| Author | Message | ||
     Rocket_in_uk |
Whilst some wish to make the rules fit, let's get away from billet and talk rods. Steel v titanium. Both identical to the drawing. Steel homologated. Can the SB race with Ti? No We’re still running stock pistons, stock rods, and even stock cams. As in, these are the parts homologated AND WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE OTHERWISE WE'D BE USING WHATEVER ELSE WE HAD so these parts are 'stock' to us but they are still our race parts because we only have a race bike we built a road bike around. The road bike being the same as the race bike engine internally it would appear it's just a figure of speech to refer to the race bike pistons etc as stock when really they are race parts initially because the race bike came before the production bike and both have the same engines. Rocket in England | ||
| Trojan |
There seems to still be some confusion over what is and what isn't allowd under the WSb rules, and what the difference bewteen an EVo and a 'Superbike' entry is. EVO bikes MUSt run stock engine internals with no polishing, balancing or other tuning work. They can use a 'superbike' ECU and fit ride by wire if they don't already have it. They can also modify the wiring loom for data logging. That is it as far as any engine mods are concerned, so that cannot make billet copies of stock parts or any of that nonsense. Superbike class bikes can change a lot more engine internals and have far more tuning. They are restricted in some parts but the choice is much wider and they can run aftermarket rods and pistons (4 cylinder only) as well as modified heads, cams and valves etc. IF the EBR bike is a stock unmodified engine (which we actually don't know for sure), then running as an EVO entry would have made so much more sense than trying to compete as a full superbike entry against much more highly tuned machines. I can only think that this was a mistake by the team or a 'direction' by the factory or Hero, as it really doesn't make any day to day sense in race terms. Do you have engine mods? No - run as an EVO Do you have engine mods? Yes - run as a superbike (provied those mods are within the rules of course). | ||
| Hughlysses |
^ Matt- What at least some of us figured was that EBR chose to run the non-EVO class so that they could substitute engine parts over the season to improve the performance and durability as experience was gained. At the end of the season, they'd develop production versions of at least some of those parts to incorporate in the 2015 stock engines so that they could be homologated and would be legal in the EVO class next year. If EBR had run EVO class this season, they'd be stuck with stock, homologated parts all season. If they discovered design flaws in parts that needed to be changed, they wouldn't be able to change parts or test them under racing conditions until they'd homologated them and incorporated them into the requisite number of production motorcycles. For a small company like EBR that's just getting production rolling, this would have been very difficult for the current production year and would likely have had to wait for the 2015 production year. Why EBR apparently hasn't developed any new parts is a mystery. | ||
| Trojan |
Why EBR apparently hasn't developed any new parts is a mystery. Exactly. If the plan was to develop new parts then of course Superbiek would be the correct route (although it would be better to develop the parts BEFORE entering WSB surely?). However they haven't developed or introduced anything yet and the season is moving along fast. Was it the job of the team to develop these new parts or the factory? Just how much co-operation and exchange of information goes on between the team in Italy and the factory? It is all a bit cloudy and confusing so we really don't know if the team were just told 'Here are some bikes, go away and race for a year' or whether the team is being directed from EBR? | ||
| Hughlysses |
Interesting sidebar from this week's Cycle News magazine:  Full issue here: http://cyclenews.uberflip.com/i/334712 | ||
| Hughlysses |
Further thoughts- It's very interesting that May has suffered more engine failures than Yates, especially since Geoff missed at least 2 or 3 races at the beginning of the season due to his crash and injury. That seems to either indicate Geoff is pushing the bike a LOT harder than Aaron (which doesn't seem to be true), or something is different between the two bikes. | ||
| Classax |
