wsbk rd2 portimao

That's it then, the GP07 was just geared differently than the rest of the bikes, as well as Casey's supreme ability to exit corners

You don't think that Max's bike had any top speed advantage

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Mar 30 2010, 11:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That's it then, the GP07 was just geared differently than the rest of the bikes, as well as Casey's supreme ability to exit corners

You don't think that Max's bike had any top speed advantage

According to WSBK, In Race 1, Max's bike was not the fastest. A Suzuki was.

Im not sure what bringing Stoner into a conversation about WSBK has to do with anything. WSBK is a production based series with the top 15 riders within 1 second of each other. It is not unusual for a dominant machine to emerge from a prototype series,matter of fact,it seems to happen more often than not.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 30 2010, 06:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Is the RSV4 really that small. It has an adjustable seat height that at it lowest setting is close to 1 inch lower than the R1. Thats significant. But then you look at height the RSV4 is close to 1 1/2 inches taller, has a longer wheel base, but shorter overall length by a hair and the same identical width. At my size,they all look tiny to me so i cant really see that the RSV4 is a tiny bike compared to some of the other 1000's. In the specs below,the one telling dimension on the BMW is that it is 4 inches wider than the other 2. Is that clip on placement, longer turn signal stalks.

Yeah, they all feel small to me as well. It's been a while since I sat on a fully-faired bike before I sat on the RSV4 so I might have misjudged it's relative size. Doesn't help that Whitham says it's small at every round of the world championship. Of course, they can modify the swing arm and the fairings (windscreen particularly) so maybe the WSBK machine is significantly smaller. Hard to say, I've never sat on the RSV4 1000F.

If Whitham is correct about the size, and the bike does have a redesigned tank height and a short windscreen, the bike's diminutive size could contribute to it's top speed. I'm sure V-4 tractability helps as well.

Regardless of the actual size of the bike, the top speeds are puzzling considering the engine stats. The Aprilia should be one of the fastest bikes on the grid, but the Suzuki and the Ducati should even be capable of hanging in the draft.

Just for kicks I looked back to 2009 Qatar, a track which features a very long straight. Do you know who set the top two highest speeds during Sunday's races? Regis Laconi at 321 kph and Max Neukirchner at 319kph The two bikes that should be the slowest.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 30 2010, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>[/b]
According to WSBK, In Race 1, Max's bike was not the fastest. A Suzuki was.

Im not sure what bringing Stoner into a conversation about WSBK has to do with anything. WSBK is a production based series with the top 15 riders within 1 second of each other. It is not unusual for a dominant machine to emerge from a prototype series,matter of fact,it seems to happen more often than not.
Agree. My point is that Stoner, like Spies was a extraordinary rider making the bike look better than it is. Sykes was a better reflection were Yamaha were last year.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 30 2010, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>[/B]
According to WSBK, In Race 1, Max's bike was not the fastest. A Suzuki was.

Im not sure what bringing Stoner into a conversation about WSBK has to do with anything. WSBK is a production based series with the top 15 riders within 1 second of each other. It is not unusual for a dominant machine to emerge from a prototype series,matter of fact,it seems to happen more often than not.

Sorry it was a poor play at some humor of a recant of the 07 GP season.

I know the difference between the two classes. The jury is still out on the RSV4 though.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 30 2010, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, they all feel small to me as well. It's been a while since I sat on a fully-faired bike before I sat on the RSV4 so I might have misjudged it's relative size. Doesn't help that Whitham says it's small at every round of the world championship. Of course, they can modify the swing arm and the fairings (windscreen particularly) so maybe the WSBK machine is significantly smaller. Hard to say, I've never sat on the RSV4 1000F.

If Whitham is correct about the size, and the bike does have a redesigned tank height and a short windscreen, the bike's diminutive size could contribute to it's top speed. I'm sure V-4 tractability helps as well.

