Traction Control makes the bikes faster without requiring horse power, problem occurs when everyone is using it then you need more horse power.
Question about Traction Control vs Horsepower
- Thread starter Jumkie
- Start date
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Sep 28 2007, 03:23 PM) [snapback]93421[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
So again I ask:
If two identical bikes with an identical traction control system were open full throttle down the longest straight of any current track in GP, which bike would be faster??? —Assuming all elements are identical/equal except one has more horsepower than the other, and the condition that both have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction control system.
Given the highly unrealistic and theoretical scenario, both bikes would go the same speed down the straight, and would turn the same lap times.
Imo, you guys were having an argument about the wrong things tho. Neither HP nor TC is most important--chassis design is most important. How long have we been riding the conventional setup? Nearly a century now, and we still can't figure out a decent system to give a bike fully active suspension when it's leaned over on its side. 100 years of motorcycle racing and chassis/fork/tire flex are the only things that eat up track imperfections at the apex?
That's why I don't believe corner speed riding is really as effective as people say it is. Point and shoot will always be faster given the current config, lateral slide is the only way to use conventional motorcycle setups effectively. Unfortunately, it's too dangerous, and nobody makes point-shoot rubber anymore (as McCoy has lamented on numerous occasions).
You wanna see a bike go fast? Invent a suspension system that is permanently active regardless of the bike's pitch. Then corner speed will be the true king of speed regardless of the machine.
So again I ask:
If two identical bikes with an identical traction control system were open full throttle down the longest straight of any current track in GP, which bike would be faster??? —Assuming all elements are identical/equal except one has more horsepower than the other, and the condition that both have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction control system.
Given the highly unrealistic and theoretical scenario, both bikes would go the same speed down the straight, and would turn the same lap times.
Imo, you guys were having an argument about the wrong things tho. Neither HP nor TC is most important--chassis design is most important. How long have we been riding the conventional setup? Nearly a century now, and we still can't figure out a decent system to give a bike fully active suspension when it's leaned over on its side. 100 years of motorcycle racing and chassis/fork/tire flex are the only things that eat up track imperfections at the apex?
That's why I don't believe corner speed riding is really as effective as people say it is. Point and shoot will always be faster given the current config, lateral slide is the only way to use conventional motorcycle setups effectively. Unfortunately, it's too dangerous, and nobody makes point-shoot rubber anymore (as McCoy has lamented on numerous occasions).
You wanna see a bike go fast? Invent a suspension system that is permanently active regardless of the bike's pitch. Then corner speed will be the true king of speed regardless of the machine.
Joined Oct 2006
3K Posts | 197+
Living the dream in Scotland
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Oct 4 2007, 07:44 PM) [snapback]93849[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
It still depends on the bike. Let's say we are talking about Ducati WSBK's. They are already pretty tractable, but they have relatively underpowered overworked lumps. So putting traction control on a Duc probably wouldn't be nearly as effective as adding 20hp. The MotoGP equivalent of that sitou would be Yamaha.
Now let's say we are examining a 990 Duc. They've always had huge power and great aero. The bike's weakness was handling. If think its safe to say, they could have won a championship if they could have gotten the Traction Control/tire/chassis stuff right a couple of years ago.
If you want my opinion, neither HP nor TC is most important--chassis design is most important. How long have we been riding the conventional setup? Nearly a century now, and we still can't figure out a decent system to give a bike fully active suspension when it's leaned over on its side. 100 years of motorcycle racing and chassis/fork/tire flex are the only things that eat up track imperfections at the apex?
That's why I don't believe corner speed riding is really as effective as people say it is. Point and shoot will always be faster given the current config, it's just too dangerous and nobody makes point-shoot tires anymore.
You wanna see a bike go fast? Invent a suspension system that is permanently active regardless of the bike's pitch. Then corner speed riding will be the true king of riding styles regardless of the machine.
As long as we have the point and squirt style of riding, which as you say works best for the GP bikes, if you have 2 bikes of similar power, the bike that lets you get the power down quicker will have the advantage.
When HRC were racing the 500 twin, the V4s blew it away on the straights, then blocked on the corners, and dissapeared on the next straight. If someone can develop a bike that can combine monster BHP with corner speed, they are onto a winner.
If only it was that easy, but the best suspension brains in the world are working on it, and still havent cracked it.
Pete
It still depends on the bike. Let's say we are talking about Ducati WSBK's. They are already pretty tractable, but they have relatively underpowered overworked lumps. So putting traction control on a Duc probably wouldn't be nearly as effective as adding 20hp. The MotoGP equivalent of that sitou would be Yamaha.
Now let's say we are examining a 990 Duc. They've always had huge power and great aero. The bike's weakness was handling. If think its safe to say, they could have won a championship if they could have gotten the Traction Control/tire/chassis stuff right a couple of years ago.
