SPOILER - MotoGP - SPOILER

[ghaverkamp]

Think of it this way .......... Your a Ducati lover that loves the underdog and your guys are slaying the GIANTS at their own game not just once in a while but time and time again, that's friggin exciting. This small little Italian company that's been on the fence financially that's makes a tenth of the amount of Superbikes as just one of the other guys may very well walk away with the Manufacture and Rider Championship Titles in the best motorcycle contest in the world. This is no small feat and it's hard not to be out of your mind with pride for these guys as an owner.

 

As Russell mentioned above, I can see that making one excited about the results. The racing itself hardly is made more exciting by having David handily whip Goliath's ass over and over again.

[JerryMather]

[The racing itself hardly is made more exciting by having David handily whip Goliath's ass over and over again.

I don't know about that ............ those Gladiators seemed to draw some pretty large crowds over at the Colosseum on Sundays.

[Deadboy]

 

"Best power in the straights"?

 

Last GP

 

Top Speed:

Pedrosa - 294.1

Stoner - 292.8

Capirossi - 291.6

Barros - 291.1

Hayden - 289.8

 

I don't think so

Ian

 

That must be a recent thing, last time I saw the top speeds he was easily on the fastest bike on the track....where did you find that info, I would assume their is a list for each race but I cannot find it...

 

Interesting that Hopper isn't even in the top 5.....I hear his new contract is $4 million a year...supposed to make him one of the best paid riders....not bad for just 2 podiums in his entire career....

[JerryMather]

I hear his new contract is $4 million a year...supposed to make him one of the best paid riders....not bad for just 2 podiums in his entire career....

I wonder how much they're paying Capirossi ?

[russell_bynum]

Are we going to have the same kind of talks next year if Ducati starts sweeping in AMA Superbike class because they have a bigger bike an the other guys?

 

Well, now that you mention it...why is it fair that Ducati can run 749's in Formula Extreme while the inline-four guys have to run 600's?

 

(Not that it wasn't cool seeing Pegram and Cragil up there kicking ass....)

 

I thought it wasn't right that Honda got to run the 1,000cc RC51 while the I-4 guys were running 750's either.

[Paul Mihalka]

Old stuff. In the fifties/sixties Harley was running 750cc flatheads while ohv bikes were limited to 500cc. Organizers always try to create a equal field for everybody, but in the end there is always somebody who is more equal than others.

[russell_bynum]

Old stuff. In the fifties/sixties Harley was running 750cc flatheads while ohv bikes were limited to 500cc. Organizers always try to create a equal field for everybody, but in the end there is always somebody who is more equal than others.

 

Right.

 

At some level, I'm OK with it since it theoretically lets more players be competitive. It just seems like reality is that someone winds up with a big advantage. Remember a few years ago when World Superbike was the Ducati show and pretty much nobody else even bothered to show up because the rules were such that they didn't have a chance in hell of winning?

[JerryMather]

The big four could always start running 1200 cc twins if you think that would be a little better, no one is stopping them from making them and putting them up against the Ducati's and Buell's.

Or you could ask Ducati to make a inline four to race in the Superbike series, but you & I can guess what they'd say to that one, especially now that they've got the rules changed.

[IanW]

 

"Best power in the straights"?

 

Last GP

 

Top Speed:

Pedrosa - 294.1

Stoner - 292.8

Capirossi - 291.6

Barros - 291.1

Hayden - 289.8

 

I don't think so

Ian

 

That must be a recent thing, last time I saw the top speeds he was easily on the fastest bike on the track....where did you find that info, I would assume their is a list for each race but I cannot find it...

 

Interesting that Hopper isn't even in the top 5.....I hear his new contract is $4 million a year...supposed to make him one of the best paid riders....not bad for just 2 podiums in his entire career....

 

The bikes are set up differently for each track, Stoner had more than a 10kph advantage at the tracks with the longer straights. The info can be found at motogp.com

 

Ian

[russell_bynum]

The big four could always start running 1200 cc twins if you think that would be a little better, no one is stopping them from making them and putting them up against the Ducati's and Buell's.

Or you could ask Ducati to make a inline four to race in the Superbike series, but you & I can guess what they'd say to that one, especially now that they've got the rules changed.

 

Right...but why is a liquid-cooled 4-stroke 1,000cc V-twin slower than a liquid-cooled 4-stroke 1,000cc inline four? I understand if we're talking 2 strokes vs 4-strokes, or air cooled vs. liquid cooled. But why is a v-twin supposedly slower than an inline 4?

