You seem to have missed 'the point'. You should not be able to compare apples and oranges, they should be light years apart.
Voting with your (remote control) thumb?
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
You seem to have missed 'the point'. You should not be able to compare apples and oranges, they should be light years apart.
And I was programming in Fortran in the 70's, firmware (microcontrollers) in the 80's - it's very old technology. How about something new?
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 5,583
- Location
- Thailand
Why do you keep requesting explanations of what amount to rather simple conjectures? The point of this thread, broadening it out just slightly for you, is to discuss the reasons why people are 'turning off' motogp - my favourite sport. One way, maybe, would be to release the shackles, as it were, on innovation and allow the engineers to really go for it. So my 'point' is that MotoGP could/ should be much better than it is technically- or should we just leave it's future to satisfying the lowest common denominator and watch it disappear?
Unfortunately, the MSMA (and all racing manufacturers in general) have decided that innovations should be extraordinarily expensive. In defense of the manufacturers, the sanctioning officials started this mess by trying to slow down the cars with methods that proved to be quite expensive. Engine displacement and engine induction regulations, for instance, have been very expensive regulations. In MotoGP, displacement regs eventually led to cylinder limitations. This is part of the post-war era in which manufacturers fight one another in the rulebooks and in the bankers' offices. The sanctioning bodies get fed up with the chicanery of skewing the rules to favor particular competitors. The sanctioning officials eventually decide that technology is evil. Enter NASCAR spec-racing, balance of performance, or stringent FIA technical regulations and homologation papers.
Besides the fans, no one wants innovation. That's why it never happens. Innovation won't happen until people actually do vote with their remotes. The manufacturers will cry about the lack of cheap media opportunities, and someone will have to come up with a new sanctioning model. In the grand scheme, we MotoGP fans still have it pretty good on the technical front, and to be honest, I don't really trust the fans to define technological advancement. Too many people are interested in Star Wars toys, and not enough people are interested in production-relevant innovation.
I don't see power density for naturally aspirated engines as much of a technology, and the manufacturers don't really care either. Been there and done that in F1. Not much to see. Engineers hit sonic airflow issues, and then they start shoveling hundreds of millions into the development furnace to create a technology that is only pertinent in a world with limited displacement. No such world exists. Piston speed and cylinder pressure are much more interesting technologies, imo. I'm more disturbed with the lack of direct injection than the low power-density of modern GP engines.
Why would loosening the reins lead to financial issues? The current cost issues are caused by the technical regulations. It is not cheap to make high specific horsepower from naturally aspirated engines with too little fuel. Unfortunately, the rules mandate high specific horsepower, natural aspiration, and maximum fuel efficiency.
The problem with loose regulations is excessive performance. In the beginning of car racing there were almost no GP regulations. Top speeds became excessive so they introduced capacity regulations (formulas). Then they allowed aerodynamic downforce to slow the cars after capacity regulations failed to control performance. Aero downforce worsened the already unstable capacity formulas b/c horsepower was even more valuable b/c it allowed more wing (aero downforce is almost useless as well). A raft of engine, chassis, and aero regulations has basically strangled all car racing. The history of MotoGP is similar. Engine displacement regs. Cylinder limitations. The unintended consequence of two-strokes. The return to 4-strokes, and 1000 new regulations to control the performance of the bikes (including the control tire). The new restrictions like 81mm and 4-cylinders also control the costs b/c the new regulations limit the affects of the old regulations (engine displacement limitation).
But why should the focus just be on horsepower? Are we really at a point where suspension / handling / aerodynamics can not be improved? There were experiments with 16" wheels, single sided swing arms, hub centre steering, Dustbin fairings etc etc. All that innovation / experimentation seems to have died, and with it the technical interest. MotoGP is meant to be a showcase, a proving ground of new technologies - 'prototypes', yet they are still riding around on machines which are not too different, in fundamentals, to what my father's heroes rode. Materials technology has seen some advances, but with the minimum weight limit there is really not much point in exploring that one. So we have telescopic front forks -upside down - wow! (1950's?), monoshock rear (1970's?), Aluminium frames (1980's?) etc. Until we are blown away by something radical, the past will always seem rosy.
Fans are fascinated by speed - when TTXGP bikes lap Phillip Island faster than MotoGP - they will be interested.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Location
- home
I can only speak for myself, but I would love for TTXGP to get some kind of real exposure, for instance by being run at - and televised along with motogp or sbk events. We may rather think that it will never happen, but I think it is quite likely, perhaps even inevitable that bike racing will have to do without internal combustions engines someday.
