| Author | Message | ||
     Rocket_in_uk |
If the billet part conform to the drawing...it ISN'T a new part. Not difficult to understand. As per rule*, if it's not a new part it's a product update. 1.5 NEW HOMOLOGATION, PARTS AND PRODUCT UPDATE if to imply.... 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 rule for homologation still applies. 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. Nothing obtuse about reading comprehension. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to show where it is written what is claimed, as I've done to support my obtuse understanding of the rules  Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
To be clear, billet and cast make no difference with respect to material. Agreed. Two parts, one cast, one billet, can be built to the same design print, Agreed. and be considered the same part, though one will perform much better. Disagree, and agree. And it's because one will perform much better that the rule no doubt applies....... 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) As an updated part it still requires fitting to the homologated bikes..... All updated parts shall be accepted to be fitted on all units of the homologated model Rocket in England | ||
| Hootowl |
"product update" If the part conforms to the drawing it isn't a new part or an updated part. It is the same part. | ||
| Hughlysses |
I don't have a side in this argument, I'm just trying to follow it. If the part conforms to the drawing it isn't a new part or an updated part. It is the same part. Then won't the legality of an alternate part depend on the level of detail specified on the fabrication drawing? For instance, in the cast/billet crankshaft example, if the drawing says "machine from casting" it would be obvious if an example part was machined from billet instead, and therefore it seems it would not be legal. Similarly, it's been stated that the inspector will have examples of legal parts to compare to parts he inspects. If his example part is a cast crankshaft and he finds a billet crankshaft in a torn-down engine, wouldn't that obviously be illegal? I suppose if the drawing for the original cast part said "machine all over", then there would be no way to tell the difference in a cast crank and a billet crank from a visual inspection, but that requirement would negate the reason to use a cast crank in the first place (reduced cost). | ||
| Classax |
For those who have just recently joined us and are wondering what all the hub bub about the homologation rules is about. Some members asserted that the EBR WSB effort which has not gone well would negatively impact sales. The counter argument was that there would be some bandwagon jumpers but that the vast majority of buyers in the category know that the machines on the grid are NOT like for like examples of what one can buy in the showrooms. The EVO and Superstock clssses were touted as being showroom fare because there is an extensive list of components of which no modifications are allowed from what was homologated. That claim was stated to be inaccurate due to the fact that rule 1.5 of the homologation procedure found in the appendix of the FIM technical regulations, allows a manufacture change or update a part with a cheaper or easier to produce component as long as it conforms to the previously homologated part. Thus allowing them to run race kit parts within the rules as evidenced by several OEM race catalogs referencing what was legal for use as WSB, SS/EVO class options. Castings which are by and large cheaper and easier to produce are specifically addressed in the rule, and they DO NOT HAVE TO be re homologated because under the rule the part is the same as homologated, meaning it matches the previously certified drawing and the consigned reference part. Why does any of that matter? Well it allows an MFG to homologate (send reference parts and drawings) parts of race spec quality and then under the 1.5 loophole switch to cheaper to make cast version which they can send to showrooms for the next 8 years. Since the non cast version is still legal it may be fitted to the race bike. Why? because if there is a change or update in a parts design(drawing spec) the rules require re homologation, new reference part, changes to VINs, service bulletins and the parts must be fitted and or available to be sold on all subsequent examples of the homologeted model , but since a casting for example is NOT an update in design(drawing spec),... FIM can grant a part and product update differing from above rule, purely for the scope of production cost saving... The key phrase here is "differing from above rule" it amounts to a statutory "but". "but"a conjunction tying two or more clauses, phrases, paragraphs or ideas together on the condition that the former clause is rendered impotent by the nature of the latter. In other words none of the above rule requirements apply IF FIM determines the part in question conforms to the original homologation and that the only change is for production time/cost savings. Even to the point of having a part that was homologated as a single piece machined from billet now being cast in two separate pieces as evidenced by the bullet examples in the clause. 