[Paul Mihalka]

Right...but why is a liquid-cooled 4-stroke 1,000cc V-twin slower than a liquid-cooled 4-stroke 1,000cc inline four? I understand if we're talking 2 strokes vs 4-strokes, or air cooled vs. liquid cooled. But why is a v-twin supposedly slower than an inline 4?

A twin compared to a same cc four has lower mechanical/physical rpm limitations. Higher rpm from same cc means more power.

[russell_bynum]

Ah.

 

Seems the logical thing do to then would be to stop making v-twin racebikes.

[Paul Mihalka]

Yep. Unless you are so good that you can beat the fours with a twin in spite of the handicap.

[russell_bynum]

Yep. Unless you are so good that you can beat the fours with a twin in spite of the handicap.

 

Right.

[duckbubbles]

Those new 1200 cc rules for twins in World Superbike also stipulate that they must use a lot more stock parts internally than the rules currently allow. No special rods and other performance enhancing bits that they use now. Also the governing body will see how it goes for a few races to determine if there is too much advantage for either camp and rewrite the rules if they think it is necessary.

 

I think the spread in displacement is valid. The Ducati's also will have a weight increase that the fours won't have. The twins can't match the fours in valve area or rpm, a big determination of total horsepower potential.

 

Frank

[russell_bynum]

Those new 1200 cc rules for twins in World Superbike also stipulate that they must use a lot more stock parts internally than the rules currently allow. No special rods and other performance enhancing bits that they use now. Also the governing body will see how it goes for a few races to determine if there is too much advantage for either camp and rewrite the rules if they think it is necessary.

 

I think the spread in displacement is valid. The Ducati's also will have a weight increase that the fours won't have. The twins can't match the fours in valve area or rpm, a big determination of total horsepower potential.

 

Frank

 

Sounds tremendously complicated and almost impossible to be fair.

 

If a twin needs special rules to compete, then it seems to me that the logical thing to do is make an engine in a configuration that can compete.

 

Why should the rules have to change because Ducati refuses to get out of the past and start operating in the present?

 

Note: I really like Ducatis and V-twins in general (and I'm in freakin' love with the V-twin in my Aprilia.) but romance and tradition aside, it doesn't make sense to alter the rules to suit one manufacturer, who refuses to be competitive on their own.

[Boffin]

 

Sounds tremendously complicated and almost impossible to be fair.

 

If a twin needs special rules to compete, then it seems to me that the logical thing to do is make an engine in a configuration that can compete.

 

Why should the rules have to change because Ducati refuses to get out of the past and start operating in the present?

 

Note: I really like Ducatis and V-twins in general (and I'm in freakin' love with the V-twin in my Aprilia.) but romance and tradition aside, it doesn't make sense to alter the rules to suit one manufacturer, who refuses to be competitive on their own.

 

It's all about marketing. Winning races sells bikes - win on Sunday, Sell on Monday. In the old days it was that simple, these days however the buying public is seen as more sophisticated (in Europe at least ) and a recogniseable design is seen as equally important. Triumph dropped the 4-cylinder engine because Triumph make Triples. Ducati race twins because it is important to them. They call the engine a "L" twin, not a "V" to highlight the 90° configuration. They call their MotoGP bike a L-Four and was originally described as a "Double-twin". Ducati race twins because that is their house configuration. If they could have made a competitive twin for MotoGP the Desmosedici would not be a four-pot bike.

 

Andy

[russell_bynum]

Right. Romance and Tradition...that's what I said.

[Boffin]

Right. Romance and Tradition...that's what I said.

 

Oh yes, but that is what sells bikes. If you can win races as well, then you sell more bikes.

 

When you get right down to it, racing is just a marketing tool. We may like to think that it refines the breed, brings advances to the road (which it does) but that is not the Why, the Why is marketing, the rest is just a happy by-product.

 

In just about every racing class from flat-track through MotoGP to F1, someone tries to bend the rules to ensure their product is on the top step of the podium. It all adds to the flavour of racing - long may it continue

 

Andy

[russell_bynum]

Oh yes, but that is what sells bikes. If you can win races as well, then you sell more bikes.

 

When you get right down to it, racing is just a marketing tool. We may like to think that it refines the breed, brings advances to the road (which it does) but that is not the Why, the Why is marketing, the rest is just a happy by-product.

 

In just about every racing class from flat-track through MotoGP to F1, someone tries to bend the rules to ensure their product is on the top step of the podium. It all adds to the flavour of racing - long may it continue

 

Andy

 

Yep, I agree. Except for your "long may it continue" stuff. We'd get better bikes if we weren't artificially protecting inferior designs with racing rules that give them an advantage where they are unwilling or unable to create an advantage on their own.

