wsbk rd2 portimao

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 7 2010, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Your still getting hung up on top speed in your equations. These bikes have a much faster top speed potential than you will ever see on a track. The top speeds that each bike attains on a track are due to getting out of the corner, gearing, and aero.Using it in your equation, is for the most part, meaningless.

I'm not that concerned with the nominal top speed values. I'm concerned with relative top speeds of the other factory competition. The Paul Bird goes right by the Pedercini without any issues b/c we all know it's got about 10-15 additional horsepower (amongst other things). However, the BMW can't get past the Suzuki even though the Bimmer should have an additional 30hp.

I'm only concerned with the nominal speed insofar as Jamie Whitham said all of the bikes had roughly 210hp at the crank. The top speeds appear to corroborrate his claims. A 1000cc WSBK engine should produce about 210bhp at 13,000rpm, but such modest engine speeds are basically a starting point for high bore manufacturers like BMW.

What are you going to tell me, BMW aren't interested in more power? BMW have F1 technology so I doubt very much that they can't get the S1000RR to 240bhp or 250bhp.

The MSMA were not going to leave things to chance b/c they didn't want two 1000cc prototype classes. They tried to limit horsepower via air restrictors, but the Flamminis rejected their rulebook and changed the rules. The MSMA aren't going to fail to slow down the bikes. The MSMA said they wanted a non-agression privateer series. The privateer part failed, but clearly they have succeeded in regards to non-aggression b/c all of the bikes have roughly the same hp. This is not by accident.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 7 2010, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Your still getting hung up on top speed in your equations. These bikes have a much faster top speed potential than you will ever see on a track. The top speeds that each bike attains on a track are due to getting out of the corner, gearing, and aero.Using it in your equation, is for the most part, meaningless.

I would have figured that if the tyres are considered relatively poor then they would be a limiting factor for the bikes top speed, by way of drive. Perhaps all the teams are able to extract approximately the same performance from the tyre and thats why things are so similar. Simple and likely compared to what you're offering

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 7 2010, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm not that concerned with the nominal top speed values. I'm concerned with relative top speeds of the other factory competition. The Paul Bird goes right by the Pedercini without any issues b/c we all know it's got about 10-15 additional horsepower (amongst other things). However, the BMW can't get past the Suzuki even though the Bimmer should have an additional 30hp.

I'm only concerned with the nominal speed insofar as Jamie Whitham said all of the bikes had roughly 210hp at the crank. The top speeds appear to corroborrate his claims. A 1000cc WSBK engine should produce about 210bhp at 13,000rpm, but such modest engine speeds are basically a starting point for high bore manufacturers like BMW.

What are you going to tell me, BMW aren't interested in more power? BMW have F1 technology so I doubt very much that they can't get the S1000RR to 240bhp or 250bhp.

The MSMA were not going to leave things to chance b/c they didn't want two 1000cc prototype classes. They tried to limit horsepower via air restrictors, but the Flamminis rejected their rulebook and changed the rules. The MSMA aren't going to fail to slow down the bikes. The MSMA said they wanted a non-agression privateer series. The privateer part failed, but clearly they have succeeded in regards to non-aggression b/c all of the bikes have roughly the same hp. This is not by accident.
I think you are grossly underestimating the HP of a WSBK. I read a Dennis Noyes article back when GP went to the 800's and he was saying that from that day, WSBK's were now the most powerful road racing bikes on the planet. He was told by a representative of one of the factory teams that their bike was putting 220 to the rear wheel, not at the crank. That sounds realistic since DMG Superbikes reportedly put 190 HP to the ground and the Canadian Superbike puts 180 to the ground in the mandatory post race dyno ,after its had its neck rung for 45 minutes.


More power doesnt always equate to better lap times. Usable power is what your looking for, or all you get is a tire shredding beast that impresses on the dyno.

By the way, you are starting to get into that mode where instead of preaching theory,your stating fact

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 7 2010, 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think you are grossly underestimating the HP of a WSBK. I read a Dennis Noyes article back when GP went to the 800's and he was saying that from that day, WSBK's were now the most powerful road racing bikes on the planet. He was told by a representative of one of the factory teams that their bike was putting 220 to the rear wheel, not at the crank. That sounds realistic since DMG Superbikes reportedly put 190 HP to the ground and the Canadian Superbike puts 180 to the ground in the mandatory post race dyno ,after its had its neck rung for 45 minutes.