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) No new VINs, No new homologation and reference parts, No service bulletins, no new requirements on which parts go where. For an even more egregious example: A certain Austrian OEM sources their rods and pistons from two suppliers. They supply their drawing spec to both suppliers. Supplier A. is a well known high performance precision components shop and makes the parts to the drawing using forged T6-2024 aluminum billet, their QC is tight, demanding the parts always ship on the high end of the drawing tolerance. The OEM uses this supplier in the development and homologation effort of their racing dirt bikes. The trouble is the parts are not only expensive, but can't be made fast enough to support production. The OEM contacts supplier B, sends them the drawing, supplier B is a huge parts casting house, and they can quickly and cheaply cast the parts in the specified T6-2024. Yes the tolerances on a casting CAN be looser and more varied, but as long as they don't bust the either end of the drawing tolerances its all good to QC. As far as the OEM is concerned they are the same part because they meet the approved drawing spec. NO UPDATE required. No re homologation. Its entirely possible your new dirt bike has a mix of parts from both suppliers. But wait, for QC and accounting purposes, you need to have a way to track where and what parts go where, especially since one is considerably more costly than the other. Thus is born the race catalog, for the discerning customer who seeks the tighter tolerances required in high performance applications. That may seem like an over simplification and to a certain extent it is, but anyone who owns a KTM knows exactly what I'm talking about. Boo, hiss you say, we all know a forging can be lighter than a similar cast part. The rules don't allow for lightening. You'd be correct, but a forging or billet part can also be much stronger than a cast part of the same weight. Between the closer to perfect tolerances and additional strength the race spec parts can allow you to make more power, rev higher, and handle more heat before you break things. Just the kind of parts you need when you go RACING. Such parts would quickly price an OEM out of the sales market though, so for the masses cheaper is better. Some members agree that this type of thing happens in wide spread manner through out motor sports and others do not, or at least not in the holy institution that is WSB . I agree that we disagree. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. (insert Twilight Zone theme music here) So what are the chances that Geoff finishes in front of Arron at least one BMW on two wheels this race? Misano isn't typically know for a high number of race retirements. (Message edited by classax on June 19, 2014) | ||
| Trojan |
The EVO and Superstock clssses were touted as being showroom fare because there is an extensive list of components of which no modifications are allowed from what was homologated. That claim was stated to be inaccurate due to the fact that rule 1.5 of the homologation procedure found in the appendix of the FIM technical regulations, allows a manufacture change or update a part with a cheaper or easier to produce component as long as it conforms to the previously homologated part. Thus allowing them to run race kit parts within the rules as evidenced by several OEM race catalogs referencing what was legal for use as WSB, SS/EVO class options. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH The appendix to the regulations are NOT NOT NOT the RULES that the teams are bound by when building and submitting bikes for homologation. The appendix only describes what the homologation procedure is and how it will be applied to the various classes (and applies to ALL classes)and components. It does not tell you IF any of those components are allowed to be homologated or to which class or specification. It does not regulate a particular class but just tells scrutineers and teams how the homologation process works. If you want to know exactly what is and is not allowed for the various classes then you need to throw away the appendix and look at the RULES, and in particular the Technical Rules in section 2 for Superbikes. This tells team exactly what is and what is not allowed to be changed, altered etc for bikes in each particular catageory. If it does not specify Superbike or Evo then it applies to all Superbike classes. If it applies to EVO bikes then it telss you specifically what you can and cannot do. I have posted the relevant