| Author |
Message |
    
Trojan
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 04:31 am: | 
|
Honda pulled out of F1 car racing also last year. It surely didn't ruin that sport, and in fact their abandoned team did a heck of a lot better than when they were involved!
The Brawn 2009 car was developed by Honda before they pulled out. The only difference is that when Honda left Brawn were thrown a lifeline by McLaren/Mercedes who offered to lease them engines for the season. Also Honda left a huge multi million dollar 'legacy' to allow Brawn to continue most of the 2009 season without any major sponsorship. It is an entirely different situation to the one in AMA, where Honda are pulling everything and leaving nothing behind for anyone to work with.
Unless Brawn get a major sponsor for 2010 they will notbe the force they have been this year that's for sure.
If Renault get booted out of F1 next week, or decide that they have had enough, it will impact more teams than the Honda withdrawal had last year. Even then though, F1 has a history of being supported by constructors rather than Moto manufacturers, so the loss of the car makers won't make as much difference as it would if the major bike factories pulled out of motorcycle racing. |
Trojan
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 04:39 am: |
|
I'd say that, for the most part, the idea of "trickle down" is a myth perpetuated by the factories to justify the advantages they get from their exotic parts.
here is a short list of just some of the parts that we take for granted that have ALL trickled down from racing:
Disc brakes
Hydraulic forks
slipper clutches
Alloy wheels
traction control
EFi systems
aluminium beam frames
monoshock rear suspension
lightweight materials
carbon composites
In other words pretty much everything you see on a modern sports bike! Just because the factories are allowed to change certain components doesn't mean that those parts don't get developed and make their way onto road bikes eventually anyway.
The only parts that don't have at least some development on the track are things like exhausts and other parts that are emmissions controlled on road bikes.
Even Buell has introduced parts to the XB12 range that were developed for racing on track for the XBRR race bike and I'm sure the same will be true for the 1125 range too.
If you think that racing doesn't improve the breed then you are sadly mistaken. Why do you think the factories spend so much money on it? |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 05:23 am: |
|
I don't think he's saying racing doesn't improve the products. I think he's saying that bumping from Superstock to Superbike doesn't do much to enhance that. Some, but little. I agree.
The really cutting edge high tech advancement is coming from MotoGP, no? |
Trojan
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 05:35 am: |
|
The really cutting edge high tech advancement is coming from MotoGP, no?
MotoGP stuff tends to trickle down to Superbikes before the road bikes benefit (slipper clutches are a good example).
A lot of the expensive parts that get changed on factory superbikes such as cranks and rods etc also eventually make their way onto the road bikes or produce parts that do. if racing was limited to using stock components teams and factories wouldn't get the chance to push the envelope and test new stuff.
Even bikes such as the new H-D XR1200X ae not immune to race bred technology. This model now has BPF (Big Piston Forks) fitted as standard, which is a first for H-D and even better than fitted to the Buell lineup.
Big Piston Forks are a direct result of race development and so far are only used on the ZX6R Kawasaki, Suzuki GSXR1000 and H-D XR1200X road bikes! BPF forks basically get rid of the internal cartridge and use the fork legs themselves as the outer cartridge. This allows massive pistons and much better suspension. These forks would not have been developed if teams were restricted to using stock forks in racing.
Parts that were the preserve of WSB/MotoGP a few years ago are now so common place on top end sportsbikes that we either don't give it a second thought or complain if it isn't there!
Superstock racing would only bring on small incremental changes rather than the big improvements seen when using prototype equipment such as used in WSB Superbike racing. |
Crusty
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 06:54 am: |
|
Honda is pulling out of AMA racing for personal reasons. Ray Blank (the head of American Honda)was named in, and lost a significant Lawsuit to Roger Edmondson (the head of DMG) back in the early 90s.
Honda is going to do all it can to discredit the AMA series and is using as much influence as possible. They will happily drag motorcycle racing down into the gutter, if it will make Edmondson look bad.
I expect Suzuki to follow Honda.They don't like the fact that they can't cheat like they were doing, and they won't be as dominant as they were.
I don't think Yamaha will leave, as they're Honda's biggest adversary, and could pick up a good bit in sales. Kawasaki is a big question mark. I don't know which way they'll go.
However, I'll be pulling for Buells, no matter who shows up to race. |
Elvis
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 08:53 am: |
|
I think it's clear that legitimate arguments can be made for both systems(let's call them Superbike vs Superstock for the sake of discussion).
But I believe FIM rules have a huge flaw that needs to be addressed at some point if the rule structure is to be considered a valid, technically sound set of rules.
That flaw is that four cylinder bikes are allowed Superbike rules while twins are held to Superstock rules.
I recognize that there is a lot of history and politics behind that decision, but we understand that, from a technical point of view a 1200 cc twin should be roughly equal to a 1000 cc four at least in terms of racing performance.
People point to the new BMW engine as evidence that an inline configuration is superior to a twin and that's why they went with it, but I suspect BMW's decision had at least something to do with the fact that they would be held to Superstock rules if they had created a twin. Aprilia probably also considered these rules when they decided to go with a four-cylinder arrangement.