We know that May's engine builder "quit". I'm with you guys in the belief that the team was likely to develop race components. Making those changes will require them to use engines as well. I think they encountered major issues just keeping the bikes running and haven't progressed to that stage yet. I could be wrong but I agree that's how it looks. Journalist, always with the melodrama. They denied a request(rejected), not beat back an assault(rebuffed). I think the logic was: Do you want develop engine modifications? Yes run Superbike No run EVO You can not have Iron and Ti rods made to the same specification. Changing anything specified on the drawing, such as finish or material alters the spec. Lets all try to be more specific so we understand each other better. If they were willing to change the spec and re homologate the EBR could switch to Ti rods but the cost might price the bike out of its target market. I think EBR would say no. As far as EVO goes you can't change much of anything from homologated. with it going all EVO in 2015 this is the year to develop in SB what your EVO machine will be blessed with going forward. He may not be saying it for the same reasons but Rocket is correct when he stated:e parts are 'stock' to us but they are still our race parts because we only have a race bike we built a road bike around. The road bike being the same as the race bike engine internally it would appear it's just a figure of speech to refer to the race bike pistons etc as stock when really they are race parts initially because the race bike came before the production bike and both have the same enginespecifications. I assert the above is the normal case for most OEMs. They homologate the race bike (the rules even let you send an example with all the approved alternate parts from the applicable FIM parts list installed) and its parts and then where the rules allow they go to alternate production methods to control cost or improve production. A question for Trojan: If a MFG has a supplier who is able to cast to shape and machine to finish a crank, and they homologate that part and run it in the Superstock machine, then in the off season that supplier folds and the MFG goes to a new supplier who has more sophisticated molds and is able to cast the crank right to final, no final clean up machining required. The drawings haven't changed, the parts are otherwise identical, in your mind please explain why or why not the new suppliers crank could or could not be used in SS\EVO. Does the MFG have to re homologate? Here's a hint that's a real life example and the first supplier closed their doors due to an earthquake. Here's another hint the MFG hasn't re homologated the crank on their liter bike in three years and they really like green.} | ||
| M2typhoon |
Does anyone have any idea what is failing in these engines? I saw the video of May melting down a motor in the pits and it seems like pistons. | ||
| Trojan |
If a MFG has a supplier who is able to cast to shape and machine to finish a crank, and they homologate that part and run it in the Superstock machine, then in the off season that supplier folds and the MFG goes to a new supplier who has more sophisticated molds and is able to cast the crank right to final, no final clean up machining required. The drawings haven't changed, the parts are otherwise identical, in your mind please explain why or why not the new suppliers crank could or could not be used in SS\EVO. Does the MFG have to re homologate? That would probably have to be decided by the Superbike Commision on an individual basis. However the strict interpretation of the rules would say that no you cannot got to another manufacturer if you have homologated something different. However....if that part was made to exactly the same spec, material,strength etc etc AND it is as fitted as original equipment to the street bike then I don't think it would matter. So if yo change the foundry but not the spec of the parts then it is OK. If for instance they decided to cast in extra strengthening webs or make the crank out of a different material then of course it flouts the rules immediately and would be thrown out. You allude to Kawasaki using a different crank than was first homologated, yet we don't know if Kawasaki actually presented the 2014 bike for new homologation this year do we? So it may be that they have that covered. As far as EVO goes you can't change much of anything from homologated. with it going all EVO in 2015 this is the year to develop in SB what your EVO machine will be blessed with going forward. Next year the goal posts have moved becasue Honda and Suzuki didn't like where they were. Now the rules will be 'mostly' Evo but will allow cylinder head tuning and som eother bits and bobs to satisfy Honda that their ageing bike will still be able to compete. There will be no separate Evo class so everyone will run the same rules/specs. The only differences will still be slightly different 4 and 2 cylinder engine specs. If EBR want to incorporate anything learned from this years WSB season into next years bike then they would need to get the new parts fitted and homologated before the start of next season (or whenever the cut off point for homologation may be), which is going to be a tall order I think, given the other new models they are working on. Will they want to substantially re-engineer the RX when they have the SX and AX to bring to the market? | ||
| Rubberdown |
Hey EBR and team .... in spite of the problems, we're all still root'n for you!  | ||
| Classax |
