wsbk rd2 portimao

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Mar 28 2010, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well the bagman from Roma has a day in the sun. Don't think the Aprilia has a championship in it but nice to see Max have two near-perfect races. Haslam impressive again. Gotta think Cal heard Rae coming strong in race one. JTs second race showed promise but he ain't no Ben. BMWs were born to disappoint. Factory Ducs suck here. Checa rocks. Ricky Lee was beaten by a wild card South African kid. Did I miss anything?


Crutchlow may not be as good as Spies - but I was impressed with the way he kept the
Yamaha up there in the top four for most of both races. Ben's teammate last year was
always way back. I haven't been following his career for that long - but am starting to
get a sense of him as a rider. Very ballsy.

And yes - Haga hates this track - but how to explain all the satellite Ducs ahead of him
and Fabrizio most of the time?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 28 2010, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I will take them over Greg White and garble mouth any day

I like those two. They always sound (to my ear) like a couple of right 'obbits
sitting on a stump smoking corn cob pipes in "the shire".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Mar 31 2010, 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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.

Definitely understand where you're coming from. In GP you find .2 per lap and then you hold that advantage for 25 laps to take a crushing (and boring) 5 second victory. I agree that GP precision is not possible with a Pirelli-shod world superbike; however, I find it hard to believe that the Pirellis are so poor that they prohibit manufacturers like BMW, Aprilia, and Yamaha from exploiting a sizeable horsepower advantage (20-30hp) over other bikes on the straightaways. It seems like throughout the history of motorcycle racing, horsepower advantages have not been difficult to identify during the drag races down the straights. A recent example is Stoner vs. Rossi at Qatar in 2007.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely trying to understand the phenomenon that is WSBK. The Japanese contingent within the MSMA said they wanted a non-aggression pact and a mainly stock privateer WSBK format b/c they wanted to focus on 4-stroke GP. Ducati were obviously not willing to let privateers run their WSBK efforts which has led to involvement from all major factories, but the non-aggression pact appears to be a very real part of the sport. It was believable that similar stroke numbers during the 1000cc era created a de facto horsepower/performance cap, but as they have added a wider variety of short-stroke 4-cylinders, the likelihood of unfettered performance seems increasingly unlikely. They added a handful of explicit performance controls for the Ducati when they allowed them another 200cc capacity, but they haven't added anything to control the performance of the 80mm BMW. This can also be explained by a rev-limit, imo.

I simply want to understand how the Flaminis have achieved masterful motorsports theater.

There was a phone press conference last night with Spies and Edwards, organized by IMS. I asked Spies specifically about the difference in tires, and he said that the Pirellis went off quickly and had to be cosseted. He also said he felt much more comfortable on the Bridgestones after 10 or 15 laps, once they'd started to wear and lose grip a little. So don't underestimate the role of tires. They're crucial in corner entry, corner speed and corner exit. And that affects top speed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 1 2010, 10:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I simply want to understand how the Flaminis have achieved masterful motorsports theater.

Money. Or rather, the lack of it. With MotoGP hogging the limelight, the MSMA are simply not prepared to pour money into WSBK just to get a title. The series allows everyone to claim a little victory, with wins and podiums shared out reasonably well. But the stakes are not so high that winning a championship becomes imperative.

That may change if Suzuki pulls out of MotoGP - which they may very well choose to do - to focus on WSBK. Then, there'll be two manufacturers with all of their cards on WSBK, and we might see a bit more of a war in the series. I think the Flamminis are right now trying to push through a more Superstock-style regulation package to pre-empt this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 2 2010, 05:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There was a phone press conference last night with Spies and Edwards, organized by IMS. I asked Spies specifically about the difference in tires, and he said that the Pirellis went off quickly and had to be cosseted. He also said he felt much more comfortable on the Bridgestones after 10 or 15 laps, once they'd started to wear and lose grip a little. So don't underestimate the role of tires. They're crucial in corner entry, corner speed and corner exit. And that affects top speed.



Money. Or rather, the lack of it. With MotoGP hogging the limelight, the MSMA are simply not prepared to pour money into WSBK just to get a title. The series allows everyone to claim a little victory, with wins and podiums shared out reasonably well. But the stakes are not so high that winning a championship becomes imperative.

