This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

The Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs

Big Jorge
3534951370970574

We have a new red and white goose.


 


n509931_LORENZO02_5.slideshow-ok.jpg
Click to expand...


u mad bro 'cuz no one else gives a squirt of piss about lorenzo? great rider, though...
 
mylexicon
3535441371048405

I think it was unprecedented for technical reasons. The 990s were more powerful than GP machines from previous decades, and extracting speed from a 990cc 4-stroke with 26L-24L required a different approach to racing. The Rossi-Burgess-Furusawa triumvirate conceived of a new style of 4-stroke point-and-shoot, and they developed the technical attributes to make it work. Under the new philosophy of speed, an inline engine was preferable b/c its mass could be wedged directly behind the rear wheel to fight wheelies during corner exit. The swingarm needed to be long for better torsional flex tuning so Yamaha bolted the swingarm to engine case. The rear spring needed to be extraordinarily soft to transfer weight to the rear tire under acceleration and increase traction. The excessive weight transfer and punishing horsepower demanded new hard carcass rear tires from Michelin. Most importantly perhaps, Yamaha needed a special rider with exceptional talent and long levers to keep the bike under control, particularly in the braking zones.


 


Yamaha's new point-and-shoot was competitive immediately, but Yamaha/Michelin still had quite a few kinks to work out. By 2005, the engineering was refined, and Yamaha were as dominant as Honda had been just 2 years prior. A majority of people only see the constant of Valentino Rossi, perhaps a few savvy Boppers noticed Burgess, but the tectonic shift in GP engineering, caused by the new big-bore 4-stroke era, seemed quite unprecedented. I suspect the drag bike engineering style would have continued to dominate GP competition, if not for the 12.5% reduction in fuel capacity during 2006-2007 and the 20% reduction in engine displacement for 2007.


 


If Rossi-Burgess deserve a great deal of credit for making the M1 a world beater by turning it inside-out and upside-down, then Butterhammer-Forcada are deserving of praise for completely re-engineering the bike for cornerspeed (21L 800cc) while also maintaining championship form (2009-2010). Perhaps the Lorenzo-Forcada triumph is even more spectacular than the Rossi-Burgess accomplishments?


 


Maybe all of these observations are just a facade, built by the unassuming spactacled Japanese genius who directed all engineering activities at Yamaha while remaining out of the limelight.
Click to expand...


AND...crucially the long bang firing order increasing traction and the reverse crank also countering the tendency to wheelie; gyroscopic precession - and as an aid to stability / associated entry into corners.


 


I'm absolutely with you over the fuel capacity limit and the resultant paradigm shift it caused in both engineering and riding style. The new litre class has not witnessed the return of the 'late apex' as some postulated it would.
 
cliché guevara
3535361371036168

thanks for the info arrab, no need to bother going through the magazines, i trust what you say ;)

 

 

edit: one more question though if you don't mind me asking:

exactly how many versions of the rc211v were there in 2006?

an improved 2005 chassis for pedrosa

the 2006 model ( different chassis ) for the satellite guys including melandri

and the 2006 evo (different crank,clutch and gearbox if i remember correctly) for hayden which acted as a rc212v testbed right?

 

thx again
Click to expand...


im not sure either, but i have a picture in a book that has haydens and pedrosas 2006 bikes next to each other. they are so different, that if you threw a different paintjob on one if them, it could be from another manufacturer.
 
Arrabbiata1
3535461371049408

AND...crucially the long bang firing order increasing traction and the reverse crank also countering the tendency to wheelie; gyroscopic precession - and as an aid to stability / associated entry into corners.


 


I'm absolutely with you over the fuel capacity limit and the resultant paradigm shift it caused in both engineering and riding style. The new litre class has not witnessed the return of the 'late apex' as some postulated it would.
Click to expand...


Both yours and Lex's technical explanations make sense, and as you imply the current bikes would seem to work differently than the bikes did in Valentino's salad days. My explanation for his current form apart from luck deserting him (he had a very good run, which anyone no matter how good needs to achieve as he did over such a long period) has been that the Ducati years have caused him to lose the absolute self-belief he always had, and still had in 2010 when he won that race at Sepang, and the confidence to push the limits on a bike after 2 years on that  Ducati thing. It begins to look as though he can't adapt anymore and ride Lorenzo's metronomic butterhammer style which maximises the strengths of the current Yamaha, and certainly that he can't qualify well enough against the current field in the current format; everyone gets old.


