wsbk rd2 portimao

I asked Noyes about the rev limit, and he dismissed the idea out of hand. He did say that there used to be a rev limit for bikes with a bore/stroke ratio of more than 2:1 of 14K, but this was quietly dropped, which allowed the Aprilia and BMW to enter. Right now, there's no rev limit.

In conclusion, your logic was solid, but overly paranoid. Or something.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 9 2010, 02:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I asked Noyes about the rev limit, and he dismissed the idea out of hand. He did say that there used to be a rev limit for bikes with a bore/stroke ratio of more than 2:1 of 14K, but this was quietly dropped, which allowed the Aprilia and BMW to enter. Right now, there's no rev limit.

In conclusion, your logic was solid, but overly paranoid. Or something.
We have yet to figure it out either

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 9 2010, 11:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I asked Noyes about the rev limit, and he dismissed the idea out of hand. He did say that there used to be a rev limit for bikes with a bore/stroke ratio of more than 2:1 of 14K, but this was quietly dropped, which allowed the Aprilia and BMW to enter. Right now, there's no rev limit.

In conclusion, your logic was solid, but overly paranoid. Or something.

I'm not surprised based upon the articles he writes at SpeedTV. It's funny b/c without the inside information that Noyes publishes in his articles, it would be impossible for me to understand what is actually going on. The inside information he revealed about Ducati being over the proposed bore limit (eventually revealed as 81mm) allowed me to understand that the manufacturers were not intending to discontinue 800cc engines.

Maybe others knew, but couldn't risk irritating Dorna.

It is a bit dismaying that he didn't entertain the idea that the old 1.5 bore-stroke rev limit would actually have given BMW an advantage not a handicap, but that's life.

Thanks for talking to Dennis for me. I have to admit something really cool is at work here. A common fan from Texas has posted a theory on a website run by a Briton. Another Briton who is living in the Netherlands flies to Qatar then drives into the Qatarese desert to deliver the theory to another American.

I'm sorry he dismissed the theory out of hand, I hope it didn't lead him to question your judgment for entertaining such ideas.

I have one more avenue to explore, but I'm not expecting different results.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 9 2010, 03:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm not surprised based upon the articles he writes at SpeedTV. It's funny b/c without the inside information that Noyes publishes in his articles, it would be impossible for me to understand what is actually going on. The inside information he revealed about Ducati being over the proposed bore limit (eventually revealed as 81mm) allowed me to understand that the manufacturers were not intending to discontinue 800cc engines.

Maybe others knew, but couldn't risk irritating Dorna.

It is a bit dismaying that he didn't entertain the idea that the old 1.5 bore-stroke rev limit would actually have given BMW an advantage not a handicap, but that's life.

Thanks for talking to Dennis for me. I have to admit something really cool is at work here. A common fan from Texas has posted a theory on a website by a Briton. Another Briton who is living in the Netherlands flies to Qatar then drives into the Qatarese desert to deliver the theory to another American.

I'm sorry he dismissed the theory out of hand, I hope it didn't lead him to question your judgment for entertaining such ideas.

I have one more avenue to explore, but I'm not expecting different results.
Que up the Le [X] files music.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 9 2010, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Thanks for talking to Dennis for me. I have to admit something really cool is at work here. A common fan from Texas has posted a theory on a website by a Briton. Another Briton who is living in the Netherlands flies to Qatar then drives into the Qatarese desert to deliver the theory to another American.

I'm sorry he dismissed the theory out of hand, I hope it didn't lead him to question your judgment for entertaining such ideas.

No, I get on well with Dennis, so that's cool. One of the coolest things for me personally is to have earned the respect of people like Dennis Noyes, Paolo Scalera and Toby Moody. That's how I know I'm not just makin' .... up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 9 2010, 03:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm not surprised based upon the articles he writes at SpeedTV. It's funny b/c without the inside information that Noyes publishes in his articles, it would be impossible for me to understand what is actually going on. The inside information he revealed about Ducati being over the proposed bore limit (eventually revealed as 81mm) allowed me to understand that the manufacturers were not intending to discontinue 800cc engines.

