wsbk rd2 portimao

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 3 2010, 03:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>2. To be enforceable, a rev limit would have to be set in the technical regulations. No such regulation exists.

This is the one major stumbling block. Without some kind of punitive measures in the rulebook, the FIA are powerless to intervene. My only guess is that InFront have brokered some kind of commercial rights deal with the MSMA and the MSMA have some kind of monetary control that allows them to have some punitive measures in the event a manufacturers doesn't comply. Either that or they've convinced the FIM that rev-limiting should be part of homologation. Homologation preempts the technical regulations.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 3 2010, 03:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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.

One thing you've got to keep in mind, the bikes have only got to make about 13,000rpm to make the 210-220hp that the bikes allegedly have. Ducati were spinning 104mm pistons at those engines speeds with the 999r so I doubt the 4 banger manufacturers would have any trouble running bore numbers in excess of 80mm; however, at those bore figures and engine speeds to stock bikes would produce more horsepower than the WSBK machines.

They tuned the BMW to make maximum power at 13,000rpm even though the rev limit is much higher.

If there is a rev-limit at 13,000rpm, the WSBK game changes completely. The rev-limit would mean the manufacturers would want to maximize the spread of power and torque. However, long stroke engines like the Ducati or Suzuki gain revs more slowly and they run at higher mean piston velocities which requires a bit more friction fighting and tuning. The other option is to go the BMW direction. Make a short stroke engine that can accelerate very quickly (b/c it has short stroke) b/c the horsepower numbers are basically fixed. Obviously, everyone is going to have varying interpretations of the optimal bore-stroke ratings, and each manufacturer will have their own performance criteria.

The MSMA knew way back in 2004 or 2003 that they were reducing capacity in MotoGP. The last thing they needed was a bunch of super-powerful 1000cc SBKs breaking world land speed records and ruining the GP spectacle. Unlike GP, the MSMA don't call the shots in WSBK which means they can't force SBKs to 800cc and any performance controls they introduced would have to be outside of the rulebook.

Rev-limits might even explain how the manufacturers are involved, but they aren't involved. They aren't involved b/c they can't control the technical regs and they are angry about the control tire, but they are involved b/c they have to distribute performance parts (for max performance under a rev-limit) and electronics to enforce the rev limit. They also probably want to make sure that manufacturer withdrawal has some punitive affect on the show.

Not saying there is definitely a rev-limit, but if you assume a rev-limit it seems like so many pieces fall into place. Don't dwell on it though, if it is an MSMA agreement, it's air tight and we'll never find out about it.

Enjoy Qatar.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 3 2010, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not saying there is definitely a rev-limit, but if you assume a rev-limit it seems like so many pieces fall into place. Don't dwell on it though, if it is an MSMA agreement, it's air tight and we'll never find out about it.

Enjoy Qatar.

It was just the Japanese manufacturers, I could buy. But with Ducati and Aprilia involved, it's about as likely as peace breaking out in the middle east on the same day that Kim Jong-Il announces elections to be held in North Korea, to be organized by the UN. Aprilia are already cheating their way through WSBK, so the likelihood of them abiding by a secret MSMA agreement is about as close to zero as you can get.

One more thing: I'll ask Noyes about this when I get to Qatar. He's likely to be aware of any such underhand dealings. I just find it impossible to believe, is all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 3 2010, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>One more thing: I'll ask Noyes about this when I get to Qatar. He's likely to be aware of any such underhand dealings. I just find it impossible to believe, is all.

Cool. His musings in Keep It Simple Part 3 are what made me start thinking about the prospect of a rev limit. Like you say, it seems impossible that the MSMA or FIA could ever impose a rev-limit if it weren't in the rule book, but the idea won't leave me alone. The possibility of enforcing a rev-limit during homologation is really nagging on me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 3 2010, 06:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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):


I think I addressed that above. Too many factors working to equalize speed, without the budget to make a real difference.




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.



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.



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.



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.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <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 are new here. That .... aint gonna happen. He will pound you into submission, and you will agree there is a rev limit just to get him to STFU

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 3 2010, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You are new here. That .... aint gonna happen. He will pound you into submission, and you will agree there is a rev limit just to get him to STFU

I just ask questions and then present an idea that conveniently connects all of the dots.

