Moto Gp vs Superbikes

Your formula is not applicable here because the gear ratio can cut the top speed and the formula doesn't take in consideration the distance (delta S) to achieve the speed, making your physics formula going down like a 737 boeing without wings to answer my question.

And only to be in:

- Desmosedici GP7 reached 345 in the live speedtrap.

- and the official record is 337.2 in the cross line speedtrap and not 333.

And,

To find the real power you have to considerate torque and acceleration and not top speed, what brings the distance.

A Formula Indy car goes to 400KM/H easily and has less HPs than a F1 car.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Oct 15 2007, 10:01 PM) [snapback]95440[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
gui22a, you are smoking so much crack you can't even see through the haze to find your way back to common sense.

MGP bikes are narrower and much better sculpted than production bikes ESPECIALLY the super sport GT's like the Hyabusa and the ZX-14. Bone stock, both those bikes hit 300kph with around 180 hp to the ground.

MGP bikes probably make 220 or 230 hp, they have less drag, and they don't have 2 miles straights to hit max speed, so they hit about 330 - 340 on long straights. Why in God's name would a motogp bike with less drag need 60% more hp than a production bike to achieve and extra 40 kph. It's ludicrous.

I understand wind resistance grows exponentially but you're fooling yourself.



Hit 300 Km/H is "easy", I want to see you cross the 330 mark with only 220 hp and a 1000 meter straighline.

Man, once one more time:

TOP SPEED DOESN'T COUNT!!

Take only in consideration the acceleration, since if we along the 6th gear we can reach more than 370 Km/h in these bikes.

The way this bikes speed up is impossible for a 220HP engine. 340 Km/h, oh yeah, but IN ONLY 1200 METER!!!???

Acceleration depends on torque and gear ratio.

Since the 1st and 2nd gear is as long as a spyder legs, we can assume an awesome torque @ 18200 RPM that a 220 HP engine could not delivery.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Teomolca @ Oct 15 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]95438[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>

If you put your 265hp theory in the formula you get bikes should be doing over 360km/h since that has not happened ...


Are you sure Einstein?

And if Stoner had a 7th and a 8th gear and some more 600 meter?

This formula is doesn't apply here cause it does not take in consideration the distance to achieve that speed.

205 HP can reach 333 KM/h, but in just 1000 meter line? Maybe in a 3 miles...

hahahaha, my ass.

Nice try Teo, you kept Googleing this formula for about 40 minutes but you forgot the distance.

I want to see you trying to beat 330 KM/H with your 205 HP bike in 1000 meters only. Where acceleration get in in this formula?

Since Xerox 999 has about 200 HP and suffers to reach 300 KM/H in 1000 meter, I want to see your miracle 205 bike doing 330. Maybe in a 5 kilometers highway at 3.000 meter above sea level.

Acceleration is power.

yea the acceleration of a motogp bike is really something. if you have been to a motogp race its the first thing i go wow at.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tinks @ Oct 15 2007, 05:57 PM) [snapback]95347[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Having watched the season review of superbikes yesterday it made me realise what a big difference there is compared to moto gp.

Practically every race had two or three riders at least by the last lap competing for the win.

I know its been argued about many times the lack of close racing but is superbikes going to eclipse moto gp as the elite class?

Moto gp bikes now are 800cc next year xerox ducati will be 1200 and the others 990 cc . Seems odd the elite class has much less horsepower.

Opinions?


A few years ago, the Gp was a 500cc.
Now as then, the GP bikes still has more power than SBK and they have less weight.

The racing this year was stinking boring but that comes down to too many changes and too many supliers failing to produce the right stuff while two of them getting it exactly right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Teomolca @ Oct 16 2007, 02:57 AM) [snapback]95438[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
The power to overcome aerodynamic drag is given by:

P = 1/2 rho v^3 A Cd

P: Power
rho: Density of fluid (air in this case) = 1.292 kg/m^2
v: speed
A: frontal area
Cd: Aero coefficient

Given the top speed of a bike and estimating it's Cd and Area we can calculate the power required to reach that speed.

In our case we know that in a straight long enough (china) the 800cc bikes have managed 333 km/h as a record (let's ignore tailwind and hope it's small enough to be negligible).

v = 333km/h = 92.5m/s

For frontal Area we will take 0.5m^2 (which is a normal figure for a 750cc sports bike)

For Cd we'll take 0.6 (again standard value for a race bike)

So we have:

P = 1/2 1.292 92.5^3 0.5 0.6 = 153Kw = 205hp

If you put your 265hp theory in the formula you get bikes should be doing over 360km/h since that has not happened ...

the conclusion is, stop talking bollocks!