Regardless of the actual size of the bike, the top speeds are puzzling considering the engine stats. The Aprilia should be one of the fastest bikes on the grid, but the Suzuki and the Ducati should even be capable of hanging in the draft.

Just for kicks I looked back to 2009 Qatar, a track which features a very long straight. Do you know who set the top two highest speeds during Sunday's races? Regis Laconi at 321 kph and Max Neukirchner at 319kph The two bikes that should be the slowest.
Which probably boils down to superior CD numbers in the wind tunnel . This is a fun web site http://www.bgsoflex.com/aero.html , just for ..... and giggles, i punched in some generic numbers on how much HP it would take to push that vehicle to 100 mph. The calculation came back 33 hp. Changing nothing but the speed setting to 200 mph, the calculation to push that same exact vehicle to that speed was 267 HP. It took 8 times the HP to double the speed.

I found the frontal area and cd figures on my bike from a wind tunnel test, used 450 lbs as weight, 40 psi in the tires. With that info, it computed that it would take 196hp to reach 200 mph. My bike dynoed at 174 hp, so its top speed in theory is 192mph.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 30 2010, 01:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Which probably boils down to superior CD numbers in the wind tunnel . This is a fun web site http://www.bgsoflex.com/aero.html , just for ..... and giggles, i punched in some generic numbers on how much HP it would take to push that vehicle to 100 mph. The calculation came back 33 hp. Changing nothing but the speed setting to 200 mph, the calculation to push that same exact vehicle to that speed was 267 HP. It took 8 times the HP to double the speed.
The numbers above were guestimates . Using the real CD and frontal area numbers i found on my bike, here is the results

Input Parameters Are the Following:

Coefficient of drag = 0.6
Frontal Area = 6.09 sq feet
Test Temperature = 70.00 degrees F
Test Barometer = 30.00 inches Hg
Vehiche MPH = 100

Computation Results:
Air Density Computed is 0.00233

Aerodynamic "Drag Factor" is 0.00921

Rolling "Drag Factor" is 18.22196

# Computed Aerodynamic Horsepower Required is 25
# Computed Rolling Horsepower Required is 2
# Computed Frontal Lift Force is 12 Lbs.

Changing nothing but the speed from 100 to 200


Input Parameters Are the Following:

Coefficient of drag = 0.6
Frontal Area = 6.09 sq feet
Test Temperature = 70.00 degrees F
Test Barometer = 30.00 inches Hg
Vehiche MPH = 200

Computation Results:
Air Density Computed is 0.00233

Aerodynamic "Drag Factor" is 0.00921

Rolling "Drag Factor" is 62.71974

# Computed Aerodynamic Horsepower Required is 196
# Computed Rolling Horsepower Required is 15
# Computed Frontal Lift Force is 47 Lbs.

I know about aerodynamic drag and the effect it has on horsepower, but the bikes don't come out of the last turn at 200mph.

At Qatar in 2007 Stoner's bike was only 12kph quicker in a straight line on race day, but the extra 2,000rpm and the extra 20-30hp were unmistakable on the front straight.

If Suzuki and Ducati do indeed have a 30 hp handicap to the BMW and a 20 horspower cap to the Yamaha and Aprilia, they would need a drag coefficient of .5cd to the other teams .6cd. It's not feasible, imo. It is more likely that all of the bikes produce roughly the same horsepower and minor variations in coefficient drag, gearing, and drive out of the last turn determine the relatively random dispersion of top speeds.

Rev limiting is probably the easiest way to get all of the bikes in the same neighborhood. In Australia, Jamie Whitham made a casual reference to horsepower by saying that all of the bikes produce around 210 break horsepower. Ratings of 210 horsepower would be around 13,000rpm for a 4-cylinder or 11,000rpm for a twin. The Suzuki just so happens to make max revs of 13,000rpm in race trim. The Ducati conveniently maxes out at about 11,000.

