| Author | Message | ||
     Rocket_in_uk |
I believe the point Matt is making is if you prevent the use of trick parts the manufacturers will include them at production level and homologate accordingly. Thus the trick equipped engine is now stock, as is the case in Superstock. Short of finding some RPM, which may be difficult with stock rods, Nothing preventing them from using whatever rods if they homologate accordingly, as per the above point. Rocket in England | ||
| Reepicheep |
Do you seriously think Aprilla would sell or eat the costs of 1000 45,000 pound bikes just to be able to enter the first WSBK race? | ||
| Ezblast |
lol | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I must be tired. WTF has this got to do with 1000 Aprilia's? If the costs are to be kept down by rules that prevent fancy race parts being available during a season, the manufacturers will build the production bikes with the fancy parts as standard equipment, thus making them stock parts, which is what they'll homologate if need be before they even go racing. I believe this is the point Matt was making to counter Class's argument. Rocket in England | ||
| Fast1075 |
Doesn't the 1199 have Ti rods? Fancy enough for you? Design team - CAD files - Carillo - done. | ||
| Trojan |
Classax, I'm not sure where you got the info about the EVO Aprilia (there are curently no EVO spec Aprilias racing in WSB as far as I know), however the rules are the rules, and they state as follows: 2.4.8.2.1.1 EVO - Cylinder Head a) No modifications are allowed. b) No material may be added or removed from the cylinder head. c) The gaskets may be changed. d) The valves, valve seats, guides, springs, tappets, oil seals, shims, cotter valve, spring base and spring retainers must be as originally produced by the manufacturer for the homologated motorcycle. e) Valve spring shims are not allowed. 2.4.8.3.1 EVO - Camshaft a) No modifications are allowed. b) At the technical checks: for direct cam drive systems, the cam lobe lift is measured; for non-direct cam drive systems (i.e. with rocker arms), the valve lift is measured. 2.4.8.4.1 EVO - Cam sprockets or gears No modifications are allowed. 2.4.8.5.1 EVO - Cylinders No modifications are allowed 2.4.8.6.1 EVO - Pistons No modifications are allowed (including polishing and lightening). 2.4.8.7.1 EVO - Piston rings No modifications are allowed. 2.4.8.8.1 EVO - Piston pins and clips No modifications are allowed. 2.4.8.9.1 EVO - Connecting rods No modifications are allowed (including polishing and lightening) 2.4.8.10.1 EVO - Crankshaft a) No modifications are allowed (including polishing and lightening). b) The balance shaft must remain in place and no modifications are allowed. 2.4.8.11.1 EVO - Crankcase / Gearbox housing a) Crankcases must remain as homologated. No modifications are allowed (including painting, polishing and lightening). b) It is not allowed to add a pump used to create a vacuum in the crankcase. If a vacuum pump is installed on the homologated motorcycle then it may be used only as homologated. 2.4.8.12.1 EVO - Transmission / Gearbox a) Only one (1) set of gearbox ratios will be allowed for the whole season. The ratios can be freely chosen. b) The chosen ratios must be declared before the start of the first event. c) External Quick-shift systems are permitted (including wire and potentiometer). d) The primary gear ratio must remain as homologated. e) Countershaft sprocket, rear wheel sprocket, chain pitch and size may be changed. f) The sprocket cover may be modified or eliminated. g) Chain guard as long as it is not incorporated in the rear fender may be removed. h) It will not be allowed to change the gearboxes at the track - a broken gearbox will equal a broken engine. 2.4.9.3.1 EVO - Additional equipment a) Additional electronic hardware equipment not on the original homologated motorcycle cannot be added with the exception of FIM / DWO approved data logging units. What it basically measn is that if it wasn't on the original homologated motorcycle engine then it is not allowed under EVO rules, so no special race kit parts. If Ducati want to build sufficient Superlegeras to qualify it for WSB homologation then of course they could race that, but they can't fit those parts to a previously homologated model and they are not allowed to homologate 'special parts'. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Told you son  Rocket in England | ||
| Classax |
Mat, despite what you may think, we can read English here in the States too. We all know what the rules state. What YOU are failing to understand is that rule 1.5 of the homologation(posted earlier) allows a MFG to homologate anything they wish and then down spec it for production/cost considerations . So if for instance, say I have a crankshaft, I can homologate a CNC’ed from forged billet, polished version which is on the edge of perfection in terms of the drawing tolerances, and then under rule 1.5, I can sell a cast version due to cost and ease of mass production, which may be (more than likely)on the less than optimal side of the drawing spec and still be compliant to the homologation standard and rules. One might say, well it’s the same material and is within the tolerances of the