rules before so won't be doing so again, but suffice to say that if you read the rules (NOT the appendix to the rules!) you will see that Superstock and EVO class bies MUST use parts homologated on the original street bike that was sumbitted when that model was homologated. If a manufacturer wants to add different parts (of whatever material) they have to homologate a new model, which is what Honda did this year with the updated CBR1000RR. if you look at the Superbike class (Not EVO) then certain components are allowed to be replaced, modified etc so of course manufacturers will fit upgraded parts where they are allowed to. EVO bikes CANNOT do that!!! All this talk of billet vs cast etc is just a smoke screen and has nothing to do with the actual EVO rules as they stand. If you run an EVO bike you cannot change or modify ANYTHING in the motor, period. You cannot even polish or lighten your stock pistons or balance the crank. You have to build your motor with stock parts, although there is nothing stopping you carefully selecting those parts for weight and balance. Next year those rules will be combined with the general Superbike rules so that some of the EVO restrictions will apply to all bikes, but they will be allowed to modify cylinder heads and valve gear. Electroncis will remain free from the list of FIM approved suppliers. This is why I suggested a long time ago that maybe EVR would have been better served to run as an EVO (Superstock) spec bike this year. The appendix may tell the teams that the FIM CAN grant various dispensations etc, but they can only be applied when and where the technical class rules for that class allow it (such as the factory superbike class). The EVO rules are quite clear and the FIM cannot allow a dispensation on components under EVO rules, whatever the part may be. Some members agree that this type of thing happens in wide spread manner through out motor sports and others do not, or at least not in the holy institution that is WSB . I agree that we disagree. Any suspicion that EVO teams are running anything other than a stock motor as dictated by the rule book for the class would be stamped on very hard by the FIM technical officer Scott Smart, who has access to all of the bikes and to homologated stock parts for comparison at every round. They now even have a digital rig to make sure that frames are completely stock and absolutley in line with homologated dimensions/angles etc. If you think that anyone is the EVO class is running anything dodgy I would suggest you e-mail Scott  | ||
| Trojan |
As for Misano, I wouldn't think we 'll see any huge step up by the EBR team unless they have managed to test and fit something drastic since the last round. In the absence of any news from the team I wouldn't hold my breath just yet  Ducati reckon the circuit will suit their bike so maybe we'll see Chaz on the podium again  | ||
| Classax |
Hugh Then won't the legality of an alternate part depend on the level of detail specified on the fabrication drawing? For instance, in the cast/billet crankshaft example, if the drawing says "machine from casting" it would be obvious if an example part was machined from billet instead, and therefore it seems it would not be legal. Similarly, it's been stated that the inspector will have examples of legal parts to compare to parts he inspects. If his example part is a cast crankshaft and he finds a billet crankshaft in a torn-down engine, wouldn't that obviously be illegal? I suppose if the drawing for the original cast part said "machine all over", then there would be no way to tell the difference in a cast crank and a billet crank from a visual inspection, but that requirement would negate the reason to use a cast crank in the first place (reduced cost). Great questions. The drawings typically will have a material spec, which will specify the composition T6-2024 aluminum for example, and any special processes, like heat treat or hardening or other coatings. It will have the dimensions and the surface finish of various portions of the part along with tolerances on those dimensions. What it will SELDOM have is how to achieve the dimensions of the part. There are cases where specific billet or forging in a particular grain orientation or casting with specific mold flow orientations are critical to the strength and performance of the part and specified to the performance of the part. Jet turbine blades come to mind. When the specification is on the drawing, then any alteration or deviation from such constitutes a revision requiring either a formal revision and update to the drawing or formal deviation from it. In that circumstance it would require re homologaton. BUT again, if FIM determines that the new casting conforms to the original component and the only change is in the ease of cost or production time, they can waive the update rule. Please note the rules allow you to down