Nakamoto: Spec ECU? HRC will defect to WSBK!

Mental Anarchist · Aug 30, 2012

michaelm said:
The problem remains that the tracks and the riders probably can't sustain unlimited increase in speed as has been said. I thought jerry burgess's argument from an engineering philosophy viewpoint that true protoype racing but with a 600cc limit was logically reasonable, but as david emmett/kropotkin said this would probably be even more expensive than recent formulae.

Sure 5' tall 50kg guys probably couldnt but others could. Jet pilots are pulling massive G's at upto Mach 2. At some tracks F1 cars are lapping 10sec faster than MotoGP bikes are.

If you are free to build a heavy 500hp bike with massive brakes and tyres that can match the acceleration and braking potential and it can beat a light nimble 200hp machine. Which would cost the most to build?

ratdeal · Aug 30, 2012

Mental Anarchist said:
If you are free to build a heavy 500hp bike with massive brakes and tyres that can match the acceleration and braking potential and it can beat a light nimble 200hp machine. Which would cost the most to build?

The idea of such a formula genuinely put a retro-futuristic lump of fear/excitement into my throat.

chopperman · Aug 30, 2012

L8Braker said:
Rog, ethanol has been discussed a lot in racing. I can't be bothered to look honestly, but I believe our NASBORING series is using ethanol or will be going to ethanol type fuel in the future.

Being a Subie owner, I know you've looked at the benefits of Ethanol with a proper tune.

All fuel in the uk has ethanol (e86) in it by at least 5%. Its not good mate. Your thinking of methanol and yes ive looked into using 20% meth 80% 99ron petrol. There are some huge benefits but the only thing stopping my is the hassle of mixing at the pump.

#22 · Aug 30, 2012

I used to have Ethanol and Methanol at work, my poor minimoto burnt a hole in the piston as a victim of my attempts at fuel mixing

michaelm · Aug 30, 2012

Mental Anarchist said:
Sure 5' tall 50kg guys probably couldnt but others could. Jet pilots are pulling massive G's at upto Mach 2. At some tracks F1 cars are lapping 10sec faster than MotoGP bikes are.

If you are free to build a heavy 500hp bike with massive brakes and tyres that can match the acceleration and braking potential and it can beat a light nimble 200hp machine. Which would cost the most to build?

People come off bikes.

ROCKGOD01 · Aug 30, 2012

The series is slowly becoming MOTO IROC!

#22 · Aug 30, 2012

Exactly, F1 drivers are strapped in and supported against all the forces. Bike riders only have their airms and legs to hold on while still using them to control the bike.

Goatboy · Aug 30, 2012

michaelm said:
Again, why are honda bad and yamaha good? Yamaha have been a fairly equal partner in the cosy duopoly as far as I can see, if a little more subtle about things, and they and honda currently have 15 riders' titles each; both seem happy to compete against the other but not necessarily particularly keen to compete against others. Honda have at least historically been prepared to provide more bikes.

I didn't say Honda were bad, I asked of their competitors would try & use their threats against them.

stiefel · Aug 30, 2012

1) It would be pretty hard to win a competion that by rule requires a human to ride a two wheeled vehicle with a vehicle that cannot be ridden by humans. I suspect the manufacturers are smart enough to figure this out too.

2) I think it is facile to blame Honda for everything that is wrong with motogp. I would like to see someone make a good case for this just for once. By that I mean, stipulate exactly what it is you think is wrong, and show, preferable with some proof, how and to what extent Honda has contributed to that specific situation/rule. "Because Kropo/Kenny Robert sr/my aunt etc. said so " are not arguments, they are appeals to authority (nothing against Krop or KRsr personally ... your aunt is a .... though).

povol · Aug 30, 2012

stiefel said:
1) It would be pretty hard to win a competion that by rule requires a human to ride a two wheeled vehicle with a vehicle that cannot be ridden by humans. I suspect the manufacturers are smart enough to figure this out too.

2) I think it is facile to blame Honda for everything that is wrong with motogp. I would like to see someone make a good case for this just for once. By that I mean, stipulate exactly what it is you think is wrong, and show, preferable with some proof, how and to what extent Honda has contributed to that specific situation/rule. "Because Kropo/Kenny Robert sr/my aunt etc. said so " are not arguments, they are appeals to authority (nothing against Krop or KRsr personally ... your aunt is a .... though).