For instance, a 13,000rpm rev limit would explain why Honda never made a V5 even though people were begging for it. A V5 is more expensive to manufacturer, and assuming that stroke needs to be somewhere in the mid 50s to produce a nice spread of torque for WSBK, the Honda V5 would have to be about 67mm x 56mm. Using a V5 config would simply have increased the contact area between the pistons and the cylinder walls by about 15% while adding no performance benefit. If they gave the V5 a respectable bore number, let's says 76mm, the bike would have had only about 44mm stroke and it would have been a slow turd off the bottom of the racing rev range.

If you assume a rev limit, things start to make sense.

Oh yes, one more interesting tidbit.

Has anyone looked at the BSB Evo class? Steve Brogan of the Jentin Racing BMW team is in 13th position overall. He's a half second quicker than any of the other Evo bikes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("BSB Evo Rule 5.2.6.9.2 ECU")<div class='quotemain'>The ECU will have a fixed rev limit acting at 500rpm above the homologated rev limit of the standard road bike.

So it looks like the FIM do homologate rev-limits. Now we just need to find out from Mr. Noyes whether or not that rev limit is the same for all of the WSBK bikes. I'm cautiously optimistic.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 4 2010, 08:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Oh yes, one more interesting tidbit.

Has anyone looked at the BSB Evo class? Steve Brogan of the Jentin Racing BMW team is in 13th position overall. He's a half second quicker than any of the other Evo bikes.



So it looks like the FIM do homologate rev-limits. Now we just need to find out from Mr. Noyes whether or not that rev limit is the same for all of the WSBK bikes. I'm cautiously optimistic.

BSB is not an FIM run series. It is sanctioned by the ACU (I believe) and although the ACU is an FIM partner organization, the ACU is free to draw up whatever rules it likes for its domestic championship. Look at it like the DMG: They can draw up whatever rules they like, despite the AMA being an FIM member organization, that doesn't mean the FIM will adopt their rule changes.

Also, EVO is a special class. The point is to make it as stock as possible, yet still provide entertaining racing, in an attempt to cut costs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 4 2010, 07:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I just ask questions and then present an idea that conveniently connects all of the dots.

For instance, a 13,000rpm rev limit would explain why Honda never made a V5 even though people were begging for it. A V5 is more expensive to manufacturer, and assuming that stroke needs to be somewhere in the mid 50s to produce a nice spread of torque for WSBK, the Honda V5 would have to be about 67mm x 56mm. Using a V5 config would simply have increased the contact area between the pistons and the cylinder walls by about 15% while adding no performance benefit. If they gave the V5 a respectable bore number, let's says 76mm, the bike would have had only about 44mm stroke and it would have been a slow turd off the bottom of the racing rev range.

If you assume a rev limit, things start to make sense.

The main reason for not building a V5 is they would have lost money on it. It would have been way too expensive - Ducati territory, and probably MV territory - and people are just not prepared to stump up a premium of 50% for a Jap sportsbike. At least, not in the numbers currently required for homologation. Then of course there's that whole sensitivity about the WSBK vs MotoGP prototype thing. Ducati can get away with it, because the numbers they produce are so small, but Honda producing a MotoGP replica would have opened up a whole can of worms. In the end, IMS would have lost any legal action they tried to pull, but they could have made it very difficult for Honda to race in WSBK. It wasn't worth the trouble.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 4 2010, 07:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I just ask questions and then present an idea that conveniently connects all of the dots.

That's why I refer to this as the Friday the 13th fallacy. You can see a number of facts and draw inferences between them, but those inferences are not necessarily correct. As the statisticians say, correlation does not equal causation.

That doesn't mean you're wrong, it's just that, like so many conspiracy theorists, your explanation requires a level of complication that can be explained more simply. I think that Occam's Razor makes your conjecture unlikely. That's not the same as incorrect, just less likely than other explanations.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 4 2010, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That's why I refer to this as the Friday the 13th fallacy. You can see a number of facts and draw inferences between them, but those inferences are not necessarily correct. As the statisticians say, correlation does not equal causation.

