| Author | Message | ||
     Rocket_in_uk |
EBR isn't winning in it, so there must be something wrong! Never a truer word said in jest  As I said a couple of weeks ago, there will be some shouting from the roof tops crying foul, because the EBR's aren't competitive under current rules, in an effort to drum down the series until an EBR gets a look in. Rocket in England | ||
| Trojan |
Bikes and parts for the season are randomly and anomalously picked from dealers over the course of the season by a neutral party. There are already plenty of 'stock-sport' and other series similar. The problem is that nobody is interested. WSb has its faults, as does MotogP, but it is a good series and has held up well over a long time. Just small increments in rules are all that is neeed rather than starting fresh (nobody will swallow that expense!). | ||
| Fast1075 |
Rules are supposed to create parity. The rules that allow the 4 cylinder machines to have more modification than the twins is ludicrous. The rule is obviously aimed at Ducati since the others know that an open engine program will create a dominating Ducati, who greatly value their position and heritage. Ducati knew this coming in and specified an engine capable of the feat. For one purpose, to be competitive in the world's eye. The science of power is, it's basic essence, simple. An engine is driven by heat. The amount of power is determined by how much fuel/air mixture goes thru the engine, and how efficient it is thermally, and how much power is lost by friction. A 1000 cc 4 cylinder engine has an exceedingly short stroke with a relatively large bore. The engine can turn considerably more rpm than a twin cylinder engine of the same(ish) displacement, unless the twin has the very short stroke and comparatively huge bore. Ducati has the combination of components that allow the required rpm to pump the required amount of mixture to make the power. Now it appears that since EBR cannot use internals that can withstand the stress of elevated RPM with durability, seems they have brought a short sword to a cannon duel. Geoff said they have parts coming to allow 1K more RPM. The engines are coming unglued at the RPM they are using now. I may just be an old AC mechanic, but that seems to mean better internals. Of course, all that has been discussed is conjecture and theory. Hell, the problem may be the camchains are failing. I saw enough of that with Kawasaki at the drag strip. If you whack the throttle closed on a J Model in the traps with a hy-vo chain, you have a damn good chance of joining the KABOOM! club. The tension pulls the chain apart and all those expensive pieces get down right unfriendly with each other. Suzuki and MV have their share of problems. Laverty won in dominating fashion at first, had a huge engine failure, and has been slow ever since. Obviously, they pulled the tune back for reliability. And MV have turned the bike into a nice marshmallow roaster a couple of times also. I thought it would be easy to twist the rules some for a better position using the old "if it isn't illegal, it is legal" logic. Unfortunately the rules say if it isn't legal, it is illegal". Pity, EBR could bring a damn nice weapon to bear if not for the rules being stacked against twin cylinder engines. | ||
| Fireboltwillie |
there is a Mark Miller interview on a different thread where he speaks about the bikes at Macau and at the TT. He mentions the "upgrades" for the TT, including brakes, pads, and engine internals ( titanium parts)allowing another 1000 rpm. interesting thing to listen to. | ||
| Hughlysses |
The interviewer even refers to the EBR IOM TT bikes as "1190RSSP's" or something like that. Perhaps EBR was testing parts for WSBK at IOM? | ||
| Trojan |
Obviously, they pulled the tune back for reliability. Suzuki have changed all of the elctronics since PI at the start of the year, somaybe this is the reason they have lost a bit of pace. The other reason is simply because the others (Kawasaki & Aprilia) have upped their game since the first round and Suzuki have been left behind. Honda face the same problem. Rea won a race and has been nowhere since (relatively speaking). Pity, EBR could bring a damn nice weapon to bear if not for the rules being stacked against twin cylinder engines. The rules are the rules, and it is up to the manufacturers to build a bike that plays to the best use of those rules. Back in late 2005 I wrote the rules for the UK Thunderbike cahmpionship (basically copied with amendments from the US seeries). The rules were very straitforward and eaasy to understand exactly what is and what is not allowed, yet I used to have calls all the time asking if we would allow this bike or that modification despite the rules specifically saying no. It just may be that the EBR 1190 simply isn't the best weapon to take to WSB and they need either another bike or another series to race in  | ||
| Stevel |