I find those figures (265hp) quite reasonable considering the distance a bike need to work up the top speed. Even a 1.2km straight is far too little for real top speed measurement. Add that the actual top speed is usually higher as they never hit the right point for the speed trap.
For a real top speed of a GP bike the had to change the gearing dramatically, making the accelleration quite a lot slower and a straight of 3km. I don't see why that couldn't translate into 360km/h.

what a great thread this ended up !
i think teo and gui22a have both put up good cases. im still not convinced about 300+ bhp but doubt has now been put in my mind about 220bhp being a true figure. mabe if we split the difference and say 250bhp, that sound's reasonable to me. i new a bloke who rode an old kawasaki zed based pro stock drag bike that made around 200bhp and would cross the line at about 170-180 mph from a standing start over the quarter mile. motogp bikes only do a standing start once and im sure they dont reach anywhere near that speed of 300+kph from the standing start.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gui22a @ Oct 16 2007, 03:21 AM) [snapback]95442[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>


This formula is doesn't apply here cause it does not take in consideration the distance to achieve that speed.

205 HP can reach 333 KM/h, but in just 1000 meter line? Maybe in a 3 miles...

hahahaha, my ass.

Nice try Teo, you kept Googleing this formula for about 40 minutes but you forgot the distance.

I want to see you trying to beat 330 KM/H with your 205 HP bike in 1000 meters only. Where acceleration get in in this formula?

Since Xerox 999 has about 200 HP and suffers to reach 300 KM/H in 1000 meter, I want to see your miracle 205 bike doing 330. Maybe in a 5 kilometers highway at 3.000 meter above sea level.

Acceleration is power.


Losail straight 1068m long.

D. Ellison Ducati 999RS .......... 318km/h
T. Bayliss Ducati F07 .............. 312km/h

Facts taken from the WSBK official results of the Losail GP.

This completely destroys your theory of "999 suffers to reach 300km/h in a 1000m straight"

The formula I used is perfectly valid I chose the top speeds of the longest flat straight in the season (China backstraight over 1200m) which is long enough to let bikes reach their top speed or very close to it.

And by the way at 3000m above sea level the air density is much less, the engines get much less oxygen and therefore they would be much slower.

And Acceleration is power .... and weight, and area of contact of the tyre, and grip of the tyre, and aero Cd, and frontal area ....

But I guess you don't care, you stick with Barros sister's rumours and I'll stick with physics.

Lovely thread!

I'll chime in:

I remember reading HRC in 05 were testing a 285bhp RC211V at Motegi when Ukawa wildcarded.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gui22a @ Oct 15 2007, 11:14 PM) [snapback]95426[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
This kind of affirmation will make me change my mind, yeah, for sure..

I brought a lot of parameters/arguments to discussion to try to proof that bikes are far from 220 HP and all you brought is this.

Well, you think what you want, I continue doubting about only 220 HP... hahahaa, very funny...



Sorry but i didn't have time last night to reply properley. The reason i laughed at your claim is because its simply unrealistic. It is possible that the engineers "could" have built a 990 to make 300 bhp but it would make a worse race engine for sure. unless of course you believe that motogp technology is far enough ahead of F1 engine technology (when in reality it's behind) to build engines making practically the same bhp per litre despite using irregular firing orders (power sapping balancer shafts) and having characteristics focussing more on torque and mid ranger power. I'm not buying it untill i see some evidence, and i don't mean crappy videos and magazine articles and tuned up road bikes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Oct 16 2007, 04:10 AM) [snapback]95464[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I find those figures (265hp) quite reasonable considering the distance a bike need to work up the top speed. Even a 1.2km straight is far too little for real top speed measurement. Add that the actual top speed is usually higher as they never hit the right point for the speed trap.
For a real top speed of a GP bike the had to change the gearing dramatically, making the accelleration quite a lot slower and a straight of 3km. I don't see why that couldn't translate into 360km/h.


Yes, I want to write that I'm not assuming a 800cc more than 300 HP neither near this. I assumed that the 990cc is, but 800cc I believe too to be around 260 HP.

Last year I remember in Ducati's site they claiming the GP6 with 235+ HP, but how could a 20% less litre engine achieve 220+?

There is a contradiction in somewhere.

To camouflage Ducati now claim GP7 with only 200+ HP in site. But Honda still claim 220+ and since GP7 is the most powerfull engine of the paddock, Ducati was not very happy with this mask.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Oct 16 2007, 05:56 AM) [snapback]95471[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
what a great thread this ended up !
i think teo and gui22a have both put up good cases. im still not convinced about 300+ bhp but doubt has now been put in my mind about 220bhp being a true figure. mabe if we split the difference and say 250bhp, that sound's reasonable to me. i new a bloke who rode an old kawasaki zed based pro stock drag bike that made around 200bhp and would cross the line at about 170-180 mph from a standing start over the quarter mile. motogp bikes only do a standing start once and im sure they dont reach anywhere near that speed of 300+kph from the standing start.