Rev-limiting to balance performance would also explain why WSBK went to a flat 1000cc formula rather than trying to balance twins vs. fours. Dennis Noyes said that WSBK used to have a 14,000rpm rev limit for bikes with 1.5 bore/stroke ratio. All of the old 750cc 4-cylinder bikes would have been subject to the rev limit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 30 2010, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I know about aerodynamic drag and the effect it has on horsepower, but the bikes don't come out of the last turn at 200mph.

At Qatar in 2007 Stoner's bike was only 12kph quicker in a straight line on race day, but the extra 2,000rpm and the extra 20-30hp were unmistakable on the front straight.

If Suzuki and Ducati do indeed have a 30 hp handicap to the BMW and a 20 horspower cap to the Yamaha and Aprilia, they would need a drag coefficient of .5cd to the other teams .6cd. It's not feasible, imo. It is more likely that all of the bikes produce roughly the same horsepower and minor variations in coefficient drag, gearing, and drive out of the last turn determine the relatively random dispersion of top speeds.

Rev limiting is probably the easiest way to get all of the bikes in the same neighborhood. In Australia, Jamie Whitham made a casual reference to horsepower by saying that all of the bikes produce around 210 break horsepower. Ratings of 210 horsepower would be around 13,000rpm for a 4-cylinder or 11,000rpm for a twin. The Suzuki just so happens to make max revs of 13,000rpm in race trim. The Ducati conveniently maxes out at about 11,000.

Rev-limiting to balance performance would also explain why WSBK went to a flat 1000cc formula rather than trying to balance twins vs. fours. Dennis Noyes said that WSBK used to have a 14,000rpm rev limit for bikes with 1.5 bore/stroke ratio. All of the old 750cc 4-cylinder bikes would have been subject to the rev limit.
I think thats what i said. Matter of fact,its almost exactly what i said

"top speed on a road course depends on the gearing for that specific track and how you get out of the turn before the straight."

So it is your contention that WSBK has a secret set of rules that limit different bikes to different rev limits. There is no way this kind of information could be kept under wraps. Not biting on that baitless hook.

Are we on the verge of a weight reduction for the Ducati after the next round. Unless the Ducati dominate the nest round, we will be looking at an adjustment of 3kg lower for the Ducs. If after the next 3 rounds,the numbers dont line up,there will be another weight reduction for the Ducs. As it stands, the top 2 1000cc 4cly are averaging 41 points per event and the top 2 Ducs are averaging 30 1/2 points per event. The magic number is 5 points per event average difference, and we are at 10 1/2


The minimum weights will be increased or decreased in steps of 3 kg according
to the following procedure:
1. By taking the race points of the riders of the best two 1000 cc 4 cylinders
and best two 1200 cc 2 cylinders in each race, and calculating an average
will be calculated after every event, the ‘event average’.
If there is only one finisher from one of the configurations, the ‘event
average’ will be calculated from the first rider of each configuration in each
race.
No ‘event average’ points will be calculated if one of the configurations has
no finishers. The ‘event average’ will then be calculated, based on the
results of the other race from the same event.
If neither race has any finishers from one of the configurations, the event
will not be considered.
53
SBK
2. ‘Wet’ races (as declared by the Race Director) are not taken in account for
the calculation of an ‘event average’.
3. After 3 events, the average value of the ‘event averages’ of each
configuration will be calculated. The score of the 1000cc 4 cylinders and the
score of the 1200cc 2 cylinders will be compared as follows:
• Should the average value of the ‘event averages’ over 3 events favour
the 1200cc 2 cylinders by more than 5 points, and if a rider of a
machine with this configuration is leading the riders’ Superbike World
Championship standings at that time, then the minimum weight of all
1200cc 2 cylinders will be increased by 3kg. The upper limit is 171 kg.
• Should average value of the ‘event averages’ over 3 events favour the
1000cc 4 cylinders by more than 5 points, and if a rider of a machine
with this configuration is leading the riders’ Superbike World
Championship standings at that time, then the minimum weight of all
1200cc 2 cylinders will be reduced by 3 kg. The lower limit is 162 kg.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 30 2010, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think thats what i said. Matter of fact,its almost exactly what i said

"top speed on a road course depends on the gearing for that specific track and how you get out of the turn before the straight."