More power doesnt always equate to better lap times. Usable power is what your looking for, or all you get is a tire shredding beast that impresses on the dyno.

By the way, you are starting to get into that mode where instead of preaching theory,your stating fact

At Qatar in 2009, MotoGP bikes were at 340kph and WSBK bikes were at 320kph in qualifying (fastest session for both GP and SBK). I know it's apples to oranges b/c GPs are smaller, lighter, and have better tires, but I think it's safe to say that GP bikes have more power. Interestingly enough, according to the calculations we were doing with drag and horsepower, it takes about 210bhp to make 320kph.

I think there is a lot of bad information flying about in regards to WSBK. Ducati seem to tell everyone that their bike revs to over 12,000rpm (pipe dream), but at 12,000rpm the Ducati would be roughly equal to the 14,000+ rpm redlines that Yamaha claim (legit). I certainly believe that some of the bikes can put at least 220hp to the ground, but it doesn't look like they have that kind of power during the races, imo.

I don't know what to think of AMA. Both DSB and SBK basically run WSS engine rules so they've got the ability to run max compression. But the gas weak so it's hard to know how to interpret their performance relative to WSBK.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2010, 03:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>At Qatar in 2009, MotoGP bikes were at 340kph and WSBK bikes were at 320kph in qualifying (fastest session for both GP and SBK). I know it's apples to oranges b/c GPs are smaller, lighter, and have better tires, but I think it's safe to say that GP bikes have more power. Interestingly enough, according to the calculations we were doing with drag and horsepower, it takes about 210bhp to make 320kph.

I think there is a lot of bad information flying about in regards to WSBK. Ducati seem to tell everyone that their bike revs to over 12,000rpm (pipe dream), but at 12,000rpm the Ducati would be roughly equal to the 14,000+ rpm redlines that Yamaha claim (legit). I certainly believe that some of the bikes can put at least 220hp to the ground, but it doesn't look like they have that kind of power during the races, imo.

I don't know what to think of AMA. Both DSB and SBK basically run WSS engine rules so they've got the ability to run max compression. But the gas weak so it's hard to know how to interpret their performance relative to WSBK.
Way to many variables there to come to the conclusion that a GP bike makes more HP than a WSBK. Just because it reached a higher trap speed on a certain track doesnt mean the other bike is down on power.Exit speed on the last corner would make up probably 2/3 of the 13 mph difference in the trap speed The calculations we were using when playing with drag and HP was using the frontal area of MY bike, not a GP bike that was designed in a wind tunnel. I can almost guarantee a GP bike has much less frontal area than my big ... 1200 Sport Tourer. I looked and could find no frontal area numbers on a GP bike, but i did find the frontal area and CD of a GP 125 bike and it was close to half the frontal area of my bike. I ran the numbers for a 125 to reach 200 miles per hour and guess what, if you can squeeze 117 hp out of the .....,your there..Or, you can look at Neil Hodgsons top speed of right at 320kph in the 2009 Daytona 200.That was achieved on a 190 hp Superstock, uh Superbike. I would say a GP bike could achieve 320 KPH with 175 -180 hp

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 8 2010, 09:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Way to many variables there to come to the conclusion that a GP bike makes more HP than a WSBK. Just because it reached a higher trap speed on a certain track doesnt mean the other bike is down on power.Exit speed on the last corner would make up probably 2/3 of the 13 mph difference in the trap speed The calculations we were using when playing with drag and HP was using the frontal area of MY bike, not a GP bike that was designed in a wind tunnel. I can almost guarantee a GP bike has much less frontal area than my big ... 1200 Sport Tourer. I looked and could find no frontal area numbers on a GP bike, but i did find the frontal area and CD of a GP 125 bike and it was close to half the frontal area of my bike. I ran the numbers for a 125 to reach 200 miles per hour and guess what, if you can squeeze 117 hp out of the .....,your there..Or, you can look at Neil Hodgsons top speed of right at 320kph in the 2009 Daytona 200.That was achieved on a 190 hp Superstock, uh Superbike. I would say a GP bike could achieve 320 KPH with 175 -180 hp

I think the math is going astray. MotoGP bikes legitimately produce 230bhp and they are basically tapped out in 6th gear at the end of long straights like Qatar or Mugello.

Aero is probably way too complex to have a technical discussion about; especially when you add the rider into the mix. However, I find the horsepower claims about WSBK to be dubious simply b/c power figures are not difficult to calculate and the highest top speeds in WSBK are not anywhere near the best MotoGP times.

