| Author | Message | ||
     Hughlysses |
^ The only explanation that makes sense to me is Hero wanted to do it. Hero sponsored the EBR AMA effort last year, and had no interest in sponsoring it again because of its lack of publicity to Hero's intended audience. EBR had to know the 1190RX as built wouldn't have the power to be competitive in WSBK. Surely EBR told this to Hero, and Hero must have said "we don't care, go racing anyway." The longer this goes and the more I read here, the more I'm convinced that EBR has been designing a V4 or similar plant for future WSBK competition. As has been said many times here, Hero has deep enough pockets to support the current WSBK effort and a new clean-sheet design if that's what it takes to be competitive. I'm all ears if someone has a more plausible explanation for events. | ||
| Trojan |
Why don't EBR give Aprilia a call and ask to use their V4 until they develop their own (as Norton have done). This would give them an effective and competitive engine package NOW rather than wait for years to develop something of their own. Car manufacturers do this all the time with no problems so why don't bike makers make more use of exisiting engine technology? | ||
| Reepicheep |
If you can't compete in the series with a twin, and instead have to build a V4 to compete, then doesn't that suggest the series rules are screwed up? | ||
| Hughlysses |
^ That would seem to follow, wouldn't it? | ||
| Neutrum |
has ebr/buell ever designed an engine? | ||
| Hughlysses |
^ According to what's been said by Erik, Buell was heavily involved in the design of the original Helicon and now that EBR has taken it over they have designed further improvements. It's been published that EBR designed the 250cc engine for Hero's new HXR250R that was revealed earlier this year and EBR has been at least involved in other engine projects for Hero. That's not a huge resume of engine design experience, but I'd bet they have the necessary knowledge in-house to design a suitable engine. | ||
| Trojan |
If you can't compete in the series with a twin, and instead have to build a V4 to compete, then doesn't that suggest the series rules are screwed up? No, but it may mean that the bike you build simply isn't suitable for that particular series. For years WSB was dominated by twin cylinder machines, to the extent that Honda, Bimota and Suzuki all built a twin cylinder in order to compete with Ducati(Honda with success, Bimota with one race win and Suzuki didn't even bother to race theirs!). The rules are constantly evolving, as is engine and chassis technology. So who knows what the ideal engine configuarion will be for WSb in another 10 years? If you want to race at WSB level then you have to build the most competitive package that the current rules cater for (unless you are Ducati that has a vested historical interest in having a twin, regardless of cost). EBR don't have any historical baggage that dictates a twin cylinder machine. In fact they have many more historical reasons to dump the twin cylinder engine along with their H-D heritage, so they could run any configuration that they choose. It all depends on how serious they are about being competitive at this level really. They could continue to market the helicon engined bike range as their core street bikes and not race them, and/or develop a new range of 4 (or 3) cylinder bikes for race use and as a prestige top line model. | ||
| Classax |
There are some of us who differ in our views on how production based homologated racing seires are run with regards to rule interpretation, but couple things we can agree are: *The 1190 ET-VT, based on the Helicon is an optimization of a seven year old design. *Modern I/V4's and new electronics have forced the classic high torque V2's to move toward a high revving top end power delivery in order to be competitive for racing. * Until EBR has the full force of their engineering team working on developing factory race components they will continue to see the terrible showings they have so far. Just for the record the machine currently leading the championship is one that despite being ridden by an alien is an I4 that is electronically adjusted to behave like a classic V2 in the corners. Prior to that the V4 configuration a best of the I4 and V2 worlds was dominant. In the AMA the leading machine also ridden by an alien is an I4 with a crank that lets it think it’s a V2 as well. My point is we may have arrived at the day when a classic high torque V2 with lots of bottom and midrange power just isn't the right platform for WSBK anymore, no matter how good it is. KTM won't play and EBR is in the game but getting crushed. Hence the relative success of the I4 like Panigale. I would also say that for me as V2 lover if given the choice between an RC8R, an RX, and a Panigale, it’s the RX all the way. The Panigale may as well be an I4 in the way that it