 


I think his riding against the current and recent previous "aliens" apart from MM in 2008 and 2009 shouldn't be overlooked though. He still rode amazingly well in those years, particularly 2008. What obviously always annoyed me was not his fans extolling his greatness, but an element among them diminishing others especially on the basis of bike advantages, given the high level of equipment he mostly had, particularly in 2002 and 2003 as you have discussed. I don't think anyone can be confident now that the 2007 Ducati would have offered a marked advantage for anyone other than Stoner; maybe MM.


 


Like you I think the 80s era was the best and most competitive. Whether we have rose coloured glasses and the current riders have surpassed their standards I guess we don't know; certainly the level of preparation and focus involved with Jorge's success, probably including physical training is extraordinary but you would think Rainey and Lawson would have done the same in the current paradigm. I do think Valentino would have competed well with those riders, but I doubt he would have dominated them as he did Biaggi and Gibernau, and certainly not mentally.
 
Arrabbiata1
3535461371049408

AND...crucially the long bang firing order increasing traction and the reverse crank also countering the tendency to wheelie; gyroscopic precession - and as an aid to stability / associated entry into corners.


 


I'm absolutely with you over the fuel capacity limit and the resultant paradigm shift it caused in both engineering and riding style. The new litre class has not witnessed the return of the 'late apex' as some postulated it would.
Click to expand...


 


Of course. Didn't mean to omit the importance of the new crossplane crank, which will allegedly be copied by Suzuki for 2014. The Suzuki situation is a conversation within itself. The original 2014 prototypes had slightly different exhaust header lengths, which implied a narrow-angle-V. Suzuki's previous 800cc engine was a V-layout. Now Suzuki are reportedly running a crossplane I4. HRC are reported to be running an L-4. The engine design dichotomy is a bit unusual, and it makes me wonder if the manufacturers have agreed to abandon the seemingly endless V-angle and firing-order possibilities to avoid a pointless development war. Perhaps this was necessary to grease the wheels and get the 20L rule passed, or perhaps it is a consequence of the 20L rule.


 


Yes, some did presume a return to point-and-shoot, though it seemed somewhat obvious that the bikes would remain dependent upon cornerspeed. The 20L rule will likely be the swan song of the late-apex, though future rules changes are always a possibility.
 
Arrab, as refreshing as a bottle of Merrydown on a hot Orkney day as ever. I was reading through the usual Rossi only won because (insert utter ..... here) or Stoner would be still here and would never ever lose a race if (insert pish here) stuff, and I found your posts. It's great to read posts by someone who does not have Google Gang tattoos and has genuine knowledge of the sport. I bloody hope you are at Silvo for the tractors in August mate, look forward to a few beers and a grown up chat bout bike racing. Peace oot dudes!
 
Brilliant posts gentlemen. I think point and shoot started to die the momentthey got their engine brake right (Smooth 4 stroke power with eendless tc capabilities probably doesn't help much either).

I'd love to know more details but I guess especially the guys with the high mid corner speed wide lines like lorenzo let their bikes set up to behave like a 2 smoke when shutting the throttle.


As for the 20l rule, from my admittedly limited knowledge a inline engine with a normal crank will be more efficient.

At least this bavarian dude lil red introduced me to was keen for me to believe a v configuration or at least firing order would've capped at the very least 5hp on jouads megabike.

It's amazing that every non-hillbilly so far could make do with 21l , surely a reduction to 20 will force to change the bikes a bit to guarantee similar horsepower throughout the race
 
basspete
3535571371063675

Arrab, as refreshing as a bottle of Merrydown on a hot Orkney day as ever. I was reading through the usual Rossi only won because (insert utter ..... here) or Stoner would be still here and would never ever lose a race if (insert pish here) stuff, and I found your posts. It's great to read posts by someone who does not have Google Gang tattoos and has genuine knowledge of the sport. I bloody hope you are at Silvo for the tractors in August mate, look forward to a few beers and a grown up chat bout bike racing. Peace oot dudes!
Click to expand...