drawing spec ,what’s the big deal? My answer is the cast part may be heavier, while not as strong, and because the tolerances are looser contribute to vibration which adds stresses and robs power. The cast part being heavier does not violate the homologation spec of "no lightening allowed" because its heavier. Homologating a polished crank and then down specing to a non polished one does not either. Now imagine that same logic applied across the entire engine and you can see where MFG's homologation can get away with having "race" kit as being within the spec even though the parts on the sales floor are "technically" to the same drawing spec they may not be of the same quality or tight a tolerance due the manufacturing processes used to make them. Aprilia have no one racing EVO because for 5k EUR more you can run Superbike. I can't believe I'm going to agree with Rocket here, surely there must an ELE immanent, but yes ..if you prevent the use of trick parts the manufacturers will include them at production level and homologate accordingly. The problem is the bikes that are homologated are not showroom stock, they are usually fully kitted fire breathing race machinery with the road kit ADDED. If FIM actually followed their own rules and closed the loop hole in 1.5, Rocket is correct (through up in my mouth a little to say that) MFG's would sell real deal ready to race replicas with lights, but the cost would be such that most would not sell any or be able to survive. As I have said before, with exception of Bimota, please don't think for moment that you could run down to the local dealer, buy a bike, toss the lights, EPA junk, throw on some lighter wheels, race plastics, a bigger fuel tank, brembo brakes, high end suspension, data logging, safety wire, and a dyno tune and think you've got a bike ready for FIM Superstock or EVO because you will be in for a very rude reception if you can even make the field. The only way that would happen is if FIM exercised the option in rule 1.4 of the homologation spec and selected at random, bikes for homologation from dealers as opposed to allowing the MFG to directly supply the two machines required for consignment . On one hand I wish they would close that loop hole as then all the blokes who say win on Sunday sell on Monday, and compare what happens in WSB as a basis for purchasing decisions would then have a leg to stand on, but on the other hand I then likely wouldn’t be able to afford said machines. Oh wait a second, there is a bike on the grid out there with mostly actual showroom kit in the engine, its last but its out there. Go EBR | ||
| Trojan |
So if for instance, say I have a crankshaft, I can homologate a CNC’ed from forged billet, polished version which is on the edge of perfection in terms of the drawing tolerances, and then under rule 1.5, I can sell a cast version due to cost and ease of mass production, which may be (more than likely)on the less than optimal side of the drawing spec and still be compliant to the homologation standard and rules. You CANNOT homolgate any parts that are not fitted to the original stock bike. if the stock bike doesn't have a billet crank then you cannot fit one afterwards to an EVO spec bike, EVER. You would have to build 1000+ bikes with that spec to homologae the entire bike. The problem is the bikes that are homologated are not showroom stock, they are usually fully kitted fire breathing race machinery with the road kit ADDED. The bikes in EVO ARE showroom spec when homologated and that is the only parts they can use. You simply cannot add any race kit parts no matter how many you make. | ||
| Classax |
Read the rules again bro. EVO and Superstock are not allowed to make changes to what was homologated without going through the process again. We agree on how it SHOULD be but the reality is that's not how it is. That's both good and bad. The homologation specs say nothing about manufacturing process. The drawings will spec a particular material, dimensions, finish and tolerance. As long as the parts on the race bike match what was submitted for homologation, you are all good. Rule 1.5 allows the MFG to maintain the spec and reduce the manufacturing time or cost of the parts as long as they meet the drawing spec. This CAN have a significant impact on performance from machine to machine. That’s the bad, the good is that it significantly reduces the price MFG can put replicas of the sales floor for. So that John Q public can own one. The bikes in EVO ARE showroom spec when homologated and that is the only parts they can use. You simply cannot add any race kit parts no matter how many you make. Someone better let Kawi, Susuki and Honda know because their race catalogs state right up front what's legal for FIM superstock and EVO racing. We agree in principle on how it should work, but the reality is MFG's bend the rules and 1.5 of the Homologation spec is one that lets them do so. (Message edited by classax on June 17, 2014) | ||
| Trojan |