If Buell ever goes into Superbike, they will be at a disadvantage. They will be held to their homologated parts while their competitors will be able to change components on the fly.
While we don't know all the details of the differences between the 1125R and 1125RR, it's a reasonable bet that the variations in the 1125RR would be allowed by Superbike rules - IF the bike was a 4 cylinder.
So Buell will be forced to sell a street version if they want to race in WSBK, but if they had a 4 cylinder configuration the 1125RR would probably be a legal variation of the 1125R.
In my opinion, FIM NEEDS to address this inconsistency and either hold 4 cylinders closer to stock or allow twins more variations(personally, I believe - based on several statements I've heard over the years - that FIM would like to hold bikes closer to stock to keep prices down, but they have met resistance from manufacturers).
If these rules continue unchanged, they form a barrier to twins while encouraging continued use of 4 cylinders, and I don't think that serves our interests as consumers.
I don't think it's right to have 2 very different standards for 2 different configurations and if FIM wants to have a legitimate, long-term, sustainable standard that works across the board (rather than having a special set of rules designed around 1 manufacturer) they NEED to address this issue. |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 08:55 am: |
|
The real question is, where is all that Corona/Extra sponsorship money going???
Corona Buell? |
Oddball
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 10:41 am: |
|
Would go good with the Buell racing colors. |
Elvis
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Corona/Erik Buell Racing featuring Jake Holden and Cory West.
Hmmmmm. . .
I like the sound of that.
 |
Diablo1
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 12:19 pm: |
|
But I believe FIM rules have a huge flaw that needs to be addressed at some point if the rule structure is to be considered a valid, technically sound set of rules.
That flaw is that four cylinder bikes are allowed Superbike rules while twins are held to Superstock rules.
The WSBK Ducati twins aren't Superstock spec by any means. If it weren't for Spies alone and his outstanding rookie performance, Ducati would have a cake walk this year to the championship. Look back in history and see how many times Ducati has won WSBK. If anything, the rules are slanted in Ducati's favor. Who won WSBK in 2008?....Ducati on the 1198. Ducati threatend to quit WSBK in 2007 if they weren't allowed to race their 1198 against the liter fours. Prior to that, they did just fine racing liter twins against liter fours.} |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Matt,
Most, if not all, off the "trickle down" technology you list was not originated by factory race teams, but originated in the private sector or in other industries.
My point was; If factory technology is such an important advantage, why is discarded in favor of after market technology; ie Öhlins forks, etc. in "streetbike based" classes such as Superbike?
G |
Trojan
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 01:36 pm: |
|
My point was; If factory technology is such an important advantage, why is discarded in favor of after market technology; ie Öhlins forks, etc. in "streetbike based" classes such as Superbike?
It is too expensive to fit road bikes with the same Ohlins kit that factory bikes (and even privateer WSB bikes) get. However, the technology in those forks and other parts gets assimilated into the stock parts over a number of years as the technology becomes cheaper and more readily available. It is the factories that pay Ohlins, Harris, Suter etc to develop this new technology and they are the ones that eventually filter the parts down to us.
If Superbikes had to run with stock parts fitted there would be no scope for aftermarket specialists like Ohlins to develop new parts at all.
As an example, a few years ago the only people who got Ohlins TTX shocks were factory teams. Now you can order them for pretty much any road bike you like providing you have the cash. Without the constant evolution and quest for performance from the top teams these parts would either not get developed or would take considerably longer. |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 02:23 pm: |
|
"As an example, a few years ago the only people who got Ohlins TTX shocks were factory teams." 
Specialized factory parts for the factory teams AND specialized after market parts as well.
Does that not seem like an unfair advantage?
No wonder the factory teams don't like DMG's rules.
G |
Liquorwhere
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 02:24 pm: |
|
Trojan +1 |
Imonabuss
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 02:55 pm: |
|
Trojan -1, or maybe -100. You have no idea what is going on in the US, but that doesn't keep you from yapping. The bikes are allowed different forks in Superbike and are allowed shocks and fork kits in DSB. Everybody has access to Ohlins and the like. What the AMA has done is remove the cheating, and the unobtanium that would never, ever show up on the street because of cost.
MotoGP parts showing up on the street? Oh certainly. Can't wait foir the 20,000 rpm five cylinder street bikes. What will show up is your garden variety 600 with 75% of the parts made in China and a Dani Pedrosa paint job. |
Liquorwhere
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 03:36 pm: |
|
MotoGP parts showing up on the street? Oh certainly. Can't wait foir the 20,000 rpm five cylinder street bikes. What will show up is your garden variety 600 with 75% of the parts made in China and a Dani Pedrosa paint job.
I guess you have never heard of the Desmosedici RR. Maybe Honda will put out a V-Five in the future, it was rumored to arrive in the Interceptor platform, but ya never know, it may be depending on if MotoGP stays with the 800cc limit or goes back to the 990cc limit. Trojan is right about the slipper clutch in the 1125R, that came from MotoGP racing, along with many others, and many yet to come. I don't get why that cannot be understood....... |
Elvis
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 03:45 pm: |
|
The WSBK Ducati twins aren't Superstock spec by any means. If it weren't for Spies alone and his outstanding rookie performance, Ducati would have a cake walk this year to the championship.
