is a limit on the fuel OK in your opinion?
Getting rid of the fuel limit would automatically remove quite a lot of the advanced electronics, so maybe that's why you're all for that particular limit.
Without an RPM limit the amount of air is not completely limited, and you said no to an rpm limit when that was discussed.
You were also very vocal when the advanced electronics on the bikes were discussed that this is prototype racing and the electronics shouldn't be limited.
So why is a limit on the fuel OK in your opinion?
Getting rid of the fuel limit would automatically remove quite a lot of the advanced electronics, so maybe that's why you're all for that particular limit.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L8Braker @ Apr 23 2008, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This is the top rung in motorcycle racing, no production bikes, a run what ya brung series, why limit anything?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L8Braker @ Apr 23 2008, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This is the top rung in motorcycle racing, no production bikes, a run what ya brung series, why limit anything?
Because I'm getting fat!
When Honda wins something all the employees get cake or ice cream on monday.
Ever since Indy went to all Honda engines, it's been a lot of cake and ice cream.
If you run what you brung what keeps someone from bringing some rediculous money in? Sure Ducati, Yamaha, Suzuki have money but Honda has even more. Eventually the others will just give up when they cant compete and how fun would it be with all Honda Bikes in the field? It's expensive enough now but it would be ridiculous without any rules.
Why is it we all want the world to be perfect? It isn't!
Because I'm getting fat!
When Honda wins something all the employees get cake or ice cream on monday.
Ever since Indy went to all Honda engines, it's been a lot of cake and ice cream.
If you run what you brung what keeps someone from bringing some rediculous money in? Sure Ducati, Yamaha, Suzuki have money but Honda has even more. Eventually the others will just give up when they cant compete and how fun would it be with all Honda Bikes in the field? It's expensive enough now but it would be ridiculous without any rules.
Why is it we all want the world to be perfect? It isn't!
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 24 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Without an RPM limit the amount of air is not completely limited, and you said no to an rpm limit when that was discussed.
I was kinda refering to the fact that they have capacity limits ..... its a limit on the swept volume .... of air
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 24 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You were also very vocal when the advanced electronics on the bikes were discussed that this is prototype racing and the electronics shouldn't be limited.
So why is a limit on the fuel OK in your opinion?
Getting rid of the fuel limit would automatically remove quite a lot of the advanced electronics, so maybe that's why you're all for that particular limit.
Well in the "real world" fuel is getting scarcer and electronics more prevalent and developing ..... I think motogp should reflect that ..... simply because if they don't have a racing formula out there that does push the designers we may never see new and usefull developments. We would all have Honda 50 dreams and that would be that. But even those benefit from developments made in motogp racing ...... so I guess my "thing" is to keep motogp as a development and design formula.
I don't agree that getting rid of fuel limit would lessen the amount of electronics used .... on the contrary it would be more ....... just look at that Ryder article and read the bit that so many seem to want to deny ..... 990's used TC heavily ...... 800's its not as critical ...... read that and try to understand it...... its stands to reason ...... no anomallies there ...... no ........ .....
I was kinda refering to the fact that they have capacity limits ..... its a limit on the swept volume .... of air
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 24 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You were also very vocal when the advanced electronics on the bikes were discussed that this is prototype racing and the electronics shouldn't be limited.
So why is a limit on the fuel OK in your opinion?
Getting rid of the fuel limit would automatically remove quite a lot of the advanced electronics, so maybe that's why you're all for that particular limit.
Well in the "real world" fuel is getting scarcer and electronics more prevalent and developing ..... I think motogp should reflect that ..... simply because if they don't have a racing formula out there that does push the designers we may never see new and usefull developments. We would all have Honda 50 dreams and that would be that. But even those benefit from developments made in motogp racing ...... so I guess my "thing" is to keep motogp as a development and design formula.
I don't agree that getting rid of fuel limit would lessen the amount of electronics used .... on the contrary it would be more ....... just look at that Ryder article and read the bit that so many seem to want to deny ..... 990's used TC heavily ...... 800's its not as critical ...... read that and try to understand it...... its stands to reason ...... no anomallies there ...... no ........ .....
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L8Braker @ Apr 24 2008, 02:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This is the top rung in motorcycle racing, no production bikes, a run what ya brung series, why limit anything?
It just seems to me that whoever has the best computer program can win or podium.
Well in a way it would be good ..... it'd simply be what we allready have .... only on steroids ...... but I agree as someone has already said ...... it would come down to just who has the money ...... and after everyone else dissappeared from the series the Honda designers would slacken off and development dissappear and we would just have an identical machine series that just tests the riders .... as it is now ..... its a mob making a machine they think is good, finding the right rider, and attempting to show your product/design/team/rider is the best.
Motogp is somewhat self perpetuating by the fact that they do have reasonable design criteria limits. It means many can step in and have a go ..... and indeed as history has shown many have done that and many have come to prominence via fame/cred. gained on the track ....... what other series do you know that gets the manufacturers more cred. than motogp?
What "run what you brung" series are out there? ..... these formulas are usually only for feats such as a single one off challenge like say Icelandic allterrain get togethers or "oddball" hillclimb events .... or canonball runs etc. etc. they all have a slight sense of "mirth" about them ...... that ain't what motogp is about.