delivers its power. Great race bike not a very good street bike. The RC8R is a great bike, in terms of style its more Buellesque than the even RX, but its power and fueling are brutally unpredictable in stock form (IMHO). Drop a little extra coin on lots of aftermarket stuff and it becomes livable on the street and way better on track. The RX has more power and better fueling and a quicker chassis than the RC8R, and has nearly the same power as a Panigale but is a WAY better street bike and only marginally less effective on track at all but the very highest levels apparently. When the RX was released some people complained about the price even at only 19K. EBR has a RACE BIKE with lights in the RS, but its 40K+. If you want all the trick race hardware there are two ways to get it. “Shop the manufactures parts bins” / race catalogs after the fact and drop a ton of coin, or in the case of Ducati go exotic with your materials and price it accordingly. Eirk has repeatedly said he isn’t' interested in building a basically one of WSBK prototype, and wants to prove what they build is a world class machine. So far what they are proving is that as good as it is, without a lot of money and development the RX is not up to the task of WSBK racing under the current rules. Would that stop me from buying one today, not at all. I prefer V2's. If I have to ride something that has a power band and delivery closer to that of a 4 cylinder it will be a V4. A solid V4 in the EBR chassis would be an amazingly potent machine. | ||
| Trojan |
Erik has repeatedly said he isn’t' interested in building a basically one of WSBK prototype, and wants to prove what they build is a world class machine. He can't have it both ways though. Either he wants to compete in WSB (in which case he needs to build what the series demands) or he just wants a world class STREET machine. By racing the current bike in WSB he actually devalues both ambitions sadly  | ||
| Classax |
He can't have it both ways though. Either he wants to compete in WSB (in which case he needs to build what the series demands) or he just wants a world class STREET machine. By racing the current bike in WSB he actually devalues both ambitions sadly Yea its kind of a perfect storm. The AMA fell apart, Hero wants to get on the world stage, rolling out new machines and building the business end. I think the plan was to get the bike highly developed for when it all goes EVO next year. The problem is the team really hasn't put forth their best effort yet for a number of reasons and as we agree the engine platform may have already had its time in the sun. Its a shame really becuase it really is a very good machine. A local expert racer (Zx10r) here, rode mine for a few laps and came back raving about how good it was. After convincing him it was bone stock with no engine work at all, since there are yet no aftermarket parts for it, his comment was " F%#@! its easliy as quick my race bike! I would never expected it be that quick, and its still got all the street s$%^@! What the f$%^ are they doing to make it so f#$%ing slow in Superbike!?!" His words not mine. Saddly I couldn't answer because I don't know. I really hope they get it together enough to at least get in a best effort even if its last. That's what so frustrating is that if they had a trouble free weekend and got lapped I's day ok, its just not a good platform for WSB, but they haven't had a hitchless glitchless race yet. That's what really sad. | ||
| Jens |
Press in Europe start to gettin worth... http://www.speedweek.com/sbk/news/58890/EBR-Drama- in-Misano-Stuerze-Defekte-nicht-im-Ziel.html Use Google Trans.... What they wrote: -Last regular engine used of Geoff May in Sepang, needed to start from the pits for both races at Misano. -Soon same engine situation for Aaron Yates. -Yates in first session crashed, second session engine splash. -He crashed again in session four and "rolled out" in race 1. -Team could not fix his bike for race 2, Aaron: I liked to compete on both races, I am disapointed, nothing more to say. -Also Geoff May crashed 2 times at Misano, in session 3 and 4. -In race 1 the clutch broke. In race 2 he comment: "I was far in the back from the beginning because I needed to start from the pits. I retired the race when i´ve seen that I will be overlapped soon. I left to the pits, because i don´t wanted to stand the leaders in the way". ++++++ As expected, now the riders "override" the bike, real racers are like that. Brave guys, hope nobody gets hurt. | ||
| Gregtonn |
The ECU really isn't an argument as they have clever people at Marelli who can pretty much tailor the systme to any bike quite quickly. That might be true but at what price? So far the MM and their EC system are not doing EBR any favors. G | ||
| Fast1075 |
I was looking at the 2015 SBK list of approved parts. Is this new? H0202.13AZ Front Rotor, 9mm ventilated and grooved. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