Maybe others knew, but couldn't risk irritating Dorna.

It is a bit dismaying that he didn't entertain the idea that the old 1.5 bore-stroke rev limit would actually have given BMW an advantage not a handicap, but that's life.

Thanks for talking to Dennis for me. I have to admit something really cool is at work here. A common fan from Texas has posted a theory on a website by a Briton. Another Briton who is living in the Netherlands flies to Qatar then drives into the Qatarese desert to deliver the theory to another American.

I'm sorry he dismissed the theory out of hand, I hope it didn't lead him to question your judgment for entertaining such ideas.


I have one more avenue to explore, but I'm not expecting different results.


Its called the interweb dummy

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 9 2010, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Its called the interweb dummy

The interweb is ....... magic. It's allowed me to chuck in my old job and do this. I can't believe it sometimes. Thanks Al ....!











(One of the above sentences is meant sarcastically. Can you spot which one?)

Could it b the thanx 2 the prince o darkness?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 9 2010, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The interweb is ....... magic. It's allowed me to chuck in my old job and do this. I can't believe it sometimes. Thanks Al ....!











(One of the above sentences is meant sarcastically. Can you spot which one?)
. The Goracle claims my state as home, what a ....... ...... bag.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 10 2010, 06:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>. The Goracle claims my state as home, what a ....... ...... bag.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 9 2010, 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Que up the Le [X] files music.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2010, 12:32 AM) <{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.

Just took a peek at the top speeds in Moto2 QP at Qatar. Identical engines, but a spread of 17km/h over the field. And all of the Moto2 guys I've spoken to have said they need to work on their aerodynamics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 11 2010, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Just took a peek at the top speeds in Moto2 QP at Qatar. Identical engines, but a spread of 17km/h over the field. And all of the Moto2 guys I've spoken to have said they need to work on their aerodynamics.

I think you are inadvertently making my point for me, even spec engines have a greater top speed dispersion. No really, I understand that you are trying to make the point that very little can be gleaned from top speeds, but imo, the world of 140hp 600cc engines and 210hp SBK engines is too different b/c of the effects of drafting. That's why I've been drawing comparisons to MotoGP which has similar power figures.

I just think it's fascinating that WSBK has no performance controls to speak of other than capacity and 1 or 2 stock engine parts. We know the engine specifications and we know that nearly every moving engine internal part can be replaced with something of MotoGP quality, yet all of the bikes regardless of their engine spec are said to produce approximately 210bhp. The top speeds are homogeneous as well which makes the power claims look legitimate.

Anyway, I've had correspondence with a BSB rider who has told me that the Suzuki rev limiter was set at 13,800rpm or 13,300rpm homologated. The 13,300rpm rev limit could be entirely coincidental but I think it is interesting that it coincides with 12,500rpm +100 rpm for every year WSBK has been 1000cc (2003-2010). I still have no information regarding other brands, but maybe I will get some responses to my inquiries.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 11 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think you are inadvertently making my point for me, even spec engines have a greater top speed dispersion. No really, I understand that you are trying to make the point that very little can be gleaned from top speeds, but imo, the world of 140hp 600cc engines and 210hp SBK engines is too different b/c of the effects of drafting. That's why I've been drawing comparisons to MotoGP which has similar power figures.

I just think it's fascinating that WSBK has no performance controls to speak of other than capacity and 1 or 2 stock engine parts. We know the engine specifications and we know that nearly every moving engine internal part can be replaced with something of MotoGP quality, yet all of the bikes regardless of their engine spec are said to produce approximately 210bhp. The top speeds are homogeneous as well which makes the power claims look legitimate.

Anyway, I've had correspondence with a BSB rider who has told me that the Suzuki rev limiter was set at 13,800rpm or 13,300rpm homologated. The 13,300rpm rev limit could be entirely coincidental but I think it is interesting that it coincides with 12,500rpm +100 rpm for every year WSBK has been 1000cc (2003-2010). I still have no information regarding other brands, but maybe I will get some responses to my inquiries.

