Peter Clifford`s WCM 990 Yamaha

i think the only non prototype parts on the wcm was the crank cases which were said to be from an R1. i thought it was ...... of dorna to kick a small team out for that. whats the bet that it was honda that protested.

That bike was axed by Yamaha, not Dorna.

Reversion to 1000cc is quite possible, especially since Honda wont lease engines.

If Aprilia, or MV Augusta or BMW or Triumph want in, 1000cc is the only viable way.
If a privateer wants in, he'll need an engine.

And BTW, not only is traction control good for road riders, it helps keep racers off their ...... Why do you want them to fall off more? The problem with 800cc bikes isn't HP, it's the lack torque produced by a longer stroke (bigger displacement) machine. Bores are about the same for the 990 vs 800 GP bikes.

Tech is here to stay, but that doesn't mean the racing has to suck. The best riders still have to exploit the technology. The puritanism against electronics goes counter to all that is prototyping. It's called motorsport, because it's not just about the man. It's about the man AND machine. Rossi would never lose a race if this were a pure rding talent competition. Setup and development are what differentiate Motorsport from other events.

If you're really against tec, why not do away with the engines altogether?

Drifting is cool. So are stoppies and burnouts at stunt shows

I think speed and cornering abilty are the goals of racing. Top speed is basically solved. Conering is all that's left to improve. Traction control is one very good way to do it.

Also, it was hard to read your post. Please learn to use the quote function.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (clarkjw @ Aug 17 2009, 09:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That bike was axed by Yamaha, not Dorna.

Reversion to 1000cc is quite possible, especially since Honda wont lease engines.

If Aprilia, or MV Augusta or BMW or Triumph want in, 1000cc is the only viable way.
If a privateer wants in, he'll need an engine.

And BTW, not only is traction control good for road riders, it helps keep racers off their ...... Why do you want them to fall off more? The problem with 800cc bikes isn't HP, it's the lack torque produced by a longer stroke (bigger displacement) machine. Bores are about the same for the 990 vs 800 GP bikes.

Tech is here to stay, but that doesn't mean the racing has to suck. The best riders still have to exploit the technology. The puritanism against electronics goes counter to all that is prototyping. It's called motorsport, because it's not just about the man. It's about the man AND machine. Rossi would never lose a race if this were a pure rding talent competition. Setup and development are what differentiate Motorsport from other events.

If you're really against tec, why not do away with the engines altogether?
No i dont think that's true. if my memory serves me correctly wcm were booted out by dorna for braking the rule of using parts from a homoligated bike, i.e the crank cases.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DRILL @ Aug 17 2009, 08:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I can remember that too Rog.

Drill, you commented on my post WITHIN the quote, not after it. Also, you're free to edit quotes to the parts in dispute. Not being cobative, I just had trouble seeing your comment.

Also,

In a recent interview Carmelo Ezpeleta gave Dorna´s position:
“The definition of a prototype is very clear. And what is more, if you read the MotoGP regulations it is stated that those motors that are not entered by a constructor must be approved by the Grand Prix Commission. This meant that when Peter Clifford made the WCM (in 2003) there was a problem: that bike used a Yamaha engine and Yamaha had not approved of that engine being raced in MotoGP. If Yamaha wanted to race with a modified version of its production engine built to conform to the current 800 rules, it could do so because the owner of the Yamaha engine is Yamaha. And having said that, the cheapest way to arrive economically at a competitive motorcycle is to define the engine, not to say whether an engine has to be a production engine or not.”

I haven't been watching as long as you. I certainly can't comment.
But, IIRC, the racing in 2006 was very exciting (according to Rossi in Bike, TC had 2 years of development by then). Also, according to Nicky and Rossi, it makes new riders MORE competitive. Perhaps Lorenzo wouldnt even be challenging without TC?

I assume you saw my Eze quote above WRP to the WCM bike.

We can both agree that the 800cc bike have hurt the show.

IMO, TC saves lives and with such high corner speeds, we need it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DRILL @ Aug 17 2009, 10:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I read the Eze quote,if thats it in black`n`white ,then so be it.I also agree with the 800cc view (personally I hate `em),but this is where we will probably disagree....bring back the excitement of point and squirt sliding !!! The high corner speed issue was highlighted by the Kallio/Melandri incident,riders are going too quick to correct themselves in this situation. TC could well have destroyed Kallio`s or Melandri`s season,but they were both lucky this time.See what I mean about the thin line?
+1

iwould rather let that line be drawn by the riders and not the computers. IMO the combination of TC thats still in its infancy and 800cc high corner-speed equals disaster and broken bones

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DRILL @ Aug 17 2009, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>...bring back the excitement of point and squirt sliding !!! The high corner speed issue was highlighted by the Kallio/Melandri incident,riders are going too quick to correct themselves in this situation. TC could well have destroyed Kallio`s or Melandri`s season,but they were both lucky this time.See what I mean about the thin line?
Riders should have the option to slide or glide, not be forced into a style. So I agree to an extent (aside from Kallio being a ....... not recognizing he was block passed and rolling off the throttle).
Sliding is kinda cool, but I like how smooth they are now. A little more grunt and alternate lines would be possible.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (clarkjw @ Aug 17 2009, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Drill, you commented on my post WITHIN the quote, not after it. Also, you're free to edit quotes to the parts in dispute. Not being cobative, I just had trouble seeing your comment.

Also,

In a recent interview Carmelo Ezpeleta gave Dorna´s position:
“The definition of a prototype is very clear. And what is more, if you read the MotoGP regulations it is stated that those motors that are not entered by a constructor must be approved by the Grand Prix Commission. This meant that when Peter Clifford made the WCM (in 2003) there was a problem: that bike used a Yamaha engine and Yamaha had not approved of that engine being raced in MotoGP. If Yamaha wanted to race with a modified version of its production engine built to conform to the current 800 rules, it could do so because the owner of the Yamaha engine is Yamaha. And having said that, the cheapest way to arrive economically at a competitive motorcycle is to define the engine, not to say whether an engine has to be a production engine or not.”
from wiki.

WCM joined forces with Harris Performance Products and was renamed to Harris WCM. Harris WCM built their own 4-stroke MotoGP racer with an engine based on the Yamaha YZF-R1 engine. The FIM however found that the motorcycle was not in conformity with the championship technical regulations and the team was disqualified. The team appealed but the International Disciplinary Court turned the appeal down. The team took their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the final stage in the appeal process) but the court again ruled in FIM's favour

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DRILL @ Aug 17 2009, 10:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Was that all down to the crankcase issue or were there more points to be noted ,Rog?
going from my memory which has had a few destroyed brain cells since 2003 . some said it was an R1 engine with a billet prototype cylinder head. prototype not because there was anything special like pneumatics or anything but just the fact it was billet and you couldn't buy one. others argued it had different gearing probably undercut ect crank probably shot peened and balanced ect so it was only the crankcases that were not prototype.