If you are pissed at what motogp has become .... get your self a rider you can follow .... and enjoy what we have ....... it seems a common "call" these days to cry "broken" ...... one only needs to look at for whom it seems broken to get a true sense of what these calls really mean.
It just seems to me that whoever has the best computer program can win or podium.
Well in a way it would be good ..... it'd simply be what we allready have .... only on steroids ...... but I agree as someone has already said ...... it would come down to just who has the money ...... and after everyone else dissappeared from the series the Honda designers would slacken off and development dissappear and we would just have an identical machine series that just tests the riders .... as it is now ..... its a mob making a machine they think is good, finding the right rider, and attempting to show your product/design/team/rider is the best.
Motogp is somewhat self perpetuating by the fact that they do have reasonable design criteria limits. It means many can step in and have a go ..... and indeed as history has shown many have done that and many have come to prominence via fame/cred. gained on the track ....... what other series do you know that gets the manufacturers more cred. than motogp?
What "run what you brung" series are out there? ..... these formulas are usually only for feats such as a single one off challenge like say Icelandic allterrain get togethers or "oddball" hillclimb events .... or canonball runs etc. etc. they all have a slight sense of "mirth" about them ...... that ain't what motogp is about.
If you are pissed at what motogp has become .... get your self a rider you can follow .... and enjoy what we have ....... it seems a common "call" these days to cry "broken" ...... one only needs to look at for whom it seems broken to get a true sense of what these calls really mean.
Joined Oct 2006
3K Posts | 34+
Tar Heel State
I do follow someone, and I'm not saying anything is broken. I get very frustrated with some of the restrictions they have in a series I feel should be all about raw horsepower. I'm not saying bring the 990's back (would be cool...but alas it's over) but let them engineer the fastest 800cc bike on the planet and have their rider decide how it's ridden. It should be about the riders, not the best electronics.
I know...I know, electronics can be debated until were all blue in the face. Just call me old fashion since I like riders who's idea of traction control is in the wrist.
I know...I know, electronics can be debated until were all blue in the face. Just call me old fashion since I like riders who's idea of traction control is in the wrist.
Joined Oct 2006
3K Posts | 34+
Tar Heel State
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (projekZERO @ Apr 23 2008, 08:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you run what you brung what keeps someone from bringing some rediculous money in? Sure Ducati, Yamaha, Suzuki have money but Honda has even more. Eventually the others will just give up when they cant compete and how fun would it be with all Honda Bikes in the field? It's expensive enough now but it would be ridiculous without any rules.
I call BS on this. What happened last year, no amount of money stopped Ducati from rolling over Honda and Yamaha, the little guys will always find a way, and they did it last year. Kind of funny Ducati with probably the lowest factory budget had the best electronics huh?
I call BS on this. What happened last year, no amount of money stopped Ducati from rolling over Honda and Yamaha, the little guys will always find a way, and they did it last year. Kind of funny Ducati with probably the lowest factory budget had the best electronics huh?
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L8Braker @ Apr 24 2008, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I do follow someone, and I'm not saying anything is broken. I get very frustrated with some of the restrictions they have in a series I feel should be all about raw horsepower. I'm not saying bring the 990's back (would be cool...but alas it's over) but let them engineer the fastest 800cc bike on the planet and have their rider decide how it's ridden. It should be about the riders, not the best electronics.
I know...I know, electronics can be debated until were all blue in the face. Just call me old fashion since I like riders who's idea of traction control is in the wrist.
Do you really believe the best riders are not at the front!!??
I disagree.
The why didn't you complain when the 990's where running the electronics ..... and don't give me ........ that they "didn't have as much" ..... that is a laughable proposition.
Again I say that the "naysayers" are just plain pissed because their rider is not at the top anymore ..... why else would be get such ridiculously incrrect arguments about TC and electronics these days??
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L8Braker @ Apr 24 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I call BS on this. What happened last year, no amount of money stopped Ducati from rolling over Honda and Yamaha, the little guys will always find a way, and they did it last year. Kind of funny Ducati with probably the lowest factory budget had the best electronics huh?
Who says they had the best electronics? they ran pretty much the same stuff Rossi runs .... so why is the Duc's stuff the best?? ......
Its another anomallous assumption based on the fact that Stoner won .... and by a ridiculously convincing amount ...... and some can't accept that it was Stoner
08 is showing just how anomallous the cries of "the Ducati is the best bike" were.
I know...I know, electronics can be debated until were all blue in the face. Just call me old fashion since I like riders who's idea of traction control is in the wrist.
Do you really believe the best riders are not at the front!!??
The why didn't you complain when the 990's where running the electronics ..... and don't give me ........ that they "didn't have as much" ..... that is a laughable proposition.
Again I say that the "naysayers" are just plain pissed because their rider is not at the top anymore ..... why else would be get such ridiculously incrrect arguments about TC and electronics these days??
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L8Braker @ Apr 24 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I call BS on this. What happened last year, no amount of money stopped Ducati from rolling over Honda and Yamaha, the little guys will always find a way, and they did it last year. Kind of funny Ducati with probably the lowest factory budget had the best electronics huh?
Who says they had the best electronics? they ran pretty much the same stuff Rossi runs .... so why is the Duc's stuff the best?? ......
Its another anomallous assumption based on the fact that Stoner won .... and by a ridiculously convincing amount ...... and some can't accept that it was Stoner
08 is showing just how anomallous the cries of "the Ducati is the best bike" were.
Similar threads
