Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
Oh yeah I know, I was just bored
No Yamaka superkarts don't have auto gearboxes but they aren't as sapping these days as you think
Oh yeah I know, I was just bored
No Yamaka superkarts don't have auto gearboxes but they aren't as sapping these days as you think
I am not suggesting the riders will come apart under the force of acceleration. The problem with speed and the tracks for the bikes is the run-off required for the riders if they come off before they hit unyielding stationary objects such as fences. As opposed to drag bikes motogp bikes also have to negotiate corners for which purpose 2 wheels has inherent disadvantages, and bike racing circuits are usually several km in length as opposed to 400 metres. This is with the current technology as you say, and I don't doubt you could control the bikes at higher speeds with massive amounts of electronics or have the engineers run them from the pits remotely, but this would seem unlikely to leave the riders much role as steifel implies. F1 have incredibly strong safety capsules enabling them to sustain collisions with the incredibly strong fences which ...... the vehicles and stop them going into the crowd apart from anything else, but this arose after decades of very high casualty rates for F1 drivers, and spectator deaths at F1 and other car racing were also significant at times. It is hard to see how bikes could have safety capsules and remain bikes; maybe some sort of super protective suit could be developed for bike racing although I can't really see how, perhaps neither a valid objection by your argument as what you say about the limits of human ingenuity is true, but this would need to precede the speed increase or there would be carnage along the way.
Fair enough.
Ducati/audi and prospective entrants like BMW, aprilia and suzuki might; my point was that imo honda and yamaha have been equal partners in the current longterm duopoly and happy to compete against each other but not particularly interested in other manufacturers intruding in their private game. Yamaha might do as you suggest if the very survival of the sport is at stake as may well be the case and there are strong commitments from other manufacturers to come in if the rules are changed away from honda's preferences; I do think they want a credible opponent to beat though.
Honda is gonna do to motorcycles what they did for outboard engine racing, and all in the name of R&D while providing the most boring product line ups.
And your assertion that higher octane fuels have lower calorific values is only applicable to ethanol and methanol - but you talk about high octane petrol that has additives to reduce detonation - but that's wrong, so wrong.
High octane means less likelihood of detonation, not more.
Where did you state otherwise? Here: "[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]higher octane fuels have more additive's to make the fuel more knock resistant."[/font]
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]And where is the evidence for this: "[/font][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif] ive looked into using 20% meth 80% 99ron petrol. There are some huge benefits"[/font]
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The only place there are huge benefits is in allowing you to up your compression ratio to radical numbers that would result in dieseling and detonation in a sraight petrol engine - are you doing that as well? Otherwise you are REDUCING your overall calorific content and making your fuel 'weak'.[/font]
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I really don't think you have the least clue what you are talking about - you have taken a little tidbit from one place (methanol makes more power), a little bit from another place (high octane petrol has additives), some from another (additives can reduce detonation), more gleaned from somewhere else (calorific content of fuels) and come up with some mish-mash theory that just doesn't work.[/font]
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Here, let's make it simple. 95 Octane petrol has a calorific content of about 32MJ/kg, give or take. Methanol has a calorific content of 19MJ/kg.[/font]
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]80% Petrol, 20% methanol = 1kg of fuel. 25.6MJ of petrol, 3.8MJ of methanol. Overall a calorific value of 29.4MJ - less than that of regular petrol. "[/font]adding meth will give more power" is a fallacy.
[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Methanol isn't used for it's ability to give more grunt/kg, it is used for its ability to allow an engine that has been severely tuned to stay in one piece for longer than it would on petrol. Its resistance to detonation, its cooling effects, all add to a fuel that allows higher compression, thereby allowing more grunt. Methanol itself (and ethanol) is a pain in the arse as a fuel - it eats things (it's a great solvent!), it doesn't like cold (carbs/injectors freeze up), it needs to run ridiculously rich to be able to start at anything less than a dry, 20C day, it is very hygroscopic (pulls water out of everything - the air, especially.)[/font]
A few years ago my wife used to work repairing suits for Kushitani.
The suits are made up on multiple (very thin!) layers of different materials. Closest to the skin is Aerotec fabric - breathes, wicks moisture, bonded to a very thin layer of punched cow hide, then a layer of unidirectional Zylon cloth in very light weight (80-120gm) along with directional Zylon in specific, hard-wearing areas. Then at critical areas (butt, shoulder, hips, knees, etc.) another thin layer of punched leather with pockets for armour, titanium strips, etc. Then another layer of heavier weight Zylon (120-200gm) along with more directional reinforcing, then the top layer of cow hide, waterproofed, depending on the climate, along with sewn-in fittings for knee pads, shin guards, hip guards, shoulder guards, etc.