 


Matt n I may have a very large job during this time,


Rest assured we WILL be there ;)
 
It's amazing how Rossi is a largely misunderstood person, by his fans and his detractors alike -- who both project on him something that simply isn't there. 
 
J4rn0 said:
It's amazing how Rossi is a largely misunderstood person, by his fans and his detractors alike -- who both project on him something that simply isn't there.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. Coming from the guy who was adamant Ducati Corse were doing nothing special for the Italian. Maybe hes not even Italian, right? We got it all wrong eh amigo.

Thank fake-God for 2011-12, otherwise the myth would have been perpetrated until eternity...oh wait. Rossi was a better than average rider on the best evrrything with all the exclusive influence to boot. The ONLY reason hes sitting pretty on a two year deal on a 1 of 4 win worthy bike still points to his influence, this at the tail end of his career, one need not much imagination for what it was like at the zenith. But some folks refuse to accept the obvious truths.

Krops OP was moronic and below his station, and hes happy to pick at low lying fruit. Dorna cant ride the bike but it can do a hell of a lot to tweak .... to put in one's favor. A truth he and many others refuse to accept, BUT only in this case! Because reading their understanding of the world, it seems they understand an entertainment executive's motives. But they go all fade brain on GP and just accept it as authentic competition? Strange. The awesome thing is that these executives dont even try to hide it, and no need really, as peculiar fans and media alike are happy to tow the propaganda line, not to mention knowing in a bit of time revisions of history are eminent.
 
mylexicon
3535441371048405

I think it was unprecedented for technical reasons. The 990s were more powerful than GP machines from previous decades, and extracting speed from a 990cc 4-stroke with 26L-24L required a different approach to racing. The Rossi-Burgess-Furusawa triumvirate conceived of a new style of 4-stroke point-and-shoot, and they developed the technical attributes to make it work. Under the new philosophy of speed, an inline engine was preferable b/c its mass could be wedged directly behind the rear wheel to fight wheelies during corner exit. The swingarm needed to be long for better torsional flex tuning so Yamaha bolted the swingarm to engine case. The rear spring needed to be extraordinarily soft to transfer weight to the rear tire under acceleration and increase traction. The excessive weight transfer and punishing horsepower demanded new hard carcass rear tires from Michelin. Most importantly perhaps, Yamaha needed a special rider with exceptional talent and long levers to keep the bike under control, particularly in the braking zones.


 


Yamaha's new point-and-shoot was competitive immediately, but Yamaha/Michelin still had quite a few kinks to work out. By 2005, the engineering was refined, and Yamaha were as dominant as Honda had been just 2 years prior. A majority of people only see the constant of Valentino Rossi, perhaps a few savvy Boppers noticed Burgess, but the tectonic shift in GP engineering, caused by the new big-bore 4-stroke era, seemed quite unprecedented. I suspect the drag bike engineering style would have continued to dominate GP competition, if not for the 12.5% reduction in fuel capacity during 2006-2007 and the 20% reduction in engine displacement for 2007.


 


If Rossi-Burgess deserve a great deal of credit for making the M1 a world beater by turning it inside-out and upside-down, then Butterhammer-Forcada are deserving of praise for completely re-engineering the bike for cornerspeed (21L 800cc) while also maintaining championship form (2009-2010). Perhaps the Lorenzo-Forcada triumph is even more spectacular than the Rossi-Burgess accomplishments?


 


Maybe all of these observations are just a facade, built by the unassuming spactacled Japanese genius who directed all engineering activities at Yamaha while remaining out of the limelight.
Click to expand...


 


Lex,


I'm not so sure that the M1 was developed under Furasawa to be 'point-and-shoot'.


 


Wasn't, after all, his cross-plane I4 the least powerful of the engine options presented pre-2004? Wasn't it Yamaha philosophy that they were not going to beat Honda at the horsepower game, so had to get clever in other areas, such as picking an compact I4, picking the crossplane and letting the chassis play a bigger role than perhaps Honda were willing. A philosophy carried over from the 500 days.


 


The engineering changes you pick are nothing unique to FuraBurgOssi.


 


I'm not sure what you mean by the I4 being able to have its mass 'wedged' behind the rear wheel?


Same goes for the swingarm length - this has been a goal of frame designers for years - a longer arm results in less influence of chain force due to swingarm angle and hence more fine control via fiddling with sprocket sizes and pivot location. Not to mention less vertical CoG shift for a given amount of suspension travel.


