| Author |
Message |
    
Grim_euphoria
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:54 pm: | 
|
How about more frequent TV coverage, whatever the hell they're racing. That way they can tell by viewer numbers just how bad they screwed up! |
Crusty
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 05:57 am: |
|
How much more frequent can coverage get? All the Superbike nationals are being broadcast live, except Barber which will be shown on a tape delay on the same day. |
Grim_euphoria
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:28 am: |
|
Maybe it's my graveyard schedule. Just being able to catch "two wheel tuesday" is about the highpoint of my week. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Crusty,
"All right, I'll bite. What do you think would be a change for the better?"
Well, it's pretty darn obvious that the performance of a 750 based machine like Eric Bostrom's Kawasaki ZX7R isn't too far off compared to the liter twins. I would have done one of two things...
1. Increase the four cylinder displacement limit to 800cc, and keep the liter limit for twins and 900cc limit for triples.
2. If liter fours absolutely must replace the old 750cc bikes, I would increase the displacement limit for twins to 1250cc's.
Either way, I'd also add a new class displacement limit for air cooled twin pushrod two valve configurations. The limit would be equal to double that of the four cylinder water cooled bikes.
Pretty simple eh?  |
S320002
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 05:50 pm: |
|
A 2,000cc pushrod V Twin for roadracing? That configuration might work well for drag racing. As a roadracing engine I think you would have gone well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
Greg |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 04:26 am: |
|
You may be right, but I doubt it. No matter, don't race one then. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 02:18 pm: |
|
Johnny Burns has a review of some open class bikes over on motorcycle online where he touches a little on the new class rules. If you are a subscriber, it is an interesting read.
He seems to be of the opinion (though he stealths it a little) that the inline four has a significant advantage under the new rules.
Don't go to the feedback area though. You will waste time with the ignorant and with trolls. In fact just skip the whole article, I will post the relevant paragraph (attributed) below.
(note to self. Stop feeding trolls)...
(Message edited by reepicheep on May 20, 2003, %time)
(Message edited by reepicheep on May 20, 2003, %time) |
S320002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 05:24 pm: |
|
Blake,
Valve size/inertia alone would create severe challenges. The valve diameter and lift required to feed a one liter cylinder with only two valves would be way up there. Heavier valves require stronger and heavier valve springs and thus stronger and heavier push rods, these all increase valve train inertia. At some point face pressures get so high that lifters and cams start eating each other.
In order to keep piston speed at reasonable levels the bore and thus piston diameter would have to be huge. Large pistons are heavy, requiring heavier rods. All these increase in reciprocating mass means increased vibration. Then there's all that extra air pumping around in the crankcase. Then there's the flame speed required by such a large combustion chamber.
These and many other challenges can no doubt be met. But then there is the over all physical size and weight of such an engine.
Like I said, as a roadracing engine, I think you would have gone well beyond the point of diminishing returns. Feel free to doubt it but common sense is on my side.
Besides, wouldn't such a bike really be a Frankenstein and not a Buell? If so what would be the point?
Greg |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 07:24 pm: |
|
Relevant excerpt in an article from Johnny Burns at Motorcycle online....
What does racing teach us boys and girls? How about this: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. All the complaining Mat Mladin did for all those years about the unfairness of 750 fours having to compete against liter-size twin-cylinders paid off for the lad, big-time, when the AMA decided dang, maybe poor Mat's right (of course I'm sure they'd deny Mladin's comments had anything to do with it), and decided to let full-on thousand-cc fours into the hen house. World Superbike changed its rules over the off season, too, but that august body handicaps 1000cc fours with 32.5mm intake restrictor plates. In AMA Superbike, Mr. GSX-R gets to keep all four 42mm cake holes wide open. You're not allowed to fool with the stock crankshaft, though. Valves have to be the same material as stock, ie. steel, and cams can have no more lift than stock.
Unfortunately for the competition, steel valves aren't what limits the mighty GSX-R's rpm. The poor long-stroke dear's bores are only 73mm wide. Heck, that's only one mm bigger than the GSX-R750, and only 5mm bigger than the new 636 Kawasaki. With valves not that much bigger (or heavier) than those bikes' either, there's nothing in the big GSX-R's valvetrain to keep it from spinning past 15,000 in stock form, just like the 636. What does limit the GSX-R is piston speed, since its 59mm stroke isn't all that much shorter than an RC51 Honda's 63.6mm. Connecting rods, according to our sources at Attack Suzuki, are the weak link in the GSX-R, and as the rulebook doesn't address those items, you can be sure those fast factory GSX-R's have the nicest, lightest ones money can buy, pumping lovely 73mm pistons. At that point, it's Hello, 15,000 rpm (plus), and Goodbye, bikes trying to process the same volume of air with a pair of 100mm pistons.