All the multiple layers, discounting the guards/titanium/reinforcing add up to about 3-4mm. Obviously at shoulders, knees, hips, etc. it is significantly thicker. Weight is as you would expect for an expensive race suit but is low - 6-8kg or so, depending on options and size. Airbags add around 500gm.
Im not interested in debating this with you. You can think what you like mate. Your talking crap and you forgot one thing when talking comp ratios. I will give you a clue. Forced induction !
I suppose my engine mapper who if one of the most respected in europe is wrong and i better start listening to you
Carmelo....
Honda wouldn't give Rossi a bike so his uncle Carmelo will give Honda a spec ECU.
Prototype racing is dead. MotoGP isn't what it was.
Imagine F1 started using production engines in F1 cars. No chance.
If it wasn't for the bigger money more riders would start picking WSBK over Moto1.
Moto1 is what we'll be watching soon.....we're just not calling it that.
Honda wouldn't give Rossi a bike so his uncle Carmelo will give Honda a spec ECU.
Prototype racing is dead. MotoGP isn't what it was.
Imagine F1 started using production engines in F1 cars. No chance.
If it wasn't for the bigger money more riders would start picking WSBK over Moto1.
Moto1 is what we'll be watching soon.....we're just not calling it that.
Joined Jul 2011
1K Posts | 872+
Dont Know
Im not interested in debating this with you. You can think what you like mate. Your talking crap and you forgot one thing when talking comp ratios. I will give you a clue. Forced induction !
I suppose my engine mapper who if one of the most respected in europe is wrong and i better start listening to you
I worked at an oil refinery as a chemist and we characterised fuel by boiling or vapour temperature before anything else. The theory is short chain carbon molecules like ethanol are lower in density and vapourise quickly, enabling the ignition to occur from the spark plug. But that should only be about 15% of the fuel, the rest should still be liquid fuel droplets. If too much fuel ignites too soon its bad for the piston, too much force too soon. Actually some light ends probably ignite before tdc.
The idea is the fuel is mixed based on density, so that each 10% of the fuel goes to vapour progressively 10 degrees higher. It starts at about 70 degrees and the heavy stuff with 9 carbons in the molecule will not vapourise until 170 degrees. All this is to ensure the ignition of the fuel occurs progressively to give the piston a prolonged shove, rather than a sudden violent jerk. The more progressive, the more power. We did this before even bothering with ron and mon testing because if the blend was out it was sent back immediately for reblending.
Only at end of all this we did the octane rating. I would say your power curves and engine mapper is correct. You can reblend for maximum power only its hard on the piston. Like you said it can warp under the strain of too much energy released too soon. Pump fuel is blended first and foremost to ensure long engine life and smooth driving. Still i wouldnt be able to improve on the high octane pump fuel i reckon its about as good as it gets. Some people like to blend in aviation fuel, it allows increased compression, but not much point in a standard engine.
This is your engine? You are in the States, now? If I was to hazard a guess, that is a Subaru WRX - as he is running an IH VF35 - popular kit on Scoobies and the HP is about right. How many google images did you discount before you found one that gave an engine dyno on Methanol? Pity it bears absolutely no relationship to your post, isn't it?
So you run a turbocharged Subaru engine in your bike, on the road in the UK?
Because you were talking about putting 20% methanol in your road bike (a chopper?) not in an extremely tuned 350HP race bike. Which is exactly what I said. It works for race bikes, not on the road.
Of course you don't want to debate - you can't even get the octane/detonation relationship right, there's no way in hell you are going to get something as complicated as methanol injection straight. LEt alone keeping the goalposts in one place long enough.
I don't want to debate with you for a completely different reason - you are a BS artist. And when you are wrong, you don't admit it.
You could PM me the name of your 'engine mapper' and what model of bike you run - I'm sure he and I would have some interesting stories to swap - I'd be interested in his views on putting 20% methanol in your road bike.
For what it's worth, my engine mapper is a little electronic chap, hides under my dash somewhere...