Not saying it's impossible that WSBKs have more power, I'm simply pointing out that the data doesn't really support those claims.

However, these discussions do point out, that aerodynamics is even starting to ruin the world of motorcycle racing. There is absolutely no justification for MotoGP pocketbikes and the diminutive midgets they put under the bubble. They are not production relevant in the least. They should increase the dimensions of the bikes and institute a rider/bike minimum weight immediately. If frontal area is increased top speeds will come down (and stagnate) even if horsepower continues to increase to 990-esque levels.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2010, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think the math is going astray. MotoGP bikes legitimately produce 230bhp and they are basically tapped out in 6th gear at the end of long straights like Qatar or Mugello.

Aero is probably way too complex to have a technical discussion about; especially when you add the rider into the mix. However, I find the horsepower claims about WSBK to be dubious simply b/c power figures are not difficult to calculate and the highest top speeds in WSBK are not anywhere near the best MotoGP times.

Not saying it's impossible that WSBKs have more power, I'm simply pointing out that the data doesn't really support those claims.

However, these discussions do point out, that aerodynamics is even starting to ruin the world of motorcycle racing. There is absolutely no justification for MotoGP pocketbikes and the diminutive midgets they put under the bubble. They are not production relevant in the least. They should increase the dimensions of the bikes and institute a rider/bike minimum weight immediately. If frontal area is increased top speeds will come down (and stagnate) even if horsepower continues to increase to 990-esque levels.
Keep in mind,the article Noyes wrote when he said WSBK were now more powerful was in 2007. It is very possible that GP bikes have ascended to 230 hp since. I think your still getting hung up on top speed on a track. There is no doubt that they are basically tapped out in 6th at the end of the straight, the gearing for any particular track will have them tapped out at the end of the longest straight, that doesnt mean thats the bikes top speed. Like we said before,it would be interesting to see what a WSBK would do with 30 less pounds and prototype tires. I think the trap speeds would be very similar. Throw in carbon brakes, and the lap times would be closer than some would think. Its that last second that costs millions.

Lex, you are getting way too caught up on top speed and power figures and don't seem interested in the bigger but more complicated picture. Like a child who would be sure an SV650 is better than an NSR500 because the number is bigger.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 8 2010, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Lex, you are getting way too caught up on top speed and power figures and don't seem interested in the bigger but more complicated picture. Like a child who would be sure an SV650 is better than an NSR500 because the number is bigger.

The exact opposite is true. Pretending that I'm caught up in top speeds is what people do to dismiss the systemic arguments.

I'm concerned that the MSMA cannot run two 4-stroke prototype classes. They tried to create a horsepower limit with air restrictors back in 2003 b/c they wanted non-aggression in WSBK, but that arrangement was canceled by the Flamminis in 2004. The MSMA publicly damned the Flamminis for creating a rules structure that was going to ruin the viability of production bikes, yet in 2005 the manufacturers returned without the works name but with all of the prototype parts and electronics kit.

The relative top speeds and acceleration suggest the the manufacturers have succeeded in creating a non-aggression pact. This was the stated purpose from the beginning so it is inappropriate not to examine the possibility that they have some kind performance controls in place especially considering the technical variety of the machines they use these days. It is inappropriate to dismiss the possibility of performance controls when the most successful manufacturer in WSBK is competing under explicit performance limits.

The nominal value of top speed it only important insofar as it seems to indicate that the bikes are not running anywhere near their full capability. This is ancillary argument that is unrelated to systemic international racing arrangement which is controlled by the FIM.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2010, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The exact opposite is true. Pretending that I'm caught up in top speeds is what people do to dismiss the systemic arguments.

I'm concerned that the MSMA cannot run two 4-stroke prototype classes. They tried to create a horsepower limit with air restrictors back in 2003 b/c they wanted non-aggression in WSBK, but that arrangement was canceled by the Flamminis in 2004. The MSMA publicly damned the Flamminis for creating a rules structure that was going to ruin the viability of production bikes, yet in 2005 the manufacturers returned without the works name but with all of the prototype parts and electronics kit.

The relative top speeds and acceleration suggest the the manufacturers have succeeded in creating a non-aggression pact. Non-aggression has nothing to do with top speed. This was the stated purpose from the beginning so it is inappropriate not to examine the possibility that they have some kind performance controls in place especially considering the technical variety of the machines they use these days. It is inappropriate to dismiss the possibility of performance controls when the most successful manufacturer in WSBK is competing under explicit performance limits.