That doesn't mean you're wrong, it's just that, like so many conspiracy theorists, your explanation requires a level of complication that can be explained more simply. I think that Occam's Razor makes your conjecture unlikely. That's not the same as incorrect, just less likely than other explanations.
Lex likes to 'shoehorn' from time to time. I find his conjecture both entertaining and fascinating, but there are occasions when he puts his foot in it, and it's quite painfully clear that a size 12 cannot be comfortably crammed into a Size 4.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Apr 4 2010, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Lex likes to 'shoehorn' from time to time. I find his conjecture both entertaining and fascinating, but there are occasions when he puts his foot in it, and it's quite painfully clear that a size 12 cannot be comfortably crammed into a Size 4.

Lex is an intelligent and interesting thinker. But that illuminati avatar is usually the sign of the tinfoil nutjob. I'm guessing Lex uses it ironically.

who won?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 4 2010, 03:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>BSB is not an FIM run series. It is sanctioned by the ACU (I believe) and although the ACU is an FIM partner organization, the ACU is free to draw up whatever rules it likes for its domestic championship. Look at it like the DMG: They can draw up whatever rules they like, despite the AMA being an FIM member organization, that doesn't mean the FIM will adopt their rule changes.

Also, EVO is a special class. The point is to make it as stock as possible, yet still provide entertaining racing, in an attempt to cut costs.

I think they might be referring to FIM homologation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("5.2.6 MCRCB SUPERBIKE-EVO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS")<div class='quotemain'>Superbike motorcycles require an FIM homologation (see article 5.2.9)

It doesn't say that the rev-limit originates from FIM homologation, only that FIM homologation is a requisite to BSB Evo competition. It definitely doesn't say that all FIM homologated motorcycles have the same rev-limit. However, homologation would explain how a rev-limit could be enforced without it appearing in the technical regulations. Homologation would also explain Dennis Noyes' observations in K.I.S.S. Part 3.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("K.I.S.S. Pt.3 p1")<div class='quotemain'>At one point World Superbike had a rule in place that limited any bikes with a bore/stroke ratio more extreme that 1.5:1 to a ceiling of 14,000 RPM. That rule disappeared quietly one night with no FIM communiqué to the press and thus ultra short-stroke engines like the BMW S1000RR were eligible to compete.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 4 2010, 03:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That's why I refer to this as the Friday the 13th fallacy. You can see a number of facts and draw inferences between them, but those inferences are not necessarily correct. As the statisticians say, correlation does not equal causation.

That doesn't mean you're wrong, it's just that, like so many conspiracy theorists, your explanation requires a level of complication that can be explained more simply. I think that Occam's Razor makes your conjecture unlikely. That's not the same as incorrect, just less likely than other explanations.

1. A V5 won't won't have an advantage in rev-limited WSBK. Honda superbikes are made to win WSBK, right?

vs.

2. A V5 may not be profitable considering international consumer demographics, international exchange rates, production costs, profit margins, consumer trends in the high displacement segment, parts supplier contracts, factory retooling costs, worker training expenses, political/legal exposure, warranty regulations,........

or

1. WSBK is rev-limited by the FIM during homologation (before the technical regs)

vs.

2. 7 different manufacturers all independently concluded that 210-220hp is the appropriate amount for WSBK.

I think Occam's razor is on my side, though, it doesn't prove/disprove anything. I'm really not trying to defend the existence of rev-limits, only the reasoning that led to the rev-limit theory.

Anyway, I wish I could give you guys the full tin foil b/c the BSB regulations I believe have added more evidence to how I think the rev limit works, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm more interested to find out what Dennis has to say, if anything.

But I will give a teaser:

BSB Evo says the rev-limit is set 500 rpm above the homologated rev-limit. If the FIM are homologating all bikes of the same cylinder count at the same rev limit, why doesn't BSB simply state the nominal value of the two-tier rev-limit for the EVO class?

If WSBK has a fixed rev-limit, why are Ducati complaining that the 1098R or 1198 engine is already tapped out?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 4 2010, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think they might be referring to FIM homologation.



It doesn't <u>say</u> that the rev-limit originates from FIM homologation, only that FIM homologation is a requisite to BSB Evo competition. It definitely doesn't <u>say</u> that all FIM homologated motorcycles have the same rev-limit. However, homologation would explain how a rev-limit could be enforced without it appearing in the technical regulations. Homologation would also explain Dennis Noyes' observations in K.I.S.S. Part 3.