There are some of us who differ in our views on how production based homologated racing seires are run with regards to rule interpretation, Not at all. I'm perfectly clear on how the rules apply to EBR. Until you comprehend them you will not understand the bike being raced and why it can't perform as you expect. Is the current racing in WSBK EBR homologated? Yes. Is this EBR running as a full on superbike or evo? SB. Do EBR have any performance enhancing parts. No. If EBR had any performance enhancing parts would they be entitled to use them? Yes if the parts were fitted to the required number of bikes homologated. Can these parts match a drawing but be of a different material and quality? No. They must be EXACTLY as those parts fitted to the homologated for sale to the public production bikes. How do we know this, and what stops different material parts being fitted to the homologated bikes but not the race bikes? The homologated parts are held by the sports governing body for inspection and comparison at every race meeting. Some of the bikes homologated are inspected at random before they are shipped for sale. Race bikes can be inspected for inspection at any meeting. Can EBR change the parts from the original homologated ones in their race bike at any time during the race season? Yes if they submit them to homologation and produce the required number of bikes for sale with the self same changed parts. Rocket in England | ||
| Fast1075 |
Reading the rules, it isn't likely that you can "slip something past" They use water displacement/weight to determine if the alloy is a "ringer". | ||
| Hughlysses |
Can EBR change the parts from the original homologated ones in their race bike at any time during the race season? Yes if they submit them to homologation and produce the required number of bikes for sale with the self same changed parts. Rocket- If this is true, how does an EVO spec bike differ from a full-WSBK bike since apparently both must run fully homologated parts which must be standard equipment on legal street bikes available for sale? | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Here is yet another question I was wondering about: If any company has a bunch of high end race parts available to a buyer and can be factory installed before the purchase would these bikes be eligible to run as a factory homologated entry? OR would there have to be a certain amount of these bikes already made, with these parts, to enter them as such? And please keep it simple to understand if possible. Hugh: "Rocket- If this is true, how does an EVO spec bike differ from a full-WSBK bike since apparently both must run fully homologated parts which must be standard equipment on legal street bikes available for sale?" I remember when, in the 70's, Chevrolet, as in their COPO cars, and some other mfgr's. would put any engine in any body, title it to make it street legal and sell it to stock or superstock class racers. Similar or not? At any rate EBR really needs these kind of bikes built to race seriously in WSB or any venue with all those kind of high end parts installed. It seems like that's what other manufacturers are doing. Or am I wrong. Not withstanding, as I said before "that just might not be "their" (EBR & HERO's) ultimate goal." (Message edited by Bob_thompson on June 23, 2014) (Message edited by Bob_thompson on June 23, 2014) | ||
| Classax |
Reading the rules, it isn't likely that you can "slip something past" They use water displacement/weight to determine if the alloy is a "ringer". As discussed here at nausea, you can build two parts to the same spec with same material and gain a significant strength (in a particular axis) by varying production methods. Ie forging vs casting. Unless the drawing specifies how production is to be done, or the material spec specifically designates one or the other, you can use either and still be within the rules. The two parts would weigh as close to exactly the same as the drawing tolerances would suggest.  To be clear you can have parts all made to the same EXACT drawing spec and material by any of following production methods and all of them would still meet the holomogation standard: *CNC Machine from: -Cold rolled Billet Blank -Hot rolled billet Blank -Cast Billet Blank -Forged Billet Blank *Forged to shape with machine to final *Cast to shape with machine to final or if there is no specific finish on the drawing or only in certain places you could *forge to final *cast to final You’re more likely to see a MFG use a forged billet for homologation and racing and then a cast with machine to final for ease of production and cost with approval from FIM. In FIM motocross which live under the same rules, its kind of a running joke.  I don't really want to argue it anymore,  it happens, proof has been provided and we all agree to disagree.  