So if yo change the foundry but not the spec of the parts then it is OK. Ok we agree on that^. If for instance they decided to cast in extra strengthening webs or make the crank out of a different material then of course it flouts the rules immediately and would be thrown out. We agree there ^ too. You allude to Kawasaki using a different crank than was first homologated, yet we don't know if Kawasaki actually presented the 2014 bike for new homologation this year do we? So it may be that they have that covered. I did, they didn't, Kawi is still using 2011 homologations on the CRANK and frame, but they have re homologated in 2012 almost the entire topend, including rods and pistons, and swing arm and airbox in 2013 since though. Where we don't agree, which is Ok, is my experience with OEMS using High Precission CNC parts for development and racing and being waivered to use castings for production in order control cost under the rules. I agree to disagree there and call it done. I actually like the new compromise that came out in Misano, it still allows a degree of race development while controlling cost. I doubt we will see EBR make major changes to the RX/SX/AX but I do believe we will see an OEM extensive race catalog as that's who the company was before going full tilt OEM. As to a new models its possible but with this new rule change I doubt we will see big updates if any updates at all to the Nippons other than Yahamha. Ducati is set for next year with the Superlaggra and Aprilia may not even be in the game. EBR may have something big in the works but to be honest for their size and conditions of the market, the RX and SX are far more ambitious than most of the market would/could be willing to handle. I think you might see electric or a bunch of HERO stuff before a new clean slate EBR. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Does anyone have any idea what is failing in these engines? I saw the video of May melting down a motor in the pits and it seems like pistons. And what is most often the cause of piston failure? G | ||
| Hughlysses |
Someone posted here a few weeks ago that the failures had been in the top end of the engines (valve train), but I have no idea of the validity of that info. | ||
| Bigblock |
no more sure way to break a piston/ or and/ cylinder then to drop a valve in there! | ||
| M2typhoon |
I had a feeling but when you hear about oil being dumped on the track, all I can think of is a nuked connecting rod plunging out of the case. I'm fairly familiar with race engine testing and I'm not sure why this was never found an issue even after they test the engines to find it's absolute limits or, did they not do any testing at all? Major faux pas if so. Did they just take some factory RX's, put some race plastics on them and sent them out? | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
You can not have Iron and Ti rods made to the same specification. Changing anything specified on the drawing, such as finish or material alters the spec. Lets all try to be more specific so we understand each other better. If they were willing to change the spec and re homologate the EBR could switch to Ti rods but the cost might price the bike out of its target market. I believe these are the same two points I was making  Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Superbike class bikes can change a lot more engine internals and have far more tuning. They are restricted in some parts but the choice is much wider and they can run aftermarket rods and pistons (4 cylinder only) as well as modified heads, cams and valves etc. Matt could you please explain what is meant by aftermarket and under what acceptance aftermarket parts are governed for use in SB. Rocket in England | ||
| Trojan |
By Aftermarket I mean 'not made by the motorcycle manufacturer for the original street bike', so it could include their own race parts or those purchased from outside suppliers like Cosworth, Marelli, etc. I can't remember exactly which motor parts are allowed to be 'aftermarket' on Superbike spec bkes, but it is certainly a lot more than EVO and includes cams, valves, rods (4 cyl only) clutch & gearbox parts and ratios etc. Cycle parts are pretty much a free choice from the approved FIM list of suppliers. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Ah so still subject and exacting to homologation where applicable. Thanks Matt. Rocket in England | ||
| Trojan |
Ah so still subject and exacting to homologation where applicable. Exactly, although most of the 'allowed' race parts on Superbike spec bikes don't need to be homologated (apart from maximum allowed dimensions and capacities etc) as they are a free choice for the team. Only the parts that need to be kept stock or are on an FIM approved list need homologation. next year will be different........Teams will only be able to 'tune' parts above the crankcases, so valves, cams, rods can be changed and heads ported (although original heads must still be used). Twins will be obliged to run intake restrictors but weight limits will be equal. | ||
| Reepicheep |
What is the logic behind making a twin run an intake restrictor? Seems to me they are already at a breathing disadvantage. | ||
| Trojan |
The intake restrictors were the price they had to pay to placate the Japanese manufacturers for the 200cc capacity advantage that twins get. Originally they also had a weight penalty too but this has been dropped (until Ducati start winning again, when it will of course be re-introduced!). They do reserve the right to bring the weight penalty back under the new rules. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Politics at it's finest. | ||