The nominal value of top speed it only important insofar as it seems to indicate that the bikes are not running anywhere near their full capability. This is ancillary argument that is unrelated to systemic international racing arrangement which is controlled by the FIM.
They are not running to full capacity because they are limited to an enclosed race track.This whole thing started because your belief that the BMW should be blowing the competition of the track in the straights and you cant figure out why they are not. You have been given countless reasons why, you just dont seem to want to accept them. If you took all the major players in WSBK to the flats and geared them for a 2 mile top end run,the BMW would more than likely win.That does not mean on a closed course with a quarter or even a half mile straight, it is going to do the same thing. The lower HP, higher torque engines are a better package when it comes to WSBK road racing, thats all

Do you know what Lex is right, its a conspiracy. All the factories have agreed to build approximately equal bikes and then they just allocate championships randomly to keep it interesting. Just to keep the usual crowds watching they also make sure the title is won by an english speaking person with broad shoulders, because superbike fans don't seem to like narrow little latin kids. Everyone gets something to watch but its all fixed like wrestling, Lex goes to bed happy because he knew best all along, outsmarted all the race organizers and got one over on all the other motorsport fans in the world. Good work.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 8 2010, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>They are not running to full capacity because they are limited to an enclosed race track.This whole thing started because your belief that the BMW should be blowing the competition of the track in the straights and you cant figure out why they are not. You have been given countless reasons why, you just dont seem to want to accept them. If you took all the major players in WSBK to the flats and geared them for a 2 mile top end run,the BMW would more than likely win.That does not mean on a closed course with a quarter or even a half mile straight, it is going to do the same thing. The lower HP, higher torque engines area better package when it comes to road racing, thats all

There is no motorsport that exists on this planet where machines with a 15% horsepower advantage go exactly the same speed in a straight line as the less powerful competition. Horsepower disparity manifests itself every weekend in WSBK when some of the less-powerful privateer machines routinely post the lowest top speeds and highest lap times even though they have the same tires and same minimum weight as everyone else.

Yes, I'm skeptical, especially when the MSMA said the stated purpose of 1000cc WSBK was to be a non-aggression manufacturing contest that promotes production relevant machines. Isn't that what WSBK is doing?

If the extremely loose technical regulations are actually creating close racing year after year, I will be amazed and intrigued. In the meantime, I have sought another alternative theory, and I have found what appears to be a reference to a homologated rev limit which I believe is a de jure technical regulation. I'm just going to see where this road leads.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 9 2010, 12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There is no motorsport that exists on this planet where machines with a 15% horsepower advantage go exactly the same speed in a straight line as the less powerful competition.

So how exactly do you know how powerful all the bikes are?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 9 2010, 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So how exactly do you know how powerful all the bikes are?

b/c brake horsepower calculations are very straight forward.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 9 2010, 08:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>b/c brake horsepower calculations are very straight forward.

Do go on, tell me exactly how you are 'calculating' BHP

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Mar 28 2010, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial Black<span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%<span style="color:#FF0000SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!



Question here is, what happens this weekend if the ruling decrees that the RSV4 has an illegal modification? The road bike has a chain driven cam train, the race bike has gear driven cams. This technicality may well be permitted because the rules state that you can fit an after market race kit - much like an after market exhaust, and this alteration is widely available on the road. But if they do decide that it is a departure from the homologated road bike then do they dock points, or will they simply insist that the cam drive reverts to its road counterpart system?

Aprilia will be allowed to use a gear-driven camshaft system on its World Superbike RSV4 race bikes, and because of homologation rules, the conversion kit will be made available for RSV4 Factory owners.

The gear-driven camshaft system replaces the chain-driven system found on stock motorcycles, and is said to improve power delivery.

The Aprilia Alitalia team used the system during the practice session before the Feb. 28 opening round in Australia’s Phillip Island circuit. After other teams lodged protests, Aprilia decided not to use the system until WSBK organizers ruled on whether it was legal. That hasn’t seemed to hurt the team however as Aprilia’s Max Biaggi sits second in the standings after winning both races in the March 28 Portimao, Portugal, round. His teammate Leon Camier sits eighth.

The WSBK Commission have now decided the rules only prohibit changing an engine’s valve control but not the type of gear control.