That may change if Suzuki pulls out of MotoGP - which they may very well choose to do - to focus on WSBK. Then, there'll be two manufacturers with all of their cards on WSBK, and we might see a bit more of a war in the series. I think the Flamminis are right now trying to push through a more Superstock-style regulation package to pre-empt this.

Even though i dont buy into Lex's conspiracy theory about rev limits on the BMW, and i agree with everything you say about the tires. With that out of the way, i still dont understand how the tires would eliminate a huge HP advantage on a straight with everyone riding on the same .... tires. I personally believe that BMW is throwing out slightly fudged numbers that you nor i will ever see on a dyno at your local shop. I do believe it to be the new HP king, but not by as large a margin as they are claiming. Just out of curiosity, i started looking around for 2010 GSXR 1000 numbers and saw on 3-4 different sights where they were claiming 191hp and 87 ft lbs of torque.I think BMW is claiming 200hp and 84 ft lbs of torque. Basically swapping HP for torque.
Brock Davidson has one of the BMW's and is preparing it for a test. With him being in the drag racing scene, all he cares about is muscle and parts he can sell to get it down the strip faster. His initial report is very simple, the motor is hot, the bike is light and with some mods, clutch, swingarm straps etc: It will blister a Busa and the ZX14, with same mods. One other thing i did find curious is that Suzuki nor Yamaha list HP and torque figures in their official releases. Bore and stroke, engine configuration, compression ratio is about it. They have learned from Yamaha that printing unobtainable performance figures can get you in deep .....

On another subject, if the Flamini's go to Superstock Spec, it will be the death of them. Just my opinion

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 2 2010, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Even though i dont buy into Lex's conspiracy theory about rev limits on the BMW, and i agree with everything you say about the tires. With that out of the way, i still dont understand how the tires would eliminate a huge HP advantage on a straight with everyone riding on the same .... tires.

Here's an example: The Ilmor had very similar HP to the Ducati when it first came out, yet it was still 3 seconds slower around the track. Why was that? Because the chassis was ..... They couldn't get out of the corners.

So it is with the Pirellis. You can have any ludicrous HP numbers you like, but if the tires can only put, say, 200hp down at a time without spinning up, you're stuck. The HP numbers don't start to really pay off until you're getting close to the braking zone. There's very few tracks in the world where HP would actually make that much of a difference. Which is why everyone is working on engine response rather than sheer HP.

This is the core of BMW's problem. The bike is plenty powerful, but it's hard to get that power down on the ground when the chassis, electronics and engine response aren't playing ball.

Just to add, I've been told by separate and independent race engineers that it would be no problem at all to get 300hp from a MotoGP engine. It's just that it would be completely pointless, as the bike would be so hard to ride.

Very interesting, thanks for the insight Kropo.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 2 2010, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Just to add, I've been told by separate and independent race engineers that it would be no problem at all to get 300hp from a MotoGP engine. It's just that it would be completely pointless, as the bike would be so hard to ride.
Hard to ride for all the 250 jockeys who have permeated and watered down MotoGp with their gay ... corner speed style. Bring it on and let real men tame real beasts like the days of old.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 2 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Here's an example: The Ilmor had very similar HP to the Ducati when it first came out, yet it was still 3 seconds slower around the track. Why was that? Because the chassis was ..... They couldn't get out of the corners.

So it is with the Pirellis. You can have any ludicrous HP numbers you like, but if the tires can only put, say, 200hp down at a time without spinning up, you're stuck. The HP numbers don't start to really pay off until you're getting close to the braking zone. There's very few tracks in the world where HP would actually make that much of a difference. Which is why everyone is working on engine response rather than sheer HP.

This is the core of BMW's problem. The bike is plenty powerful, but it's hard to get that power down on the ground when the chassis, electronics and engine response aren't playing ball.
Makes sense, but doesnt WSBK run TC. I know all TC is not created equal but with the huge numbers Lex is talking in his conspiracy theory, even if you didnt get the power down until half way down the straight, you would be coming like a freight train since the other bikes didnt get their power down either since pretty much all of the top bikes are making well in access of 200 Hp. I personally dont think the BMW has a HUGE hp advantage and like you said, its the set up they havent mastered. Its like Toyota in F1, getting power was never their problem, they never mastered the set up and as a result, never did .....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 2 2010, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Just to add, I've been told by separate and independent race engineers that it would be no problem at all to get 300hp from a MotoGP engine. It's just that it would be completely pointless, as the bike would be so hard to ride.
Yep, Gearheads are gearheads no matter what racing series. If the little pointed head guys can get 300 hp per litre out of an F1 engine, the little pointed head guys in GP can do the same.