Hey, if Mladin's old 750 was so dang slow, how'd he win the three championships on it? Well, I hate to say I told you so, because I actually managed to hold my tongue for once--and when the GSX-R's didn't dominate Daytona, I thought there was a slight chance I might have been, gasp, wrong. Ensuing events, including watching Mladin's GSX-R1000 leap off the corners at Sears Point, have led me to have renewed faith in my own infallibility. |
Crusty
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 08:39 pm: |
|
I have a novel idea. Why not have a single displacement limit. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, however many cylinders you want to build. Oh; you say it's not fair? Since when has racing been fair? |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 09:17 pm: |
|
Sure Crusty.
You have no problem with me rolling my custom built one off factory backed 600cc two stroke up next to your stock 600 inline four, right? After all, racing ain't fair.
And I am sure the fans would be just thrilled and excited to see a four lap delta between first, second, third, and the rest of the field. That would build some excitement. Now *thats* racing. |
Crusty
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 10:01 pm: |
|
Isn't that what you've got in GP? In the top 5 you've got 4 V5s and maybe a Duck. Yet, nobody is whining about Honda's dominance, and how unfair it is.
Remember when the AMA banned the TZ750 dirt tracker? Everybody bitched about how unfair the AMA was being, and how they were owned by Harley. The more things change, the more they stay the same. |
Jscott
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Nobody seems to realize that 750's are going the way of the dinosaur and liter bikes are now the premiere bikes for SuperBike. Kaw, Yamaha, and Suzuki will all be racing 1000cc four cylinders next year. Honda will most likely drop the RC51 and go with a four cylinder also. In order to get Ducati up to speed the AMA needs to inplement the throttle body specifications allowed by WSBK. Also they need a full factory effort in the US which they do not now have (getting rid of Picotte didn't help either). WSBK has been getting the reputation of being a Ducati cup this year, but if anyone has seen the last couple of races they will notice that Lavilla on his GSXR1000 is getting up in the mix. I think they are restricting the throttle bodys for the 1000cc four cylinders, but not the twins - the AMA should do the same. Also no 600cc two strokes - SuperSport and SuperBike should be stay production based bikes. I also have this strange feeling that if and when <font size="+1">Buell</font> gets serious about racing (i.e. FULL Factory support) the AMA just might find a place for them.
Give it up for Pascal Picotte winning the opening Canadian 600cc SportBike round and coming in fourth in SuperBike.
Also piss off to HD for pussing out of SuperBike. Can't seem to get over that one.
(Message edited by jscott on May 20, 2003, %time) |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:08 am: |
|
So Greg, the 1650cc engine that Cycle-Rama and Aaron built... the one that went 208 mph at Bonneville... was it also "well past the point of diminishing returns" or is that somewhere between 1650 and 2000 cc's? Ten percent more bore and valve diameter doesn't seem like that stupendous of a hurdle to me. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:29 am: |
|
Jscott,
Commercially produced 4 cyl repliracer superbikes... GSXR1000
Commercially produced 4 cyl repliracer 750cc superbikes... GSXR750, ZX7R
I think everyone here see the shift to liter sized four cylinder superbikes. They are friggin racing right now. Street bikes follow the race bikes. You think the GSXR750 is going the way of the dinosaurs? I very much doubt it.
You nailed the issue that I raised exactly. The WSB and BSB series restrict the 4-cyl literbikes. AMAPR does not. I predict that Suzuki will not lose a single race in AMAPR Superbike from here on out. The GSXR1000 is just WAY faster than anything else out there.
|
Jscott
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 09:42 am: |
|
Blake,
I think that next year there will be no ZX7R, they will have a ZX1000R, Yamaha will jump in with the YZF-R1 (some would argue that they could be competetive right now if they would have entered this year).
You could be right but other that SuperStock I think that the GSXR-750 will not be around to many more years. I don't claim to really know anything though. |
Jim_m
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 09:50 am: |
|
OT post...
"Honda will most likely drop the RC51 and go with a four cylinder also."
I'd love to see Honda try a V4 1000cc bike in the AMA SuperBike class. |
Mark_in_ireland
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:53 am: |
|
I'd love to see the Norton Rotary return and really put the cat amongst the pigeons.....
 
Good Old Days before they outlawed it by changing the rules.... |
S320002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:55 am: |
|
Blake,
Bonneville is very much like a giant drag race to top speed. I said such an engine could work well it that environment. Long stroke engines work well for drag racing, they are poorly suited for road racing.
What sort of bore and stroke did you have in mind to achieve 2000cc in an XB chassis?
Any thoughts on the Frankenstein subject?
Maybe it would be cheaper and more practical to build an ultra modified 330cc 2 stroke and slap some Buell stickers on it.
Greg |
Jssport
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:39 am: |
|
MCN reports Ducati is coming out with a V-4 street bike.
Jeeze,... they building motors to adapt to new class rules,...
!!! what a concept !!! |
Jssport
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:42 am: |
|
and Honda is building a new version of the 954 to replace their V-twin bikes.....
will this madness ever stop ? |
Jssport
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:43 am: |
|
and none of theese companies are asking for "special" consideration,... wow
how Un-American
any bets as to how long before Aprilia makes a bike to capitilize on the new rules ?
