MotoGP - why aren't the best bikes being raced?

phozed · 08-05-2003, 10:24 AM

is the next big thing for mgp to follow the proton guys and have both a 2 and a 4 stroke?

Crash.net link

makes a lot of sense - and I for one wouldn't mind seeing the NSR500 running at Phillip Island again!

asiliat · 08-05-2003, 10:44 AM

The only thing that bugs me is racing and qualifying on different machines.

Also, sometimes winning is about confidence. If you're 100% confident with the setup of a particular machine, you're going to go that 1/10 faster. However, even great riders may have a hard time adjusting to to 2-3 different machines per season. Heck, even some great riders complaing about having to ride their 'backup' bikes, which are supposed to be identical to their main ride....

It's a good idea that may be very hard to implement.

Latebraking · 08-05-2003, 10:50 AM

They'd have to add another budget equalling the GNP of South America to run two-strokes as well.

Race on Sunday, sell on Monday does not apply when you run two-strokes and can only sell four-strokes because of emissions regulations.

I love two-strokes, and race one myself, but four-strokes are back, and here to stay - for the time being, anyway.

phozed · 08-05-2003, 10:59 AM

I agree about qualifying on one bike and running another during the race - but I don't think that's in the scope of the rules? Otherwise everyone would run the down-on-grunt up-on-cornerspeed smokers for Qual and the high-grunt 4 strokes when dicing in the race IMHO...

GNP comment was too funny! I dunno though - if they only ran smokers at 2 tracks, both of them of the twisty kind, how different could the setup be? Not to mention - Proton isn't exactly on Big Red's budget...

Baketech · 08-05-2003, 1:54 PM

Didn't totally understand the thrust of the article....I thought that the impetus for phasing out smokers was an eco & marketing thing....

Also, its my understanding that Proton is only using the 2 stroke to stay on the grid while doing developement on the 4 cycle?

ccwilli3 · 08-05-2003, 1:58 PM

Quote Lets face facts: At the Sachsenring the final seven MotoGP qualifiers - Abe (Yamaha), McCoy (Kawasaki), Hofmann (Kawasaki), Kiyonari (Honda), Pitt (Kawasaki), Hopkins (Suzuki) and de Gea (WCM) - were all outpaced by 250cc pole sitter Sebastian Porto.

dang, thats a list I don't wanna be on...

deez · 08-05-2003, 2:03 PM

Too much $ for the teams to run 2 different machines, won't happen. Baketech is right, emissions is one of the key factors why GP went to the 4strokes, I seriously doubt this would happen.

Pete · 08-05-2003, 4:40 PM

Quote:

Baketech : Also, its my understanding that Proton is only using the 2 stroke to stay on the grid while doing developement on the 4 cycle?

Everything I have read in print, as quotes from KR, indicate that you are correct. And theirs is a V5.

luvtolean · 08-05-2003, 4:42 PM

Quote:

Pete : Quote (Baketech @ Aug. 05 2003, 1:54pm)Also, its my understanding that Proton is only using the 2 stroke to stay on the grid while doing developement on the 4 cycle?

Everything I have read in print, as quotes from KR, indicate that you are correct. *And theirs is a V5.
Yep, with a 60º V instead of Honda's 72º.

Proto · 08-05-2003, 4:53 PM

You can probably blame Honda for killing off the two strokes. They have always hated the things. Remember when they tried to bveat the two strokes with the oval pistoned 500, NR500 was it?

It's in their culture. So when Big Red shouts the others follow. Marketing and eco damage are certainly factors too.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of mini MotoGP class starting before too long to replace the 250's. Maybe a production based 600 series similar to Supersport but with much less restrictions. So slicks, different forks, brakes whatever they fancy.

luvtolean · 08-05-2003, 4:58 PM

Honda is avery environmentally conscious company. That is one of the main reasons they hate 2 smokers.

ccwilli3 · 08-05-2003, 5:24 PM

Quote:

Proto : I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of mini MotoGP class starting before too long to replace the 250's. Maybe a production based 600 series similar to Supersport but with much less restrictions. So slicks, different forks, brakes whatever they fancy.

That is coming...

Aprilia is said to be developing a 600 to replace the RS250. That has to signal a 250 changeover to 4 strokes too.

Also, watch forumla extreme in the US next year, there you will see some really tricked out 600s!

Baketech · 08-05-2003, 6:01 PM

Quote:

Pete : Quote (Baketech @ Aug. 05 2003, 1:54pm)Also, its my understanding that Proton is only using the 2 stroke to stay on the grid while doing developement on the 4 cycle?

Everything I have read in print, as quotes from KR, indicate that you are correct. *And theirs is a V5.
Yes...their 4 cycle is a 60 degree V5....

Edit:
Sorry missed ltl's post....

TCD · 08-05-2003, 8:34 PM

Quote:

Baketech : Didn't totally understand the thrust of the article....I thought that the impetus for phasing out smokers was an eco & marketing thing....

i read somewhere that they had hit a plateau on 2 stroke development. apparently there has not been any significant advance in years. don't quote me on this. anyone have a source?

luvtolean · 08-05-2003, 8:40 PM

Quote:

TCD : Quote (Baketech @ Aug. 05 2003, 11:54am)Didn't totally understand the thrust of the article....I thought that the impetus for phasing out smokers was an eco & marketing thing....

i read somewhere that they had hit a plateau on 2 stroke development. *apparently there has not been any significant advance in years. *don't quote me on this. *anyone have a source?
Quote Anyone have a source?