The drawings will spec a particular material, dimensions, finish and tolerance. As long as the parts on the race bike match what was submitted for homologation, you are all good. Rule 1.5 allows the MFG to maintain the spec and reduce the manufacturing time or cost of the parts as long as they meet the drawing spec. That doe snot apply to EVO or Superstock bikes. You MUSt use showroom parts, and the FIM/DORNA carry a stock of parts from relevant homologated models so that they can check that the teams aren't cheating. if you think that EVO teams are 'bending' the rules then speak to Scott Smart, the FIM Tech officer. he is extemely strict and even running an aftermarket valve spring will get you chucked out.. | ||
| Classax |
Ugh... I know how the process works. There is nothing in the rule books to stop a manufacture from homologating a forged billet part made to spec on a CNC machine, and supplying a cast part also made to the same spec. The rule is written to encourage what we all want, lower cost and fuller grids. You can't improve on what you've homologated, but you can for production reason down spec without having to homologate again. As long as parts in the race bikes match what is homologated and no they DO NOT carry a cache of showroom parts, they locker a group of parts supplied by the MFG for homologation for comparisons and control spec. If it were as cut and dry and you're trying to make it out to be, I wouldn't be discussing it or calling it a LOOP HOLE. FIM does a great job as does the AMA of checking to see what's in the bikes on race day is the same spec as is in the homologation standard. The loop hole is both rule sets give the MFG's an out for production economy, which is both good and bad. Honda recently started selling the CBR1000RR SP which is the same bike from the previous couple of years with high end suspension, a new display and a blueprinted and balanced motor making a few more HP and sells for just under 3k more. If you want to go racing in super stock with that bike, which according to Mat would basically mean ditching the exhaust,and lights, even though we know they change the wheels, suspension brakes, steering damper, and rearsets right off the bat, lets forget those items since they are universally changed and focus just on the engine and running gear, All of the designated parts which differ from showroom variety in cost, but fit and all fall on the optimal end of the MFG tolerances can all be safely replaced for superstock racing in both FIM and AMA under the homologation rules, even though they are clearly better quality parts than what you will roll off your dealers lot. All genuine HRC stuff legal for racing in SUPERSTOCK http://world.honda.com/HRC/products/partslist/cbr1 000rr/2012CBR1000RR_E.pdf Parts can not be changed from what is homologated, but the rules allow you to homologated a high end part and a lower cost/quality part as long as them meet same drawing revision spec as homologated. Which is why you can end up with a 90K superstock and 250k superbikes filling the grid. Its ok though at the end of the day its all just motorcycle racing, not exactly a Nobel winning , world changing, history making pursuit. Its cool. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I assume by agreeing with me you place me in your camp of 'in principal' but you'd be wrong. I made my point because I see it and read the rules the way Matt does. You simply cannot make a down spec crank (or other parts) if they are not LIKE FOR LIKE as on the homologated machine. As Matt told, there are homologated parts in the hands of those enforcing the rules, at every round. These parts are exactly the same as in the homologated showroom bike. How do we know this? From the showroom bikes several are randomly selected and inspected. It would be a heck of a long odds by any manufacturer to gamble on the chance of the selected machines been the ones with the (in your example) billet crank and not select a cast crank. Even at 500 of each machine you don't need me to spell out the cost saving against the risk taken. It just would not be worth the effort. If you believe otherwise you're mistaken. If you know otherwise then show an example. If you can't show an example but know of one or more, then cheating is going on. This is not 'bending the rules'. As Matt said. If Scott Smart knew about it, and I'm sure he knows a great deal more about the rules and the possible bending of the rules, never mind cheating, than you or I do, he would be all over it like a rash. Now you can disagree with me! And you'd still be wrong. Rocket in England | ||
| Classax |
What the... I just gave several pages worth of examples. LOOPHOLE: noun, a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in, or construction of the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be legally evaded. But since you apparently figure no one else can read, here is the link to the homologation regulation as well as a few important highlights to show that we can, and do. http://www.fim-live.com/fileadmin/alfresco/2014_SB K_SS_SST_HOMOLOGATIONS-1.pdf Here are the Highlights- To be clear, the MFG applies for homologation. Prior to inspection they supply all drawings and consign sample parts to FIM. HOMOLOGATION PROCEDURE, CALENDAR FOR APPLICATIONS, SUBMISSIONS & PUBLICATIONS A homologation inspection is a complete verification and check of all drawings of the corresponding parts, as well as the documentation for the necessary minimum