spec, to cheaper, easier to make parts, not the other way around. So you can't homologate a cast part and then decide you want to use a machined forging(more costly harder to make) without doing an update, but you could homologate the machined forging and then opt for a cast (cheaper,faster to make) version without running a foul of the rule. Most precision castings have some machining clean up by the way. Outwardly there is no way to differentiate a cast vs forged part made to the exact same drawing specifications. They will weigh the same, have the same dimensions and finish. The forged piece will be stronger in a certain axis and have better heat characteristics, but they are essentially physically the same. Do a cross section and then you'll know which is which. For production the cost generally don't out weigh the benefits of billet parts except for critical stress of light weight components. But for racing and squeezing every last ounce of performance out of the machines, its almost imperative. | ||
| Classax |
I'm typing slowly in the hopes that it will be understood. A. The Homologation Regulations are the Rules that determine what is considered and approved as "stock" as Mat puts it. They are a separate reg, but are also included in the Technical Regulation as an APPENDIX as well. B. The Appendix of any document is a material and governing part of that document. The sections are normally topic specific but all encompassing, or require illustration. Point in case the rules for the Steering lock bar to tank gap, angle of inclination before hard part touchdown, numbering, fuel compositions, are also in the Appendix. C. The long list of EVo/SS no modification parts clearly state that they can not be modified from what has been homologated or "stock" as one member refers to it. In other words, the Technical specification refers to the homologated certification of each MFG for the applicable item for direction on technical compliance on the what "stock" dimensions, finish, composition, orientation and installation location of any parts must be. D. EVO/SS do not allow ANY modifications to the homologated items. The homologation process allows for the MFGs leeway to alter the production cost or methods and still be STOCK without changing the original homologation. E.Billet/Forgings vs Cast parts is not a smoke screen, not an example a any members chose, its the situation FIM has chosen to specifically address. Admittedly I did provide a hypothetical and several real examples. F.SS/EVO or WSB teams using factory race spec parts aren't and can't be accused of cheating because they have made no modifications to the parts that have been homologated as per the rules. Its a loophole that makes for cheaper replicas of otherwise unobtainable racers. To say the Homologation procedure isn't a part of the RULES is laughable. I can hear FIM now "We're going to have a race series. We will specify that you can only run pre approved parts in your machines with NO modifications. Here is the list of the applicable parts. Hey Scott, you're Smart, have your tech inspectors ensure there have been no modifications to the parts we listed , but don't worry about what's been approved as stock or not because according to some people the rules for how we approve what your tech guys use as the technical reference stock aren't actually rules. So let's just go racing. | ||
| Trojan |
That's it I give up What you are saying is that Kawasaki or AN Other can build an exotic 'replica' of their street bike and get it through homologation as an EVO bike ebcause the parts are dimensionally the same? That, in good old Anglo Saxon, is just bollocks. Read the rule book BEFORE you read the appendix, which tells scrutineers how to apply teeh rules, not what the actual class rules are! | ||
| Classax |
What you are saying is that Kawasaki or AN Other can build an exotic 'replica' of their street bike and get it through homologation as an EVO bike ebcause the parts are dimensionally the same?" Of course not, that would just be silly... to quote a good friend... That, in good old Anglo Saxon, is just bollocks. What I am saying is that the OEM's of RACE BIKES build and homologate their RACE BIKES for racing. The rules allow them to mass produce cheaper REPLICAS of their race bikes adapted for street use, because the mass production parts are able to conform to the EXACT same specifications as the homologated ones. Not trying to coach anyone here on how to read a technical document, but generally when reading a technical document if a section refers to another specification, illustration, regulation or reference document it is prudent to refer to and understand said references before proceeding through the rest of the section. Generally the referenced item(s) will set the context for understanding, applying and executing the text following the reference. A thorough technical document will have the majority of said references and or illustrations quoted directly within the section text, or compiled as part of an Appendix; particularly if said references are topic specific, germane to a specific industry process, procedure, or obscure or otherwise esoteric in nature. I’m just saying. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