Sure it does. It's right in the rule book. But its written in invisible ink. You know... with lemon
juice and you have to hold a candle up to the bottom of the page to make the words appear.
And don't worry about the Illuminati thing; Thomas Jefferson and many of his chums secretly
wore tinfoil hats while they were ruling the world from their underground chamber.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 4 2010, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Lex is an intelligent and interesting thinker. But that illuminati avatar is usually the sign of the tinfoil nutjob. I'm guessing Lex uses it ironically.


LOL, you picked up on that huh... Those Mason conspirators have infiltrated everything!! Including motorcycle racing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 4 2010, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. A V5 won't won't have an advantage in rev-limited WSBK. Honda superbikes are made to win WSBK, right?

vs

2. A V5 may not be profitable considering international consumer demographics, international exchange rates, production costs, profit margins, consumer trends in the high displacement segment, parts supplier contracts, factory retooling costs, worker training expenses, political/legal exposure, warranty regulations,........

Honda superbikes are built to make money. One of the ways of marketing Honda superbikes is by racing. Honda balances development costs against marketing costs very carefully, and decides on that basis what configuration to use.

Then there's the fact that the WSBK regulations explictly allow twins, triples and fours, and states that everything that is not authorised is forbidden. In other words, Honda would have to argue their way through the MSMA and convince the other manufacturers to allow them to run a V5, and face a long argument about what capacity they should be allowed to run a V5 at, and then try and market the 900cc V5 as a "liter sports bike" to the bike-buying public.

If you think about it, why did Honda build an inline four instead of a V4? The bike buying public were crying out for Honda to build a V4, and would definitely have paid a (small) premium for such a bike. Instead, Honda built a UJM, because it was much cheaper. In MotoGP, Honda believe completely in the V4 concept, but there budgets are not limited by mass production costs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 4 2010, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. WSBK is rev-limited by the FIM during homologation (before the technical regs)

vs.

2. 7 different manufacturers all independently concluded that 210-220hp is the appropriate amount for WSBK.

I think Occam's razor is on my side, though, it doesn't prove/disprove anything. I'm really not trying to defend the existence of rev-limits, only the reasoning that led to the rev-limit theory.

I suspect that 220bhp is about the amount of horsepower you can get out of an engine with severe tuning regulations with an R&D budget of a couple of million, which is all the manufacturers are prepared to spend. 225 would be possible, but might cost another million to get the power delivery right, 230 might cost two million with smooth power delivery, within the WSBK tech regs. 240 is easily achievable. If you're prepared to spend 10 million dollars on R&D...

These are all just educated guesses, but it's the lesson from most engine development. The first big chunk of horsepower is cheap, and from then on in it gets exponentially more expensive to find usable HP. Factory teams generally spend between 5 and 10 million euros a year in WSBK (vs between 30 and 50 million in MotoGP), and with travel, rider salaries and the like, they just don't have the money to go searching the extra power.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kropotkin @ Apr 5 2010, 04:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Honda superbikes are built to make money. One of the ways of marketing Honda superbikes is by racing. Honda balances development costs against marketing costs very carefully, and decides on that basis what configuration to use.

Then there's the fact that the WSBK regulations explictly allow twins, triples and fours, and states that everything that is not authorised is forbidden. In other words, Honda would have to argue their way through the MSMA and convince the other manufacturers to allow them to run a V5, and face a long argument about what capacity they should be allowed to run a V5 at, and then try and market the 900cc V5 as a "liter sports bike" to the bike-buying public.

If you think about it, why did Honda build an inline four instead of a V4? The bike buying public were crying out for Honda to build a V4, and would definitely have paid a (small) premium for such a bike. Instead, Honda built a UJM, because it was much cheaper. In MotoGP, Honda believe completely in the V4 concept, but there budgets are not limited by mass production costs.

Yes, that's even more simple than my argument. A V5 isn't even listed as a legal configuration. I shouldn't have made the argument anyway b/c it is distracting from the main issues which are homogenized top speeds and accelerations despite vast theoretical differences in engine power. We also watch factory bikes pass some of the non-factory bikes with ease so a modest 10-15 horsepower difference can have a visible impact on the straight line performance. The BSB Evo regs make it appear as though the FIM homologate a rev-limit; the rev limit would preempt technical regulations. Modifications that are not enumerated in the technical regs are prohibited. This could apply to a homologated rev-limit.