quantities. These checks will be carried out by the FIM. a. The deadline for receiving requests for homologation at the FIM CCR/CTI Secretariat is 30 days before the homologation inspection is to take place. b. At the latest four (4) weeks before the inspection for homologation by the FIM, manufacturers are required to send by e-mail the completed and signed Homologation forms 1, 2 and 3, together with all relating documentation and drawings to the FIM CCR/CTI Secretariat (with the exception of workshop manuals, that can be delivered when they are released to the importers). Missing or incomplete documents and/or drawings will postpone the homologation inspection until a full corrected set is available. The documents and drawings have to be sent in paper and in electronic form (*.pdf, *.jpg, *.doc ,*.txt to ccr@fim.ch and cti@fim.ch). c. At the latest 3 days before the date of the inspection by the FIM, manufacturers are required to send to the FIM by e-mail, proof of production quantities of the first lot of motorcycles, according to Art. 1.2.1. d. If the inspection fails, the homologation is postponed until the established shortcomings have been resolved and at least for one (1) month. e. In case of failing the inspection, the original manufacturer may apply for a new homologation, for a maximum of 2 times more in the same year, in each racing class. f. The homologation forms will be studied by the Technical Members and the CTI Secretariat, to confirm that they are complete and correct prior to g. granting the homologation. h. The manufacturer shall at all times be responsible for completing the homologation documents with the correct information. All dimensions must be given according to the metric system, excluding wheel dimensions, and with the actual manufacturing tolerances. i. The manufacturer is entitled to request a notice in order to know whether the documents and drawings submitted by him are formally correct two (2) weeks before the homologation inspection date. j. At the latest within fifteen (15) days after having successfully passed the homologation inspection, an updated list of the valid homologations is published including the new homologation. 2014 FIM Homologations SBK/SSP/SST 11/04/2014 k. Within 21 days of the homologation inspection, copies of the 1, 2 & 3 homologation forms and drawings will be available on the FIM website. l. These motorcycles must be available for sale to the public in the shops and dealerships representing the manufacturer in at least one of the following countries or regions: USA, EU or Japan, before the end of April of the current year, to be allowed to be used in the remaining Championship events. m. Any machine that is intended to be raced before 125 units are produced under the exemption in 1.2.2 must have all the relevant documentation submitted in accordance with article 1.3 and the parts requested in article 1.4 in order for permission to race to be granted. n. One complete example of the production machine may be required to be supplied to the FIM in road specification. o. The FIM may request, at its discretion, to make a homologation inspection before the 125 machines are built. p. A machine that is given permission to race before the 125 units 1.4 HOMOLOGATION APPLICATION, INSPECTION AND CONTROL • The inspection of the motorcycle and the parts consigned by the manufacturer for homologation will be carried out according to the information requested on the forms produced by the FIM (Homologation Forms 1, 2 and 3). • The manufacturer must consign to the FIM the following parts: 1.4.1 Engine parts 1. Crankcases, 2. Cylinder head 3. Intake cam, valve, valve spring, retainer, tappet or cam follower 4. Exhaust cam, valve, valve spring, retainer, tappet or cam follower 5. Cylinder (if separate) 6. Complete Gearbox with shift forks and shift drum 7. Clutch assembly 8. Water pump and drive 9. Primary gears 10. Crankshaft, connecting rod, piston with rings and wrist pin 11. ACG assembly 12. Right side cover, Left side cover, Head or valve cover 13. Throttle bodies and variable intake tract devices if used 14. Air box 15. Fuel pump and fuel pressure regulator 16. Injector(s); sample of all different injector, if used 1.4.2. Frame parts 1. Main Frame (and engine mounting plates) 2. Swing arm spindle (axle) 2014 FIM Homologations SBK/SSP/SST 11/04/2014 3. Front and Rear Wheel spindles (axles) 4. Suspension linkages 5. Fork Cap(s) 6. Front fork crowns (triple clamps) • These parts will be stored by the FIM in sealed boxes and moved by the Promoter to the SBK Championship events at the discretion of the Superbike Technical Director. • The inspector/s must satisfy him/them that the statements made on the production certificate (Form 2) are correct. • At the end of the parts and documents inspection, the inspector/s will sign the completed certificate of homologation. These signed homologation forms indicate that the manufacturer complies with the specifications mentioned on the homologation forms. • The FIM may check motorcycles of the homologated model chosen at the manufacturer, or from dealerships’ or importers’ showrooms. The motorcycles must be in conformity with the homologated model. The expenses for the disassembling of