14, you are still playing with words to avoid the meaning.

You, I, and everyone else here knows we are talking about the development of technology new to motorcycles. No one here things bike racing involves gene splicing or particle accelerators.

What all NASCAR series have in common - including Grand Am, and now AMA Pro - is a return to simpler, outmoded, and everywhere else rejected technology, while most racing tries to make use of the latest technology (within the racing field.)

Your debate over the meaning of "high-tech" and "development" is a sideshow and a straw man. You know it was never the issue and cannot refute the facts, which are that every series NASCAR touches reverts to primitive technology.

People see what Grand Am and NASCAR have been doing, and see what DMG has recently done, and fear that the "dumbing down" (which even you admit has started) will not stop until AMA "Superbikes" are spec, low-tech, slow, and unmodifiable, just as every other NASCAR vehicle already is.

That is and always has been the discussion. You find it hard to put a pro-DMG slant on it, so you debate (with yourself) the precise definition of "high-tech."

thewon4 - 27 October 2009 11:15 AM

garyb425 - 27 October 2009 08:48 AM

thewon4 - 27 October 2009 01:49 AM

johnnyp - 27 October 2009 12:34 AM

The 2009 R1 crossplane firing order can be directly linked to technology that was developed in MotoGP.

Is that where it came from?

The engine is just another development of an existing technology. It is a great development imo, but I wouldn't say it is high tech. Uneven firing orders have been around for a long time and none of the materials to build the engine are really high tech either. The electronics does seem to be pioneering work that hasn't really been undertaken before.

Name the other street bikes that had an uneven firing order.

1966 Honda "Black Bomber"

L twins have an uneven firing order as well.

Aren't you the one that whines about using literal terms?

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 11:54 AM

No one here things bike racing involves gene splicing or particle accelerators.

I guess you missed the posts about Jonny Pock Rage running Higgs Bosons in his fuel.

robertorolfo - 27 October 2009 11:58 AM

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 11:54 AM

No one here things bike racing involves gene splicing or particle accelerators.

I guess you missed the posts about Jonny Pock Rage running Higgs Bosons in his fuel.

He could run nitrous and he'd still be last.

14 you asked what technologies developed from racing are seen on street bikes. Not what completely new technologies. I did not ask about Ltwins with uneven firing orders. In fact I didn't even mention uneven firing order. I said the crossplane crankshaft in the new R1 came from the work done in MotoGP. I am talking specifics. If Yamaha does not use it on the GP bike it is never used on the production R1. Lets go one further and look at the Ducati Desmosedeci RR street legal bike that was directly based on the 990 era Ducati. I don't think you wil ever see a F1 car on a dealer show room floor. Next.

thewon4 - 27 October 2009 01:49 AM

johnnyp - 27 October 2009 12:34 AM

The 2009 R1 crossplane firing order can be directly linked to technology that was developed in MotoGP.

Is that where it came from?

The engine is just another development of an existing technology. It is a great development imo, but I wouldn't say it is high tech. Uneven firing orders have been around for a long time and none of the materials to build the engine are really high tech either. The electronics does seem to be pioneering work that hasn't really been undertaken before.

Racing isn't really that high-tech. Most of the materials and designs they use are borrowed from other industries (mainly aerospace). The sport is primarily about creativity and arranging existing technologies in a way that creates a great racing vehicle.

I wish motorsports focused more on creativity (engines especially) and much less on requiring teams to go out and buy aerospace technology or metallurgy technology so they can build a racing vehicle.

First, your whole post is absurd.

high technology
n. Technology that involves highly advanced or specialized systems or devices.

State of the art for one branch of technology (communications, genetics, lincoln logs) does not relegate an unrelated technology to non high tech status. Racing is high tech by virtue of the fact that the vehicles use the best available parts, metallurgy, known practices, systems, to create a purpose built machine to do one thing exceptionally well, put down fast, consistent lap times.

Using state of the art to build those vehicles means that they are, by definition, high tech. Stop being obtuse and misdirecting a conversation that you can't logically participate in.

garyb425 - 27 October 2009 12:01 PM

robertorolfo - 27 October 2009 11:58 AM

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 11:54 AM

No one here things bike racing involves gene splicing or particle accelerators.