What is bad is that we are seeing the riders over ride the machines and crashing. Both Aaron and Geoff were known in the AMA as aggressive late brakers and backing it in kind of style. If they are running out of pad material late in practices, I can see coming into a corner going for the lever and finding you aren't slowing as much as you expected and crashing. Another thing no one has mentioned is that the bikes engine brake heavily. Even though they have slippers, its very easy to over rev them as you are snicking down through the gears. A little tail wag you may get seems ok, but get the rear hopping around and it feels and sounds like the whole bike is gonna explode underneath you. Racing is racing but its not worth guys getting hurt. As I type I can't recall whether May has to start the next races from Pit lane as well or only if he has to use yet another engine? One of you scrutineers remember? | ||
| Johnbranx1 |
Geoff May interview CycleWorld..."Depending on the track, the guys on “real” Superbikes have anywhere from 15 to 25 mph on us. We’re still running stock pistons, stock rods, and even stock cams. EBR is a small company trying to go up against the world. We thought with sheer drive and ambition we could make things happen, but it’s impossible." | ||
| Hughlysses |
As I type I can't recall whether May has to start the next races from Pit lane as well or only if he has to use yet another engine? One of you scrutineers remember? Classax, I haven't been keeping a count, but I've seen it posted a couple of places that both riders will be starting from the pits for the remaining races after last weekend's engine losses. | ||
| Firstbuell |
BRAKING NEWS !! relevant comments from someone who's raced 2 different EBR models in 2 different series within the past 12 months: izzit Geoff May? - no izzit Aaron Yates - no izzit Brandon Cretu - no it's bashful Mark Miller, in #410 here: http://www.motopodcast.com/ his chat begin @ 1:43, with the braking details starting 2:13 NOW can we quit talking about the brakes? | ||
| Jens |
Penalties for infringement of Engine durability articles: • Infringement before the race: the rider will start the race from the pit lane 10 seconds after the green light is on at the pit lane exit (2 races in a row for the Superbike class). | ||
| Hughlysses |
^ So, if they use more than 8 engines, they have to start from the pits for 2 races in a row, then for following races they can go back to normal qualifying and starting from the grid?  | ||
| Classax |
Ok I one for the road.... All the stuff in blue was wrong and should be deleted, so I fixed it for you, No thanks required.  There are some of us who differ in our views on how production based homologated racing seires are run with regards to rule interpretation, Not at all. I THINK I am perfectly clear on how the rules apply to EBR, but Classax will graciously point out where I am wrong. Until you I comprehend them you I will not understand the bike being raced and why it can't perform as you I expect. ( I’m the one who is complaining they aren’t doing well enough to even be in world superbike, while Classax keeps saying while its bad, that’s what race development is like and for.) Is the current racing in WSBK EBR homologated? Yes. Is this EBR running as a full on superbike or evo? SB. Do EBR have any performance enhancing parts. No yes we don’t know beyond what they have told us. They state they are currently running stock, pistons, rods, rings, cams and head, they do have a new high mount exhaust, ECU (though apparently not performance enhancing) swing arm and brake caliper assembly. If EBR had any performance enhancing parts would they be entitled to use them? Yes if the parts were fitted to the required number of bikes homologated. In Superbike SOME parts, specifically any internal moving engine parts may be changed as long as they remain in the homologated locations WITHOUT re homologation under rule 2.4.8.0.g, while others such as the fuel injectors, throttle bodies and the air box for example cannot, without an application for a new homologation and subsequent production on future models, with the required VIN changes, service bulletins ect... Can these parts match a drawing but be of a different material and quality? No. They must be EXACTLY the same SPECIFICATION as those parts fitted to the homologated for sale to the public production bikes. Kind of a silly question since changing the material, dimensions, finish or tolerance would mean it didn’t MATCH the drawing. The quality of the parts can vary greatly based on production method, batch control , quality control and manufacturing tolerances. How do we know this, and what stops different material parts being fitted to the homologated bikes but not the race bikes? The homologated parts are held by the sports governing body for inspection and comparison at every race meeting. Some of the bikes homologated are inspected at random before they are shipped for sale. Race bikes can be inspected for inspection at any meeting.