maximum two (2) units will be borne by the manufacturer. • In case of not achieving minimum production numbers after the first or second years, all the points counting towards the Manufacturers’ Championship in the current year will be withdrawn and further penalties may also be imposed. • Once a motorcycle has obtained the homologation, it may be used for racing in the corresponding class for a maximum period of 8 years, or until such time that the homologated motorcycle no longer complies with the technical rules. A homologation will be granted only if the fee has been paid. • The Manufacturer of the homologated model can request an extension of a homologation before the end of the 8 year homologation period. The FIM may grant a 2 year extension of the homologation period. No fee will be charged for a homologation extension. 1.5 NEW HOMOLOGATION, PARTS AND PRODUCT UPDATE Any change in the specifications of the following parts of a FIM homologated motorcycle will require a new homologation of the model: a. New range of engine prefix numbers b. New range of frame prefix numbers c. Crankcase(s) d. Throttle body assembly e. Air box (complete, with injectors if change of injector model) f. Frame: main dimensions [in relation to wheelbase, caster, steering head angle, relative location of the swing-arm, relative location of rear shock absorber(s) and linkages] weight and technology g. Concerning: Cylinder, Cylinder head, Crankshaft, Connecting rods, Camshafts, Intake and Exhaust valves: A product update of these parts will require a copy of the accompanying ‘Technical Bulletin/Part Update’ issued by the Manufacturer to their official dealership network in every country or region where the homologated model is available to the public. All updated parts shall be accepted to be fitted on all units of the homologated model, without any further modifications to other standard fitted parts of the homologated model. FIM can grant a part and product update differing from above rule, purely for the scope of production cost saving provided that following provisions are kept: • Crankcase is not lighter* than the original homologated unit. • The positions of crankshaft, gearbox, frame attachments, main shafts and position of cylinders remain unchanged (*apart casting method for mass production) So let's recap. Apply, pay the fee submit your drawings. Consign your parts. Do your parts match your drawings? If yes then you MAY be required to send a bike with all the EPA and road kit to FIM. For the Homologation inspection FIM (normally goes to the factory) has the manufacture take apart up to 2(two) bikes. Do the parts from these bikes conform to the drawing specs and the consigned reference parts? If yes, pay fee and you are in, let's go a racing! The reference parts specifically consigned by the MFG are sealed and may or may not be present at every race for reference. That's all up to whether Scott Smart (see I can read and name drop too) thinks he will need them or not. There are no random periodic checks of showroom machines, and homologations are good for 8 years I might add. LOOPHOLE ALRET** the kicker is the MFG may change the part to one easier or cheaper to make as long as it meets the same drawing spec and is in conformity with the homologated part without having to go through the formal change process. This is specifically in regard to CAST parts. So as has been clearly as can be communicated by a mere mortal, this is how MFG's can have a whole machine full of high spec super tight tolerance "race" parts homologated as well as high volume production parts that meet the same drawing/homologation spec, all nice and legal as per 1.5. Not only can it happen, it does, AS I have shown by previous links to the official race catalogs of several MFG's one of which even goes as far as to state which parts are FIM SS/EVO vs SBK legal, (thanks Kawi) It’s gone on for years, its only when MFG’s want to use special materials or configurations that we see the homologation specials like the Superlaggra. Other wise its business as usual which is good because it keeps the cost down over at the local dealer. I like words and definitions. One that is often misused is the term bigot. It has come in these post modern pop culture driven times to mean one intolerant of any ideas or belief or creed different to that of their own. Through out most the classical period of literature up to the latter 20th century it defined someone who refused to change their mind when presented with the facts. I trust none of us in our spirited, but now quite tiresome debate could be accused of it now by either definition. Cheers gents, Gone  on a homologated superbike! | ||
| Bob_thompson |
I'm having a hard time understanding all the differences of opinion on just what can be run in superbike in WSB and how this applies to our original question here on BadWeb on how this effects EBR's sales and the direction THEY & HERO want to take. I think and I could be way off, but I believe, as I stated before they may well have their sights on other, more important to them, things they want to accomplish in Erik's "ten year plan". Both he and Hero full well know where they, together, want to be in 1,2,5 or ten years and it just might not be in the winners circle in WSB. Keep in mind its very close to a 50-50 partnership. Although I'm sure as a racer at heart he would like very much to be but only as an added benefit to their ultimate goals. | ||
