While rules reflect what the people want, the teams still need to use technology to make the best parts within those rules.

thewon4 - 27 October 2009 01:29 PM

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.

On the contrary, you were sure that new technology doesn't exist in racing, let alone it trickling down

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

Wrong again. You picked on 'firing order' because you did not understand what 'crossplane' meant or stood for. Gary had nothing to do with it.

thewon4 - 26 October 2009 11:34 PM

johnnyp - 26 October 2009 10:38 PM

odie - 26 October 2009 09:24 PM

thewon4 - 26 October 2009 08:45 PM

Fans don't see technology,

I can see the technology in a friend’s R1 that is parked in my garage.

I've told people before that the distance from race car technology appearing on a street car is much much longer than the one from race bike to street bike. To me the proof is in the lap times. Look at Formula 1 compared to the fastest production based car series vs. MotoGP to Superbike.

That is by design.

That is exactly what everyone has been saying, except you. Nobody argued that it was by coincidence or by accident. The fact that trickles down from racing to the street is always by design; it is to provide a better product to the consumer by the manufacturer in an effort to compete with the competition.

In NASCRAP this is not a factor and is looked upon because 'competition' is replaced by 'entertainment'.

'Low tech' means it is easier to donate victories. 'High tech', they don't understand enough to influence results. It worked for NAPCAR for a while but it will not work for AMA Pro Racing.

I was waiting ti see how long it would take 14 to jump in here, and then how long it would take for him to dig himself a hole he couldn't dig his way out of.

Seems three pages was plenty.

I am surprised by the "crossplane/firing order" faux pas. He is usually so adept at using Google to back up the statements he makes about the things he pretends to know.

Anyway, why are all NASCAR-owned series afraid of development? Because development might lead to racing, and NASCAR is sure that racing is not the product its fans want.

Falling ratings for NASCAR, no ratings ever for Grand Am, and the furor over DMG seem not to matter to them. They know they are right, never mind the evidence.

Thanks, 14, for being willing to shoot yourself in the foot again for our amusement.

Crytic - 27 October 2009 02:50 PM

thewon4 - 26 October 2009 11:34 PM

johnnyp - 26 October 2009 10:38 PM

odie - 26 October 2009 09:24 PM

thewon4 - 26 October 2009 08:45 PM

Fans don't see technology,

I can see the technology in a friend’s R1 that is parked in my garage.

I've told people before that the distance from race car technology appearing on a street car is much much longer than the one from race bike to street bike. To me the proof is in the lap times. Look at Formula 1 compared to the fastest production based car series vs. MotoGP to Superbike.

That is by design.

That is exactly what everyone has been saying, except you. Nobody argued that it was by coincidence or by accident. The fact that trickles down from racing to the street is always by design; it is to provide a better product to the consumer by the manufacturer in an effort to compete with the competition.

In NASCRAP this is not a factor and is looked upon because 'competition' is replaced by 'entertainment'.

'Low tech' means it is easier to donate victories. 'High tech', they don't understand enough to influence results. It worked for NAPCAR for a while but it will not work for AMA Pro Racing.

I've never even mentioned trickle down except to refute that I was ever discussing it. JohnnyP said that the distance between MotoGP and the street is shorter than in Prototype car racing and production market b/c prototype racing cars go faster than production racing cars

I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying his statement doesn't even resemble a reasonable proof. The FIA create rules that cause production classes to be slower, it is independent of any market forces at play. I agree that the distance is shorter from GP to the road, but not b/c of the bunk reason he gave. I don't know precisely why the distance is shorter to market in GP than it is in F1. I'm sure there are many reasons.

You people don't read You just identify a person as friendly or hostile and then you act accordingly.

All I said was car racing is not the cutting edge of human technological development. It is a game about creativity and adapting other technologies from other industries. Unfortunately, the governing bodies have been killing creativity and forcing teams to buy exotic aerospace technologies in order to keep competitive. The marketing rhetoric about high tech doesn't match the onerous restrictions they have placed on an engineer's ability to make something new.

That argument is not difficult to understand and it isn't that controversial if you stop rabidly overreacting and just read.

NASCAR is not based on low tech materials, but they are low performance. F1 is full of very high performance materials, but they aren't really that cutting edge or high tech. The difference is whether or not the technical regulations allow development. Development leads to dynamic motorsports (like F1 used to be) and no development leads to static motorsports (like boring NASCAR).