I read a lot of conjecture in this tread about what the faults are with the 1190 engine. We know that there are two major faults. One is longevity and the other is lack of competitive power. Most of the readers here have not done an analysis of the engine, I have. It is what I do as a hobby. At my age, the factory bike is a whole lot faster than I am. I have alluded to these faults in previous posts. Now the following is just my opinion based on many years of experience. First, you can forget the ECU as the problem. it isn't. Secondly, the crank is just fine. It will easily handle 200 plus horsepower. It is not cast. It is a forging of the European equivalent of AISI 4140 chrome molybdenum steel. The problems are in the design of the cylinder and the head. Of course with changes to those, several other parts that mate with them will also have to be changed. The cylinder design uses an open deck configuration. It is well supported at the base, but poorly supported at the deck with an attachment on only one side at the chain case. This makes the cylinder assembly inherently unstable and will have a tendency to change shape under temperature and load. Further aggravating this is that the original bore of the 1125 at 103mm has simply been bored to 106mm leaving the cylinder very thin. The casting was never changed to accommodate the larger bore.(that I have seen) The cylinder head has an intake port area way too large for the displacement. The cross sectional area of the port actually becomes larger as the port progresses to the inlet valves. It should in fact become smaller creating a venturi effect. The net result is a lazy port with very poor velocity. This effects combustion efficiency and causes high fuel consumption. This why EBR now has a cam that opens the inlet valves in a staggered fashion. The head was designed to accommodate a 10mm valve lift with insufficient space to allow longer valves and valve springs that a higher lift needs. By trimming the steel spring seat and valve guide, it is possible to extend the standard lift to 12mm, but at the expense of adequate guide length and valve stability. What this means is that the current engine is 150 HP motor. Any numbers above that are truly exceptional or more likely false. The question of the motor being able to actually make the 200HP number is questionable. I think so, but it is not a given. | ||
| Stevel |
I read here about the inadequacy of the twin being able to compete with the 4 cylinder motors, they cannot at the same displacement. This is why the twins are allowed 200cc more in SB. The four uses lighter reciprocating parts and can turn at higher speeds than a twin without exceeding the strength of the available materials in use. Power is a product of the amount of fuel burned correctly in time. This is basic physics. The down side of the four is that it produces a narrower torque curve and is inherently more difficult to drive than a twin, as the twin produces a wider, more manageable torque curve. This was a real advantage the twin had before electronics, as full throttle is approximately used in a road race only 10% of the time. The current and future use of electronics has pretty much negated the twin's advantage, even with the 200cc allowance. Ducati, in order to be more competitive with the fours, now uses a 116mm bore that now allows 46mm inlet valves. This is in comparison to the 42mm valve the 106mm bore of the EBR engine. The use of this enormous bore entails the use of a very short stroke and the loss of the broad torque curve of the twin. Ducati is hoping that electronics will also help to manage that. The larger piston also increases reciprocating mass making the use of titanium rods almost mandatory. This may work for a competition engine, but titanium has a much lower resistance to fatigue than steel and therefore is a very poor choice for the street. I somehow would tend to reject changing connecting rods at 15,000 miles as regular maintenance. So the question at hand; Does this mean the death of twins in competition or should the 200cc advantage be increased? Time will tell. | ||
| Hughlysses |
This may work for a competition engine, but titanium has a much lower resistance to fatigue than steel and therefore is a very poor choice for the street. Stevel- I was under the impression that titanium has very good fatigue strength; much better than aluminum for example. (I haven't taken the time to compare the properties to steel, so I may be all wet.) Titanium is used for valves and has been used for things such as submarine hulls which can't tolerate fatigue failure. | ||
| Stevel |