Like I said Rog, I'm not meaning 300HP for 800cc, but for 990 last year bikes.

When a bike starts from standing point, I used to not take in consideration, instead I get the acceleration between 100 and 250 Km/H, since traction control limits the engine a lot until these speeds. The way that bikes go from 100 to 250 seems a lot incredible.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Teomolca @ Oct 16 2007, 06:24 AM) [snapback]95476[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Losail straight 1068m long.

D. Ellison Ducati 999RS .......... 318km/h
T. Bayliss Ducati F07 .............. 312km/h

Facts taken from the WSBK official results of the Losail GP.

This completely destroys your theory of "999 suffers to reach 300km/h in a 1000m straight"

The formula I used is perfectly valid I chose the top speeds of the longest flat straight in the season (China backstraight over 1200m) which is long enough to let bikes reach their top speed or very close to it.

And by the way at 3000m above sea level the air density is much less, the engines get much less oxygen and therefore they would be much slower.

And Acceleration is power .... and weight, and area of contact of the tyre, and grip of the tyre, and aero Cd, and frontal area ....

But I guess you don't care, you stick with Barros sister's rumours and I'll stick with physics.


Really my theory goes under water, but how could we know the truth about Superbikes too?

Who can assure for us that Xerox 999 has only 194 HP as Ducati's site claims?

These bikes and also F1 car get in the same boat as Motogp, I strong believe that all manufactures hide the treasure, but among them this kind of information is not much hidden. They all know all about each other.

Sometime ago I saw Kawasaki Racing CEO claiming their engine power only 5 HP lesser than Ducati. Yeah, they can know more than we see.

Again, I'm not buying Barro's sister gossip, instead I'm summing all that things to this theory of hidden treasure.

Still, a formula without A (acceleration) and Delta S (Space size) doesn't serve too much for us.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(phleg @ Oct 16 2007, 07:35 AM) [snapback]95482[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Lovely thread!

I'll chime in:

I remember reading HRC in 05 were testing a 285bhp RC211V at Motegi when Ukawa wildcarded.


And now we can sum more this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 16 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]95521[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Sorry but i didn't have time last night to reply properley. The reason i laughed at your claim is because its simply unrealistic. It is possible that the engineers "could" have built a 990 to make 300 bhp but it would make a worse race engine for sure. unless of course you believe that motogp technology is far enough ahead of F1 engine technology (when in reality it's behind) to build engines making practically the same bhp per litre despite using irregular firing orders (power sapping balancer shafts) and having characteristics focussing more on torque and mid ranger power. I'm not buying it untill i see some evidence, and i don't mean crappy videos and magazine articles and tuned up road bikes.


Just kidding yesterday about you.

Tom, did you know about Aprillia RS Cube engine? Who made it was a F1 enginer and he claimed that RS Cube engine was a merely F1 engine of 3 cylinder, just to fit some parts of F1 engines, and in fact, that engine had a lot of parts of F1 engines. By the way, this is the reason the engine was a 3 cylinder.

Now I strongly believe that GP bikes has as tech as F1 cars, but the bike is much simple than the car.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gui22a @ Oct 16 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]95532[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Just kidding yesterday about you.

Tom, did you know about Aprillia RS Cube engine? Who made it was a F1 enginer and he claimed that RS Cube engine was a merely F1 engine of 3 cylinder, just to fit some parts of F1 engines, and in fact, that engine had a lot of parts of F1 engines. By the way, this is the reason the engine was a 3 cylinder.

Now I strongly believe that GP bikes has as tech as F1 cars, but the bike is much simple than the car.


I did know about the RS cube (cosworth developed engine) and i know the technology in motogp is at a very very high level. But the RS cubes engine was completely unsuitable for motogp racing because it made its power in all the wrong ways, and the compromises to make an engine useful on a gp bike are almost all ones that reduce its peak power.

well........ interestin. i enjoyed that. but now back on topic..... gp's will always be the pinnacle of 2 wheeled motorsport. no sbk series or any series will ever eclipse granprix! ever!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 16 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]95535[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I did know about the RS cube (cosworth developed engine) and i know the technology in motogp is at a very very high level. But the RS cubes engine was completely unsuitable for motogp racing because it made its power in all the wrong ways, and the compromises to make an engine useful on a gp bike are almost all ones that reduce its peak power.