Very interesting little exchange. Thanks guys.

Has anyone watched the Superstock 1000 races? The BMW has a horsepower advantage and you can see it. Obviously, there are so many variables in regards to weight and gearing and drafting, but the bike that was supposed to be fastest was fastest. The Honda ended up setting the highest top speed in the BMW's draft, but if you look at the qualifying times in clean air, the top BMW qualifiers had about a 5kph advantage over the Honda's and Yamahas, and the BMW probably had 10 clicks on the Suzukis. The BMW could also pass during the race with modest effort. As the tires went off, the straightline passes appeared to get easier for BMW riders.

It's difficult to draw comparisons between WSBK and Superstock 1000; however, the BMW can pull away from other bikes in SStk. I can't be certain, but if I were to guess, the advantage should be even more pronounced in WSBK b/c it's difficult for the Bimmer to reach a 15,500rpm with stock internals, stock compression, stock valve springs, and stock cams.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 2 2010, 06:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Just to add, I've been told by separate and independent race engineers that it would be no problem at all to get 300hp from a MotoGP engine. It's just that it would be completely pointless, as the bike would be so hard to ride.

An 800cc engine would have to make 23,000 rpm to produce 300hp. I'm not sure I would classify that as "no problem", but I admit I don't know much about engine breathing or exotic metallurgy.

The old Ducati GP6 probably did produce 300hp (or it could have with some minor changes) so maybe they were talking about 990s?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 2 2010, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>An 800cc engine would have to make 23,000 rpm to produce 300hp. I'm not sure I would classify that as "no problem", but I admit I don't know much about engine breathing or exotic metallurgy.

The old Ducati GP6 probably did produce 300hp (or it could have with some minor changes) so maybe they were talking about 990s?

No, they were specifically talking about the 800s. I guess 23K sounds about right, as I believe the F1 cars either run or used to run close to 22K.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 2 2010, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Has anyone watched the Superstock 1000 races? The BMW has a horsepower advantage and you can see it. Obviously, there are so many variables in regards to weight and gearing and drafting, but the bike that was supposed to be fastest was fastest. The Honda ended up setting the highest top speed in the BMW's draft, but if you look at the qualifying times in clean air, the top BMW qualifiers had about a 5kph advantage over the Honda's and Yamahas, and the BMW probably had 10 clicks on the Suzukis. The BMW could also pass during the race with modest effort. As the tires went off, the straightline passes appeared to get easier for BMW riders.

It's difficult to draw comparisons between WSBK and Superstock 1000; however, the BMW can pull away from other bikes in SStk. I can't be certain, but if I were to guess, the advantage should be even more pronounced in WSBK b/c it's difficult for the Bimmer to reach a 15,500rpm with stock internals, stock compression, stock valve springs, and stock cams.

See, this is it, I think you're getting hung up on horsepower. Superstock is an excellent example, but for slightly different reasons. They can do a lot less with the chassis and suspension in SST than they can in SBK, and this is what makes the big difference. The horsepower numbers aren't that far off (an SST bike probably makes 185-190 at the crank, an SBK bike between 210 and 220), but the times are different because the electronics, the swingarm and the front forks are severely restricted. That makes a much, much bigger difference than you might expect.

If you look back to the 1000cc V twins, the Ducatis were probably 20hp down on the fours at that time, yet they still beat the fours. Some of that was Bayliss, obviously, but a lot of it was the way the Ducatis got off the corners. The same still holds true now.