By stacking the gearbox shafts vertically (like so many Italian engines from the 50s....) Yamaha could move the countershaft sprocket forward a little, allowing the swingarm to be lengthened. (Edit: I don't recall an M1 having a swingarm pivot in the case?)


Torsional Flex? well, longer = worse, but longer also means more scope to fine tune, at the expense of sprung mass.


Soft spring for weight transfer? The softer a rear spring the slower the transfer. Taking your drag-bike analogy...how many drag bikes have rear suspension? You might soften it off for improved compliance, but then why would you then go and spoil it all stick stiff carcassed tyres on it?
 
cliché guevara
3535611371065652

Brilliant posts gentlemen. I think point and shoot started to die the momentthey got their engine brake right (Smooth 4 stroke power with eendless tc capabilities probably doesn't help much either).

I'd love to know more details but I guess especially the guys with the high mid corner speed wide lines like lorenzo let their bikes set up to behave like a 2 smoke when shutting the throttle.


As for the 20l rule, from my admittedly limited knowledge a inline engine with a normal crank will be more efficient.

At least this bavarian dude lil red introduced me to was keen for me to believe a v configuration or at least firing order would've capped at the very least 5hp on jouads megabike.

It's amazing that every non-hillbilly so far could make do with 21l , surely a reduction to 20 will force to change the bikes a bit to guarantee similar horsepower throughout the race
Click to expand...


 


You've probably already considered this, Cliche, but another way to look at it is...no one really pursues point-and-shoot as an ideal way to ultimate fast lap times. You're essentially compromising corner entry and apex speed to maximise exit speed. Given the power of the bikes it made sense on the early 990s as it did on the 500s. Ideally, you want both.


 


As technology marched on, corner exit was tamed to an extent, meaning more attention on entry. Quite aside from the hopping, bouncing and locking up that engine braking can cause in extreme cases, engine braking results a stabilising moment on the bike (entering a right hander, the drag of the rear wheel creates a clockwise moment (torque) on the bike, acting to pull the bike straight) this is one of the reasons a 4T feels more stable on tip-in than a 2T and one of the reasons dragging the rear brake into a bumpy corner feels more stable. So I'd guess that you don't almost none like a 2T but you also don't want so much that the moment slows your tip-in.


Somewhere in the TC/electronics/chassis mix, they've managed to get this compromise pretty bloody good in MotoGP, hence the entry speeds you now see.
 
What is Dorna going to do when the florescent yellow decides to hang them up? Clone him? Cryogenically freeze him? 
 
Dr No
3535831371081160

Lex,


I'm not so sure that the M1 was developed under Furasawa to be 'point-and-shoot'.


 


Wasn't, after all, his cross-plane I4 the least powerful of the engine options presented pre-2004? Wasn't it Yamaha philosophy that they were not going to beat Honda at the horsepower game, so had to get clever in other areas, such as picking an compact I4, picking the crossplane and letting the chassis play a bigger role than perhaps Honda were willing. A philosophy carried over from the 500 days.


 


The engineering changes you pick are nothing unique to FuraBurgOssi.


 


I'm not sure what you mean by the I4 being able to have its mass 'wedged' behind the rear wheel?


Same goes for the swingarm length - this has been a goal of frame designers for years - a longer arm results in less influence of chain force due to swingarm angle and hence more fine control via fiddling with sprocket sizes and pivot location. Not to mention less vertical CoG shift for a given amount of suspension travel.


By stacking the gearbox shafts vertically (like so many Italian engines from the 50s....) Yamaha could move the countershaft sprocket forward a little, allowing the swingarm to be lengthened. (Edit: I don't recall an M1 having a swingarm pivot in the case?)


Torsional Flex? well, longer = worse, but longer also means more scope to fine tune, at the expense of sprung mass.


Soft spring for weight transfer? The softer a rear spring the slower the transfer. Taking your drag-bike analogy...how many drag bikes have rear suspension? You might soften it off for improved compliance, but then why would you then go and spoil it all stick stiff carcassed tyres on it?
Click to expand...


 


I meant behind the front wheel.