The homologated $40,000 1098R is a very trick bike and very capable. But the point as it relates to this discussion is that, if you read the WSBK rules, you'll see that Ducati can not make the kind of "Superbike" modifications that the inline 4's are allowed.
The deal Ducati worked out with FIM works very well for them (and other involved factories). Ducati can sell 3000 $40,000 bikes to meet homologation limits without much problem, but Buell or KTM will have a much harder time doing that.
Ducati is already in and clearly, with racing as their historical focus, they have and are doing very well. But by using Ducati as the standard and building rules around them, FIM has created a barrier for other twins that makes entry much more difficult for any brand making a twin that wants to break in.
From a technical point of view, I believe a 1200 cc limit for twins and 1000 cc limit for 4's for with similar modifications allowed for either configuration would be fair.
It's quite possible that Ducati would be overly competitive with a standard such as that, but I think that's something FIM needs to deal with and deal with in a way that makes more technical sense than building rules around Ducati.
They could still use Ducati specific restrictor plates on the Ducati's, but a level playing field for twins and inline 4's seems like a better standard than the current one.
Why should Buell and KTM be punished for Ducati's success? And why should Honda, BMW, Aprilia etc. be discouraged from developing twins by the rule structure? |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 04:30 pm: |
|
"Trojan is right about the slipper clutch..." 
You really need to do some research before you make such statements.
The sprag clutch was in use in the motorcycle and many other industries many, many decades before you attended that first hill climb you like to brag about.
The splipper clutch was definitely not the result of motorcycle racing.
Back to the real subject of this thread.
We already know that you don't like AMA Pro Road Racing.
Do have any useful suggestions to improve it?
(Firing Edmundson doesn't qualify as useful at this point.)
G |
Trojan
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 05:34 pm: |
|
Trojan -1, or maybe -100. You have no idea what is going on in the US, but that doesn't keep you from yapping. The bikes are allowed different forks in Superbike and are allowed shocks and fork kits in DSB. Everybody has access to Ohlins and the like. What the AMA has done is remove the cheating, and the unobtanium that would never, ever show up on the street because of cost. .
Actually we were discussing the difference between Superstock and Superbike, but don't let me spoil your rant or personal insults will you .
Maybe you would like to follow up your 'cheating' accusation? If you think just employing a different set of rules will stop people trying to cheat in future you must be very niaive.
MotoGP parts showing up on the street? Oh certainly. Can't wait foir the 20,000 rpm five cylinder street bikes.
Kind of taking things to extremes aren't you? There are a whole load of parts that have come from GP racing that are now pretty standard on road bikes. Maybe we will see a 20,000rpm V5 one day. We already have a 17,000rpm IL4 600cc road bike and that technology was directly developed from racing.
The splipper clutch was definitely not the result of motorcycle racing.
Sprag clutches may have been used on all sorts of machinery, but it is the motorcycle application of the slipper clutch, perfected in race use, that now finds itself fitted as standard to pretty much every current sportsbike. If it hadn't been developed in racing then it would not have found its way onto road bikes.
(Message edited by trojan on September 20, 2009) |
Liquorwhere
| | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 09:16 pm: |
|
Back to the real subject of this thread.
We already know that you don't like AMA Pro Road Racing.
Do have any useful suggestions to improve it?
(Firing Edmundson doesn't qualify as useful at this point.)
There are many useful suggestions I could make, but jerks like you who seem to think that because they are old and may be an engineer have the market cornered on what is known and what is not known. You are dead wrong about the sprag clutch on a motorcycle, but what would be the point to make any suggestions to you? You seem to have some personal beef with me so whatever I put forth you will make some sarcastic comment or in some way try to post some ridiculous statement to try and push facts to your way of thinking. So what then? If I disagree with you Greg you bird dog every post and try to make a comment to try and feel good about yourself, are you that pathetic in your life? Truly? It is pretty difficult to accept you are such an intellectual when you cannot seem to spell or see that if you spell it wrong badweb helps you.....and I am supposed to listen to what you have to write as gospel??
So here is a statement, go ahead and post up after me with something dickheaded, I am used to it from you by now.
Superstock has its place, using as close to stock machines on a track and pushing the base technology to its limit can be very useful to see what the next level of racing, ie Superbike or MotoGP can contribute to the stock machines to make them better. But you need the levels of machinery racing to really find the next levels of performance and reliability. Endurance racing has its place, drag racing has it place and all from top to bottom have contributed to the development of the machines to the levels they are today and will continue to until we cease to race. I just think that without the top level using the most cutting edge technology, with big budgets and top level riders the sport in general would plateau and the improvements to bikes would stagnate.
So go ahead Greg, have at that statement too.....I am unconcerned about it and you.
I don't think you are much of an enthusiast about bikes as you are about one brand. Fine, have it. I love all things two wheels..... |
|