Sure, look at the lap times over the last several years...

TCD · 08-05-2003, 9:03 PM

good point!

Latebraking · 08-06-2003, 1:23 AM

Consider also, that Sachsenring is a track more friendly to the bike that has the best handlng, rather than the most power. You're comparing apples and oranges when you put the RC211V and the NSR 250 in the same light.

Look at what happened with McWilliams last year at Phillip Island (pole position), indeed, what the two-strokes did, period. They nearly dominated the front row after qualifying. Then the green flag dropped and the four-strokes swallowed them up whole and spit them out the exhausts with their superior acceleration and top speed.

Corner speed is the two-stroke's claim to fame in racing, but that don't mean squat when you have a diesel blocking you at the apex. At the exit, all the two-stroke racer can do is watch the four-stroke gap them, big time, with the superior acceleration out of the corners.

The best race bikes *are* on the track. More riders are now competitive to run for the checkered flag on the new bikes, instead of before, when second place was all anyone who could hope for if their last name wasn't Rossi.

ondablade · 08-06-2003, 5:01 AM

The situation as I understand it is that strategically the factories decided they would prefer to see four strokes racing for the reasons quoted - tech development, increased spectator interest and the political non-acceptability of two strokes for emissions reasons etc. The FIM and Dorna agreed.
The rules allow two strokes though, and if the four strokes had not proven more competitive (as the rules intended) it's clear the teams would still be running two strokes.
The other variable is the formula. Two strokes are limited to 500cc which forces a fairly highly tuned motor with less friendly power delivery. It would probably be possible (and a lot cheaper) to build a competitive two stroke racer if they were allowed the same 1000cc as the four strokes and redeveloped making use of the latest electronic management capabilities.
It's a bit of a moot point anyway. As has been said the two strokes are capable of a fast qualifying lap (especially with a draft from a four stroke) but have been nowhere in the races so far - even on the tight tracks. I think also that part of the the Proton's performance in the last two years has come from their use of the now very good Bridgestone tyres.

Baketech · 08-06-2003, 7:52 AM

Quote:

ondablade : The other variable is the formula. Two strokes are limited to 500cc which forces a fairly highly tuned motor with less friendly power delivery. It would probably be possible (and a lot cheaper) to build a competitive two stroke racer if they were allowed the same 1000cc as the four strokes and redeveloped making use of the latest electronic management capabilities.

1000cc 2 strokes....?
Then how would you regulate the inherent 2 stroke/4 stroke performance disparity.....allow 1980cc 4 strokes....??

This makes no sense.... please explain...

Proto · 08-06-2003, 8:32 AM

Quote 1000cc 2 strokes....?
Then how would you regulate the inherent 2 stroke/4 stroke performance disparity.....allow 1980cc 4 strokes....??

Baketech, I thought it pretty obvious. The two strokes are putting out maybe 160bhp and are tuned almost to the oint of death. No need to go to 1000cc. If the were allowed to go to, say 750cc, then the could put out perhaps 220bhp but with more controlable power delivery. Nothing in Onda's post about upping the 4 strokes to 1980cc. Just change the rules.

But heck, you knew that and were just trying to be difficult which seems to be your mode of operation lately. Not sure why.

ondablade · 08-06-2003, 8:36 AM

The capacity rules were purposely pitched to slightly disadvantage the two strokes to ensure that the four strokes would succeed. (but not so much that the teams still running two strokes in the first year of the new rules would be completely outclassed - they got it about right)
The reverse in the unlikely event that somebody should decide they want to promote two strokes is equally possible.
There's nothing that says that the ratio has to be 500/998ccs - nothing technical at least anyway.
The history is that two strokes ran at the same capacity limit as the four strokes from the start of GPs until the introduction of the new rules.

Baketech · 08-06-2003, 8:46 AM

Quote:

ondablade : The capacity rules were purposely pitched to slightly disadvantage the two strokes to ensure that the four strokes would succeed. (but not so much that the teams still running two strokes in the first year of the new rules would be completely outclassed - they got it about right)
The reverse in the unlikely event that somebody should decide they want to promote two strokes is equally possible.
There's nothing that says that the ratio has to be 500/998ccs - nothing technical at least anyway.
The history is that two strokes ran at the same capacity limit as the four strokes from the start of GPs until the introduction of the new rules.

Interesting , but you didn't answer my question. With the inherent advantage of the 2 stroke, how would you even the playing field if they are allowed equivalent displacement.

Proto....
Toss off....Onda can take care of himself...

CBRVFR · 08-06-2003, 8:55 AM

All right, I have a question... Other than engine weight, what is the '2-stroke advantage' ? (sounds masturbatory....) If the Motorags can be believed, the 2-stroke Hondas were running 180+ HP at the end of their run, while the early 4-strokes were 'detuned' to 185-200HP. So, with HP being more or less equal,(due to tire limitations) wouldn't even a 750 2-stroke have a disadvantage due to a narrower power band? Or is that strictly a result of overtuning as proto mentioned?

Proto · 08-06-2003, 8:58 AM

'Toss off' is used incorrectly here. Not used this side of the pond to my knowledge. Someone 'tosses off' someone, that is masturbates them. You might have called ma a 'tosspot' which I think means a heavy drinker, someone who tosses lots of pots, or a 'tosser', a wanker.

P*ss off would have been better choice.