marshall banana - 10 November 2009 10:21 PM

garyb425 - 10 November 2009 02:22 PM

It's ok, we have great minds like winters to correct us.

250s were the ultimate race bikes - light, powerful, great handling. It's tragedy to see them go. Far worse than the loss of 500s.

I've gotta disagree there. High-siding, tail-sliding, front-wheel-aloft, foul-tempered 500s were the best racing ever. I'll take their excess over the 250s. The 250s may have been the best balanced, but the 500s were the equivalent of racing Roman Candles around a track, and were wonderful for it...

Very exciting to watch - but not the best to ride. For the racers, 250s are great.

garyb425 - 10 November 2009 04:25 PM

rexracer - 10 November 2009 04:23 PM

I think 800cc supercharged diesels are the future!

The last time I was in Europe I had a turbo-diesel Audi A6 - that thing went like a bat out of hell.

Advanced electronic engine controls, strong torque and a turbocharger will do that for you.

GreyWolf74 - 12 November 2009 11:11 AM

garyb425 - 10 November 2009 04:25 PM

rexracer - 10 November 2009 04:23 PM

I think 800cc supercharged diesels are the future!

The last time I was in Europe I had a turbo-diesel Audi A6 - that thing went like a bat out of hell.

Advanced electronic engine controls, strong torque and a turbocharger will do that for you.

Yep. Best car I've ever driven. I loved that thing - and the funny thing was, I paid for a subcompact, lol. The guy ahead of me in the rental line in Frankfurt was a total ass - and an American of course... I apologized for him, said I wasn't like that and the next thing I knew I was driving off in the A6.

TOM GROSSMANN - 11 November 2009 04:17 PM

"based" is the key word..............if you can stuff anything into the stock cases and head then you'd have some pretty wild stuff.

If the change is a way to let private teams put an R1 engine in a MotoGP chassis then it could be interesting. example My old Datsun I race, the engine started out as a 68HP 6500 RPM push rod motor. I'm at about 95HP and 8100 RPM's..........full race is 140 HP and 9800 RPM's. There is a OHC head that will bolt on and bring the engine to 175HP and 10,500 rpms.....................all production based. Fab up a custom roller crank and we're off to the land of 12,000 RPM's.........so what is production "based"???

Till we no more details it's hard to comment, but fun to speculate.

Tom

That was my point, exactly. The full-on, 12,000rpm super-motor is "production based" because the block started out as a stock engine. But by the time the engine builder and his after market parts catalog are finished with it, the "stock" engine is pretty much a pure racing engine with a cast iron block.

The Mercedes Indy engine I mentioned wasn't even that close to a "production" engine. It was a perversion of the rules that defined "stock block" by camshaft location and valve actuation; traits that resembled a stock Chevy block and heads but had nothing to do with them. Instead, it was a modified Ilmore (or maybe Cosworth, I forget) racing engine that was badged as a "Mercedes" and never saw the inside of a production facility.

Now about those 200 extra cc's. Sure, it does sound like the "production" engine has a 25% size advantage on the pure racing version. But I refer you back to the Formula 5000 vs. Formula One cars. In 1970, there was a race called the "Questor Grand Prix," held at the now-defunct Ontario Motor Speedway, which matched Formula 5000 and Formula One cars in a two-heat race.

On paper it sounded like a close match: The F5000 cars had similar chassis and a 2,000cc advantage over the F1s with power and torque (then) more or less even. In fact, it wasn't even close. The stock block engines were considerably bigger and heavier than the pure-racing versions, they had sophisticated four-valve heads, better fuel injection, revved to 11,000 rpm (vs. 6500 or so for the stock blocks). Their aerodynamics and suspensions were more sophisticated, even in those relatively simple times. And they had a 200 pound weight advantage.

Further, the F1 cars had a packaging advantage. Because their engines were smaller, the whole rest of the car was smaller, as well. Hence the weight and size advantage. Needless to say, the F1 cars dominated the races. The best a F5000 could do was sixth and that was with Mark Donohue driving a Team Penske Lola.