So it is your contention that WSBK has a secret set of rules that limit different bikes to different rev limits. There is no way this kind of information could be kept under wraps. Not biting on that baitless hook.

The part about gearing, drive, and aero was never in dispute (how could it be?). The dispute was whether or not drive, aero, and gearing could overcome a 30hp handicap. I don't think that it can.

I think they are performance indexing in some way, and the evidence points to a rev-limit.

They've been performance indexing since the beginning with various displacements. Noyes says the rules used to have a rev-limit that all of the 4-cylinders would have been subject to (except Suzuki). The best way to impose a rev-limit is to make all bikes have the same displacement. The brake horsepower calculations necessary to reach the observed top speeds also happen to coincide with the maximum rpm achievable by the theoretically least powerful bikes on the grid. Performance indexing is even part of the rulebook now.

The unlimited performance song and dance was believable at the outset of the 1000cc era b/c the Japanese were notoriously conservative about production bore-stroke ratio. It seemed reasonable that they would make long stroke 4-cylinder bikes while Ducati would make a short-stroke twin homologation special. However, Ducati have since demanded another 200cc, and the 4-cylinder bikes are now spread by 5.5mm rather than the 2mm or 3mm of the early 1000cc era. There is no 20-30 horsepower advantage evident in any of the race or performance data.

Who's to say the Flaminis have even put the rev limit in place? Maybe it is a manufacturer agreement to prevent a horsepower war after the Flamminis threw out the MSMA's rulebook. Maybe new manufacturers like Triumph, BMW, and Aprilia would rather go along with a successful racing business than stir the pot.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2010, 02:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The part about gearing, drive, and aero was never in dispute (how could it be?). The dispute was whether or not drive, aero, and gearing could overcome a 30hp handicap. I don't think that it can.

I think they are performance indexing in some way, and the evidence points to a rev-limit.

They've been performance indexing since the beginning with various displacements. Noyes says the rules used to have a rev-limit that all of the 4-cylinders would have been subject to (except Suzuki). The best way to impose a rev-limit is to make all bikes have the same displacement. The brake horsepower calculations necessary to reach the observed top speeds also happen to coincide with the maximum rpm achievable by the theoretically least powerful bikes on the grid. Performance indexing is even part of the rulebook now.

The unlimited performance song and dance was believable at the outset of the 1000cc era b/c the Japanese were notoriously conservative about production bore-stroke ratio. It seemed reasonable that they would make long stroke 4-cylinder bikes while Ducati would make a short-stroke twin homologation special. However, Ducati have since demanded another 200cc, and the 4-cylinder bikes are now spread by 5.5mm rather than the 2mm or 3mm of the early 1000cc era. There is no 20-30 horsepower advantage evident in any of the race or performance data.

Who's to say the Flaminis have even put the rev limit in place? Maybe it is a manufacturer agreement to prevent a horsepower war after the Flamminis threw out the MSMA's rulebook. Maybe new manufacturers like Triumph, BMW, and Aprilia would rather go along with a successful racing business than stir the pot.
There is a lot of ifs and maybe's in there. When they had a rev limit before, it was in the books. They keep them close in performance now by weight and restrictor plates, thats in the books.
Among the top bikes, no one has a 20-30 HP advantage on the other but if your into conspiracy theories and understand CD as much as you said you did, maybe they are indexing them with aero packages One half square feet of frontal area, a relatively tiny area, would reduce a 20 hp advantage at 200 mph. So to answer your question, yes it is possible to overcome HP disadvantages with superior aero, especially if one bike gets superior drive.