If you want my opinion, neither HP nor TC is most important--chassis design is most important. How long have we been riding the conventional setup? Nearly a century now, and we still can't figure out a decent system to give a bike fully active suspension when it's leaned over on its side. 100 years of motorcycle racing and chassis/fork/tire flex are the only things that eat up track imperfections at the apex?
That's why I don't believe corner speed riding is really as effective as people say it is. Point and shoot will always be faster given the current config, it's just too dangerous and nobody makes point-shoot tires anymore.
You wanna see a bike go fast? Invent a suspension system that is permanently active regardless of the bike's pitch. Then corner speed riding will be the true king of riding styles regardless of the machine.
As long as we have the point and squirt style of riding, which as you say works best for the GP bikes, if you have 2 bikes of similar power, the bike that lets you get the power down quicker will have the advantage.
When HRC were racing the 500 twin, the V4s blew it away on the straights, then blocked on the corners, and dissapeared on the next straight. If someone can develop a bike that can combine monster BHP with corner speed, they are onto a winner.
If only it was that easy, but the best suspension brains in the world are working on it, and still havent cracked it.
Pete
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Oct 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]93849[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Given the highly unrealistic and theoretical scenario, both bikes would go the same speed down the straight, and would turn the same lap times.
Imo, you guys were having an argument about the wrong things tho. Neither HP nor TC is most important--chassis design is most important.
Hi Lexi, thanks for taking the time to give a detailed response. I don't think anybody is arguing (that's usually left for the "my guy is better" threads). I was just curious about what people's thoughts regarding TC vs. HP; simply because I was having a discussion about these elements with a friend. Tom mentioned chassis, and I agree, it is important. But that wasn't something we were talking about at the time, so I tried to leave it out here.
As far as my "unrealistic and theoretical scenario", my aim was to get peoples thoughts about these two parameters as well as learn something about TC vs. HP that I may not know.
I for one think that given my scenario, HP would not matter assuming my conditions, where as my friend adamantly believed that the more horsepower (no matter what) made for a faster bike down a straight (notice we are only talking straight and not around the entire track). If I wanted to talk about what are the important elements needed for a bike to go fast around the entire track, my guess is we would have been talking chassis design among a plethora of other things.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(basspete @ Oct 4 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]93851[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
If only it was that easy, but the best suspension brains in the world are working on it, and still havent cracked it.
Pete
Hi Pete, good to be reading you buddy. You haven't been so actively lately. Its nice to see you have some leisure time to through in your always insightful two-cents into the mix.
Given the highly unrealistic and theoretical scenario, both bikes would go the same speed down the straight, and would turn the same lap times.
Imo, you guys were having an argument about the wrong things tho. Neither HP nor TC is most important--chassis design is most important.
Hi Lexi, thanks for taking the time to give a detailed response. I don't think anybody is arguing (that's usually left for the "my guy is better" threads). I was just curious about what people's thoughts regarding TC vs. HP; simply because I was having a discussion about these elements with a friend. Tom mentioned chassis, and I agree, it is important. But that wasn't something we were talking about at the time, so I tried to leave it out here.
As far as my "unrealistic and theoretical scenario", my aim was to get peoples thoughts about these two parameters as well as learn something about TC vs. HP that I may not know.
I for one think that given my scenario, HP would not matter assuming my conditions, where as my friend adamantly believed that the more horsepower (no matter what) made for a faster bike down a straight (notice we are only talking straight and not around the entire track). If I wanted to talk about what are the important elements needed for a bike to go fast around the entire track, my guess is we would have been talking chassis design among a plethora of other things.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(basspete @ Oct 4 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]93851[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
If only it was that easy, but the best suspension brains in the world are working on it, and still havent cracked it.
Pete
Hi Pete, good to be reading you buddy. You haven't been so actively lately. Its nice to see you have some leisure time to through in your always insightful two-cents into the mix.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Oct 4 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]93861[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
As far as my "unrealistic and theoretical scenario", my aim was to get peoples thoughts about these two parameters as well as learn something about TC vs. HP that I may not know.
I was just being a goof b/c I wanted to segue into a long winded rant about 1 century of motorcycle racing with caveman suspension technology. Seriously, leaf springs are better than fork/chassis/swingarm/tire flex
As far as my "unrealistic and theoretical scenario", my aim was to get peoples thoughts about these two parameters as well as learn something about TC vs. HP that I may not know.
I was just being a goof b/c I wanted to segue into a long winded rant about 1 century of motorcycle racing with caveman suspension technology. Seriously, leaf springs are better than fork/chassis/swingarm/tire flex
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Oct 5 2007, 02:44 AM) [snapback]93849[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Given the highly unrealistic and theoretical scenario, both bikes would go the same speed down the straight, and would turn the same lap times.
