Rider Safety Meeting

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Aug 18 2008, 05:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>....... great i got a chance , couldn't put the average age upto 40 as well could ya ??
For you Rog, anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Aug 18 2008, 05:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Easily. I only hypothasised that the rules could be written to suit us because I know approximately how big we tend to be.
You do know, and correct me if I'm using this terminology wrong as I'm still a bit new to this one, that I'm taking the piss, right?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Aug 19 2008, 12:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If a control tyre significantly closes the gaps between the fast and the slow guys, it will only represent the size of the equipment inequality that we see now. I don't think the top riders are affraid of any of their competitors and would look forward to competing a playing field closer to level.
but the level should go up not down, this aint club racing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Aug 19 2008, 12:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'> You do know, and correct me if I'm using this terminology wrong as I'm still a bit new to this one, that I'm taking the piss, right?

I suspected you where, I have very little nationalism to offer

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Aug 19 2008, 12:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>but the level should go up not down, this aint club racing.

Well yes the pinnacle of the sport should always lead they way and move forward, so many of us (especially me) resist taking steps backwards. However take a look at F1, and the technology they've capped in the past (ground effect, active suspension, Turbo boost limits, Turbos, slicks, etc etc. In principle all of them have been against the ideals of the series but looking back they didn't do any serious damage.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>(Austin @ Aug 19 2008, 12:49 AM)
laugh.gif You do know, and correct me if I'm using this terminology wrong as I'm still a bit new to this one, that I'm taking the piss, right?
if in doubt about the british usage of the word pissed or piss ect please refer to this thread post #3.
link

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Aug 18 2008, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>if in doubt about the british usage of the word pissed or piss ect please refer to this thread post #3.
link
Right after I posted that I remembered said thread. I had to make sure though, with the rest of my Brit slang I'm pretty confident.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Aug 19 2008, 09:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>but the level should go up not down, this aint club racing.


Bravo AAA+++ and all of that.

The superbikes are sitting just behind this field with good racing and about 1/15 to 1/30 the cost per bike. No .... (I'm citing AMCN).

I don't buy that article as genuine or even "informed" opinion, however if riders want to go slower there is WSBK and if they wet their pants there then they can try WSS.

If that's too tough then BMX I guess.

Point 1 is sensible at the current time to make it competitive (as long as it's Bridgestone).

Point 2 no one understands anyway.

No self-respecting red-blooded racer would consider points 3,4,5.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Aug 19 2008, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What if the top speed limit is somewhere between 340 and 360? I'd be amazed if still called a man a sissy when he flew past you at 220mph on a 990 that was nearly as loud as a jet at take off!!!!!!!!

I think a top speed limit is a good idea..............TEMPORARILY

1. It makes additional horsepower less useful so engine development costs drop
2. It means manufacturers can actually create fairings that cover the riders (maybe the controls as well).
3. It would allow more manufacturers to enter motogp because engine power isn't the crucial factor.

As runoff and safety equipment improve, the limit could be raised or eliminated.

Lex, get real.
1. Additional horsepaower is allways usefull, it's used for this thing called accelleration.
2. Fairings that cover riders are for high speed airodynamics. What does that have to do with a top speed limit except that larger fairings give higher top speed?
3. Engine power will be almost as crucial, unless the limit were set very low.


4. THE reason for a top top speed limit is safety. It will help stoping the need for ever expanding run offs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy Roo @ Aug 19 2008, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If that's too tough then BMX I guess.

Hey now, easy on the BMX comment.......uh that's what I do!
Not to change the subject but be sure to tune into the Olympics for this event, loads of action to watch...

Alright...back to the topic at hand...sorry for the interuption.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Aug 20 2008, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. Of course additional hp is always useful, but the benefit of each additional hp has steeply diminishing marginal returns because motorcycles have high drag coefficients and additional power can only be applied when the bikes are at relatively high speed. Furthermore, the theory of developmental costs says costs of developing traditional technologies grow exponentially (both opportunity costs and real costs). Look at a product possibilities frontier curve.

2. Larger fairings don't yield higher top speeds.

3. Do you have any idea how much additional horsepower is required to increase top speed from 320 to 330kph? Neither do I, but I can assure you it is not a nominal amount. Furthermore, producing an additional, let's say 10hp, out of an 800cc lump with 21 litres of fuel requires a developmental army. If the governing body sets the top speed at 330kph it seems that increasingly more people would be able to meet the power requirements necessary to propel a bike to those speeds; especially if they raise fuel restrictions or displacement.

1. You got the first part right but then failed. High drag is part of why more power indeed are very useful. I don't know what you mean about relative high speed but lets say 200km/h eneable full power. That's still 130km/h gap to the top speed. You need to get there as soon as possible and that require idealy as many horses the tires can take, even as they reach top speed. And now we are only talking about peak power. At all mostorsports where they have limits for top output they imediatly start huge projects to increase torque. That's suddenly the key to be faster and that's a new empty bag they can put all their money in.

2. Of course they do, and that's also why they are regulated.

3. It's not about top speed but about acceleration. The need for power is not at all related to top speed. The top speed is just a bi product of acceleration. It means all the difference in the world wether a limited top speed are reached midway over the straight or just before the braking point. Thats why just as much money will be spent in the hunt og more usable power

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Aug 18 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>link

these suggestions sound like things the riders would ask for.