“We were certain our position was right, and we were in fact the first to announce the technical developments we were working on during the team presentation press conference,” says Gigi Dall'Igna, Aprilia technical and racing director. “We are the newcomers in this great championship and, while adhering to the regulations, we are obliged to explore every technical possibility to help us close the gap between us and our rivals, who have years of experience and success behind them.”
Max Biaggi will soon be able to use a gear-driven camshaft on his RSV4, and eventaully, RSV4 Factory owners can too.

Max Biaggi will soon be able to use a gear-driven camshaft on his RSV4, and eventaully, RSV4 Factory owners can too.

While Aprilia would have been allowed to use the gear-driven camshaft in the previous two rounds and the April 11 round in Valencia, Spain, the system still needs development and is not likely to be used until the May 31 round at Miller Motorsports Park in Utah.

“We have worked intensively on the gear driven camshaft system and its development is still a work in progress, with the main focus on improving power delivery,” says Gigi Dall'Igna. “We could be ready to race in a couple of months, possibly for the US race at the Miller Motorsport Park.”

Aprilia has not announced when the conversion kit will be available or how much it will cost.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 9 2010, 04:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Do go on, tell me exactly how you are 'calculating' BHP
He is basing his entire debate on Dyno numbers that BMW released.Even IF the BMW has a huge HP advantage stock, that doesnt mean it will react to allowed mods as well some other engines.Peaky high HP engines dont automatically do well on a enclosed race track. If a bike with better torque and low to midrange power pulls you out of a corner by 2 bike lengths, you spend the entire straight making up that 2 lengths. How do you overcome the initial acceleration advantage the other bike has, gearing. You change the gearing to make up lost time out of the corners,top end goes down . Think of it as a hole shot win in drag racing. The slower car beats the faster car off the line by a couple of hundreths. At the finish line,the faster car has a better ET and a faster speed, and lost.

BMW has to pick its poison, just like everyone else. That might be why your not seeing a huge top end speed out of the BMW,they were getting killed on exit speed and geared the bike to alleviate that problem

Maybe this will help. This just goes to 12000rpm to prove a point
From Akrapovich web site

9334:08zx10rvsbmw1000.jpg]


Values (hp):

ZX10R / BMWS1KRR

3000rpm: 32/25
4000rpm: 48/37
5000rpm: 66/54
6000rpm: 85/71
7000rpm: 103/90
8000rpm: 123/111
9000rpm: 142/130
10000rpm: 156/151
11000rpm: 169/170
12000rpm: 175/181

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 9 2010, 01:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Do go on, tell me exactly how you are 'calculating' BHP


This is the equation.

(1450((Displacement (cc)/Cylinder count /1000000)('Maximum Rpm/60)(Cylinder count/2))/0.7457)

1450 - is 14.5 bar which is basically the highest brake mean effective pressure you can get in a cylinder at max horsepower for a naturally aspirated engine on 100 octane (or similar) racing fuel. Most manufacturers (not just the ones who race at the highest level) have max BMEP technology.

Displacement and cylinder count are self explanatory

Maximum rpm is derived from maximum mean piston velocity which is somewhere between 25m/s or 26m/s. I have read that NASCAR and F1 can make 27m/s-28m/s but that's with 200million dollar engine budgets for the big teams and before the F1 rev limit. Max rpm at a given piston velocity is determined by stroke. The Suzuki is maxed at about 13,000-13,500rpm the BMW is maxed at 15,000-15,000rpm. The pressure from combustion cannot push the pistons any faster. The engine internals can be replaced so I doubt either manufacturer has trouble reaching max rpm, especially since Ducati were running 104mm pistons at around 12,500rpm back in the 999R days. Almost all manufacturers (not just those who compete in the premier racing classes) have the technology to reproduce maximum piston velocity.

.7457 is to convert from watts to horsepower

Suzuki GSXR-1000
(1450((1000cc)/4-cylinders)/1000000)(13,100rpm (at 25m/s mean piston velocity)/60(4/2)/.7457) = 212bhp

BMW S1000RR
(1450((1000cc/4-cylinders)/1000000)(15,000rpm (at 25m/s mean piston velocity)/604/2)/.7457) = 244hp

These equations are what the manufacturers use to calculate brake horsepower, but they use different numbers for mean effective pressure and rpm to suit the production specs.

After you do all of your derivations and you fiddle around with specs for a while you realize that engines with identical cylinder counts and identical bore create the same peak horsepower. Makes since b/c horespower is pressure acting upon a surface area over a given time. That's why I was confident the manufacturers were not intending to stop producing 800s.