} Nothing stops homologated parts from being fitted to a race bike or production machines its required, but per FIM, cost and production concerns can result in a different production method being adopted without re homologation. What usually stops those parts from ending up on the race bike is the desire to win. What stops ultra high quality homologation parts from winding up on MFG's production bikes is FIM's rule and the MFG's bean counters controlling cost. Can EBR change the parts from the original homologated ones in their race bike at any time during the race season? Yes if they submit them to homologation and produce the required number of bikes for sale with the self same changed parts. however if the parts in question are affected by the homologation requirements then a new applications for homologation of those specific parts will have to be made, and as previously stated all subsequent production includes said parts, otherwise EBR is free to change whatever they wish. Rocket Now I'm done with it.  | ||
| Hughlysses |
Firstbuell- VERY interesting interview with Mark Miller. Thanks very much for posting. For those of you who aren't intrigued enough to listen, Miller practically raves about how GREAT the EBR front brake works. His DNF in the senior was because he ran out of fuel (!!!). They had issues getting fuel into the under-seat auxiliary fuel tank (just under the seat) when refueling so he ran out before he made it back to the pits (AUUGGGHHH!!!!). (Message edited by Hughlysses on June 23, 2014) | ||
| Johnbranx1 |
Geoff May has an interview up on the CycleWorld website...over and above being down on power he says that given the nature of the circuits in the series they are running out of brake pads at the end of the races. They need to work with a partner on development of the system to reach its potential for how they are now using it. I have owned 4 Buells and love the brakes however, they are now in a different league and it needs continued development. | ||
| Hughlysses |
^ Yep, we've read Geoff May's interview and discussed it at length above. Some have implied (if not stated outright) that the EBR brakes are inadequate in all respects for racing. The point I get from the two different interviews is that while the EBR brakes are apparently a problem over the long haul for a full WSBK race because the pads wear out, the ZTL setup works GREAT as far as initial bite and feel and this braking system was more than adequate for the IOM TT. Miller notes that the brakes worked much better at IOM than they did only a few months ago at Maccau so EBR must be making progress with improving them. | ||
| Classax |
The quotes that stick with me from Mark is "they are going to need someone fast enough to show the true potential of the bikes." And "its a learning curve on a brand new bike. If we could have showed up on day one with notes we had after two weeks, we could have finished in the top 10 and I would know". I keep saying its a great bike, WSB at the moment simply isn't reflecting the EBR at its best. Granted even at its best it may not be better than anything else but right now we just don't know. | ||
| Office_buelly |
I understand EBR's desire to do things differently and it's one of the reasons I'm drawn to them. If they want to keep the perimeter brakes they can still go with a dual setup. I'm sure with going with drilled 5mm rotors and dual 4 piston calipers the weight gain would be minimal. It's been done before. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/jonzin/MOTO RCYCLES/barbers0215.jpg http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss14/xtremelow/ 5cd4d6c0.jpg | ||
| Jens |
The 1190RR, in the original geometry, developed by David McGrath is one of the best cornering Bikes ever. I personal think the best ever. For sure an advanced weapon in the villages of the island. Up to the mountain, the lack of HP is a problem. But the complexity of the track makes a traction control "Set up by corner and inch" impossible, what is another good point for the EBR in relation to the competitors. We calculated our usual average 1190RR fuel consumption per Kilometer on a theroretical IOMTT lap and see that its gettin tight in the second lap, even with the extra under seat tank. That extra tank was generating problems at quick refueling at the TT. So each competition have his challenges. At WSBK one of the problems might be that they have not understanded the rulebook right from the beginning. It is very clear that you must have the exhaust in the same position like the homologated bike. The big diameter tube what pass the swingarm now, force them to set up a much higher ride height of the bike, to keep the necessary road clearences, what explains less topspeed as brake- and traction problems. |