So what does all this have to do with MotoGP? Take a lesson. Scale everything down a bit and consider the following: The F5000 cars had bigger, heavier engines that weighed probably around 400 lbs, where the Formula Ones were only 300-350, if that. The cars had to be bigger to hold the physically larger engines, which added weight and aerodynamic drag.

In a racing bike, the engine will be smaller, more compact, and built lighter because it only has to go 200 miles or so. The rest of the bike can be built smaller and lighter as well. The "production based" engines, assuming they do use stock blocks and heads, will be bigger, heavier and stouter because they're meant to run tens of thousands of miles -- maybe a hundred thousand-- between rebuilds. And the bikes have to be bigger and heavier as well.

For further consideration, look at the size and weight of a 250 bhp MotoGP bike -- around 250 lbs, versus a 150 bhp street sportbike, which is closer to 350 to 400 lbs. Admitted, this is comparing grapes with oranges, but it shows what the differences could be; especially in a sport that is so weight conscious that some people are willing to spend over $1,000 for a titanium exhaust system that is 15 pounds lighter than stock for street use.

We shall see what we shall see, if this ever comes to pass. My money will still be on the pure-racing bikes.

garyb425 - 12 November 2009 11:20 AM

Yep. Best car I've ever driven. I loved that thing - and the funny thing was, I paid for a subcompact, lol. The guy ahead of me in the rental line in Frankfurt was a total ass - and an American of course... I apologized for him, said I wasn't like that and the next thing I knew I was driving off in the A6.

Was it an automatic?
Audi shares all technology with Volkswagen. For work I drive a Volkswagen Passat with a 2.4L Turbodiesel engine and the seamlessly shifting ecosmart DSG automatic gearbox with direct manual override with the steering wheel flippers.....

At one time I had a wrongly loaded little car (don't remember the English word) and above 70kmh the little car started to get unbalanced and wanted to go from one side to the other side of the road. The only thing I did was brake. The car itself started to control brake all wheel seperately, got us out of the sideways sinuswave we were in and put on the alarm lights.....
Love that kind of technology.

It was an automatic, but you could lock it out and use paddle shifters. I drive a late model Jetta (yes, I'm cheap) and I love the thing. 2.5 liter 5cyl. gas model.

GreyWolf74 - 12 November 2009 11:51 AM

I refer you back to the... cars.

For further consideration, look at the size and weight of a 250 bhp MotoGP bike -- around 250 lbs, versus a 150 bhp street sportbike, which is closer to 350 to 400 lbs.

Thanks for the interesting history lesson (I'm not being sarcastic), but comparing cars to bikes is pretty much useless. Ask your buddies at Cosworth and Ilmor how useful all their car racing experience was to them.

And your weight numbers are off by quite a bit as well. But hey, I'm glad you are taking a look at MotoGP. After a few races it should be quite clear to you how thoroughly superior it has become to Boremula 1 in every aspect.

Gary & AZ, those diesels are nice, but I can't stand the exhaust. Even the clean diesels that put out perfectly clear exhaust... it is still absolutely horrible to breath. I know all exhaust is bad, but that stuff makes me feel like I am going to die instantly. I can't stand following one on the road, and sitting behind it at a light is torture.

Greywolf, MotoGP bikes weight around 330 lbs. - they haven't been allowed below 320 in the 4 stroke era. Even 500s were at least 286 lbs. after '91 (I think it was '91).

Thanks for the corrections, Gary and Roberto. As I said, I'm new to motorcycling so I'm still fuzzy on the details. As for cars, I have a stack of magazines, some of which are 40 years old. That includes a race report on the Questor Grand Prix. I'm not sure exactly what the weight and size differences are between, say, a stock Hayabusa or CBR1000RC engine and their racing equivalent, but I'd bet the racing enignes are lighter, smaller and more sophisticated.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see Superbikes and MotoGP bikes or their equivalent racing together.

Can't see a switch to production 1000cc engine as World Superbike would probably take them to court to stop it. But the FIM made a mistake allowing MotoGP2 to happen as this opens the door for a similar formula in MotoGP. However for a more fundamental item doesn't the switch to production engines eliminate the real purpose of the series? If it's a series of prototype chasis then why not just go to regular production bikes? Oh yeah that series already exists in WSS/WSB.