Production Engines in MotoGP

The production engine stuff is really interesting. The crux of the issue is a contract that Zerbi (former FIM president) signed with FGSports (now InFront) to give them exclusive rights to race production engines. Dorna doesn't know what it says and Ippolito probably can't tell them. So basically Ezy is flying blind on this one and his put his trust in Ippolito.

However, I'm not sure the contract is really that important. Only a hand full of parts constitute a production motorcycle according to the FIM rulebook:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>2.9.7 PARTS AND PRODUCT UPDATE
Any change in the specifications of the following parts of a FIM homologated
motorcycle will require a new homologation of the model:
• Crankcase
• Cylinder
• Cylinder head
• Crankshaft, connecting rods
• Camshafts, valves
• Carburation instruments
• Frame: main dimensions [in relation to wheelbase, caster, steering head
angle, relative location of the swing-arm, relative location of rear shock
absorber(s) and linkages]
• New range of engine prefix numbers
• New range of frame prefix numbers

Yeah, it's difficult to prototype a new top end, but everything else is relatively straight forward for MotoGP technicians. CRT teams are going to have to share their engine technology with one another, they should work together to get a CRT production-based engine designed. Start with the BMW lump, it's only 1mm from the limit.

Is this Oxley article in the latest RRW?

BRNO 2009.

MotoGP
Fastest Lap: 1'56.670
Fastest lap time: 166.719
Top Speed 301.6 km/hr

WSBK
Fastest Lap 1'59.961
Fastest lap time: 162,143 Km/h
Top Speed 287.2 km/hr.

Spies would have started from the rear of the MotoGP grid as he was slower qualifying than Talmasi by .1 seconds. Rossi wins completing the race in 43.08.991 minutes... In WSBK 40'15.420 for Spies but then he had only 20 laps compared to 22 for Rossi. Theoretically Rossi was done 20 laps in 39.2 minutes a whole minute faster than Spies who time-wise finishes last after Talmasi. Bummer man if only we had 2 seconds...ha ha ha . And we are talking about the best WSBK rider of all time losing to the slowest MotoGP guy on the grid forget about catching Rossi. Fantasy.

See what prototype chassis, 800cc engine, carbon brakes and great tires get you? Different universe. No production based machine will ever beat a factory prototype racer. Ever. All they are doing is filling up the grid with backmarkers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Feb 21 2010, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>See what prototype chassis, 800cc engine, carbon brakes and great tires get you? Different universe. No production based machine will ever beat a factory prototype racer. Ever. All they are doing is filling up the grid with backmarkers.


If Spies bike were 15kg lighter and equipped with Bridgestone tires, it would probably be competitive with just those changes.

The new rules limit bore at 81mm and they also give CRTs twice as many engines and 3L more fuel. As long as the claiming prices are friendly to CRTs, they will be competitive.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Feb 21 2010, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If Spies bike were 15kg lighter and equipped with Bridgestone tires, it would probably be competitive with just those changes.

The new rules limit bore at 81mm and they also give CRTs twice as many engines and 3L more fuel. As long as the claiming prices are friendly to CRTs, they will be competitive.

The price of the bike may be better than that of a full factory prototype, but you still need the rider to be competitive. Regardless of the bike, sucess in MotoGP is still 80% rider, 20% machine. The best riders are always going to be on the factory team, riding the factory equipment, winning the majority of the races.
And I have to agree with gsfan, no production based machine is going to beat a factory prototype. Even in production racing the factory is always on top, that's just how racing is.

I remember the old Yamaha twin-cylinder 2-strokes 350, which properly tuned gave the MV 350 a run for its money several times; or even the tuned Kawasaki 3-cylinder 500cc that raced a few times against Ago's MV 500 and was surprisingly competitive. But then, in those times (early '70s) the stock-derived engines were 2-strokers that could easily produce the same power as a 4-strokes prototype of the same capacity... Now they are all 4-strokes, so there's no chance. If there were 2-strokes 800cc stock engines in production, one could propose to let them race against the 800cc 4-strokes prototypes--we could then see something interesting, no doubt

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aayst4 @ Feb 22 2010, 05:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The price of the bike may be better than that of a full factory prototype, but you still need the rider to be competitive. Regardless of the bike, sucess in MotoGP is still 80% rider, 20% machine. The best riders are always going to be on the factory team, riding the factory equipment, winning the majority of the races.
And I have to agree with gsfan, no production based machine is going to beat a factory prototype. Even in production racing the factory is always on top, that's just how racing is.

Please consider the circumstances before making abstract arguments.

If all things were equal, you're right, factory prototypes would always win; but right now, the rules are clearly loaded in favor of CRTs. A WSBK with 15kg less weight and 24L of fuel would be a competitive midpack bike. An SBK would basically be a STARTING POINT for CRT teams. Granted the CRT's would lose factory electronics, but the breadth of modifications allowed to them would certainly make a big difference. Carbon brakes alone would probably shave another .25 or .5 off of an SBK's lap times.