Joined Jun 2008
2K Posts | 6+
America
Sadly this has been the way I see it as well. We all know there is the "show" to make money. But if the sport gets far from what is had been set up to be, then it is no longer what we wanted. Costs are surely an issue. But if uncle C left the sport as it was and didn't let Honda BS them into changing the bikes, we may still have a viable series. We know in just about every race what is going to happen. If they downgrade the series into the Moto1 status, most of the best riders will leave unless there is a major compensation aspect that we surly won't hear of it. When you look at SBK, those bikes are all very competative, the riders are very close, the title chase is exciting, there is development that we can see, and the whole series seems to be in a good way. GP is totally in shambles, the upcoming riders offer very little excitement for me, and we are watching a rights holder try and make it a SPanish series. The rules are bent for the spaniards, and the Marc Marquez move is easily the one as of late to really look at. There is always hope, but it is a long way off before many of us get that excited about GP any more.
I disagree with this and if WSBK is so great than where are the numbers, why aren't they making GP money. Look at the last set of GP riders to leave and go dominate WSBK or guys like Ben Spies, Colin Edwards, and Nicky Hayden who could dominate SBK but only win a handful of times in GP. The talent level is higher in GP and if you dont have what it takes you wont be on a competitive bike for long. There is only one rider who has moaned about GP and he was going to leave early anyway. The odd thing is that it was also Spanish money and Alberto Puig who paid for CS's way, but you'll never hear him tell that side of the story or even give a thanks to those people. The simple truth is that Spain is putting out the best riders because they give the best support to their riders. Spain is simply putting money into young talent by finding it and investing in competition so the best rise to the top and make it to the next level. WSBK will always have 2nd tier riders.
Roger runs a modified subaru wrx car, in the UK. I disagree with him quite often, but I am fairly sure both that the engine map is genuine and that it is for his car (see recent pictures of jumkie driving it).
No doubt that puig helped stoner early in his career, including allowing him and his family to park their motor home in his backyard. Stoner's participation in the spanish and british 125 championships at a young age was presumably fairly crucial to his development, and the reason his family sold up and took him to europe. I am not sure there was much in the way of spanish money to help him at that stage of his career though, although I believe uncle carmelo did subsidise lcr's entry into motogp in 2006 to get an australian rider into the premier class.
i would hope that when stoner does actually retire (rather than announces his retirement, which is when he criticised aspects of motogp, not including alberto puig as far as I recall) that he will thank those who helped him including puig. He didn't thank his crew in his retirement announcement either, but was fulsome in his praise of them and concerning his regrets at leaving them in an article in AMCN soon after.
Agree that spain is providing the best pathway to/ development of young riders for gp racing at the moment, and other countries should do something similar rather than complain if they have a problem with the current spanish dominance.
i would hope that when stoner does actually retire (rather than announces his retirement, which is when he criticised aspects of motogp, not including alberto puig as far as I recall) that he will thank those who helped him including puig. He didn't thank his crew in his retirement announcement either, but was fulsome in his praise of them and concerning his regrets at leaving them in an article in AMCN soon after.
Agree that spain is providing the best pathway to/ development of young riders for gp racing at the moment, and other countries should do something similar rather than complain if they have a problem with the current spanish dominance.
If the manufacturers leave MotoGp then so will the riders, end of story. Why? Because name 1 non factory team that can pay Lorenzo 8-10 million euro a season. Lorenzo will not ride for 1 million Euro. He will go where ever there is a manufacturer racing that will pay him the 8-10 million.
If Honda goes to WSBK just to .... MotoGP they will also take the rider salary with them. If Honda says to Pedrosa & Marquez that you can stay in MotoGP1 and ride a CRT for a few hundred thousand or come to WSBK and race a factory spec CBR1000 for 8-10 million what do you think the answer will be?
With no Honda in MotoGP there will be no aliens or at most there will be 2, both of them riding a Yamaha until Yamaha realises that without Honda there is no point in spending money on building prototype bikes to race against CRT's or spending alien salaries on aliens to race against muppets on CRT's.
Mark my words, if Honda leaves and throws their weight behind WSBK then MotoGP is dead within 2 seasons.
If Honda goes to WSBK just to .... MotoGP they will also take the rider salary with them. If Honda says to Pedrosa & Marquez that you can stay in Moto
With no Honda in MotoGP there will be no aliens or at most there will be 2, both of them riding a Yamaha until Yamaha realises that without Honda there is no point in spending money on building prototype bikes to race against CRT's or spending alien salaries on aliens to race against muppets on CRT's.
Mark my words, if Honda leaves and throws their weight behind WSBK then MotoGP is dead within 2 seasons.