| Classax |
By Aftermarket I mean 'not made by the motorcycle manufacturer for the original street bike', so it could include their own race parts or those purchased from outside suppliers like Cosworth, Marelli, etc. I can live with that definition but being pedantic by nature, I would say. "Aftermarket" are any parts/accessories/chemicals available for installation after vehicle sale(to distribution not necessarily the end customer) whether from second or third party suppliers or the OEM, that do not appear on the OEM(factory) options list for that vehicle as specified by the VIN code, and or model specifications for said vehicle. For example the OEM may offer a choice of or second party wheels, or lights that MIGHT not necessarily alter the VIN. Because they are factory options for that machine (VIN designation), they are still "stock" parts even if installed after initial sale. (Message edited by Classax on June 25, 2014) | ||
| D_adams |
Excellent "argument" there. 200 cc displacement "advantage" (for a v-twin) and only have one half the power strokes of an inline 4 that revs anywhere from 4 to 6k rpm higher. Yep, seems logical and well thought out to me. Twins will pretty much NEVER make as much power as an inline 4 of the same displacement. Add to that the physical limitation of piston speeds and weight of the reciprocating mass involved, a twin will also never rev as high as an inline 4 without suffering catastrophic failures. | ||
| Trojan |
The intake restrictors were pretty much insisted upon by all the other manufacturers when Ducati argued for their 200cc capacity increase. The fact that twins will never make as much power as a 4 wasn't a consideration really. The major argument was that Ducati had won for years when they had a capacity advantage over the 750cc 4 cylinder bikes, so when the capacity balance was redressed and 1000cc 4 cylinder bikes allowed, and Ducati wanted yet another increase to be competitive, Honda/Suzuki/Yamaha got together and cried foul. Either Ducati (the only twin in the series at that time) agreed to restrictions or the rest wouldn't play. The only way that the extra capcaity would be allowed was to agree to intake restrictors and weight increases in the event that Ducati went on to be dominant again (which of course they did with the old 999/1098 models). Twins cylinder models still have some technical advantages but modern electronics have negated most of them now. I think the new rules next year will even things out slightly between the 'rich' directly factory controlled teams (Kawasaki/Aprilia/Ducati and now MV of course) and the privately run but less cash rich 'factory supported' teams such as Honda, Suzuki, Bimota and of course EBR. Having said that, no matter what cost restriction they put in place it will still be very hard for a good little guy to beat a good big guy  | ||
| Reepicheep |
And it forces the twins to build motors that feel just like fours. Meaning it's more or less an inline four spec series, which allows inline fours and things that feel just like an inline four.  To me, the only real spec should be based on cost and availability. Require a large number of bikes be sold for homologation, make them run with stock exhaust, intake, and electronics, as shipped and meeting EU and US emission requirements, and cap the cost for all bikes and spare parts for the season. Cap it at $200,000 per rider. Bikes and parts for the season are randomly and anomalously picked from dealers over the course of the season by a neutral party. Cap the fuel capacity on each race as well (varies by track according to "spec bike" hot lap consumption). No displacement rules, no rules about materials, no rules against turbos or superchargers, etc. The only allowed modifications would be safety wire. Now *that* would be a fun WSBK series. Twins ripping out of corners and fours catching them down the long straights, little turbos against big normal motors, etc. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Want real displacement parity? Match pumping capacity (rpm x displacement) and effective valve area (total circumference of all valve seats). Done. G | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
To me, the only real spec should be based on cost and availability. Require a large number of bikes be sold for homologation, make them run with stock exhaust, intake, and electronics, as shipped and meeting EU and US emission requirements, and cap the cost for all bikes and spare parts for the season. Cap it at $200,000 per rider. What's wrong with WSBK as now? It's been a top notch race series since its inception, and still is. There is no other series where production based racing bikes kick out 220bhp race at 200mph and the racing is fag paper close most races. Rocket in England | ||
| Classax |
What's wrong with WSBK as now? EBR isn't winning in it, so there must be something wrong!?!?  I think the rules could do a little more to control cost and equalize the ability of privateer teams to compete against factory supported teams. The racing is decent as is but cost have been out of control for years now. Still its better than quite a few. |
