Review: Monster Graves Yamaha R1
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,155
- Location
- siebenbürgen süße heimat!
only 180hp? i thought most superstock bikes had that kind of power at the rear wheel,so about 200 at the crank.
level of tune in ama so low?
but agree good video,enjoyed watching it.some journos are lucky .......s
what is hayes up to next year?
level of tune in ama so low?
but agree good video,enjoyed watching it.some journos are lucky .......s
what is hayes up to next year?
World Superbikes reportedly make between 210-215bhp, according to Jamie Whitham, former WSBK rider and British Eurosport commentator. WSBK makes about 190-195 at the rear wheel, while AMA makes around 180-185. The difference in peak horsepower is minimal.
The major difference between AMA/BSB engines and WSBK engine is the quality of the internals. WSBK basically uses MotoGP-caliber titanium internals. Those parts are difficult to access b/c the factories control them. AMA and BSB increase accessibility to engine parts by using aluminum internals, and the AMA uses homologation for all engine parts. AMA has the benefit of prototype electronics and piston crown design, but BSB has better cam mods.
Superbike has a similar problem to GT racing. The production engines are so big and so powerful that they don't necessarily make sense for racing. In GT, many of the production cars make more peak horsepower than the GT racing variants. SBK isn't quite that far along, but the 1000cc production bikes are making nearly as much power as the 1000cc SBK regulations allow. If SBK are motivated to fix the problem, they must either allow the 1000cc SBKs to produce more power (expensive) or they have to reduce the capacity of the street bikes.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,155
- Location
- siebenbürgen süße heimat!
thx for the info.
i thought wsbk power was much closer to 230-240 hp at the crank (thats what the top guy at kawasaki ,sry don't remember his name, said in an interview).
quite surprised power output is actually so low,stock showroom s1000rrs are common to put 200-205hp out at the crank,i remember one being measured in a magazine at 206hp but regulary above 200.and i suppose you wouldn't need 25 of them to get through a seasons racing.
edit: which problem do you mean? i don't think sbk is slow or that the gap to the street bike is too narrow.i like the idea that the bike i see on sunday race has more or less the same power as the one i can buy on monday.
the problem is that superbike racing is becoming too expensive. its not as bad as gps but sbk should be cheap enough that multiple race teams are there to buy the street bikes and tune them well enough to compete for the title.i'm not a fan of offical factory teams in .only allowing stock engines would be wrong too, then we would only get big bore 4 cylinders and 1 make would probably dominate the racing.
tricky stuff ,writing wsbk rulebooks
i thought wsbk power was much closer to 230-240 hp at the crank (thats what the top guy at kawasaki ,sry don't remember his name, said in an interview).
quite surprised power output is actually so low,stock showroom s1000rrs are common to put 200-205hp out at the crank,i remember one being measured in a magazine at 206hp but regulary above 200.and i suppose you wouldn't need 25 of them to get through a seasons racing.
edit: which problem do you mean? i don't think sbk is slow or that the gap to the street bike is too narrow.i like the idea that the bike i see on sunday race has more or less the same power as the one i can buy on monday.
the problem is that superbike racing is becoming too expensive. its not as bad as gps but sbk should be cheap enough that multiple race teams are there to buy the street bikes and tune them well enough to compete for the title.i'm not a fan of offical factory teams in .only allowing stock engines would be wrong too, then we would only get big bore 4 cylinders and 1 make would probably dominate the racing.
tricky stuff ,writing wsbk rulebooks
Some of the bikes can produce 230-240hp, but they don't in race trim. The WSBK rules equalize horsepower so everyone is reasonably competitive. Hayes' bike could probably make more like 220hp without the AMA rules. Similarly, the ART engines make an additional 15-20hp during testing, though they are WSBK-spec. Dorna want to use similar horsepower regulations as WSBK to improve the MotoGP show.
The problem I'm referring to is the marketing problem created by racing bikes with less/same horsepower than the stock variant. The WSBK engines are far more sophisticated, but the power numbers do not relay this information to the fans.
I don't want to get off on a tangent, I'm only trying to explain where Hayes' AMA SBK fits in the grand scheme of the industry. The engine is very similar to what you would find in BSB/WSS, and peak horsepower is comparable to WSBK, though the heavier internals reduce performance. For 2013, AMA and BSB engine rules will be more similar b/c AMA is banning aftermarket pistons and adding cam lift modifications.