Translation: Looks like we've really screwed up this series, hey, I have an idea, lets copy WSBK!

And you know what, I agree.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Aug 18 2008, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i would like to see a minimum weight of bike and rider to prevent our sport becoming a midget series.

That is what they do in the rookies cup, and we both know how exciting that was eh Ror; .001 finish!

(BTW, I'm still waiting for the DVD of Laguna with your coverage).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Aug 20 2008, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That is what they do in the rookies cup, and we both know how exciting that was eh Ror; .001 finish!

(BTW, I'm still waiting for the DVD of Laguna with your coverage).
it was bloody exciting

i have not forgotten about you dvd of laguna mate, i have the bbc coverage which is in pal, i need to get a mate to recode it to ntsc for you. i was trying to find someone who recorded the eurosport coverage but non of my mates did but i will get this recoded and sent to you as a matter of urgency mate.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Aug 20 2008, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. Babel, what's cheaper? Lengthening stroke, changing valve timing, and dumping more fuel into the cylinders at low rpm to give midrange torque a boost? or balancing all reciprocating engine parts to within a few nanograms all the while developing new devices to help increase airflow and peak rpm? Oh yeah, lets not forget using exotic materials to make every part lighter as well. That's another requirement of high rpm engines.

2. Yes. I'm sure when Nicky Hayden (and others) were complaining about the fairing on the RC212V, Honda's first concern was "Oh no! We shouldn't increase the size of the fairing, the bike might be faster!). Why did Pedrosa continue to run the smaller fairing after HRC developed a bigger one for Nicky?

3. See 1. Additional hp has a two fold positive effect on the straights, increased acceleration and increased top speed. When you cap the top speed the marginal benefit of more horsepower is decreased; therefore, making it less important than it was prior.
1. I guess your first option are cheaper, but it's totally irelevant as horsepower will be almost as important as before. BTW. Did you know that they made som measurments at quatar this year and it turned out that the ducatis have their largest advantage over the others at the start of the straight? That's where they make up time and that's what create the basis of a high top speed.

2. I don't know why, I just know that the the more you cover of the bike and the rider, pluss unwanted arirspace in between the less drag you get. That's just the cold, hard facts. More plastic, better aerodynamics.
But within the regulations even the Ducati's traditional full fairing is just marginally better than the Honda bikini fairing as they can't cover wheels, riders back or suspension.
3. There is nothing marginal about extra horsepower. It's always been used to win races and or mask out other weaknesses. Top speed is the marginal part here, not power. The topspeed limit will not even play any role on most tracks as they never reach the limit there anyway and we just lost the worst track in that mattter, China. So a topspeed limit is in every way totally useless to:
- reduce cost,
- increase compettivness or
- making things cheaper.

It's only usefull for one thing and that's safety. More exact those freak accidents that happens right before or right after the braking point on the loooong straights. Exploding tires, brake levers pushed by another bike and that sort.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Aug 20 2008, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>it was bloody exciting

i have not forgotten about you dvd of laguna mate, i have the bbc coverage which is in pal, i need to get a mate to recode it to ntsc for you. i was trying to find someone who recorded the eurosport coverage but non of my mates did but i will get this recoded and sent to you as a matter of urgency mate.

The Rookies Cup at assen was the most exciting race.
It's also a free video on MotoGP from the last race where a Norwegian rider show some race craft at the end of the race that the kind of Gibernau seems to have forgotten. An absolute beautifully executed last corner defence where the other guy dive on the inside only to find himself alone and too hot into the turn while the other quckly altered his line taking the outside, deep line and accelereate out of the corner for a win. Absolutly classic from a 15 year old

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Aug 20 2008, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The Rookies Cup at assen was the most exciting race.
It's also a free video on MotoGP from the last race where a Norwegian rider show some race craft at the end of the race that the kind of Gibernau seems to have forgotten. An absolute beautifully executed last corner defence where the other guy dive on the inside only to find himself alone and too hot into the turn while the other quckly altered his line taking the outside, deep line and accelereate out of the corner for a win. Absolutly classic from a 15 year old

Sounds like the American Rookies Cup. If you have a chance, look for the finish of the Laguna rookies race. I think you will be impressed.


(Follow Benny Solis Jr. in the second highlight, Laguna Round. He is #35, Yellow helmet).

Check this out:

LINK

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Aug 20 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. Of course additional hp is always useful, but the benefit of each additional hp has steeply diminishing marginal returns because motorcycles have high drag coefficients and additional power can only be applied when the bikes are at relatively high speed. Furthermore, the theory of developmental costs says costs of developing traditional technologies grow exponentially (both opportunity costs and real costs). Look at a product possibilities frontier curve.

2. Larger fairings don't yield higher top speeds.

3. Do you have any idea how much additional horsepower is required to increase top speed from 320 to 330kph? Neither do I, but I can assure you it is not a nominal amount. Furthermore, producing an additional, let's say 10hp, out of an 800cc lump with 21 litres of fuel requires a developmental army. If the governing body sets the top speed at 330kph it seems that increasingly more people would be able to meet the power requirements necessary to propel a bike to those speeds; especially if they raise fuel restrictions or displacement.
Suggest you try this for better understanding, especially in regards to your bolding in point 1 and first sentence of point 3.

LINK

It's actually quite a good read if your understanding of torque vs horsepower is not that clear.