Pit Berier: MSMA Have Agreed on 850cc Engines

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
mylexicon said:
They have direct quotes around the 850cc displacement change, and I found the source article. If it turns out not to be true, I think Berier would be the problem. We'll see. The article doesn't claim that the changes are already in the 2027 tech regs.
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't believe anything Speedweek publishes, especially if it's written by GW and even if it includes direct quotes.
Remember this?
IMG_20231105_195744.jpg

I don't see smaller engines as a good way to decrease speeds, especially if they keep the aero and device BS.
The main reason they reach speeds in excess of 360 is because these bikes are glued to the ground.
 
MdubSTYLIE said:
The 800 era sucked. Its an engine that has nothing to do with production bikes so they need to be made from scratch. Making the cost higher and making it less relevant to be a part of. As everyone agrees remove aero and lowering devices is far more important than changing displacement. They are probably going to add drs zones too. ....... dipshits.
Click to expand...
I think it was more chasing revs that made the 800cc era more expensive. The way to make power on the lower capacity oversquare engine is by revs. The problem then is you are into pneumatic valve trains etc. I dont recall MotoGP really ever trying the 'we much keep road bike relevance' argument.

Could be worse, they could try Fan boost like I think Indycar did!

mylexicon said:
True, let hope the control tire will actually control performance a bit. That outcome relies on Michelin or whoever to get it right, and it relies on the governing body to actually shoot down systems that cause a shift in the performance capabilities of the bikes.

In this era wings and ride height are pushing the bikes beyond the supposed performance threshold. Sucks that "managing" performance is something that needs to be done, but the manufacturers started an unhealthy relationship with aero and active suspension.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Go watch the original 990's. Powersliding everywhere because it doesnt matter how much power you have, if you cannot get it down then you automatically curb speed. Brakes and tyres are a far bigger laptime gain than engine power. The aero and carolina slope .... needs to go before they change engine spec imo.


mylexicon said:
I actually liked the 800cc engines. The formula of that era was mediocre, but I was one of the few (IIRC) who wanted them to stay with 800cc and fix the formula, rather than moving to 1000cc, which caused Suzuki to withdraw. When Suzuki returned, it was sans V4.
Click to expand...
I don;t think the 800cc era was totally to blame, I think the control trype mandated by Rossi had a larger impact if I'm honest. Wasn;t it Brno in 2008 or 2009 where basically the Bridgestone was light yrs ahead of Michelin to the point where even top riders on the latter were being beaten by relative backmarkers on the former?
mylexicon said:
At first I presumed the manufactures were merely going to de-stroke the engines, and perhaps maintain some of the homologate block measurements from the 1000s to keep costs down, but 81mm bore at 850cc would correspond with 41.25mm bore, which would allow roughly 19,000rpm and 250hp. That would put the sport back in the same mess they had with the 800s, but with even more potential power. Unless they are going to reduce fuel capacity (or fuel density with the new biofuel) and impose some sort of rev limit, I'm not sure how they can keep performance under control.
Click to expand...
Not to mention reduction in size will increase corner speeds. I would imagine biofuel MUST be in the future plan somwhere. I'm just at a loss to think why re-engineering the engines to reduce speeds is the priority when there are other and easier things. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some Ducati lobbying in there.
mylexicon said:
It seems like 850cc will be clean sheet, maybe 78mm x 44.5mm, which would allow rpm around 17,500 and bhp around 230? I don't really see the point of a clean sheet like this. Just keep the 1000s.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Apologies all for my ..... grammar over the weekend. I only access the site through my phone on weekends and autocorrect was it's usual level of awful.
 
#22 said:
Wasn;t it Brno in 2008 or 2009 where basically the Bridgestone was light yrs ahead of Michelin to the point where even top riders on the latter were being beaten by relative backmarkers on the former?
Click to expand...

Yeah it was Brno 2008. The top 8 were all Bridgestone, despite Casey crashing out of the lead (IIRC). Hopper and Guintoli were the only Bridgestone runners to put on a bad show. Turkey 2007 wasn't much better for Michelin. Hayden was the top Michelin in 7th and Alex Hoffman finished 9th ahead of Rossi.

Michelin definitely had a few embarrassing weekends back then.
 
#22 said:
Apologies all for my ..... grammar over the weekend. I only access the site through my phone on weekends and autocorrect was it's usual level of awful.
Click to expand...
I know the feeling. Apparently Apple know what I want to say better than I do despite there being no evidence they are at all familiar with GP bike racing.
 
Barbedwirebikerr said:
Part 3. -

Corrado Cecchinelli On The Future Of MotoGP: Part 3 - Sustainable Fuels And The Future Of The Combustion Engine​

Click to expand...
So policing fuel for sustainability is going to be a headache. What if carbon is harvested from CO2 from a motorway tunnel smokestack? It will be carbon12. Perhaps the solution is to have a single fuel supplier
 
Barbedwirebikerr said:
Part 2. -

Corrado Cecchinelli On The Future Of MotoGP: Part 2 - The Hows And Whys Of Limiting Aerodynamics​


Part 3. -

Corrado Cecchinelli On The Future Of MotoGP: Part 3 - Sustainable Fuels And The Future Of The Combustion Engine​

Click to expand...

Nice collection of articles from Krop. If we were closer to 2027, the technical people might have divulged some details about the engine geometry, aero, ride height and the composition of the fuel, but it's still 2023 so they can only talk in concepts and principles.

MotoGP will make a positive step if they can effectively rid the sport of wings and active suspension components, including hole shot devices, but the sanctioning method for the engines will not improve apparently. They will maintain cylinder count and bore measurement, and now that the FIM is experimenting with fuel flow regulations in WSBK, it's probably a matter of time before MotoGP adopts displacement, cylinder, bore and fuel flow limitations by rpm. It will be a facsimile of F1 engine management.