If you want to see how little difference HP makes, watch Moto2 this year. The bikes have barely started being developed, but they're already getting close to Supersport times. They'll be faster by the end of the year, despite having 25hp less - the Moto2 engine produces 125 at the crank, while I happen to know that the top Hondas in WSS produce within a whisker of 150. The WSS bikes are also allowed much more sophisticated electronics, yet they'll still be matched and probably beaten by the Moto2 bikes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 2 2010, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Has anyone watched the Superstock 1000 races? The BMW has a horsepower advantage and you can see it. Obviously, there are so many variables in regards to weight and gearing and drafting, but the bike that was supposed to be fastest was fastest. The Honda ended up setting the highest top speed in the BMW's draft, but if you look at the qualifying times in clean air, the top BMW qualifiers had about a 5kph advantage over the Honda's and Yamahas, and the BMW probably had 10 clicks on the Suzukis. The BMW could also pass during the race with modest effort. As the tires went off, the straightline passes appeared to get easier for BMW riders.

It's difficult to draw comparisons between WSBK and Superstock 1000; however, the BMW can pull away from other bikes in SStk. I can't be certain, but if I were to guess, the advantage should be even more pronounced in WSBK b/c it's difficult for the Bimmer to reach a 15,500rpm with stock internals, stock compression, stock valve springs, and stock cams.

In the world of road racing, 5kph is just not that much, especially if the other bikes are getting out of the corner better.


http://sbk.perugiatiming.com/pdf_frame.asp...amp;p_Round=POR

I think people have lost track of my argument.

During each race the bikes drag down the main straightaway between 20-30 times. Normally, in the world of motorsports, the vehicles with more power have a performance advantage that is visible to the naked eye or visible in the data. In WSBK, though, the phenomenon is seemingly non-existent amongst the factory bikes. The factory bikes demonstrate a visible performance advantage down the straightaway (naked eye and data) to the privateer teams, but the factory bikes don't really show any advantage over one another despite the relatively large disparity in theoretical horsepower ratings. Suzukis are as fast as BMWs. Ducatis are as quick as Aprilias.

Even though we watch the high horsepower factory bikes breeze past some of the weaker privateer bikes, nobody stops to ask why the factory bikes show almost identical acceleration and top speed performance across all brands.

1. Why do all of the factory bikes have roughly the same top speed and acceleration?
2. Why did the MSMA performance index the 1200cc Ducati even though they knew it would have one of the lowest peak horsepower ratings on the grid? Why doesn't WSBK have any rules prohibiting massively oversquare engines like the S1000RR which pose a bigger performance threat than the Ducati?
3. Why did Ducati think that a twin would be uncompetitive in 990cc MotoGP, but it would be competitive in 1000cc WSBK?
4. How is a sport with looser technical regulations than GP able to maintain such a random dispersion of top speeds (little correlation to brand)?
5. In a post-Kato world, what is WSBK doing to control top speeds in general?

Rev-limiting answers all of these questions. It even quenches the MSMA's desire for a non-aggression pact. Rev limits might even explain why the Bimmer is slow (in addition to learning chassis dynamics for the Pirellis and sorting electronics). Who's to say that the rev limit isn't causing the short-stroke BMW to be anemic off the bottom end compared to the longer stroke bikes like the Ducati and the Suzuki?

Rev limits fit like a glove, but that doesn't mean they are using them. Just very interesting.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 3 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Rev-limiting answers all of these questions. They even quench the MSMA's desire for a non-aggression pact. Rev limits might even explain why the Bimmer is slow (in addition to learning chassis dynamics for the Pirellis and sorting electronics). Who's to say that the rev limit isn't causing the short-stroke BMW to be anemic off the bottom end compared to the longer stroke bikes like the Ducati and the Suzuki?

Rev limits fit like a glove, but that doesn't mean they are using them. Just very interesting.

Your arguments make perfect sense, but I still think you are reading too much into them, for a few reasons.

1. Top speeds are usually measured at a fixed point on the track. This point has a detector loop running underneath it to determine top speeds. Because this is a permanent fixture - at the end of a long straight - the point is the same for cars and bikes. But cars and bikes behave differently. Cars are still accelerating when they cross the line, bikes, typically, are usually just starting to brake as they cross the speed trap, because bikes need more room to brake than cars (having only one skinny tire to absorb braking forces). As corner entry speed is pretty close for most of the bikes, and braking distance is similarly uniform, trap speeds would as a rule be comparable, as people are setting up for the corner.