so what are the odds that both EBRs will start both races this weekend? | ||
| Classax |
In actual WSB news Yakhnich Motorsport has left its partnership with MV Agusta ahead of the 2014 World Superbike Championship round at Misano. http://www.crash.net/wsbk/news/205766/1/mv-agusta- parts-ways-with-yakhnich.html Really ashame as they were starting to make some progress despite the last on track engine failure. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
For those who have just recently joined us and are wondering what all the hub bub about the homologation rules is about.... As I said previously, your interpretation of the rules is all. Rocket in England | ||
| Trojan |
What I am saying is that the OEM's of RACE BIKES build and homologate their RACE BIKES for racing. The rules allow them to mass produce cheaper REPLICAS of their race bikes adapted for street use, because the mass production parts are able to conform to the EXACT same specifications as the homologated ones. What? The manufacturers have to homologate the actual street bikes, not exotic race replicas of street bikes! Do you think EBR built he minimum quantity of race spec bikes for their homologation, or were they street bikes? Why do you think Honda and Ductai went to the trouble and expense of building 'homologation specials' and sold them at a loss just so that they could use exotic materials that were not allowed unless the street bike had them? It is very important to understand what the rules actually do allow, especially for new teams such as EBR, so although this is tiring it is important that it is clear. Not trying to coach anyone here on how to read a technical document, but the RULES are where you need to see what can and cannot be changed on a motorcycle in various classes. The appendices are there as instructions to the tech teams and scrutineers how the homologation process is applied depending on exactly what is allowed. The appendix may say in general that a material or component can be changed and what the rules for that change are, but that only applies when the rules for that particular class say that the part can be changed form stock. The appendix is a general document referring to all FIM classes, thew Rules apply to specific classes and what can be done within that class. How difficult is it to see? | ||
| Trojan |
Looks like the problems for Geoff May continue After FP1 today Yates was 27th with a time of 1'42.162 and May was shown an NQ in 30th place with 1'51.425 adn only completed 6 laps, so it seems his problems with the bike continue....(Do the team work on his bikes in between races at all, or just turn up and start where they left off two weeks ago?) He must be getting very frustrated by now. Melandri was fastest with a time of 1'36.9", so the gap to the leaders is pretty static still. Good news is that MV are continuing without Yachnich (although whether they will get a respectable team together to carry on as before, especially in WSS for Jules Cluzel, is doubtful). I wonder if Yachnich pulled out or MV pulled the plug on them? Reminds me of the Ducati/Alstare fiasco a couple of years ago, where both parties blamed the other for lack of develpment and results. | ||
| Neutrum |
yachnich out of money - mv will continue with the two riders...according to speedweek.com. yates crashed in the last flying lap...rider ok. (Message edited by Neutrum on June 20, 2014) | ||
| Trojan |
I always thought that Yachnich were very well funded (unless their Russian backer has suddenly got cold feet of course), and the rumour is that they will come back next year running the factory Yamaha WSB effort. MV have signed contracts with Cluzel and Corti for 2015 though, so that looks good for their future at least. | ||
| Hughlysses |
After FP1 today Yates was 27th with a time of 1'42.162 and May was shown an NQ in 30th place with 1'51.425 and only completed 6 laps, so it seems his problems with the bike continue....(Do the team work on his bikes in between races at all, or just turn up and start where they left off two weeks ago?) That's just nuts. It sure seems some heads would have rolled on the team by now. I speculated this during the last round- perhaps May is running different/more sophisticated electronics from Yates, and the crew is still having great difficulty figuring them out? It's almost inconceivable that you could have two identical bikes and only one consistently suffer problems like May's has. | ||
| M2typhoon |