(Message edited by jssport on May 21, 2003, %time) |
S320002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:10 pm: |
|
"Jeeze,... they building motors to adapt to new class rules,..."
...and to think all this time they could have been changing the rules to adapt to new motors thus promoting diversity of design and innovation.
!!! what a concept !!! |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:21 pm: |
|
quote:and none of these companies are asking for "special" consideration,... wow
You mean "special", like the 2x displacement "advantage" these bikes get over the two strokes?
|
Jssport
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:28 pm: |
|
.... and what two-stroke street bikes are available for sale ?
JimS
a 2-stroke street bike owner,
ex-GP750 2-stroke racer
Kaw H2R |
Jssport
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:31 pm: |
|
??? NEW MOTOR ?? hahahaha
since when is a motor designed and developed in the 50's new?
"all this time they could have been changing the rules to adapt to new motors"
(Message edited by jssport on May 21, 2003, %time)
(Message edited by jssport on May 21, 2003, %time) |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 01:25 pm: |
|
Why on earth would you want to limit "race" bikes to noise, pollution, and other "street legal" laws (such as turn signals and headlamps)?
OH! I get it, because you want to see the bikes that make good streetbikes raced! Cool idea, that would be neat to watch.
Oh. But wait. We can't have every bike compete together, or there would not be much competition. How can we create different classes for equitable racing???
Off the top of my head:
1) Rear wheel horsepower.
2) Overall bike weight.
3) Bike wheelbase.
4) Out the door cost with fixed cost and time for aftermarket modifications.
5) Theoretical pumping efficiency of engine configuration.
6) Valvetrain configuration.
7) Maximum piston speed.
8) Combustion technology (2 stroke versus 4 stroke).
9) Cooling technology (air / oil / water)
10) Displacement.
No doubt there are other good ones. You could make a good argument at eliminating some, but to base the entire class on just one criteria (displacement) is stupid on the face of it.
All out racing? Fine. But then why are you arbitrarily limiting combustion technology and displacement? If to create equitable racing classes, then why on earth limit it to just those two criteria?
Either open it up with no limits (which would be stupid and eliminate most sport oriented streetbikes from the track) or build up some rules to create different classes (which they wisely did). But then to build the rules around simply displacement shows only either staggering ignorance, staggering lazyness, or extreme bias and corruption.
Whats so different about 600cc versus 1000cc's then is different about OHC versus Pushrods or desmos? Both are just arbitrary aspects of an engine that have an impact on the engines theoretical performance capability.
I don't think the Buells belong racing with the open class litre bikes, but the XB's sure seem to fit right in the mix for the 600 inline fours in *every* single measurable regard *except* displacement. And the XB's probably make a far better streetbike then most of the 600 inline fours... and isn't that what this class was supposed to be about?
(looking for "beating dead horse" emoticon)... |
S320002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 01:31 pm: |
|
Jssport,
In your haste to ridicule you missed the point.
But I'll play your silly game.
"since when is a motor designed and developed in the 50's new?"
If you're attempting to make reference to the Buell XB engine, it was neither designed nor developed in the '50s.
Overhead cams, multiple vales and liquid cooling were used in the very early decades of the last century. If one were to apply your attempt at logic, that would mean engine technology hasn't advanced since somewhere around 1920.
Innovation and ingenuity lead to advancements, not blind adherence to short sighted rules.
Wanna try again? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 05:20 pm: |
|
Well said Bill and Greg.
Jss probably is unaware that before any of the Japanese moto companies had even built their first motorcycle, Harley-Davidson was campaigning four valve/cyl OHC racebikes. Real new technology that.  It is amazing how easily some are sucked in by marketing hype. I can hear the Japanese marketeers (probably an American add company) laughing their asses off at how stupid we all are for buying-in to the whole "displacement is the only valid ruler" hype.
Rules that seek to bring advantage to a select group or exclude their competitors are okay by you eh Jss?
Sure, Ducati, a company that lives and breathes on its racing heritage has had their hand forced. The Japanese know how to play his game. Change the rules to force your only non Japanese competitor to spend loads of cash to come up with a new design that will be competitive. You are extremely naive if you think otherwise.
I am American. Why is an American racing organization going by the name "American Motorcyclists' Association Pro Racing" purposefully seeking to exclude, eliminate, or render uncompetitive any existing or future (XB12R) American sport bike from the classes in which they belong?
When racing class rules are made to benefit one group to the detriment of all others, those rules are serving a purpose other than to benefit racing. They are serving only to benefit the one group and those seeking payola for promoting that group's agenda. |
Jssport
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 05:40 pm: |
|
Maybe you should just ask the AMA to give the Buells a head start ?? |
|
AMA Pro Racing Seeks to Please Japanese Benefactors 
»
Archive through May 21, 2003