H, Fatigue strength is much more important for con rods that other components like valves, because the load cycle of compression to elongation. In point of fact, it is common for con rods to dynamically elongate at least half a mm at speed. Yes, titanium is better than aluminum, but much less than steel. Now, I'm speaking of 6AL4V, not some of the newer alloys like Boeing's triple nickel, which has a much better stated fatigue resistance, but it is a proprietary alloy and not yet commercially available. Should be very interesting if and when it happens though. Aluminum is still the choice for top fuel motors because of its shock absorbing qualities, They however, change them out like spark plugs because of their poor fatigue resistance. Steel is the con rod material of choice for all forms of endurance racing and steel is becoming even more of a favorite imperative because of the availability of so many of the re-melt, high purity, super steel alloys. Further, not all titanium con rods are equal. Many are cut from billet, where the best ones are initially forged, so buyer beware. That 15,000 mile number is not so arbitrary, but only time will really tell. I seriously doubt if durability was a major consideration when Ducati elected to use titanium. I also recently learned that they do not use a yellow metal valve seat for their titanium valves, which definitely deviates from industry norm. That norm has always been to never exceed HRC 35 in a copper alloy, beryllium being the common choice for the seat material or valve damage will result. Maybe the valves they use are coated with something, I certainly don't know. The only use of titanium for sub hulls (to my knowledge) has been the Russian fast attacks boats and that was to attempt to defeat magnetometer detection (P3 Orion), not necessarily crew life expectancy. Even there, the hull only experiences compression loading. | ||
| Classax |
What this means is that the current engine is 150 HP motor. Any numbers above that are truly exceptional or more likely false. I have an RX that posted 165HP AT THE REAR WHEEL, and know of at least four moe that have done near the same or better. So I don't think its the exception I think it just may be near the peak. To quote Jonathon Reah "No electronics are better than bad electronics". An ECU that is trying to provide TC and Wheelie control(the additional fuel load shifts CG rearward and is requiring really stiff springs, set softer for compliance that increases wheelie problems) that may be causing lean conditions can contribute considerably to increased temperatures, wear and ultimately reduce component life. I don't disagree, the intake port area profile on the ET-VT does seem counter intuitive to what I would expect. It does allow for outstanding fuel consumption rates in the 4.5k range, though it drops dramatically, scarily, are you serious, you gotta to be kidding me low, at redline. 4.5 k in 5th gear is right at 70mph. Moreover the old aviation trick of staggered valve opening helps squeeze out excellent combustion efficiency but the machine appears to be designed for the person who will ride it at 9/10ths rather than the 12/10ths racing demands. The team manager after the first round if I recall, or at least really early on stated the heads were too restrictive in flow for racing. I would also venture to say that despite the fact that the heads(and by extension the entire engine) are stressed members and stabilized by frame, I think its still not enough to stem cylinder deformation under high load at High RPM's for extended periods of time. To what degree this is happening at the WSBK level and the impact it has had on failures is beyond what we are able to see. If bore and stroke remain the same, Ti rods really don't buy you enough additional high rpm stability, and performance to warrant the increase in cost to the street bikes. I don't think durability will be an issue with them, although I'm not sure they would really excel in the life of a street/track day bike. The jury is still out on the long-term durability of the Panigale which has major service at... hmmm 15K miles. I personally don't think I would install them if they came out as part of a race kit, even though I track my RX regularly. Despite all its challenges vs the current crop of competitors the ET-VT is an amazing engine that still runs like a traditional twin and for the vast majority of owners delivers far more power than they can safely access. I'm always happy to have more power but not at the expense of losing its current character. (Message edited by Classax on June 26, 2014) | ||
| Gregtonn |
First, you can forget the ECU as the problem. it isn't. And your basis for that statement is? Did you have a Magneti Marelli ECU to analize? Did your hobby analysis of the ECU take into account that the MM ECU was designed for ride-by-wire throttle control and the EBR is not ride-by wire? Or that the EBR uses "normal" injectors and secondary "shower head" injectors for fueling? How does the MM ECU deal with throttle positioning on a non-ride-by-wire engine? How does MM deal with traction control in that situation? Cut fueling? Cut spark? Change timing? What else might you be missing? G | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I don't believe he was missing anything. More, he was saying the engine top end is the limiting factor. This irrespective of how problematic or not the ECU may be, thus rendering the ECU a lesser issue if you like. Rocket in England | ||
