- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 22,701
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 22,701
I can see the logic in your thoughts and im sure Pedrosa will talk to yam if he feels he is about to be dumped out. Yam will also look at him as a 2nd or 3rd place rider and not a winner i would think. I doubt Lorenzo will want pedrosa in the same team. garage wall again??
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 22,701
Sure. That was rather my point.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- Dont Know
Developing a whole new engine might be a little more expensive than a revised frame Hawk. Why dont Honda rush an I4 for Stoner to take advantage of the new soft front tire? Ducati have already made four different bikes for 2012. The original CF chasis which was discarded, a part aluminium one rushed out for Aragon with the pit lane penalty, two FTR made twin spars, one for the old engine, another complete wrap around for a whole new engine. Then they tested a high torque lower revs engine. So Ducati are on frame revision #5 and engine revision 3. Yamaha are on engine one frame two I think?
But all this is beside the point. Rossi should have simply said build me a red Yamaha.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,605
- Location
- here
No development need to go from a stressed member to a non-stressed member other than possibly engine mount positioning. Definitely not millions.
The idea of narrowing the V is not to make weight distribution like an I4, but to stop the bike being so long and to allow them to move the weight in the chassis to help with the front end.
Changing the V angle, that would cost a lot and take time, especially with the 6 engine rule, but it sounds like the rumours that Ducati were starting a project to do that late last year were just rumours. It's too late to start now unless its for 2013, but it doesn't sound like it'll happen at the moment.
Completely new engine configurations are majorly expensive, even for large auto manufacturers. Ducati only entered motogp because their traditional V2/L2 could be made into a V4/L4, having considered the previous 500 two- stroke formula to be outside their sphere of technology.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,605
- Location
- here
I think we are on the same page here. Going from a stressed member to a non stressed is not a new engine config, so no major cost there. I did state that changing the V (a new config) would cost a lot, especially with the 6 engine rule which means that the engine not only has to work, it also has to be reliable.
The cost for auto manufacturers & bike manufacturers, large or small is approximately similar, it's just that the large ones have far larger profits due to the numbers they produce and so can afford to spend some of that on engine design.
I currently work for JaguarLandrover (a small manufacturer in comparison to Ford or VAG, or even BMW) in Powertrain and we are designing & building 2 new engines at the moment, based on the same block - an I4 petrol & an I4 diesel. Designing and building the first donks, whilst not cheap, didn't take too long or cost the earth.
The hard and expensive parts are a) refining the design to be reliable enough for mass production so as to minimise the warranty costs and
I think we are on the same page here. Going from a stressed member to a non stressed is not a new engine config, so no major cost there. I did state that changing the V (a new config) would cost a lot, especially with the 6 engine rule which means that the engine not only has to work, it also has to be reliable.
The cost for auto manufacturers & bike manufacturers, large or small is approximately similar, it's just that the large ones have far larger profits due to the numbers they produce and so can afford to spend some of that on engine design.
I currently work for JaguarLandrover (a small manufacturer in comparison to Ford or VAG, or even BMW) in Powertrain and we are designing & building 2 new engines at the moment, based on the same block - an I4 petrol & an I4 diesel. Designing and building the first donks, whilst not cheap, didn't take too long or cost the earth.
The hard and expensive parts are a) refining the design to be reliable enough for mass production so as to minimise the warranty costs andgetting it to meet the extremely tight emissions laws. Neither of the latter two things are required for a Ducati motogp engine, but the 6 engine rule does mean that they have to do at least some of the work required for a), hence my original comment that it would not be an insignificant cost. It would, however, cost nothing like what it does for a production engine that can be sold in today's markets.
I realised when I posted that you would know more than me about this, and I did wonder what the major cost was for mass production manufacturers, and what you say includes some of what I surmised. I was thinking about that early 60s GM (?buick) aluminium V8 which lasted so long including as the basis for rover/range rover engines, and even as the base for racing engines. Pure racing operations like cosworth seemed to stick to a particular configuration for a long time also. All before modern computer modelling and design of course.
A major engine configuration change still seems daunting to contemplate for the likes of yamaha let alone ducati. Ducati corse at least are a tiny operation and not up to designing and building engines from scratch themselves I am led to believe, and I would have thought a new engine configuration would be a major undertaking for their parent company hitherto as well.
I don't think this applies to honda, who I believe once built an engine quite different than any other product of theirs apparently just to take advantage of regulations which were possibly helping ducati in wsbk. They seem to be rather good at building engines though.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
Yes, designing a new engine is much more expensive than whatever they have done so far, and it would take more than one year if they start tomorrow. Ducati have hired Rossi, they have tried everything within the limitations imposed by their engine architecture, and (so far) failed. Will they go to the extent of designing a narrow V engine? That could be a decision for the new owners. I guess they will probably not go that way. Either become competitive again with their trademark engine architecture, or withdraw their bikes from MotoGP, concentrate on winning in WSBK and maybe wait for better times, different rules, tires, etc.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 90° V engine, it's a fine architecture. It is the current Bridgestone control tires that are making it virtually impossible for Ducati's unconventional design to succeed (unless it rains and the same can use the Bridgestone wet tires, that still use an older kind of body structure; then magically the "long and low" Ducatis can heat the tires well, do not devour them and are just fine!). Maybe because that older Bridgestone tire body had been originally designed on the Ducati?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 90° V engine, it's a fine architecture. It is the current Bridgestone control tires that are making it virtually impossible for Ducati's unconventional design to succeed (unless it rains and the same can use the Bridgestone wet tires, that still use an older kind of body structure; then magically the "long and low" Ducatis can heat the tires well, do not devour them and are just fine!). Maybe because that older Bridgestone tire body had been originally designed on the Ducati?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 11,378
- Location
- Pomona NY
I just don't think they are capable of meeting the requirement of Rossi and Burgess without first building a new motor from the ground up. The size and geometry of the current engine severely limits the possibilities for useful change.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
I know this isnt popular with VR fans, but my opinion is his 'development' skills are grossly overrated.