[Boffin]

 

Yep, I agree. Except for your "long may it continue" stuff. We'd get better bikes if we weren't artificially protecting inferior designs with racing rules that give them an advantage where they are unwilling or unable to create an advantage on their own.

 

Ah, but would the Yamaha R1, or the new Fireblade be as good as they are if they did not have to beat that Duke?

 

At the end of the day, the racing bodies such as the FIA do a good job of limiting the rule-bending to the point where everybody has a chance, even if you do get the odd season or two (or more - WSB) of domination.

 

Mind you, with WSB once Foggy put himself out of racing, what happened to the "favoured" Ducati?

 

Andy

[russell_bynum]

At the end of the day, the racing bodies such as the FIA do a good job of limiting the rule-bending to the point where everybody has a chance, even if you do get the odd season or two (or more - WSB) of domination.

 

Yeah I agree...they do a pretty good job with it.

 

It just seems like unnecessary complication and it creates a situation ripe for controversy and unfair advantage.

[JerryMather]

Why should the rules have to change because Ducati refuses to get out of the past and start operating in the present?

 

Could it be .......... that one of the former heads at Ducti Corsa is now the head of World Superbike?

 

[BMT]

We'd get better bikes if we weren't artificially protecting inferior designs ...

Traditional telescopic forks spring ( ) to mind.

 

Tying this threadlet in with my previous points, marketing is why the money-no-object argument is doomed to failure: the cost is limited by the benefits and if the sales don't cover the sponsorship costs, it's no longer good business. There's a limit to how many names can be painted on a bike and rider!

[russell_bynum]

Traditional telescopic forks spring ( ) to mind.

 

Not sure what you mean by that.

[W. Mazelin]

Something to do with the Telelever, perhaps?

[russell_bynum]

Something to do with the Telelever, perhaps?

 

I don't particularly consider Telelever to be a superior design. At least not in the context of racing.

 

Yes, it reduces dive and helps keep the forks in there useful range where they can do some good.

 

But, it also tends to give the front end a very vauge feel. At least...with all of the telelever bikes I've ridden, it's been very difficult to tell what the front end was doing. Then I get on my CBR or my Tuono and I swear you could take a quarter out of your pocket, put in in the road, and I could run over it with the front wheel and tell you what State it was from.

 

I think Telelever is a good thing on a street bike, where you aren't pushing things to the very limit of grip, but probably not a good idea on a race bike.

 

(Of course, it's possible that the design just needs to be tweaked to provide better feedback...I don't know.)

 

Do the rules (AMA, WSB, MotoGP) prohibit the use of non-conventional front suspensions?

[W. Mazelin]

Racing rules - I don't know the if they specify a certain type of suspension (maybe for some classes?). I love the Telelever, I don't find any of the vague feelings regarding feedback and frontend feel. Racing stresses things in an entirely different manner, but N8 & Parriott seem to do OK with the R-1200-S they campaign.

[David]

The other advantage of the traditional suspension is that it changes steering characteristics when you want it to: stable on the straights and easier to turn under braking.

[BMT]

I don't particularly consider Telelever to be a superior design. At least not in the context of racing.

My emphasis.

 

But under the fashion rules, the preference for telescopic forks for racing (lighter primarily, but I'll concede David's geometry-change advantages -- I don't have enough first-hand experience) dictates that they remain predominant on the road. Under road conditions, for me, the telelever is far superior. Reduced dive and increased rigidity suit me fine. The weight disadvantage is a mute point, considering the rest of the stuff I'm hauling.

 

Your post made the point about protecting inferior designs: I suggest that telescopic front forks are an inferior design for road use.

[russell_bynum]

Your post made the point about protecting inferior designs: I suggest that telescopic front forks are an inferior design for road use.

 

Oh, OK. I'm with you.

 

Definitely, some stuff that's good in racing isn't necessarily good on the street....and vice versa.

 

There's no ABS on race bikes either, but it's a nice feature on a street bike.

[Paul Mihalka]

A main advantage of the telelever IMHO is that even under hard braking it maintains almost full suspension travel. I find it much better in braking on a rough road than a conventional telescopic. Not a problem on a race track.

[russell_bynum]

A main advantage of the telelever IMHO is that even under hard braking it maintains almost full suspension travel. I find it much better in braking on a rough road than a conventional telescopic. Not a problem on a race track.

 

Right. That's why I said telelever is a good deal on the street. The thing that it gives up (front end feel) isn't generally important on the street since you aren't constantly pushing the very limits of adhesion.