I guess you missed the posts about Jonny Pock Rage running Higgs Bosons in his fuel.

He could run nitrous and he'd still be last.

He could fly an F-22 and be in last place. Of course, DMG would then have a legitimate argument about him blocking the racing line...

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 11:54 AM

14, you are still playing with words to avoid the meaning.

You, I, and everyone else here knows we are talking about the development of technology new to motorcycles. No one here things bike racing involves gene splicing or particle accelerators.

What all NASCAR series have in common - including Grand Am, and now AMA Pro - is a return to simpler, outmoded, and everywhere else rejected technology, while most racing tries to make use of the latest technology (within the racing field.)

Your debate over the meaning of "high-tech" and "development" is a sideshow and a straw man. You know it was never the issue and cannot refute the facts, which are that every series NASCAR touches reverts to primitive technology.

People see what Grand Am and NASCAR have been doing, and see what DMG has recently done, and fear that the "dumbing down" (which even you admit has started) will not stop until AMA "Superbikes" are spec, low-tech, slow, and unmodifiable, just as every other NASCAR vehicle already is.

That is and always has been the discussion. You find it hard to put a pro-DMG slant on it, so you debate (with yourself) the precise definition of "high-tech."

I'm finding it hard to put a pro-DMG slant on things? I suppose when I say that NASCAR has become ugly rolling billboards---that must be an attempt to spin the situation into pro-DMG terms. Just like when I say that DMG has an unfortunate tendency to sell out to the sponsors which is marginally worse than selling out to the manufacturers.

There is no positive spin, I just don't kick DMG in the nuts at every available opportunity. I've simply asked myself why DMG legislates the way it does instead of assuming DMG are idiots who hate technology. DMG don't shun technology, they shun development. NASCAR uses exotic iron alloys, and titanium valves, and exotic aluminum alloys, and all of the engines are technically prototype engines now; but the exotic materials they allow are low performance. It is a strange way to do things, but it isn't low tech.

MotoGP doesn't allow titanium alloy for chassis construction. Oval pistons are outlawed. Everything is chain drive and all of the suspension is still passive when the bike is leaned over (same as it has been for 100 years). The rules require reciprocating 4 stroke engines (100 year old development). Two wheel drive is outlawed. No hydraulic clutches or semi-auto gearboxes.

Are they a bunch of low-tech bubbas?

Racing is a business, and most series are controlled by a very small group of people who make the rules. The rules reflect what those people want. The rules don't have anything to do with pushing mankind forward or developing new knowledge/technology. It's just a group of people who want to tinker with things b/c it is fun to solve problems. "It's fun to compete and win" is no match for rhetoric about pioneering new frontiers and conquering the problems of the past/present etc. "We are better at having fun" doesn't sell bikes and disparage the people who lose to your team. The reality of racing doesn't match up with the marketing fluff they espouse in order to put butts in the seats.

It's not about pro-DMG or anti-DMG. It is about wrapping your brain around what is actually happening in the world of racing and then trying to figure out what needs to be done to make improvements. Almost all racing series have the exact same problems--out of control performance, out of control costs, or no development (some series have all three major problems). Doesn't matter if it's the France family or Bernie Ecclestone or Ezpeleta.

johnnyp - 27 October 2009 12:26 PM

14 you asked what technologies developed from racing are seen on street bikes. Not what completely new technologies. I did not ask about Ltwins with uneven firing orders. In fact I didn't even mention uneven firing order. I said the crossplane crankshaft in the new R1 came from the work done in MotoGP. I am talking specifics. If Yamaha does not use it on the GP bike it is never used on the production R1. Lets go one further and look at the Ducati Desmosedeci RR street legal bike that was directly based on the 990 era Ducati. I don't think you wil ever see a F1 car on a dealer show room floor. Next.

No. I have never once asked what technologies trickle down. I said the FIA makes production based racing classes much slower than prototype classes by design. That's it.

I think gary asked about uneven firing order. I was responding to him.

"Why is the DMG group so scared of technology..."

People are always afraid of what they don't understand. Look what happened to Galileo.