Personally, I would be very interested in electric racing, allthough admittedly I would miss the sound of petrol going boom. It does have to come out of obscurity though, be run at interesting tracks and try to attrackt some quality riders.
so...the limiting factor on motorcycle speed round corners is grip, and the limiting factor of that grip will always be the contact patch and rubber compound. Whilst the wheel is constantly off axis, there will always be a limited amount of rubber on the road, regardless of tyre width. Keep the wheels vertical - 2 chassis - one for the wheels, one for the rider / engine etc. As the bike goes round the corner, the rider chassis moves to the inside, counteracting the centrifugal forces, whilst the wheels remain vertical affording maximum tyre contact / maximum grip. Obviously there would have to be a spring / damper based return mechanism.
Of course it wouldn't work - be great to see someone try though.
Of course it wouldn't work - be great to see someone try though.
"If it wasn't used on a Matchless in 1962, it can't be any good." One chassis builder sums up the attitude of the teams in the MotoGP paddock to innovation.
The reason you don't see radical chassis innovation is because it changes the feedback from the tires. That means riders have to unlearn everything they know about finding the limit with the tires, and learn a completely new set of feedback. That's a process which can take 10 years or more.
Then there's the tires. The spec tire is optimized for a traditional ally twin spar frame with telescopic forks. The spec tire is a massive block on innovation. The biggest problem, though, is the conservatism of the paddock. They don't like change. They don't have the time to understand it, because they have a race to win on Sunday.
The reason you don't see radical chassis innovation is because it changes the feedback from the tires. That means riders have to unlearn everything they know about finding the limit with the tires, and learn a completely new set of feedback. That's a process which can take 10 years or more.
Then there's the tires. The spec tire is optimized for a traditional ally twin spar frame with telescopic forks. The spec tire is a massive block on innovation. The biggest problem, though, is the conservatism of the paddock. They don't like change. They don't have the time to understand it, because they have a race to win on Sunday.
Why should cornerspeed be a pertinent technology? I understand GP is racing so cornerspeed is part of the game, but how do any of those technologies benefit me as a road rider?
If the manufacturers don't need racing to alter suspension setups for a smoother ride and better use of the tires. I think manufacturers don't change the suspension setup or chassis b/c they have to worry about suppressing costs. They have to suppress costs in the RR market b/c they have to build engines and chassis that can handle over 200hp per liter. Supersport engines specifically have to produce about 250hp per liter with almost no modifications to reciprocating internals. The replica racer market is practically a loss leader so the manufacturers suppress costs in other models to earn profits.
Engine design and chassis placement are what really matter for road riders. These things can be developed away from the track, but the industry has signaled that it likes its race bikes to have some racing pedigree or at least the appearance of racing pedigree.
If all the manufacturers thought like that, we would still be on girder forks and rigid rears, and there is nothing worse than a rigid rear. There seems to be this overriding impression that the motorcycle is 'finalised', no further development or innovation needed. How sad a situation is that.
Have you never been going round a corner and thinking 'there is no way I could have gone quicker', then you get on a different bike, with better suspension / brakes etc and go round faster, which means that you could have gone round the same speed as before but safer, in more control. We should be pushing the envelope, not sealing it up.
Technological progress in the motorcycle industry is not being sealed by artificial regulations, but by the limitations of the market segment itself.
If motorcycle manufacturers were like Ferrari, and they sold 7,200 Supercars/Superbikes per year @ $300,000 per unit, maybe we'd see the kind of innovation you demand. Unfortunately, motorcycle manufacturers sell about the same volume of Superbikes at about 1/20th the price, and they achieve much lower per unit margins. Ducati are probably the closest to the Ferrari model, and they have innovated with the new aluminum monocoque 1199 Panigale and limited bikes like the D16RR.
Honestly, Dorna could abolish the rulebook altogether, but we're not going to get the kind of developments you're talking about. Most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. What incentive do they have to risk insane money for paltry returns?
Dr No
SPECTRE
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,994
- Location
- Crab Key
Some excellent points you've been making there, Lex.
30 odd years ago, a reasonable rider could find the machine limits of a Sportsbike. That limit has blown out to the extent that it takes real talent to find the limits of modern SS600s, nevermind 1000s.
So what will this new technology build on? Panigale 'leccy adjusable suspension? Traction control maps? Given that most riders don't even look at their spring rates, I see a lot of this stuff as window dressing at best. Nothing I'd like to pay for.
