Valencia Tests 8-9 November 2011

mylexicon said:

You're only looking at the rules, not the entire system. Prototype racing is unique b/c it has relaxed homologation restrictions or no homologation restrictions at all. At a MotoGP race weekend, the bikes are rarely the same. Pedrosa's bike is different than Stoner's bike. Lorenzo's bike is different than Spies'. Hayden's bike is not Rossi's bike, particularly this year. The factory bikes are different from the satellite machines. Everything changes as the season progresses.



None of us knew the bore measurements prior to the 81mm rule, and all of the bikes were already 4-cylinders. We only imagined that the bikes had bore differences, and we only imagined that the machines had different performance capabilities. In fact, the bikes were all limited to 19,000rpm, and A. the engine dimensions were not nearly as important as friction-fighting, fuel-saving technologies within the engine and transmission. Those technologies are still unlimited.



I dislike the bore measurement as much as anyone else and I really dislike the 4-cylinder rule, but it won't stop MotoGP from being prototype. The factories can still run 6 completely different engine designs during the season, and they can still run multiple chassis/bodywork variants on the same weekend. You want to know why it doesn't happen--b/c a 2% fuel savings from redesigned crank bearings and reformulated cylinder plating is worth 10x more than changing the engine configuration to improve handling. B. When they actually do throw parts at the bike to improve the chassis feel, . the changes are kept away from the public domain. Ducati actually gave the fans a big treat by divulging information about the destroked GP11.1 and the aluminum frame development. It's a shame everything went pear-shaped. People might have enjoyed prototyping more if Rossi started making the podium with regularity.



The new rules are not as fun as the old rules, but MotoGP will remain prototype as long as the sport has very relaxed homologation procedures.

Click to expand...

Keshav said:

A. It is regardless, a pointlessly cost-inefficient solution to an arbitrary restraint on the creation of power. A couple more liters of fuel would save millions in r+d and the end result at race time would be the same.



B. And you possess this insider information how? You wearing them X-Ray Specs again?

Click to expand...

Pander said:

Isn't the point of fuel limitation to find new ways of squeezing every last bit of energy from the fuel injected? Thus the designs for injectors, combustion chamber design, valve timing, spark plugs, inlets and exhausts. All filter down to production in a few years time.

Click to expand...

Keshav said:

A. It is regardless, a pointlessly cost-inefficient solution to an arbitrary restraint on the creation of power. A couple more liters of fuel would save millions in r+d and the end result at race time would be the same.

Click to expand...

BarryMachine said:

Exactly. Though I see Keshav still has absolutely no idea

Click to expand...

BarryMachine said:

Absolute ......... By that reckoning we would still be riding around on these ........

Click to expand...

mylexicon said:

A. Definitely.



B. Why would I need X-ray goggles? The manufacturers often tell people when they are testing new parts, but have you ever seen them provide a schematic? They keep parts under fairings. They close garage doors. Secrecy is a natural part of prototype racing. Fans don't need X-ray goggles to know it is going on, especially since the manufacturers often announce what they will be testing at the officially sanctioned tests.

Click to expand...

Keshav said:

Still haven't answered my question. How does it improve the racing?

Click to expand...

BarryMachine said:

By making them more powerful ....... per unit fuel shoved into them ....... do you get that?

Click to expand...

Keshav said:

At this stage it's a pointless excercise in engineering one-upmanship, given that adding a few liters would have the same effect.

The performance difference in the weight of the bike minus or plus a few liters of fuel is negligible.



The fuel efficient bike is no better than the bike with a few liters more fuel; just more prohibitively expensive.



If you're so obsessed with efficiency - you should try not wasting so much time using excessive emoticons as they

don't make your argument any more effective, and in point of fact, they detract from your argument and invite

(frequently) ridicule. But you can't help yourself. Like musicians that waste their days adding stomp boxes and wah wah pedals

onto violins to as a smokescreen for their lack of real creativity and you utilize emoticons in a lame attempt to embelish

weak logic.

Click to expand...

BarryMachine said:

Wow ...... implosion much !! thats makes no sense and the rest is one of the cattiest ....... I have ever seen on here

In any case ....... you know I'm right ......... I always am

Click to expand...

