<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 13 2007, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>For any set of rules there will be pros and cons for each solution and some turn out to be inferior. Like you said, the 750 fours were inferior to the 1000cc twins. As a result the factories running 750's could chose to make a more competative solution, spend more money on trying to eliminate the weaknesses of their current solution, or give up.
Not really. They were running out of options and the current theory for why the mathematical calculation went wrong is the same as the gereral perseption: it's easierto get power to the ground with the twin. But that is kind of a side step. Major point is, you can only put so much money into it, and finally it's not going to give anything measurable extra.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>with the current rules the 1000cc twin is an inferior solution. As a result ducati have chosen to spend more money trying to keep up.
No, they are allowed to do so to compensate for the <u>obvious </u>handicap of two sylinders and same displcement. They are allowed to more or less an unlimitied modification of the engine, far beyond the IL4 engines. Materials, reinforcments, parts, anything short of increasing the displacement and being anyting but a suction engine, they can change it, in other words it's like a prototype engine. All this to compensate for the disadvantage of having less valve area and less rpms. They can cope with that, but at a cost, problem is, they can't do this to their street bikes, and they increase the capacity there and on the stock-racing to keep them competetive, on the market and on the track. The market IS the basis for the SB class. Without it no SB. While the transition to 1000 took a while with the fours, the twin market today is so small that changes are very obvious, imediate and therefore influence the racing imediatly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>That is the choice they have made up untill now and they are no longer happy, but instead of giving up or trying a new solution they are complaining about the rules.
First of all, I agree that Ducati has had a questionable influence on the regulations in the past, but there is little reason to believe that the influence the later years has been obvious. At least far less obvious than Hondas influence in MotoGP. Let's not be naive, it's big money and prestige involved here and anyone who can, will do their best to position them selves. That is a obligations they have to their share holders and thats what Ducati do now. To me it's little less pathetic to hate a company for that. We hate them for dominant position, unfair advantages, but to hate them for doing their job....
Besides, running a 1100, 1150, 1200 twin or what ever we end up with, does not seam unfair to me. What would be unfair was to let som influecial person, like Foggy to develop a V6 1000, "homologated" without any sales and kick everybodys ..., while in reality being a prototype bike, like the Petronas was, but with an uncompetetive configuration.
Because the V6 would easily beat them all. There is no problem with todays technology to make it narrow enough and it would create heaps of power. Feed it enough soup and it would fly. Only downside, it's no mass market for it, because it would be to expencive. To expencive for the small companies to develop, to expencive to create enough sale for the big ones.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>(remember how honda built a new bike when their solution was uncompetative and Aprillia are developing a v4 for superbike racing now).
Being in the series longer should not give them any weight over other factories, "tradition" can go so far but the rules shouldn't be altered just to allow that to continue, the rules were never modified to keep Hondas favoured V4 competative.
Honda didn't sell V4 in that configuration anymore, all RRs where IL engines and none of them where 750s. They had no bike to homologate. They could have (and probably did) pushed for a change but this was in the worst period of where Ducati had a to strong influence on the regulations with Foggy as the flag-ship. The time would have been right for a change but it didn't appear and honda went for a twin. But honda hardly buildt their company on one engine configuration. Considering their development budget and tradition that choise was relativly easy. But the others couldn't and they all pulled out more or less, because the regulations were unfair. When the regulations changed they came back.
And belive me when I say that I wanted changes at around 2000, did you?
Do we really need companies to pull out before every one can see that the regulations doesn't work? I hope not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>In the market it costs more money to get a competative twin then it does an inline four cylinder bike, so Ducati shouldn't argue that they have to spend more money than the other factories to stay competative when it actually reflects the market, something which forms another part of their argument.
Cost more? Do they? Where can you find a Honda with Ohlins, Brembo and marchozzini for the same price tag? You find Ducatis in most price levels. Maybe a little more expencive but that's obviously something some are willing to pay. To compare that with racing budget is a bit far fetched, isn't it? Besides, thats only Ducati. I haven't seen twins to be more expencive than fours in general. Where do that come from?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I'd prefer it if you didn't call me thick. Do not assume because i have formed an opinion that i am not aware of both sides of the story. I do understand your standpoint but i respectfully disagree, you should try it.
When you clearify your standpoint I'll stop.
Upto now you seem to go for the hooligan standpoints:
-IL4 Ruuule, for each cc they give the most power, then they must be best. .... Ducati if they can't pull out enough hp out of their pathetic twins.
- Ducati had such an unfair advantage in the past. Now it's payback time.
If that's your arguments, well.....
Lets assume you on purpose disregard the physical laws and stil consider that any engine configuration should allways compete under the same specifications regarding displacement. I effect saying that displacement is the only true regulation for engines. If they can't follow that, throw it away. I've met that one before, but then as now, why? In todays and present motor racing there are many tricks tried, most failed, many were far to successfull and quickly banned. If the displacement is the "only" true mesurement, why aren't we experimenting with compressors and turbos? with oval sylinders and exotic materials? There are thousands of these questions for known technology that are not allowed because it give an unfair advantage. Why do MotoGP have weight limits in relation to cylinders? Why should displcement be such a holy cow? It make some sense (not much) in a prototype series, but in a series that should reflect the sales market where there are no twins of that capacity? I don't get it.