I would have praise Yates. I know, the numbers aren't there but I feel he's doing great with what he has. Has crashed in practice only, finished races (which I can't say for many other teams including Geoff). I like Aaron, he doesn't say much but he gets it done. I still feel Geoff is the better all around racer but, Aaron is doing what needs to be done right now, finishing. | ||
| Trojan |
It's almost inconceivable that you could have two identical bikes and only one consistently suffer problems like May's has. What is inconceivable to me is that they left the last round with problems and seem to have just carried them over after at least one week of workshop time in which they could build a new bike from the ground up. Don't they run the bikes between races to check them out, even if it only on a dyno and isn't at race speeds? Or did the bikes come from Sepang in crates direct to Misano (which I doubt)? Either way, the team are based in Italy and could surely have built a bike the same spec as Aaron has and driven to Misano with it in a van! (if they are indeed different specs between riders). | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
different day same crap | ||
| Classax |
What's really disappointing is May has traditionally been about 2.4 seconds a lap faster than Yates on any given track. If the practice times were the race pace( which it won't be of course)as it stands now that would put him him the fight for a top 20 without anyone having to retire. I can't believe they haven't been able to get the bike running for the last 6 weeks, they can build one from the ground up in a day. This just does not make any sense. I might added 19mph they seem to be pertpetually down on topend is really hurting them in section 2 of the track. In the other sectors Yates is actually holding is own against the field. He's slower than the aliens at the front by about .8 second each sector. Its sector 2 were he almost 3 seconds a slower. This is going to be a fun race, look how close the times are for everyone at the front. (Message edited by Classax on June 20, 2014) | ||
| Fast1075 |
Well, you can't say they aren't consistent. VERY consistent. | ||
| Trojan |
Biggest disapointment for me is that BMW Italia weren't able to run a second bike for Leon Camier, after he has done such a great job for them while Barrier has been injured It will surely take Sylvain Barrier time to get back up to speed and Camier had been the leading EVO bike at most rounds so far Poor old Leon can't get arrested at the moment. he was called up to substitute for Nicky Hayden at catalunya and then Nicky decided to ride anyway, leaving Leon as spectator again EBR should really get his number for next year. | ||
| Neutrum |
looks like may is up and running... | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
thats positive news, at least he's on the track and the bike is running fingers crossed that they can both qualify this race | ||
| Fast1075 |
A post on the SBK front page says there was a red flag in FP2 from a possible engine failure for Yates. At Least Geoff went the whole practice distance. For a change. | ||
| Trojan |
FP2 finished with both EBR bikes inside the 107% quaifying time, although it isn't good news if Yates has had a blow up that has brought out the red flags here are their times and speeds etc. 28 20 A. YATES USA Team Hero EBR EBR 1190 RX 1'42.405 6.035 0.628 11 148,563 242,7 29 99 G. MAY USA Team Hero EBR EBR 1190 RX 1'42.634 6.264 0.229 19 148,232 247,7 Both are around 6 seconds off the front but the bikes still seem pretty painfully slow 1 33 M. MELANDRI Aprilia RSV4 Factory 272,5 2 24 T. ELIAS Aprilia RSV4 Factory 269,8 3 1 T. SYKES Kawasaki ZX-10R 268,4 4 65 J. REA Honda CBR1000RR 267,1 5 50 S. GUINTOLI Aprilia RSV4 Factory 267,1 6 76 L. BAZ Kawasaki ZX-10R 266,5 7 10 I. TOTH BMW S1000 RR 266,5 8 22 A. LOWES Suzuki GSX-R1000 265,2 9 7 C. DAVIES Ducati 1199 Panigale R 264,5 10 34 D. GIUGLIANO Ducati 1199 Panigale R 264,5 11 91 L. HASLAM Honda CBR1000RR 264,5 12 58 E. LAVERTY Suzuki GSX-R1000 263,9 13 44 D. SALOM Kawasaki ZX-10R EVO 258,9 14 112 I. GOI Ducati 1199 Panigale R EVO 258,9 15 71 C. CORTI MV Agusta F4 RR 258,2 16 11 J. GUARNONI Kawasaki ZX-10R EVO 257,6 17 2 C. IDDON Bimota BB3 EVO 257,0 18 56 P. SEBESTYEN BMW S1000 RR EVO 256,4 19 15 M. BAIOCCO Ducati 1199 Panigale R EVO 255,8 20 86 A. BADOVINI Bimota BB3 EVO 255,8 21 21 A. ANDREOZZI Kawasaki ZX-10R EVO 255,2 22 32 S. MORAIS Kawasaki ZX-10R EVO 254,6 23 52 S. BARRIER BMW S1000 RR EVO 254,6 24 59 N. CANEPA Ducati 1199 Panigale R EVO 254,0 25 48 R. RUSSO Kawasaki ZX-10R EVO 254,0 26 9 F. FORET Kawasaki ZX-10R EVO 252,8 27 67 B. STARING Kawasaki ZX-10R EVO 251,7 28 99 G. MAY EBR 1190 RX 247,7 29 20 A. YATES EBR 1190 RX 242,7 30 30 M. SAVARY MV Agusta F4 RR 242,1 | ||
| M2typhoon |
This is getting embarrassing .... Being slow is one thing but, being slow and blowing up is pure insane. Give me a break Erik, you can't Be happy with this cause we're not!! |