| Riohondohank |
"I have an RX that posted 165HP AT THE REAR WHEEL, and know of at least four moe that have done near the same or better. So I don't think its the exception I think it just may be near the peak. " What kind of Dyno? It is been about 10 years since I have had any direct dyno experiance, but at one time Dynojet dynos gave readings about 15 % higher than Factory Pro. Maybe it has changed. I put my trust in Factory Pro for true rear wheel readings. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Whatever the dyno in question, the 1190RX came close to the Panigale. Nobody seems to doubt the Ducati's horsepower. 165 HP for a different 1190RX doesn't seem at all unreasonable. Cycle World comparison:  | ||
| Hughlysses |
The cylinder head has an intake port area way too large for the displacement. The cross sectional area of the port actually becomes larger as the port progresses to the inlet valves. It should in fact become smaller creating a venturi effect. The net result is a lazy port with very poor velocity. This effects combustion efficiency and causes high fuel consumption. This why EBR now has a cam that opens the inlet valves in a staggered fashion. Considering that the bike gets 51 MPG in the EPA cycle and has amazingly good exhaust emissions, that doesn't back up the above statement at all. Have you actually seen the RX heads or are these statements based on the RS heads? Maybe they've changed. There is more to the 1190RX's intake swirl than just the staggered intake valve opening. Slide from the unveiling at Orlando last October:  | ||
| Rsh |
The original 1125 engine had a claimed 146hp and made approximately 128 rwhp. The engine size increase to 1190 in the Rx added in round numbers 65cc's to the displacement and a claimed peak of 185hp, this was a 10hp increase over the RS. The only dyno numbers I have seen for the RX were in Cycle World magazine and they measured 161.2 rwhp. May be the engine does not have much more to give reliably, as you can see with Geoff and Aaron riding the crap out of them and either blowing up, crashing out or having some other type of problem. Cycle world lists the top speed of the RX at 167mph, someone said that was a track top speed. The test track (Spring Mountain East Loop) top speed was also listed, 143.8mph on the main straight and 126.5mph on the second straight and added the EBR seemed geared for the track. | ||
| Classax |
The same Dynojet a 2013 ZX10r threw down 162hp and a 2014 S1kR threw down 181hp on back to back on the same day. Are we really going to argue the power numbers because of minor variances in dynos too. Those numbers are consistent with what we have seen around the country for those bikes in the last couple of years, so there's no reason to feel that they are not acceptable norms. That's part of what leads me to believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Hero team's set up, because they should be right there with the Kawi EVO's on power. But they CLEARLY aren't. So either the EBRs are having major problems or the EVO's ain't as floor stock as some would like to believe. Based on the gap I'd say its a mix of both. To what degree of each remains to be seen. Like I said I agree the heads could be more stable, and free flowing but the reality is its going to be very tough to get ole school V2 engine character and architecture to run with the current crop of electronically governed I4s. I count the 1199 in that group because it rides just like one. I still think ECU has a tremendous impact on performance and longevity. As an aside, With the rules going to all ride by wire I'm glad I bought one while it still has good ole fashioned cables. Only the RSV4 has a system that feels as good, I can't stand the super light feel of RWB on the 1199/899 and the MV F3 800 was even worse. | ||
| Classax |
May be the engine does not have much more to give reliably, as you can see with Geoff and Aaron riding the crap out of them and either blowing up, crashing out or having some other type of problem. Cycle world lists the top speed of the RX at 167mph, someone said that was a track top speed. The test track (Spring Mountain East Loop) top speed was also listed, 143.8mph on the main straight and 126.5mph on the second straight and added the EBR seemed geared for the track. Couple quick things. 1 I've logged over 177mph on GPS before running out of courage and road well before running out of RPMs. 2 Even a fairly slow 167mph is about 268kph which is still faster than the 261kph season high of May in WSBK. 3 Corey West drafted at 198mph at Daytona Conclusion there are MAJOR engine issues in WSBK. If you tell me its because the WSBK EBR are 20-30lbs heavier, I'd still have a hard time believing a race prepped balanced and blueprinted machine can't cope with the few extra pounds. | ||