Dude, give it up, please!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 11 2010, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Dude, give it up, please!

Povol, the FIM homologate a rev limit. What do you want? Angels to come down from heaven and tell you there is a rev-limit?

It's right there in black and white. Evo bikes require and FIM homologation. Evo bikes are limited to 500rpm over the homologated rev limit. Now I just need to figure out whether the rev limit is the same for everyone, how the rev limit works, and whether or not the rev limit can be modified in WSBK.

I know this isn't the sport you want, but it's the sport they've invented. That's not my problem.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 11 2010, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Povol, the FIM homologate a rev limit. What do you want? Angels to come down from heaven and tell you there is a rev-limit?

It's right there in black and white. Evo bikes require and FIM homologation. Evo bikes are limited to 500rpm over the homologated rev limit. Now I just need to figure out whether the rev limit is the same for everyone, how the rev limit works, and whether or not the rev limit can be modified in WSBK.

I know this isn't the sport you want, but it's the sport they've invented. That's not my problem.
Dude, i know what series have what. You are still trying to convince people of your WSBK theory using BSB rules as bait. Give it up

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 11 2010, 06:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I just think it's fascinating that WSBK has no performance controls to speak of other than capacity and 1 or 2 stock engine parts. We know the engine specifications and we know that nearly every moving engine internal part can be replaced with something of MotoGP quality, yet all of the bikes regardless of their engine spec are said to produce approximately 210bhp. The top speeds are homogeneous as well which makes the power claims look legitimate.

Did you watch Valencia and see the BMW quite simply driving past other bikes? Or notice that the others couldn't even match its speed in the slipstream? i think you are drawing fairly significant and unlikely conclusions from a small amount of data whos relevance is questionable due to the number of factors involved

Biaggi
Crutchlow
Rea
Toseland
Neukerchner
Xaus
Fabrizio
Haslam
Pitt
Guintoli
Haga.

You know what these riders have in common. In race 1 all of them posted faster trap speeds than Corser

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 12 2010, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Did you watch Valencia and see the BMW quite simply driving past other bikes? Or notice that the others couldn't even match its speed in the slipstream? i think you are drawing fairly significant and unlikely conclusions from a small amount of data whos relevance is questionable due to the number of factors involved

Look at the top speed data on the SBK website. The BMW was not the fastest. Again, they were all going roughly the same speed except the Aprilia F which is said to be quite small (probably b/c it has a shaved tank and a short windscreen under which Biaggi can fit.

I'm not drawing conclusions from the top speed data.

1. WSBK was created to be a non-aggression production-relevant advertisement for superbikes.
2. The FIM homologate a rev limit according to the BSB Evo rulebook.
3. WSBK has looser technical regulations that GP, but the racing is closer.

None of these things are in dispute by anyone which is why conversation naturally defaults to my interpretation of top speed data. Top speed data is not the foundation for the rev-limit theory, it is the empirical proof that rev-limits are being enforced, imo.

I didn't issue the MSMA press releases at the beginning of the 1000cc era. I didn't write the BSB Evo rulebook. I don't man the radar gun during qualifying. If you are angry that these bits of information don't jive with the marketing Kool-Aid, direct your complaints to the appropriate party. I've gone to find an explanation, and interestingly enough, about 3-4 weeks after I stated my theory, I was fortunate enough to discover a reference to an FIM-homologated rev limit.

A month or two ago I said the the MSMA were not intending to give up on the 800s. True. Two years ago I said Casey was struggling b/c the tires were changed. Well known fact by the end of the 2008 season; however, we still have no idea if this was the result of Dorna's meddling. All we know is that Dorna threatened a control tire and they held 3 or 4 emergency tire meetings at the end of 2007 and Dorna officials were monitoring corner entry speed at China. Now I'm saying that WSBK is rev limited. It's in the BSB Evo rulebook; although, we still have no proof whether it is enforced or whether it is the same for everyone. All we have is 7 different types of bikes with little or no technical regulations that all go the same speed.

Don't kill the messenger.