Not really. They were running out of options and the current theory for why the mathematical calculation went wrong is the same as the gereral perseption: it's easierto get power to the ground with the twin. But that is kind of a side step. Major point is, you can only put so much money into it, and finally it's not going to give anything measurable extra.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>with the current rules the 1000cc twin is an inferior solution. As a result ducati have chosen to spend more money trying to keep up.
No, they are allowed to do so to compensate for the <u>obvious </u>handicap of two sylinders and same displcement. They are allowed to more or less an unlimitied modification of the engine, far beyond the IL4 engines. Materials, reinforcments, parts, anything short of increasing the displacement and being anyting but a suction engine, they can change it, in other words it's like a prototype engine. All this to compensate for the disadvantage of having less valve area and less rpms. They can cope with that, but at a cost, problem is, they can't do this to their street bikes, and they increase the capacity there and on the stock-racing to keep them competetive, on the market and on the track. The market IS the basis for the SB class. Without it no SB. While the transition to 1000 took a while with the fours, the twin market today is so small that changes are very obvious, imediate and therefore influence the racing imediatly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>That is the choice they have made up untill now and they are no longer happy, but instead of giving up or trying a new solution they are complaining about the rules.
First of all, I agree that Ducati has had a questionable influence on the regulations in the past, but there is little reason to believe that the influence the later years has been obvious. At least far less obvious than Hondas influence in MotoGP. Let's not be naive, it's big money and prestige involved here and anyone who can, will do their best to position them selves. That is a obligations they have to their share holders and thats what Ducati do now. To me it's little less pathetic to hate a company for that. We hate them for dominant position, unfair advantages, but to hate them for doing their job....
Besides, running a 1100, 1150, 1200 twin or what ever we end up with, does not seam unfair to me. What would be unfair was to let som influecial person, like Foggy to develop a V6 1000, "homologated" without any sales and kick everybodys ..., while in reality being a prototype bike, like the Petronas was, but with an uncompetetive configuration.
Because the V6 would easily beat them all. There is no problem with todays technology to make it narrow enough and it would create heaps of power. Feed it enough soup and it would fly. Only downside, it's no mass market for it, because it would be to expencive. To expencive for the small companies to develop, to expencive to create enough sale for the big ones.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>(remember how honda built a new bike when their solution was uncompetative and Aprillia are developing a v4 for superbike racing now).
Being in the series longer should not give them any weight over other factories, "tradition" can go so far but the rules shouldn't be altered just to allow that to continue, the rules were never modified to keep Hondas favoured V4 competative.
Honda didn't sell V4 in that configuration anymore, all RRs where IL engines and none of them where 750s. They had no bike to homologate. They could have (and probably did) pushed for a change but this was in the worst period of where Ducati had a to strong influence on the regulations with Foggy as the flag-ship. The time would have been right for a change but it didn't appear and honda went for a twin. But honda hardly buildt their company on one engine configuration. Considering their development budget and tradition that choise was relativly easy. But the others couldn't and they all pulled out more or less, because the regulations were unfair. When the regulations changed they came back.
And belive me when I say that I wanted changes at around 2000, did you?
Do we really need companies to pull out before every one can see that the regulations doesn't work? I hope not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>In the market it costs more money to get a competative twin then it does an inline four cylinder bike, so Ducati shouldn't argue that they have to spend more money than the other factories to stay competative when it actually reflects the market, something which forms another part of their argument.
Cost more? Do they? Where can you find a Honda with Ohlins, Brembo and marchozzini for the same price tag? You find Ducatis in most price levels. Maybe a little more expencive but that's obviously something some are willing to pay. To compare that with racing budget is a bit far fetched, isn't it? Besides, thats only Ducati. I haven't seen twins to be more expencive than fours in general. Where do that come from?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I'd prefer it if you didn't call me thick. Do not assume because i have formed an opinion that i am not aware of both sides of the story. I do understand your standpoint but i respectfully disagree, you should try it.
When you clearify your standpoint I'll stop.
Upto now you seem to go for the hooligan standpoints:
-IL4 Ruuule, for each cc they give the most power, then they must be best. .... Ducati if they can't pull out enough hp out of their pathetic twins.
- Ducati had such an unfair advantage in the past. Now it's payback time.
If that's your arguments, well.....
Lets assume you on purpose disregard the physical laws and stil consider that any engine configuration should allways compete under the same specifications regarding displacement. I effect saying that displacement is the only true regulation for engines. If they can't follow that, throw it away. I've met that one before, but then as now, why? In todays and present motor racing there are many tricks tried, most failed, many were far to successfull and quickly banned. If the displacement is the "only" true mesurement, why aren't we experimenting with compressors and turbos? with oval sylinders and exotic materials? There are thousands of these questions for known technology that are not allowed because it give an unfair advantage. Why do MotoGP have weight limits in relation to cylinders? Why should displcement be such a holy cow? It make some sense (not much) in a prototype series, but in a series that should reflect the sales market where there are no twins of that capacity? I don't get it.