 


I'm not an engineer so I can't speak precisely to your points, but I was under the impression that the soft spring altered the weight distribution of the bike. As you say, a softer spring makes weight transfer less aggressive, but a softer spring with more travel should alter the geometry, yes? I thought the initial torque of the engine caused the rear of the bike to squat, lengthening the wheelbase slightly while increasing weight distribution at the rear. As the ferocity of the power was unleashed with the rising rpm, and the rear wheel tried to outrun the front wheel, the wheelie effect was counteracted by moving the center of mass towards the front of the M1. In my unscientific recollection, the hard carcass tire was designed to deal with the punishing abruptness of late apex cornering, couples with the punishment dished out by a 990cc engine at the corner exit.


 


Perhaps my understanding of the physics is lacking, but empirical evidence exists. If you re-watch the aerial footage from Welkom 2004, I think you will see that Rossi-Burgess had indeed turned the M1 into a late apex monster. I'd imagine Furusawa was a willing accomplice, but perhaps he felt compelled to placate his new co-workers, only to discover that Rossi understood something about racing that didn't manifest itself in the data or Yamaha's engineering philosophy.
 
" If you re-watch the aerial footage from Welkom 2004, I think you will see that Rossi-Burgess had indeed turned the M1 into a late apex monster."


 


Cheers, off to search for this now.


 


Acceleration will cause weight transfer to the rear, compressing the suspension (obviously). This can be countered by the locations of the chain run, the swingarm pivot and the countershaft sprocket. This geometry is set up to bring about certain degrees of anti-squat, countering the weight-transfer compression. You can see this under hard acceleration, where the swingarm (you would think) should be squatting down, but looks almost locked at a given angle as the bike charges away.


 


It's probably been discussed on here before, but that's why they fit adjustable pivot inserts, as you want this force to be adjustable when different sprockets are fitted etc etc. (which is why I raised (above) the strangeness of the 04 or 05 RCV having a fixed pivot....must have meant they were limited to the degree the anti-squat could be adjusted...or limited on countershaft sprocket choices which would have mean some weird primary gearing choices?? to get the overall gearing they needed?)


 


Hard tyres? bang on.
 
Jumkie
3535801371078580

Krops OP was moronic and below his station, and hes happy to pick at low lying fruit. Dorna cant ride the bike but it can do a hell of a lot to tweak .... to put in one's favor. A truth he and many others refuse to accept, BUT only in this case!
Click to expand...
......... I don't buy into the "Murder Marc only won because they put a CBR1000 engine in his Suter" either. You people are all intent on looking only at political machinations and manipulations, and seeking "the real truth" behind events. Powerslide is the Alex Jones of MotoGP, seeing conspiracy where there is none, and only where it suits the agenda of each particular poster. The Boners are as bad as the Insane Clown Posse in this respect.

What is most entertaining, of course, is that if [insert rider name here] does well, then that is down solely to the machinations of Dorna, but if [insert rider name here] does badly, Dorna had nothing to do with it. We call that having your cake and eating it, and it makes the charges of favoritism and manipulation look stupid. If you people would just limit your conspiracy theories to one or two charges, they might seem more credible, but it is PC (Powerslide Correct) to charge that Michael Laverty only got his 17th place at Le Mans thanks to Dorna forcing Magneti Marelli to provide him with special software.

What amazes me is that among the rampant paranoia and dystopian visions of professional sport, there are clearly some outstanding contributions here, showing great thought and acuity. But to get to those gems, you first have to wade through a planetary scale ocean of ......... It's like hunting for diamonds in the Augean stables.
 
Good point doc , it's just my best guess that for making the line tighter and stabilizing the bike by "stretching it" should be more easy to control with the rear brake.


A-grade post krop
 

Similar threads

#22
David Emmet: A peek into the soul of Marc Marquez
Replies
20
Views
2K
#22
#22
Jumkie
Michael Scott: An Oasis in a Sea of Sh*t
Replies
336
Views
36K
BarryMachine
BarryMachine
J
Carmelo Ezpeleta's Grand Plan, Or The Long History Behind Tech3's Switch To KTM
Replies
12
Views
3K
AntG
A
P
Rossis stats with tyres.
Replies
104
Views
18K
BarryMachine
BarryMachine
Jumkie
CRUTCHLOW: Disregard for Safety
Replies
11
Views
2K
Gaz
G

Recent Discussions