Keshav said:

You're missing the point of the discussion altogether. What you say is a given. But it has zero to do with why people watch MotoGp racing by the millions. It has nothing to do with why hundreds of thousands of people lay out big money for tickets to races and plan all year their trips flying and driving all over the planet to watch these events. I didn't shut down my business for a week at my busiest time of the year, fly to California and sleep in a camper full of drunken madmen because I wanted to rub elbows with the results of some geek's computer simulations on valve timing. I went for the racing.

Click to expand...

povol said:

You knew before you went what 800cc racing was about, yet you went anyway. If your expectations were for bad racing, why did you take the chance. You went because of the journey itself and camaraderie.

Click to expand...

mylexicon said:

I'll never be upset with an engineer for creating complicated, high-performance solutions. GP would be Superbike if the engineers stopped developing. However, I will let engineers have it with both barrels for allowing themselves to get bored, and the solving their boredom with complicated restrictions on racing. Engineers never seem to understand that racing is the revenue-generating activity that provides them with a job.



Regarding the Mushelin-versus-Brickstone spectacle, I often wonder what the sport would look like if the formula had been left at 990cc-24L. I doubt MotoGP would require arbitrary changes to improve the show. The engineers would have become bored, and they would have started the 500cc game all over again: No bike is perfect so what's wrong with our bike? The V5 is too wide. Build a new V4. The valve-springs break too easily and we rebuild to frequently. Adapt a pneumatic system. Our bike uses too much fuel. Develop fuel saving electronics. Chatter. Build new chassis designs. We only use a fraction of the engine's potential power. Reduce displacement.



I try not to lose my cool with Honda, but the company is an evil empire from a MotoGP standpoint. MotoGP is a miniscule blip on Honda's radar so they don't use it for funding. MotoGP doesn't generate sufficient funds for them now, and it probably won't unless it becomes as big as F1. Therefore, Honda use MotoGP to brand, and branding is all about winning by whatever means necessary. Doesn't matter if the sport collapses, they will move on to another branding activity as they have done in the AMA.



Why do the other manufacturers follow them around?!

Click to expand...

Pander said:

The banter on this forum is quality, gotta love it. Anyhoo, I can sympathise with both arguments. No it doesn't make the racing any better. But on the other hand, its good research into future technologies. Who can argue with that statement ?



( I bet someone does )

Click to expand...

povol said:

Doing whatever it takes to win is not a bad thing,

Click to expand...

povol said:

Doing whatever it takes to win is not a bad thing, unless you cheat, and as far as i know, Honda has not been accused of cheating.. The other manufacturers follow them around because they are competitors, and to be the best, you have to beat the best.They understand that without Honda, the sport would not be where it is today, and without them pushing innovation, the sport would most likely lose its appeal and become just another racing series. Racing has always been about the haves and have nots , why should today be any different. Oh, we need more bikes on the grid, Why, who does it benefit. Go back and look at the history of the sport, what is considered the best era. Some say the 990's, some say the 500's of the 80' 90's.



In the 990 era, my favorite, it was not uncommon for there to be 17-19 bikes on the grid, why does that suck now. In the 500 era, it was not uncommon for their to be anywhere from 20-25 bikes on the grid, with 4-5-6 of them getting lapped. I would much rather see 15 of the best bikes on the planet, than a 25-30 bike field with 1/5th of them getting lapped. .People watch whats happening at the front, if there is 1 at the front, so be it. If there is 2-3-4-5, at the front, so be it. Who really gives a .... what is happening back in 21st spot Like MA said, the only way to guarantee close racing is to artificially slow down the best, and at that point it ceases to be racing and the best will lose interest. If the best are not interested, you are no longer the pinnacle. Pick your poison. I personally believe GP is in for a natural drop off as Rossi and his traveling sideshow come to an end. He has been great for the pocketbooks of many, and they are desperately scrambling to figure out what it will take to retain those who were entertained by a chicken suit and other antics. Problem is, you have to have more than a character, you have to have one that wins, and the best young riders in the series are not characters. Lorenzo tried it, but even he saw how childish and contrived it looked and became himself this year. Obviously its not Pedro and Stoner, so what do you do. MotoGp was the recipient of a perfect storm for the last decade, an anomaly if you will. A character, that caught the imagination of fans, and even those that were not fans. Throw that in a pot with superior equipment, mediocre competition for the first half of that decade and viola, a cult is born. I dont think GP can recreate the perfect storm with todays competition, but that will not keep them from trying.

Click to expand...