I know Dorna/MSMA are counting on claiming prices to keep certain technologies out, but they aren't considering the possibility that the CRTs will cooperate to beat the manufacturers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Feb 22 2010, 01:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Please consider the circumstances before making abstract arguments.

If all things were equal, you're right, factory prototypes would always win; but right now, the rules are clearly loaded in favor of CRTs. A WSBK with 15kg less weight and 24L of fuel would be a competitive midpack bike. An SBK would basically be a STARTING POINT for CRT teams. Granted the CRT's would lose factory electronics, but the breadth of modifications allowed to them would certainly make a big difference. Carbon brakes alone would probably shave another .25 or .5 off of an SBK's lap times.

I know Dorna/MSMA are counting on claiming prices to keep certain technologies out, but they aren't considering the possibility that the CRTs will cooperate to beat the manufacturers.

Yo, I did consider the circumstances before making my "abstract arguments".
A WSBK with 15kg less weight and 24L of fuel probably would be a competitive mid-pack bike in MotoGP. If the team could use unlimited engines like in WSBK. And they had the Bridgestones and carbon brakes. And they had Rossi or Stoner as the rider.
Even using a WSBK spec bike as your starting point a CRT will still have to dump millions upon millions of dollars into the project to get it to a competitive level with the factory GP bike. This is not even considering the reliability issue. The CRTs will have more freedom under the rules but that doesn't mean that a private team is going to be able to generate the income to take advantage of the rules. OK, so carbon brakes get you another quarter or half second. Big F'n deal. What about the other 2.5 to 2.75 seconds? Who's gonna be able to bankroll that?

Just wanted to throw this in to back-up my opinion:

http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/...1_there_s_.html

This was an interview that Kropotkin did with Peter Clifford from WCM about their independent 990 project and the future of MotoGP. The most telling quote for me was:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>And we achieved a certain level of performance, but that was as close as you could get with that kind of expenditure. We would be three or four seconds off the pace; well, if we threw another million euros at it, we'd be two or three seconds off the pace. To cut that three seconds to one or two seconds, you'd have to throw five million euros at it. And then the last second is the most expensive, because to get that second, you've basically got to do the same as the factories, so you've got to spend tens of millions of euros. As I say, it's a really aggressive law of diminishing returns.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aayst4 @ Feb 22 2010, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Just wanted to throw this in to back-up my opinion:

http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/...1_there_s_.html

This was an interview that Kropotkin did with Peter Clifford from WCM about their independent 990 project and the future of MotoGP. The most telling quote for me was:

Those quotes are from a bygone era when prototype engines weren't limited to 81mm. Back then, the difference between a production engine and a prototype engine was around 10mm. Now it's 1mm if you start with an S1000RR engine.

Prototype engines don't have a substantial advantage if they don't have a much bigger bore and much higher rev ceiling.

I'm not saying CRTs will definitely be competitive, but they certainly could be. The only place to go from there is to figure out what it will take, and whether or not it is feasible. To claim that production engines could NEVER be competitive is a waste of breath when the difference between a production engine and an 800cc prototype is 1mm.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Feb 22 2010, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Those quotes are from a bygone era when prototype engines weren't limited to 81mm. Back then, the difference between a production engine and a prototype engine was around 10mm. Now it's 1mm if you start with an S1000RR engine.

Prototype engines don't have a substantial advantage if they don't have a much bigger bore and much higher rev ceiling.

I'm not saying CRTs will definitely be competitive, but they certainly could be. The only place to go from there is to figure out what it will take, and whether or not it is feasible. To claim that production engines could NEVER be competitive is a waste of breath when the difference between a production engine and an 800cc prototype is 1mm.

OK, clarifying my point, I'm not claiming that given the proposed 2012 rules a CRT could not put forth a competitive package. This of course is dependent upon how we measure competitiveness. Are we going to compare lap times? Then sure, with the proper resources a CRT could build a bike that will go head to head with the factory prototypes.
I just don't think that given the demands of a 18 race season a private team will be able to get by with 12 engines and keep those competitive lap times. Not without dropping massive coin.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Feb 21 2010, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If Spies bike were 15kg lighter and equipped with Bridgestone tires, it would probably be competitive with just those changes.

The new rules limit bore at 81mm and they also give CRTs twice as many engines and 3L more fuel. As long as the claiming prices are friendly to CRTs, they will be competitive.

The only reason Spies was so close in my theoretical race was because of the extra 200cc's. When they both have equal bores that will not help at all even giving them extra fuel. When you have enough already you don't need more. He couldn't run the Bridgestone front with a factory chassis and he isn't losing 15kgs any time soon. I even compared the slowest MotoGP guy to the fastest WSBK guy of all time in equal conditions. By the time this all takes place the factories will have been racing this series with prototype engines for 12 years that is a hell of a head start.