You have always been an advocate of performance index racing as the resident DMG apologist, and you always had opinions about the inner workings of the Japanese mind that you passed off as fact. This is just another in a long line.Keep it up though, it certainly makes time between races bearable and stimulates the mind.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 31 2010, 06:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There is a lot of ifs and maybe's in there. When they had a rev limit before, it was in the books. They keep them close in performance now by weight and restrictor plates, thats in the books.
Among the top bikes, no one has a 20-30 HP advantage on the other but if your into conspiracy theories and understand CD as much as you said you did, maybe they are indexing them with aero packages One half square feet of frontal area, a relatively tiny area, would reduce a 20 hp advantage at 200 mph. So to answer your question, yes it is possible to overcome HP disadvantages with superior aero, especially if one bike gets superior drive.

You have always been an advocate of performance index racing as the resident DMG apologist, and you always had opinions about the inner workings of the Japanese mind that you passed off as fact. This is just another in a long line.Keep it up though, it certainly makes time between races bearable and stimulates the mind.

Indexing with aero packages only works at top speed. They are at top speed for 1% (?) of the entire lap. Plus, it would be very hugely impractical to do that when they could simply rev limit.

My conspiracies are not conspiracies b/c I'm not suggesting any illicit activity. This is business. The product is close racing with as many manufacturers as possible. I don't have any idea whether or not they are rev-limiting and I certainly have no idea how they would enforce a rev-limit and I have no idea how they could keep it on the hush.

However, as I have said so often, the technical regulations in WSBK are looser than the technical regulations in GP, yet the bikes are often nose to tail during the races. Imo, this is only possible through rev-limiting b/c all of the manufacturers would spend their time trying to extract the last 5% out of the engine and the last 5% out of the chassis and tires. BMW have basically got a 990 MotoGP engine in their bike and yet they can barely draft past people on the straights.

The Japanese withdrew together in 2003. They've implemented a tacit bore agreement in WSS at 67mm. Who knows what else they've been doing?

Do you remember what happened when they were discussing rev-limits in MotoGP? Claudio Domenicali, the guy with the most powerful, highest-revving bike on the grid, said he wanted to rev limit. He said it nonchalantly in a press conference like it was just another day in the office. You mention rev-limits in GP or WSBK to the fans and they go full Braveheart by screaming "FREEDOM!" and inciting rebellion.

At least that's what happened in AMA. I doubt any AMA fans realize that the AMA rulebook is about 2 or 3 engine mods from WSS (grinding the gasket side of the cylinder head, cam mods to alter duration only, and prototype valve springs).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2010, 09:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>However, as I have said so often, the technical regulations in WSBK are looser than the technical regulations in GP, yet the bikes are often nose to tail during the races. Imo, this is only possible through rev-limiting b/c all of the manufacturers would spend their time trying to extract the last 5% out of the engine and the last 5% out of the chassis and tires. BMW have basically got a 990 MotoGP engine in their bike and yet they can barely draft past people on the straights.

Tires. The Pirellis are crap, for want of a better word. They're like MotoGP's Michelins from 2004. They work for a while, then go off. The one thing that Spies emphasized again and again at Valencia was how he had difficulty getting used to the Bridgestones. "I keep expecting to find the limit of the tire, and it's not there," he said (or something along those lines).

Add in a (relatively) floppy chassis, steel brakes and 20kg more, and you have a recipe for closer racing. They have to wrestle the bike much more, and they have to baby their tires.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Mar 31 2010, 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tires. The Pirellis are crap...
I've heard this several times. Even by some racers who told me in confidence. As one put it, "they have traction, until they don't, then you're ......." I believe one of the biggest reasons that accounts for the difference in lap times between GP vs WSBK is tires. I think some of us would be amazed what really are the capabilities of a WSBK bike given GP rubber.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Mar 31 2010, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I've heard this several times. Even by some racers who told me in confidence. As one put it, "they have traction, until they don't, then you're ......." I believe one of the biggest reasons that accounts for the difference in lap times between GP vs WSBK is tires. I think some of us would be amazed what really are the capabilities of a WSBK bike given GP rubber.