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 02:51 PM

I was waiting ti see how long it would take 14 to jump in here, and then how long it would take for him to dig himself a hole he couldn't dig his way out of.

Seems three pages was plenty.

I am surprised by the "crossplane/firing order" faux pas. He is usually so adept at using Google to back up the statements he makes about the things he pretends to know.

Anyway, why are all NASCAR-owned series afraid of development? Because development might lead to racing, and NASCAR is sure that racing is not the product its fans want.

Falling ratings for NASCAR, no ratings ever for Grand Am, and the furor over DMG seem not to matter to them. They know they are right, never mind the evidence.

Thanks, 14, for being willing to shoot yourself in the foot again for our amusement.

What faux pas are you referring to?

Was it the part where I said the R1's engine electronics are very high tech? Or was it the part where I said the new R1 engine is built from conventional materials and is a relatively mild (but very cool) variation on an old theme (uneven firing order, traditional V4 firing order)?

Don't hold back. Let me know where things went astray.

johhnyP saisd the gap between formula 1cars and production-based racers was greater than the gap between MotoGP bikes and Supersport. The idea here is that MotoGP bikes are a lot closer to street bikes then F1 cars are to street cars, and therefore the gapo the technology has to leap o s smaller, making transfer of technology quicker. Still just a theory, but nothing at all to do with the theory you proposed.

Sorry you missed his point.

If you think I am wrong, well, we both may be.

Johnnyp, care to explain your post, please?

Johhnyp; “'ve told people before that the distance from race car technology appearing on a street car is much much longer than the one from race bike to street bike. To me the proof is in the lap times. Look at Formula 1 compared to the fastest production based car series vs. MotoGP to Superbike.”

No sense arguing until we know that we understand what we are discussing.

Honestly I don't think it has anything to do with DMG being afraid of technology. It has everything to do with maintaining parity and keeping costs low, both of which usually lead to closer racing.

If no one is able to exploit a large technical advantage then by definition the racing will be closer and it will be more about the driver/rider than it is about the technology. If the rules don't allow a lot of technological development teams with more resources can't abuse the have-nots as badly.

Those with more resources always have an advantage but if the point of diminishing returns on a superbike is at $80,000 instead of $300,000 it's going to give the little guy a better shot.

However, n the case of AMA Superbike there are several problems with an extremely limited rules package:

A. The factory teams may lose their motivation for racing at all. And since the factories provide the overwhelming majority of sponsorship in the championship...
B. The fans want to see some level of high-spec equipment

For AMA Superbike there has to be a balance between technology and the quality of racing. Technology is great and all but many, many racing series in the past have had technology wars that escalated into the death of the series because the rules were too open. Conversely, if DMG produces a product no one wants to see, they're going to be stuck with a national club racing series. The key is balance between those two competing goals.

Actually I was referring to you talking about firing order for the crossplane crank. It was indeed johhnyp who first mentioned it. You said gary first mentioned it, no matter, because the idea of uneven firing order is indeed not new to bikes.

You are right on this one. Only faux pas was mine.

However … as far as I can tell, the firing order of the Yamaha is unique to the MotoGP bike and the R1. Yamaha’s literature claims no other production bike has had a crossplane crank, which I cannot verify. However, none of what I read about other bikes with odd firing orders mentions a crossplane crankshaft.

You addressed firing order, but not the idea of the crossplane crankshaft.

Purely out of curiosity, and not for debate purposes, what other production bikes had or have a crossplane crank?

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 02:51 PM

I was waiting ti see how long it would take 14 to jump in here, and then how long it would take for him to dig himself a hole he couldn't dig his way out of.

Seems three pages was plenty.

I am surprised by the "crossplane/firing order" faux pas. He is usually so adept at using Google to back up the statements he makes about the things he pretends to know.

Anyway, why are all NASCAR-owned series afraid of development? Because development might lead to racing, and NASCAR is sure that racing is not the product its fans want.

Falling ratings for NASCAR, no ratings ever for Grand Am, and the furor over DMG seem not to matter to them. They know they are right, never mind the evidence.

Thanks, 14, for being willing to shoot yourself in the foot again for our amusement.

I’m still waiting for the Google of Rotax overheating issues.