the way i understood it was, the cube was unridable because of its "ride by wire"throttle system. unlike the normal cable throttle system which is linear the ride by wire was more on or off with nothing in between . other than that it was a great bike with the most powerful engine at the time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Oct 16 2007, 10:53 AM) [snapback]95551[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
it was a great bike with the most powerful engine at the time.

hmmmmm... i don't think CE would agree with u rog.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(frosty58 @ Oct 16 2007, 04:55 PM) [snapback]95552[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
hmmmmm... i don't think CE would agree with u rog.

first time ce rode it he said "...., that made my championship winning wsb bike feel like a girls bike" as he was picking himself out the gravel

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Oct 16 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]95551[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
the way i understood it was, the cube was unridable because of its "ride by wire"throttle system. unlike the normal cable throttle system which is linear the ride by wire was more on or off with nothing in between . other than that it was a great bike with the most powerful engine at the time.


They sorted the ride by wire system out and their problems continued. the chassis was an issue, but it was mostly compromised because of the poor engine design.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gui22a @ Oct 16 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]95532[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>

Tom, did you know about Aprillia RS Cube engine? Who made it was a F1 enginer and he claimed that RS Cube engine was a merely F1 engine of 3 cylinder, just to fit some parts of F1 engines, and in fact, that engine had a lot of parts of F1 engines. By the way, this is the reason the engine was a 3 cylinder.

Now I strongly believe that GP bikes has as tech as F1 cars, but the bike is much simple than the car.


The RS cube engine was actually based on a mid 90's F1 design. I would suggest that motogp technology is far closer now, but i bet F1 is still ahead.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gui22a @ Oct 15 2007, 11:14 PM) [snapback]95426[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
More data: a F1 2007 engine is 2400cc and produce about 800HP. Let's divide both by 3 and we get a 800cc F1 engine producing ~267 HP. Both F1 and GP revs at ~19K.


Don't F1 cars rev to 21k?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(phildean @ Oct 16 2007, 08:16 PM) [snapback]95577[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Don't F1 cars rev to 21k?


Nope, the rules say 19,000 maximum.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 15 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]95399[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
For as long as GP is prototype and superbike is production bikes, Gp will be better

That depends what you mean by "better". Certainly the racing competitiveness was much "better" in WSBK. Certainly the parity between manufacturers was "better" in WSBK. Certainly the tire uniformity was "better" in WSBK.

Now if you mean “better” to refer to machine, well that is a very narrow “better” and getting narrower. If you mean “better” to refer to the rider “talent” well that is certainly debatable. I think the talent among the top five riders is equal in both series, though I know you would disagree. But it’s debatable, which means that the equivalence among the riders MotoGP vs WSBK is narrow enough to be negligible, and getting narrower.


So which is "better" depends on what you mean by "better". I enjoy watching MotoGP because I don't really have anybody that I have a fan's connection with in WSBK. However, the racing is much "better" in WSBK as a whole.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Oct 16 2007, 08:30 PM) [snapback]95583[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
That depends what you mean by "better". Certainly the racing competitiveness was much "better" in WSBK. Certainly the parity between manufacturers was "better" in WSBK. Certainly the tire uniformity was "better" in WSBK.

Now if you mean “better” to refer to machine, well that is a very narrow “better” and getting narrower. If you mean “better” to refer to the rider “talent” well that is certainly debatable. I think the talent among the top five riders is equal in both series, though I know you would disagree. But it’s debatable, which means that the equivalence among the riders MotoGP vs WSBK is narrow enough to be negligible, and getting narrower.
So which is "better" depends on what you mean by "better". I enjoy watching MotoGP because I don't really have anybody that I have a fan's connection with in WSBK. However, the racing is much "better" in WSBK as a whole.

not so sure about that mate. jt is yet to be seen altho my fingers are crossed. haga,biaggi and bayliss have had a shot in motogp but didnt really set the world on fire as have many other "top "wsb riders. you may say they didn't get competitive rides and thats true but ask yourself why.

Well, to put a final dot to this history, I want to thank all guys that colaborate to the discussion, very thank you all to help me fire this doubt, although the doubt is still on.

Well, I doubt it is so easy to know about that engines that we can click here and there and get all about the HPs, then the manufacturer sites is really a fantasy, for sure. Maybe the bikes aren't far away from 220 HP, but exaclty I'm sure is not.

When they use a '+' sign in front of the number, I'm sure that it doesn't just mean some decimal numbers.

Lowering my bet, I can think about some 240~250 HP. Less than that I think is a little bit unreal.

Maybe the bike leave the factory with that power, 220 exactly, but when the team mechanics/enginers put hands on it, they clinch some more ten of HPs.