| Court |
>>>in Erik's "ten year plan". The plan you are referring to is a 200 year plan. Fairly amazing. I guess is you assume that HERO, at whatever they own is the ONLY other owner . . . well, that'd be about 50%-50%. But . . that's ownership of the stock of an entity and so unrelated to the WSBK racing as to make any discussion about any correlation between who owns what and how it impacts racing. Racing, while certain "soft" benefits accrue, can neither make nor break a company. If your business plan isn't solid . . . racing won't fix it. I do . . . to your point . . . think the desired results/benefits from racing are important. Let me be the first to say that if EBR put both riders on the podium in all the remaining races of the year . . . it may have some impact on sales but likely not enough to be measurable and EBR isn't suddenly going to eclipse Yamaha or Suzuki is sales. I strongly suspect the goals are much larger. Look at the entities . . . ask what they share in common, in terms of expertise, experience and direction. There . . there's your answer. Kinda cool to see two firms one known for brawn, as the largest manufacturer of two wheeled vehicles in the world "Honda isn't even close" and the other known for ideas so radical they include bikes that "fly" and require a 200 year plan to express . . . . and both firms have been shit on my large partners in the last couple years. Piss a woman off and you'll gain valuable insight into understanding the resolve of this partnership. By the way . . . . I expect lots more partners. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
LOOPHOLE ALRET** Classax said a lot of stuff THE RULES: Any change in the specifications of the following parts of a FIM homologated motorcycle will require a new homologation of the model: I.D requirements and a list of parts follow.... A product update of these parts will require a copy of the accompanying ‘Technical Bulletin/Part Update’ issued by the Manufacturer to their official dealership network in every country or region where the homologated model is available to the public. All updated parts shall be accepted to be fitted on all units of the homologated model, without any further modifications to other standard fitted parts of the homologated model. FIM can grant a part and product update differing from above rule, purely for the scope of production cost saving provided that following provisions are kept: • Crankcase is not lighter* than the original homologated unit. • The positions of crankshaft, gearbox, frame attachments, main shafts and position of cylinders remain unchanged (*apart casting method for mass production) The requirement still exists to homologate the production models with WHATEVER PARTS are to be updated. Thus the race bike will no longer conform to the superseded homologation if it is still equipped with the original homologated items. This is why Scott Smart's box will contain either the original homologated parts as used in the race bike too, or if the homologation has been superseded to less costly parts (now in the superseded production bikes as per rule 1.5) these parts will now be the ones in Scott Smart's box. So you see, not name dropping at all. Just pointing out Scott Smart is smart  If you know otherwise I'm all ears. Rocket in England | ||
| Blake |
Class, I understand and follow what you are trying to explain to these obtuse boneheads. Sean, He's not talking about new parts. He's saying that the manufacturers are allowed to go cheap on the production. S long as the production parts match the homologation drawings, no problem. S they can hand build a perfectly balanced crank for the race bike, while the production lot get mass produced versions. All built to the print. Just the race kit parts are built to far better than the print. It's a simple thing to grasp and I thought that everyone knew that kind of shenanigans was common in the sport. You're saying it isn't? | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
No he is saying you could build a crank out of cast but the race bike can run billet. That is not blueprinting, which is what you are stating. Class is talking about totally different materials. In which case any updated part still fitted to a production bike in all of those countries mentioned, those bikes then must be homologated with those parts, which will then be available for inspection (Scott Smart's box) so the race bike runs the same parts as in the homologated showroom bike. Ducati kept introducing different model 916 genre special editions. One model, specifically to fit titanium conrods as stock parts to the homologated bike, which would be SPS then R then RS designated, through the years. Rocket in England | ||
| Trojan |