What do you base this on? I mean, Masao Furusawa himself has spoken at length at Rossi's bike development skills. I'm not sure this Ducati debacle is evidence of this claim. Rossi's criticisms are quite clear and are quite consistent with Nicky's. The bike has serious understeer issues. Nothing effective has really been done to combat this issue. What's Vale to do? Go into the Ducati Corse department and start messing with V-Angle and Frame Stiffness?
Quoting j4rno:
"Remember Masao Furusawa, when he first commented on Rossi's move to Ducati -- he said that Valentino had an uncanny ability to tell what's happening in a GP bike, but maybe he was "too good for Ducati. In that case he'll become another source of 'noise'". I'm quoting from memory but think this is what he said."
Here's the link mate:
http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/166485/1/furusawa_reflects_on_eve_of_yamaha_motogp_exit.html
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Furusawa praising Rossi, now that is news. Oh he is too good for Ducati. Wow, talk about spin. Ah yes, he is telling them exactly what is wrong with the bike, the only problem is he is speaking in Jiberish (I'm trying to be funny here, perhaps unsuccessfully), and none of the stupid engineers speak that language. Dumb ... engineers!
Well good sir, I base it on VRs stint at Ducati. That should be enough, but I won't convince you of the truth, just as much as I won't convince the same peeps saying Ducati hasn't done anything (which you have just enlisted yourself) despite me showing the unarguable FACTS that have been reported). You can start by breaking down all the articles that have reported THE RADICAL changes they have made. And add to this the over hyped glorified supposed turn around of the Yamaha describes from ashes to glory. Do yourself a favor and google KRjr take on this one. Did you read the thread first, then ask me what I base it on? Or have you just skipped over the entire discussion? Start there, then wake me up.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 9,515
- Location
- Norah Head
Marquez won't learn a thing from Rossi. Thats who he is, and I suspect thats why Honda want him ....... he'll win his way ..... whatever way!.
Rossi will be there because Dorna said so, and both now and later it will buy Honda what they want ..... nothing to do with his racing performance, its a different game now not likely Rossi will get far on the Honda, bt having Marquez to ride like a nut and get a few wins negates Rossi's performance.
Rossi had his day. He has tasted success and achieved everything that can be achieved in the sport. But he can't let go. His fans can't let go. No disrespect to him and his achievements, but hanging around longer is gonna hurt him more. It's not like he is sitting in a comfy car cockpit - he has to throw a bike around, and he is starting to look crippled on that bike. Next year the young Marquez joins the grid - he will probably be the first of the "next generation" of champions. Rossi is too old for this now. He doesn't even belong to the pre-Marquez era (Lorenzo/Stoner era) - he belongs to the era before that, and did a great job to cross eras up until this point. But it's time to face the inevitable - that we ALL get old. Even the great Rossi.
However, this is all just my opinion and I could be wrong, of course. It will require an inspired comeback of miraculous proportions, plus a full factory ride (Honda or Yamaha) with favour and support over team-mate to disprove this opinion, I believe. Even, hypothetically if he did recieve best bike and full favoured support, is the great Rossi capable of returning to his glory days? Certainly. Is the aging 2013 Rossi capable of that? We will see...
However, this is all just my opinion and I could be wrong, of course. It will require an inspired comeback of miraculous proportions, plus a full factory ride (Honda or Yamaha) with favour and support over team-mate to disprove this opinion, I believe. Even, hypothetically if he did recieve best bike and full favoured support, is the great Rossi capable of returning to his glory days? Certainly. Is the aging 2013 Rossi capable of that? We will see...
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 11,378
- Location
- Pomona NY
Possibly - tho even in 2007 when the chassis was reportedly designed to work well with specific Bridgestones - Stoner was the only one who had any real success with it.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
Actually at that time it was the reverse -- it was the Bridgestones that had been developed on the Ducati chassis (the chassis of the 990, that was a bike on which Capirossi could win races and contend in the 2006 title race, and that with Bayliss won the last 990 GP). In 2007 the brutal power delivery of the Ducati screamer could be tamed only by Stoner, although Barros could still beat a Stoner with tire problems at Mugello, on a Pramac Ducati (!), and Capirossi could win Motegi as usual and be second at P.I. (something unthinkable in the following years).
The rise and decline of the Ducati has a lot to do with the Bridgestone tires; they would not have won a title without Stoner, probably, but with the right tires they could have continued being competitive as they were in 2006.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 11,378
- Location
- Pomona NY
That actually makes more sense given Ducati's seeming inability to engineer effective changes to the chassis in the following years.
Absolutely agree (motegi 2007 was a strange race wet dry race, barros went against the advice of bridgestone and the choice of all the other bridgestone runners, but it was a podium on a pramac d'antin, with the d'antin part making it even more impressive, and capirossi certainly had other podiums). That ducati have had to completely change their chassis philosophy, and are now being called upon to change their traditional engine architecture at great expense all because of a cost saving control tyre is frankly ludicrous.
It will be interesting to see how the new thing goes on wsbk tyres.