The details of the engine sanctioning system will ultimately determine MotoGP's function, but as of right now, it looks like MotoGP is planning to park itself on WSBK's turf again, with the only real differentiator being the lap times, engine displacement, and perhaps rider talent. The series will be much different for the competitors but not for the fans. Makes me wonder if we are their real customers. Everything they do is antithetical to our participation.
 
Barbedwirebikerr said:
Part 2. -

Corrado Cecchinelli On The Future Of MotoGP: Part 2 - The Hows And Whys Of Limiting Aerodynamics​


Part 3. -

Corrado Cecchinelli On The Future Of MotoGP: Part 3 - Sustainable Fuels And The Future Of The Combustion Engine​

Click to expand...
Thanks for posting BWB, I don't visit motomatters as often as I should, so I'm glad I didn't miss this snippet.
mylexicon said:
Nice collection of articles from Krop. If we were closer to 2027, the technical people might have divulged some details about the engine geometry, aero, ride height and the composition of the fuel, but it's still 2023 so they can only talk in concepts and principles.

MotoGP will make a positive step if they can effectively rid the sport of wings and active suspension components, including hole shot devices, but the sanctioning method for the engines will not improve apparently. They will maintain cylinder count and bore measurement, and now that the FIM is experimenting with fuel flow regulations in WSBK, it's probably a matter of time before MotoGP adopts displacement, cylinder, bore and fuel flow limitations by rpm. It will be a facsimile of F1 engine management.

The details of the engine sanctioning system will ultimately determine MotoGP's function, but as of right now, it looks like MotoGP is planning to park itself on WSBK's turf again, with the only real differentiator being the lap times, engine displacement, and perhaps rider talent. The series will be much different for the competitors but not for the fans. Makes me wonder if we are their real customers. Everything they do is antithetical to our participation.
Click to expand...
What I take from part 1 is, like the 800-1000cc transition, they want to mechanically limit revs instead of electronically under the premise it gives manufacturers more engineering freedom. I think based on my head calculations that keeping the existing ~48.5mm stroke and 850cc (212.5cc per cyl) would give about a 60mm bore, thus making the engine undersquare and naturally less optimistic to rev. That means completely new engines including cylinder heads, unlike the transition from 800's.

Regarding aero, Cecchinelli has an excellent counter against the manufacturers claim on increasing stability by saying that it just means you crash faster. It was like that with the 800's because they were much faster in the corners and allowed the riders to have every increasing lean angles, so the crashes were faster, and sometime more violent when it came to highsides.
 
#22 said:
Thanks for posting BWB, I don't visit motomatters as often as I should, so I'm glad I didn't miss this snippet.

What I take from part 1 is, like the 800-1000cc transition, they want to mechanically limit revs instead of electronically under the premise it gives manufacturers more engineering freedom. I think based on my head calculations that keeping the existing ~48.5mm stroke and 850cc (212.5cc per cyl) would give about a 60mm bore, thus making the engine undersquare and naturally less optimistic to rev. That means completely new engines including cylinder heads, unlike the transition from 800's.

Regarding aero, Cecchinelli has an excellent counter against the manufacturers claim on increasing stability by saying that it just means you crash faster. It was like that with the 800's because they were much faster in the corners and allowed the riders to have every increasing lean angles, so the crashes were faster, and sometime more violent when it came to highsides.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Cecchinelli's rebuttal was clever, regarding the safety benefits of aero. In short, MotoGP is not the production market. Virtually all "safety" devices are used to raise the performance threshold of the machines, which has an offsetting or immiserizing effect elsewhere on the safety spectrum. Most longtime fans understand this intuitively, but foiling production safety devices (they do not raise road speeds) with motorsport safety devices makes the distinction more clear.

If they retain 48.5mm bore or let's say 48mm, the corresponding bore number would be 75mm. Peak power would be somewhere around 220-230bhp with engine speed around 16,250-17,000rpm. Even at 60mm, the engine would still be oversquare, but 75mm x 48mm is still slightly above 1.5 bore-stroke ratio. I suppose those numbers could be believable, if the shrinking fuel tank and new fuel-flow rules in WSBK indicate that they will be reducing power output.

It seems unlikely that stroke would remain at 48.5 or 48, but it's the only way to avoid a clean sheet, imo, though sleeving the engines to 75mm would still require completely redesigned heads. I dunno. This seems like a huge waste of time, but maybe the MSMA will prove me wrong.
 
Thanks for correcting my head math :) It's been a while since I've deep dived into that stuff.

At the end of the day, it looks like they are aiming at longer stroke engines or at least increase the bore/stroke ratio. If they go to 850cc I cannot see any way at the moment that they achieve that and not have to have completely new engines, heads and all.

I'm wondering if they have any changes on tyres planned.
 
#22 said:
Thanks for correcting my head math :) It's been a while since I've deep dived into that stuff.

At the end of the day, it looks like they are aiming at longer stroke engines or at least increase the bore/stroke ratio. If they go to 850cc I cannot see any way at the moment that they achieve that and not have to have completely new engines, heads and all.

I'm wondering if they have any changes on tyres planned.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if the article has a 4th part for tires, but tire regs have always been opaque. They still haven't leaked any info about the work they were doing in 2007 to avert a control tire, and you know there were many ideas and factions competing during the emergency meetings. Discussing the tires publicly seems to be a no-go, unless it's just marketing puff.

Happy to double check the math. Ten years ago, when they bore limited MotoGP, I decided to learn how bore limiting actually controls engine performance. I read the EPI page you linked earlier, along with several other EPI articles (including one on BMEP), which are the best free source of information on the internet. I built a spreadsheet that I still have for doing basic calcs for displacement, engine speed, and bhp. Fun times.
 

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top