I would just like to qualify my statement that the Pirellis are crap. They're crap, for a race tire at this level. Compared to the tires available to you and me, they're utterly brilliant. And you're right, it would be very interesting to see what a WSBK bike could do with Bridgestones on.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Mar 31 2010, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I would just like to qualify my statement that the Pirellis are crap. They're crap, for a race tire at this level. Compared to the tires available to you and me, they're utterly brilliant. And you're right, it would be very interesting to see what a WSBK bike could do with Bridgestones on.
Agree. I don't think I or anybody on this forum could take even a good set of road worthy sport/track (DOT) tires to the limit much less a World level racing tire. Yeah I got you the first time, it was more like Michelin vs Bstone 07 sorta comparison.

Also, Perellis likes a smooth service, here in the States the tire of choice is Dunlop because of the unique abrasive quality of American tracks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2010, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Indexing with aero packages only works at top speed. They are at top speed for 1% (?) of the entire lap. Plus, it would be very hugely impractical to do that when they could simply rev limit.

My conspiracies are not conspiracies b/c I'm not suggesting any illicit activity. This is business. The product is close racing with as many manufacturers as possible. I don't have any idea whether or not they are rev-limiting and I certainly have no idea how they would enforce a rev-limit and I have no idea how they could keep it on the hush.

However, as I have said so often, the technical regulations in WSBK are looser than the technical regulations in GP, yet the bikes are often nose to tail during the races. Imo, this is only possible through rev-limiting b/c all of the manufacturers would spend their time trying to extract the last 5% out of the engine and the last 5% out of the chassis and tires. BMW have basically got a 990 MotoGP engine in their bike and yet they can barely draft past people on the straights.

The Japanese withdrew together in 2003. They've implemented a tacit bore agreement in WSS at 67mm. Who knows what else they've been doing?

Do you remember what happened when they were discussing rev-limits in MotoGP? Claudio Domenicali, the guy with the most powerful, highest-revving bike on the grid, said he wanted to rev limit. He said it nonchalantly in a press conference like it was just another day in the office. You mention rev-limits in GP or WSBK to the fans and they go full Braveheart by screaming "FREEDOM!" and inciting rebellion.

At least that's what happened in AMA. I doubt any AMA fans realize that the AMA rulebook is about 2 or 3 engine mods from WSS (grinding the gasket side of the cylinder head, cam mods to alter duration only, and prototype valve springs).
The first statement is just flat out wrong. Is it more pronounced at higher speed, obviously, if you believe in physics, but to say that aero packages only work at top speed leads me to believe that you dont understand CD at all.

I dont what to say about the second, you go from it has to be rev limiting to i have no idea if its rev limited, to imo opinion, its rev limited.

And 4 or 5 mods in the front suspension, and 3 or 4 mods in the rear suspension, before you know it, you have a race bike

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 31 2010, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The first statement is just flat out wrong. Is it more pronounced at higher speed, obviously, if you believe in physics, but to say that aero packages only work at top speed leads me to believe that you dont understand CD at all.

I dont what to say about the second, you go from it has to be rev limiting to i have no idea if its rev limited, to imo opinion, its rev limited.

And 4 or 5 mods in the front suspension, and 3 or 4 mods in the rear suspension, before you know it, you have a race bike

The suspension rules are the same. DMG don't allow quite the same level of suspension tuning, but it's still stock forks with drop ins and open rear shock with no electronics. TiN is banned in AMA I believe, but I bet the AMA kit is comparable in terms of adjustability.

I was wrong about the cylinder head machining though. Apparently DSB does allow machining of the cylinder head to alter compression so I guess that means that the Sunoco racing fuel is probably leading to modest power.