Imo, you guys were having an argument about the wrong things tho. Neither HP nor TC is most important--chassis design is most important. How long have we been riding the conventional setup? Nearly a century now, and we still can't figure out a decent system to give a bike fully active suspension when it's leaned over on its side. 100 years of motorcycle racing and chassis/fork/tire flex are the only things that eat up track imperfections at the apex?
That's why I don't believe corner speed riding is really as effective as people say it is. Point and shoot will always be faster given the current config, lateral slide is the only way to use conventional motorcycle setups effectively. Unfortunately, it's too dangerous, and nobody makes point-shoot rubber anymore (as McCoy has lamented on numerous occasions).
You wanna see a bike go fast? Invent a suspension system that is permanently active regardless of the bike's pitch. Then corner speed will be the true king of speed regardless of the machine.
That has also got me wondering. Why are every manufacturer on MotoGP, the only prototype racing on 2 wheels, still pretty much using conventional solutions? They have been using telescopic suspensions ever since BMW invented it. What about those 'odd' suspensions introduced by the likes of Hossack, James Parker, Britten, Tryphonos, Julian Farnam, Hugo, Czsyz….companies like BMW, Yamaha, Bimota, Yyrus, Confederate, etc?
With todays advancement in material & manufacturing techniques, solutions which seemed infeasible before might be a possibility now (or not), but nobody BIG enough is trying so we'll never know.
Motoczysz looked promising, but are yet to deliver. I fear they tried to 'reinvent' the wheel too much with very interesting albeit unproven ideas and they got caught up with too much research and development to realize it. They should have combined new ideas with proven ones & moved from there... but they didn't. Now, it looks like a very big PR exercise with no proven output.
Anyway, I'm very off topic now. But i just had to ask
And somehow, i feel that the answer is simply, the manufacturers could explore this unconventional solutions, BUT, it won't benefit them in terms of profit/revenue since what they are selling in the market are conventional solutions. Alas, I fear everything boils down to MONEY and PROFIT...
Given the highly unrealistic and theoretical scenario, both bikes would go the same speed down the straight, and would turn the same lap times.
Imo, you guys were having an argument about the wrong things tho. Neither HP nor TC is most important--chassis design is most important. How long have we been riding the conventional setup? Nearly a century now, and we still can't figure out a decent system to give a bike fully active suspension when it's leaned over on its side. 100 years of motorcycle racing and chassis/fork/tire flex are the only things that eat up track imperfections at the apex?
That's why I don't believe corner speed riding is really as effective as people say it is. Point and shoot will always be faster given the current config, lateral slide is the only way to use conventional motorcycle setups effectively. Unfortunately, it's too dangerous, and nobody makes point-shoot rubber anymore (as McCoy has lamented on numerous occasions).
You wanna see a bike go fast? Invent a suspension system that is permanently active regardless of the bike's pitch. Then corner speed will be the true king of speed regardless of the machine.
That has also got me wondering. Why are every manufacturer on MotoGP, the only prototype racing on 2 wheels, still pretty much using conventional solutions? They have been using telescopic suspensions ever since BMW invented it. What about those 'odd' suspensions introduced by the likes of Hossack, James Parker, Britten, Tryphonos, Julian Farnam, Hugo, Czsyz….companies like BMW, Yamaha, Bimota, Yyrus, Confederate, etc?
With todays advancement in material & manufacturing techniques, solutions which seemed infeasible before might be a possibility now (or not), but nobody BIG enough is trying so we'll never know.
Motoczysz looked promising, but are yet to deliver. I fear they tried to 'reinvent' the wheel too much with very interesting albeit unproven ideas and they got caught up with too much research and development to realize it. They should have combined new ideas with proven ones & moved from there... but they didn't. Now, it looks like a very big PR exercise with no proven output.
Anyway, I'm very off topic now. But i just had to ask
And somehow, i feel that the answer is simply, the manufacturers could explore this unconventional solutions, BUT, it won't benefit them in terms of profit/revenue since what they are selling in the market are conventional solutions. Alas, I fear everything boils down to MONEY and PROFIT...
Traction control is only active (mostly) during the exits of corners, therefore in a long straight, two equal bikes with same TC but one more powerful than the other, would start out evenly until they reach a certain speed where the TC is not active any longer, from there onwards the most powerful bike will start to pull away.
Both power and traction are important, power without traction is useless (that Pirelli advertising of a 100m sprint athlete wearing shoes with high heels gives you a good idea of what we're talking about)
But also traction with no power is no good either, cause that's basically a bicycle!
You need both.
Also take into account traction depends on many parameters (and the way the engine gives the power is one important one!)
Both power and traction are important, power without traction is useless (that Pirelli advertising of a 100m sprint athlete wearing shoes with high heels gives you a good idea of what we're talking about)
But also traction with no power is no good either, cause that's basically a bicycle!
You need both.
Also take into account traction depends on many parameters (and the way the engine gives the power is one important one!)