Anyway, enough with the entertaining tin foil hat, these are the issues I'm concerned with.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I suspect that 220bhp is about the amount of horsepower you can get out of an engine with severe tuning regulations with an R&D budget of a couple of million, which is all the manufacturers are prepared to spend. 225 would be possible, but might cost another million to get the power delivery right, 230 might cost two million with smooth power delivery, within the WSBK tech regs. 240 is easily achievable. If you're prepared to spend 10 million dollars on R&D...

These are all just educated guesses, but it's the lesson from most engine development. The first big chunk of horsepower is cheap, and from then on in it gets exponentially more expensive to find usable HP. Factory teams generally spend between 5 and 10 million euros a year in WSBK (vs between 30 and 50 million in MotoGP), and with travel, rider salaries and the like, they just don't have the money to go searching the extra power.

Perhaps, though Ducati and Suzuki probably cannot produce 220hp even on their best days. At 25m/s mean piston velocity (substantial number for a production machine) both the Suzuki and the Ducati would be producing about 210 at the crank. I suppose 26m/s is possible with lots of R&D work to fight friction and raise compression, but that would still barely allow them to reach 220hp. The 76mm bikes (Honda and Kawasaki) produce 220 crank horsepower at 25m/s (13,500rpm). The 78mm bikes (Yamaha and Aprilia) produce about 232bhp at 25m/s (14,400rpm). The 80mm bikes (BMW) produce 245bhp at 25m/s (15,100rpm).

If Ten Kate are producing 150 crank horsepower, they are running the engine in the neighborhood of 15,500rpm (with stock internals!) so it's not like production bikes can't make high rpm. Sure, it's more expensive to run at high engine speeds b/c the engine service life (top end in particular) is quite short so the teams must rebuild multiple engines after each event, but cost has never been an effective performance control.

The MSMA tried to control the performance of the bikes from the outset of the 1000cc era by using air restrictors. The Flaminis have thrown out the MSMA rule book and introduced a control tire, but the MSMA were not going to fail to impose some kind of engine performance controls. Do you really think the MSMA was going to allow rev-wars in WSBK and MotoGP? Rev wars have nearly wiped out GP, but WSBK keeps humming along nice and steady. Nobody's going faster than anyone else down the front straight. No one's trying to spend the competitors into oblivion. Nobody's dropping 24-valve R7 OW-02 or GSXR-750RK or 996SPS homologation bombs on the competition. Instead they are all looking for ways to cut costs and extend service intervals. What is this? Racing or an ISO competition?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 5 2010, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Perhaps, though Ducati and Suzuki probably cannot produce 220hp even on their best days. At 25m/s mean piston velocity (substantial number for a production machine) both the Suzuki and the Ducati would be producing about 210 at the crank. I suppose 26m/s is possible with lots of R&D work to fight friction and raise compression, but that would still barely allow them to reach 220hp. The 76mm bikes (Honda and Kawasaki) produce 220 crank horsepower at 25m/s (13,500rpm). The 78mm bikes (Yamaha and Aprilia) produce about 232bhp at 25m/s (14,400rpm). The 80mm bikes (BMW) produce 245bhp at 25m/s (15,100rpm).

I think I said before that HP is less important than getting off the corner. That's exactly where the Ducati makes up the ground, despite having lower HP numbers. I suspect that the advantage the factory bikes have over the satellite bikes is vastly better setup coming out of the corners.

Thanks for running the numbers, though. Interesting stuff.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 5 2010, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If Ten Kate are producing 150 crank horsepower, they are running the engine in the neighborhood of 15,500rpm (with stock internals!) so it's not like production bikes can't make high rpm. Sure, it's more expensive to run at high engine speeds b/c the engine service life (top end in particular) is quite short so the teams must rebuild multiple engines after each event, but cost has never been an effective performance control.

Good point. I know that Barry Veneman's Suzuki made around 140hp. I spoke to Marc Hoegee (the manager and tuner), and he said he could have got more from the engine with more money and time, but the budgets of Ten Kate and Parkalgar are at least twice what the Suzuki team's was. So some 7% more HP costs 100% more money.

And you're right about cost not being an effective performance control. In fact, I don't think anything is an effective performance control. That's what engineers do, find ways to go faster with what they're given.