The big difference between AMA and BSB/WSBK is the chassis and gearbox. AMA does not allow prototype forks (only prototype internals like WSS) or prototype swingarms (WSS also uses stock swingarm), but it does allow frame brackets like WSS/BSB/WSBK. To reduce costs, AMA also uses the stock gearboxes, but the ratios are modified with free sprocket and chain modifications. The transmission rules are unique to the AMA, and quite a low-tech solution, though it seems to work relatively well.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,155
- Location
- siebenbürgen süße heimat!
good ,informative post. thx
have to say though, i don't think it is necessary for the wsbk bikes to be more powerful than the street bikes, on the contrary.
maybe equalize them to the degree that a long stroke fireblade can compete with a big bore bmw, so ~190-210hp at the crank should be just fine.
i don't get why wsbk is becoming so expensive. i know the jap factories want their freedom to tune so that they can let their showroom bikes race without making the street bikes too extreme but somethings wrong if you go through 2-3 engines per weekend.
show wouldn't suffer if engine tuning was just exhaust mods, maybe cam mods and no exotic materials but a rev limit of around 14k
have to say though, i don't think it is necessary for the wsbk bikes to be more powerful than the street bikes, on the contrary.
maybe equalize them to the degree that a long stroke fireblade can compete with a big bore bmw, so ~190-210hp at the crank should be just fine.
i don't get why wsbk is becoming so expensive. i know the jap factories want their freedom to tune so that they can let their showroom bikes race without making the street bikes too extreme but somethings wrong if you go through 2-3 engines per weekend.
show wouldn't suffer if engine tuning was just exhaust mods, maybe cam mods and no exotic materials but a rev limit of around 14k
Long story short, Ducati needed titanium to spin their 104mm 999R piston at 12,000-13,000rpm. If Ducati gets titanium, everyone gets titanium. If the manufacturers cannot agree on titanium kit regulations, then everyone gets prototype titanium internals. Furthermore, all manufacturers need cam lift and cam duration mods to make use of the racing fuel. The bikes all have different valves sizes and bore/valve ratios so lift and duration must be free for everyone. WSBK basically has MotoGP compression and airflow performance, but the bikes all have inaccurate chain drive valve systems that disintegrate in a few hundred miles.
On top of that, the rules allow for carbon fairings and carbon prototype fuel cells. The prototype Pirelli rubber is so sticky that everyone needs prototype suspension (basically) and prototype swingarms. Superbike racing also has about a half dozen different rulebooks in major markets to adjust the costs for the local competitors.
Fixing the problem doesn't require the sport to be ruined. Its minor stuff like banning under-seat carbon fuel cells. Swapping the prototype Pirelli for something more production relevant with less edge grip (fewer prototype chassis and prototype suspension mods). Homologating titanium kits with low static-compression to increase valve clearance without sacrificing much power. Homologating a single racing gearbox and single final gear (sprockets will adjust for each track), rather than requiring dozens of gearboxes and gear ratios for each circuit.
The difficulty is getting all of the manufacturers on the same page, and writing rules that reduce cost and needless complexity while still keeping WSBK on top of all SBK racing series around the world.
Dr No
SPECTRE
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,994
- Location
- Crab Key
Not exactly, Lex. Anyone can run Titanium conrods, but unless your homologation bike has Titanium valves, you cannot run them:
b. Valves must be made of the same basic material as the homologated valves.
But your call on the redistribution of fuel under the seat and reducing tyre performance, are spot on in keeping them close to their production roots rather than a silhouette class.
I am less enamoured of the single geabox, after all, gearing is a basic lever in bike set-up. Not to mention the effects of sprocket sizes on chain pull. Even at clubbie level a pile of gears isn't the expensive part of racing compared to say, getting shod with decent tyres. But I guess it may be your suggestion for a 'natural' limit on engine performance?
And Cliche:
Wander into this link.
All the rules are there. You'll be (or perhaps not) surprised at how lax the SBK rules are...
http://www.fim-live.com/en/sport/official-documents-ccr/codes-and-regulations/
Spare gearing is cheap if it is used in a club racing atmosphere. Gearing isn't cheap for professional racing b/c the teams can build specialized gearboxes for each event. After the gearing decisions are made, the team tunes the engine and electronics to make the most of the gearing. The teams also transports extra gearing and engine components for adjustments, and they have spares for everything in case of a failure.
Customization of machinery is a concern in all forms of racing with prototype components or free modifications. In AMA, they have dealt with this cost overrun by homologating gearing and camshafts, which effectively limits cam variations to one (since teams often have just one camshaft technical partner). Even F1 deals with customization issues, and the RRA limits the number of chassis, aero, bodywork, engine, etc. variants so the teams can't build completely new cars for each track.
The nice thing about limiting variation with homologation is that it doesn't diminish the engineering challenge, thus, most manufacturers and teams can agree upon the regulations without a great deal of hassle. One gearbox might be a bit restrictive, but homologating gearing is probably worthwhile, imo.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,155
- Location
- siebenbürgen süße heimat!
good exchange guys, informative to read.
thx for the link,but to be perfectly honest i'm not the kind of guy that will read the rulebooks to be bullet proof in wsbk when it comes to technical knowledge.appreciate your contributions very much though
Dr No
SPECTRE
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,994
- Location
- Crab Key
Good point on the gearboxes. I was thinking of clubbie GP bikes (RS125s/250s, TZs) with their cassette gearboxes and easily available off-the-shelf ratios, rather than 'Proddy' racing.
In which case, I completely agree on the homologation of gearboxes - the entire box, too. Not just "You may have a choice of three 1st gear ratios, four 2nd...blah blah...external ratios are free".
Dr No
SPECTRE
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,994
- Location
- Crab Key
Nor am I....but they are handy references. And if you ever compare SBK regs with MotoGP ones, you quickly realise how much of a pain it is to regulate 'Proddy' racing.