2. To be enforceable, a rev limit would have to be set in the technical regulations. No such regulation exists.

3. Trying to get the MSMA to respect a gentleman's agreement about something as fundamental as rev limits in as high profile a series as World Superbikes (second only in importance to MotoGP) would be like getting a group of crack whores to agree about who gets to look after their stash of rocks. Only the crack whores would be less likely to indulge in cheating, trickery and double crossing.

4. There is already a de facto rev limit in place. In MotoGP, with entirely free regulations, engines with steel valve springs can only manage to rev to 18K, give or take a couple of hundred revs. In WSBK, which has to use stock cases, conrods and crankshaft (if memory serves), that takes at least 1K off that number, and more likely 2K. Add to this the fact that engines are all running conservative borestroke numbers (remember, actual humans have to ride these bikes on the street as well), and you have built-in rev limits

I can follow and understand your argument, which you make extremely well. It's just that I believe you are falling for what I call the Friday the 13th argument. Ask an ER worker if they're busier on Friday the 13th, and they'll tell you they definitely do. But look at the statistics (which people have done many different times), and it shows that Friday the 13th is just as busy in ER rooms as Friday 6th, Friday 20th, Friday 27th ... The common factor is the fact that it's a Friday, not that it's the 13th.

So there is probably an explanation for the fact that top speeds are so close. But I would put a very large amount of money on it being incompetence or financial constraints rather than conspiracy. It's possible that, as you point out, the factories are simply unwilling to spend more to gain a real advantage. I suspect they have the bikes at the point where to develop the bikes to take advantage of another 5kph top speed would double their budgets, and they're just not willing to do that.

To answer your questions one by one (and I have to say that I am nowhere near as knowledgeable on WSBK as I am on MotoGP):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 3 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. Why do all of the factory bikes have roughly the same top speed and acceleration?
I think I addressed that above. Too many factors working to equalize speed, without the budget to make a real difference.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 3 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>2. Why did the MSMA performance index the 1200cc Ducati even though they knew it would have one of the lowest peak horsepower ratings on the grid? Why doesn't WSBK have any rules prohibiting massively oversquare engines like the S1000RR which pose a bigger performance threat than the Ducati?

Because these are street bikes, not race bikes. Engine design is limited by usability on the road. You could build a massively oversquare engine with an 86mm bore, but it would be vastly more difficult to cruise on over to Walmart on to pick up a six pack with. Rideability on the road and mass production are two hugely limiting factors, leaving the bikes with frames with more flex than you would want in a race bike to make the bike more comfortable on the roads, and with simplified parts to allow mass manufacturing.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 3 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>3. Why did Ducati think that a twin would be uncompetitive in 990cc MotoGP, but it would be competitive in 1000cc WSBK?
Because they already had a bunch of championships under their belts in WSBK, most of which they had gained against 750cc opposition. It only took a couple of years of 1000cc twins v fours for Ducati to get the capacity differential reinstated. They also knew they would be competing against bikes with no limitations on engine design, built purely for racing. Including a V5. A V2 is never going to be competitive against a V5 of the same capacity.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 3 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>4. How is a sport with looser technical regulations than GP able to maintain such a random dispersion of top speeds (little correlation to brand)?
Because rider skill - in riding and in bike setup - is a greater factor in MotoGP than it is in WSBK. The differentials between riders are more cruelly exposed, and the greater freedom to set the bike up gives much more freedom to get it horribly wrong and end up chasing your tail.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 3 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>5. In a post-Kato world, what is WSBK doing to control top speeds in general?
I think the 800s proved what a steaming pile of horsecrap that argument was. More crashes and more injuries because of higher corner speeds - where people tend to crash. Once you get above 60 kph, speed becomes irrelevant as a factor in fatalities: hitting an obstacle at 80kph will kill you just as effectively as hitting it at 280kph. The focus has shifted to track design (which is why we won't see Suzuka back again, tragically) and, increasingly, aids such as airbags and clothing. Which, let's face it, is the real future of motorcycle safety.

Now, stop asking such good questions that I have to spend my time answering, instead of doing the pile of work I have to do before I go to Qatar!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 3 2010, 05:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Now, stop asking such good questions that I have to spend my time answering, instead of doing the pile of work I have to do before I go to Qatar!
you better get on it!............just a few more days! great question & answer session! thanks lex & krop!.... most enlightening!