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. The rules you are quoting refer to the Homologation PROCEDURE, not what is actually allowed in the EVO classes to be homologated in the first place. You need to refer to the Technical Regulations in part 2 of the current FIM Superbiek regs to see what is actually allowed to be homologated (and it is these that I quoted earlier). Without wishing to go around in circles for ever, you CANNOT produce a billet crank even if it is the same dimensions as the original. You must use the original production parts that have been submitted for homologation with the bike model concerned. In the EVO class you are not even allowed to polish or balance piistons! You can of course carefully build your engine from 'selcted' production parts that have been weight matched etc, but yo cannot modify them or use similar replacements. Even an aftermarket valve spring would bring disqualification. Here is the link to the current full regs http://www.fim-live.com/fileadmin/alfresco/6510004 eng1.pdf | ||
| Classax |
The dimensions, tolerances, type and finish of the material to be used is spelled out on the drawing. A change in material ie going from T6-2024 to T651-7051 would require a new homologation despite the fact that nothing else changed and that they are both aluminum. Same when going from aluminum to titanium. The rules allow a homologated forged billet T6-2024 part to be replaced by a cast version for cost or production concerns without the need to re homologate as long as said part conforms(dimensions, tolerances, finish,& material) to the approved drawing. The original forged or billet consignment parts are not replaced by the cast versions because the rules don't require it. Thus the (original) race spec parts in the race bikes are in spec as are the new cast ones. That's not a modification under the rules. Since they are original homologated parts by the factory, the race spec parts are genuine OEM equipment and not aftermarket. It doesn't matter what is being homologated for each class,SS, EVO or Superbike, the rules for HOW it is done remain the same. Blake- you said in twenty some odd words what has taken me days. Thanks Bro! | ||
| Trojan |
I give up, we will just have to agree to disagree. read the rules in the link I posted for the tchnical section adn you will see what they are are. I'm fed up trying to argue. Suffice to say that if they are what you say they are then we would be watching a completely different race series than we actually are now! | ||
| Crusty |
I'm fed up trying to argue. You do know that you go to Hell for telling lies. right? | ||
| Firstbuell |
RE: this coming Misano weekend, what to expect from our Hero EBR SBK Team? | ||
| Hughlysses |
what to expect from our Hero EBR SBK Team? Since the EBR engineering team has now been freed up from designing the 1190SX, they have figured out how to wring ~30 more HP out of the engine and make the electronics work properly. Podium finishes in both races. Yes, I am an eternal optimist.  | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
What part of All updated parts shall be accepted to be fitted on all units of the homologated model, without any further modifications to other standard fitted parts of the homologated model, do you not understand? You can make a crank out of toffee if you like, as long as it's to spec of the drawing, but they have to be fitted to the homologated bikes for sale to the public in said countries and regions, as per the rule. Rgus the race bike will have to run the same spec part(s) as the homologated bike. That's what homologation is see. This is written in plain English. What you're suggesting is not. It is your interpretation only. Please show using the wording from the rules where it clearly states what you claim. Rocket in England (Message edited by rocket_in_uk on June 18, 2014) | ||
| Classax |
what to expect from our Hero EBR SBK Team? Since the EBR engineering team has now been freed up from designing the 1190SX, they have figured out how to wring ~30 more HP out of the engine and make the electronics work properly. Podium finishes in both races. Yes, I am an eternal optimist. +1  Unfortunately Misano is a really fast track where top end it critical. I hope both bikes can start and finish both races which I would consider to be a good improvement. Besides I think they are going to wait to get their first podiums on home soil at Laguna Seca,  Here's to optimism  (Message edited by Classax on June 18, 2014) | ||
| Hootowl |
"What part of All updated parts shall be accepted to be fitted on all units of the homologated model" If the billet part conform to the drawing...it ISN'T a new part. Not difficult to understand. | ||
| Darth_villar |
To be clear, billet and cast make no difference with respect to material. A 4340 casting is still 4340, likewise 4340 billet. Two parts, one cast, one billet, can be built to the same design print, and be considered the same part, though one will perform much better. As I understand it :P | ||
| Blake |
I appreciate your efforts Class. I appreciate Matt and Sean's too. They're just beyond obtuse on this particular issue. The issue isn't really much different than shopping the factory parts bin for the absolute best part for racing performance. It's just carefully intentionally building the absolutely best possible parts bin components. Really not a difficult concept, and we all know it is part of all leading homologated "production based" racing series. |