| Rsh |
1. The physics involved of a rider weighing almost 250Lbs to achieve 177mph on a 450Lb RX does not add up. 2. The top speed Cycle World measured for a production RX doesn't have anything to do with the top track speed of Geoff May. 3. Cory's Daytona draft speed was 5 to 8 mph slower than the top factory Yamaha's or Suzuki's. I agree there is something up with EBR's WSBK program. | ||
| Stevel |
Honda back in the late 60s determined their 750 four required 7 rwhp to go 60 mph and 49 rwhp to go 120 mph. I believe Classax went 170 mph. It passes the test of reasonableness. Given a mile plus long, flat asphalt straight road, that speed is possible, However, whatever that power number was, it takes a lot more to do that same speed on a 1/4 mile straight on a race track. What we know is that EBR SB RX is 25-30 mph short of their competition. What I have stated is what I know, not what someone told me. I took the time and effort to disassemble, measure and analyze. It is not second hand data. I measured and compared the stock 1125, the 1125rr and the 1190RS. I reported what I discovered. The RX is still a mystery to me. Until one of you takes an RX apart and measures it up, it will remain a mystery. Classax, you have an RX, take it apart and measure it. If you don't know how, contact me and I'll tell you. If you feel you don't have the facility, I'll do it for you and report back what I found. Anything less is conjecture and unadulterated BS at best. I may never achieve the magical 200 hp number, but I will make it much better than it is. Whatever my results are, I will report them back to this forum. What is very clear is that further development is either not happening or stalled. | ||
| Stevel |
I for one dislike the direction that WSB is going as relating to what we ride on the street. Under no circumstances am I willing to release throttle control to a computer. I have suffered far too much road rash in the past to allow that. I have owned and ridden many bikes in my time, including many two strokes and inline fours. Now they were entertaining in their own right, but the wide torque curve of the four stroke twin has been the most rewarding and pleasant driving experiences I have had. I have no wish to give up those characteristics for the sake of ultimate horsepower. I think the Buell 1125/1190 twins are the best example available, but they need help. They puke fuel through them and make very poor mileage. You all ride Buells, but I see 30 mpg on my stock 1125r. It has very poor power below 3500 rpm and in traffic, is actually unpleasant to ride. I am absolutely certain that these faults can be resolved without losing the great performance above 4000 rpm at road speed that it currently has. Personally, engine speeds above 10,500 are unnecessary for the street and very expensive to support, as they have a large effect on durability. My development will concentrate on drivability, throttle response and available torque between 2000 and 10,500. Another area that deserves attention is in the area of heat management. It is terrible on the 1125. It does appear that Eric has made significant improvements with the RX. I will try to carry those changes to my modified bike when completed. | ||
| Classax |
My bike has been the subject of a lot of measurement already and I can tell you your cylinder wall instability observation is not far off spot on. Again being they are secured by the frame there is actually much less of it than the free standing design suggest. Fuel economy is less than I'd like but more than I have a right to expect. This bike will happily cruise over 110 and not even seem stressed. In fact it's not a very intimidating machine at all. So you tend to ride WAY faster than you think. When I slow it down to just above posted speeds economy is in the mid to lower 40mpg. In no ticket territory you can see about 50mpg. You'll feel like you're walking but you're actually quite quick. One thing I will say, I personally wouldn't sacrifice the RX's ability to seamlessly go from giant scooter to highend superbike for WSBK wins. I've ridden the RSV4 and 1199 in street guise and on track. Both may only be a hair quicker in the hands of a pro, but for me they're both too manic while doing so. The gps says I'm quicker around my local tracks on the RX. Perhaps because its not the white knuckled experience you get from the other two(or maybe I'm scared of wadding someone else's bike). It could be that EBR has built a world class superbike that simply isn't a world beating racer. I've repeatedly outlined why I think we haven't seen the EBRs in WSBK at their best yet. Still if I were going to buy a machine to go WSBK racing it'd be a RSV4. For on the street and occasional trackday? EBR RX all day long! Suits my body and riding style best. | ||