Like i said a week or so ago, its just easy to blame Honda because they are the biggest and most successful, and some people just automatically cannot stand the biggest and most successful. I have had countless people over the years make comments at race tracks like " anyone but Honda", or "I hate ....... Honda". You ask them why, and its always the same. They spend more than anyone else, So what!, they buy the best riders, so what !. Thats called being successful. Then they go full ...... and say, thats cheating. Its not just racing where you find this mindset, there is a faction of people who just cant stand for someone to have something they dont have. They dont want to put in the effort to get it, but by god, if i cant have it, they shouldnt have it either. If they have one, someone should give it to me.. Its a sickness really

Zootalaws · Aug 30, 2012

L8Braker said:
Rog, ethanol has been discussed a lot in racing. I can't be bothered to look honestly, but I believe our NASBORING series is using ethanol or will be going to ethanol type fuel in the future.

Being a Subie owner, I know you've looked at the benefits of Ethanol with a proper tune.

Ethanol is used in racing for its ability to cool at high specific outputs. So, you can tune harder knowing that the additional heat you are generating will be disposed of.Consequently, you can get higher compression. And that higher compression can be free of detonation.

You need a much larger jet to deliver the same HP as petrol, so the fuel economy suffers. The octane of Ethanol is much lower than that of petrol, so you have to redesign your cam/timing system to avoid detonation.

Ethanol isn't a magic bullet - in some situations it can deliver much more power, but not if one of those situations involves limited fuel.

Pound-for-pound, petrol has more energy.

Zootalaws · Aug 30, 2012

chopperman said:
I think raising the fuel limit would be the direction to go especially for the poorer teams. Funny thing with fuel is, the higher the octane the lower the calorific value. This is because of the additives used to make the fuel more detonation resistant.

Are you sure about that? I think you have it bass ackwards.

Higher octane means lower propensity for detonation. The higher the octane number, the more compression the fuel can withstand before reaching detonation. I can run 'regular' 85 in the Jeep, if I did that in the Audi it would break. I can run just about anything in the Seagull, but put anything other than Super Unleaded in the boat and I would be stranded out in some channel somewhere...

Higher octane fuels typically have a higher MJ calorific content than low octane fuels.

Super 95 has an MJ value of around 32.

E85 has an MJ value of around 30.

Ethanol has an MJ value of 23.4/kg.

Zootalaws · Aug 30, 2012

chopperman said:
All fuel in the uk has ethanol (e86) in it by at least 5%. Its not good mate. Your thinking of methanol and yes ive looked into using 20% meth 80% 99ron petrol. There are some huge benefits but the only thing stopping my is the hassle of mixing at the pump.

Methanol has less energy per kg than ethanol, although it is cheaper to produce, it is also a mite more toxic. It produces about 19 MJ/kg, compared to ethanol at around 23.

Methanol is commonly used in model aircraft engines...it's nasty, sticky, dirty .... when mixed with castor or two-stroke oil.

chopperman · Aug 30, 2012

Zootalaws said:
Are you sure about that? I think you have it bass ackwards.

Higher octane means lower propensity for detonation. The higher the octane number, the more compression the fuel can withstand before reaching detonation. I can run 'regular' 85 in the Jeep, if I did that in the Audi it would break. I can run just about anything in the Seagull, but put anything other than Super Unleaded in the boat and I would be stranded out in some channel somewhere...

Higher octane fuels typically have a higher mJ calorific content than low octane fuels.

Super 95 has an mJ value of around 32.

E85 has an mJ value of around 30.

Yes i am sure.Typically higher octane fuels have more additive's to make the fuel more knock resistant. These additives generally lower the calorific value.

Your comparing 95 ron petrol with e85 (ethenol) Shell v-power or optimax as it used to be called is 99ron . When our government forced petro companys to add ethenol to the fuel by 5% it lowered the calorific value even further so less bang for buck but better detonation resistance.

#22

There is a lot more to it than just mixing methanol to petrol. In fact that would rob performance because you need to use a lot more meth than you would petrol. The AFR would be totally different so by just adding it you would have run very lean, hence the melted piston. Running any more than 20% meth is a real no no as it will corrode your engine internals.

Zootalaws · Aug 30, 2012

Mental Anarchist said:
At some tracks F1 cars are lapping 10sec faster than MotoGP bikes are.

Not quite giving them the credit they deserve... the first two I looked at:

Sepang: F1 1.34, GP 2.00

Ctalunya: F1 1.21, GP 1.41

Its a rare track that only gives ten seconds away to GP bikes

chopperman · Aug 30, 2012

Zootalaws said:
Methanol has less energy per kg than ethanol, although it is cheaper to produce, it is also a mite more toxic. It produces about 19 MJ/kg, compared to ethanol at around 23.

Methanol is commonly used in model aircraft engines...it's nasty, sticky, dirty .... when mixed with castor or two-stroke oil.

Model aircraft normally use Nitro methane and yes methanol is very nasty stuff, hence me so far being put off by having to mix it at the pump. Plus side is more power, better knock resistance and far cheaper than petrol.

Zootalaws · Aug 30, 2012

chopperman said:
Yes i am sure.Typically higher octane fuels have more additive's to make the fuel more knock resistant. These additives generally lower the calorific value.

Your comparing 95 ron petrol with e85 (ethenol) Shell v-power or optimax as it used to be called is 99ron . When our government forced petro companys to add ethenol to the fuel by 5% it lowered the calorific value even further so less bang for buck but better detonation resistance.

#22

There is a lot more to it than just mixing methanol to petrol. In fact that would rob performance because you need to use a lot more meth than you would petrol. The AFR would be totally different so by just adding it you would have run very lean, hence the melted piston. Running any more than 20% meth is a real no no as it will corrode your engine internals.

Maybe I will get a petroleum engineer to explain it to you - but until then, google "Octane and detonation'

You are wrong. Higher octane = less detonation.

Pure motor spirit, without any octane 'boosters' can achieve octane numbers in excess of 100. The RAF had 150RON fuel after the war for testing.

Octane rating or octane number is a standard measure of the performance of a motor or aviation fuel. The higher the octane number, the more compression the fuel can withstand before detonating.

Spin it however you like, your description of octane and detonation is completely backward. Your stated desire to add Methanol to your petrol in order to achieve higher power is similarly flawed.

chopperman · Aug 30, 2012

Zootalaws said:
Maybe I will get a petroleum engineer to explain it to you - but until then, google "Octane and detonation'

You are wrong. Higher octane = less detonation.

Pure motor spirit, without any octane 'boosters' can achieve octane numbers in excess of 100. The RAF had 150RON fuel after the war for testing.

Spin it however you like, your description of octane and detonation is completely backward. Your stated desire to add Methanol to your petrol in order to achieve higher power is similarly flawed.

Im not disputing higher ron or mon if your american means more det resistance. show me where i stated other wise? Calorific value and ron ratings are 2 totally different things.

And adding meth will give more power, if you read what i said , i told #22 you need a lot more hence different AFR changes because of the need to use more meth.

Providing you richen your AFR a 20% mix will generally give an extra 7-10 % power/torque.

yamaka46 · Aug 30, 2012

#22 said:
Talking of prototypes and development, has an automatic gearbox ever been developed for a GP bike?

Why would you even try? Do karts have them? (genuine question as I can't be arsed to google something that is your speciality)

My understanding is that in tin tops they sap power and can change gear at inappropriate times on the road (despite the fact that modern boxes & strategies are light years away from the old 3 speed Borg Warner box on a carbied engine), let alone the race track.

Mental Anarchist · Aug 30, 2012

michaelm said:
People come off bikes.

If someone is riding a 200kg 500hp beast that is designed as a point and shoot bike and can accelerate upto 400k/hr down the straight do you think they will only be wearing a thin layer of kangaroo? If they don't have to weight 50kg to compete they can wear significantly more protection. As Digger said earlier it is hard to think past what we expect or have become used to.

#22 said:
Exactly, F1 drivers are strapped in and supported against all the forces. Bike riders only have their airms and legs to hold on while still using them to control the bike.

Bikes they ride today are only held on to by arms and legs. Is it not foreseeable that an innovative engineer might come up with a radical bike design that makes it easy to hang onto something significantly quicker. Drag bikes have seemed to manage quite well at overcoming acceleration forces that far exceed a MotoGP bike.

If unrestricted, humans have an uncanny ability to overcome obstacles.

Zootalaws said:
Not quite giving them the credit they deserve... the first two I looked at:

Sepang: F1 1.34, GP 2.00

Ctalunya: F1 1.21, GP 1.41

Its a rare track that only gives ten seconds away to GP bikes

Thanks. I would say that that puts to bed any argument that tracks can't handle more speed.

Search

Search

Nakamoto: Spec ECU? HRC will defect to WSBK!

Mental Anarchist

ratdeal

chopperman

#22

michaelm

ROCKGOD01

#22

Goatboy

stiefel

povol

Zootalaws

Zootalaws

Zootalaws

chopperman

Zootalaws

chopperman

Zootalaws

chopperman

yamaka46

Mental Anarchist

Similar threads

Recent Discussions