| Trojan |
Did your hobby analysis of the ECU take into account that the MM ECU was designed for ride-by-wire throttle control and the EBR is not ride-by wire? Or that the EBR uses "normal" injectors and secondary "shower head" injectors for fueling? How does the MM ECU deal with throttle positioning on a non-ride-by-wire engine? How does MM deal with traction control in that situation? Cut fueling? Cut spark? Change timing? What else might you be missing? The MM ECO software is fully progarammable for any and pretty much all engine configurations and injector variations. EBR are not alone in having secondary injectors (I think Suzuki started it around 15 years ago). Likewise ride by wire. The rules allow bikes not originally fitted with RBW to be retrofitted for racing. Honda do this and have no real problems (although they have had other electronics problems of course). The weak link can only be in the human who is programming the ECU in the first place surely, as the unit only does what you tell it to do? I tend to agree that the problem isn't ECU other wise we would be seeing other team susing the same unit also having problems (they don't). I think that the engine is probably at the limit of its tuning potential, given that it is already an old motor that has been 'updated' with larger bores etc. Just because the road bike can make 165bhp doesn't mean that there is another 40bhp available to be had (unlike some of the other engines which are actually 'detuned' for road use, so are easily capable of reaching 200bhp+ in Superbike format. | ||
| Hughlysses |
The weak link can only be in the human who is programming the ECU in the first place surely, as the unit only does what you tell it to do? I think that's what we mean (I do anyway) when we say Team Hero/EBR may be having ECM issues. I.E.- There is nothing inherently wrong with the device, it's just that the team can't figure out how to set it up correctly. | ||
| Classax |
The weak link can only be in the human who is programming the ECU in the first place surely, as the unit only does what you tell it to do? I don't think anyone thinks its the ECU hardware. Getting the 1s and 0s to do exactly what you want takes dedicated talent and experience. One engine builder gone, (May's) and finally he makes a start in two races. Based on what racers did with the 1125 engines the 1190 big bore kits reliably throw down close to 190hp at the crank. So that's without any of the improvements the RS/RX engines bring so I don't think 200hp is out of reach but it may also be the hard ceiling for the current design. | ||
| Stevel |
What I have not stated is that there are signs of valve to piston contact with the intake valve. The collision is occurring on the edge of the valve pocket at the cylinder side. In static state, there is more than 1mm of edge clearance. This is certainly adequate. This is with a 1190 racing head. The piston was a little loose in the bore and the piston appears to have been made of AL2618. This material is fairly common for racing pistons, but its expansion coefficient is a little more than you would want to use on the street. I personally would prefer AL4032, which I believe is what the stock piston is made from. In any case even this slight looseness was not sufficient to cause the contact. There are two possibilities, as to the cause. First would be the unstable bore as previously mentioned and the second potential cause is that the engine is a structural member of the frame and maybe this stress is causing engine case distortion. It is most likely that both are somewhat contributing to the problem. In any case, I want to weld up the cylinder's open deck and machine the water ports where they are required. This will cause some distortion of course and I'm not certain I will be successful, but it is worth a try. The result will be much stiffer and more stable cylinder and bore. This is why I asked to buy an unmachined raw cylinder casting.............. I never got an answer. I have similar major surgery for the cylinder head intended, as well as a new piston design in mind. Hopefully, these mods will reverse the identified faults. I have also plotted all the cams in use. I will not post the racing cam specs, but I will state that the stock intake cams have a 60 degree closing point ABDC (@ 1mm) and an exhaust opening point ATDC of 60 degrees. Tightening these up somewhat will really help bottom end torque and reduce valve train stress, which is excessive when opening the exhaust valve under cylinder pressure. At the same time it will allow a reduction of the excessively high static compression ratio again reducing cylinder head heating and engine stress. My discovered valve timing appears to reflect American drag racing philosophy, not circle track high durability thinking and our observed WSB results only reinforce this perception. | ||
| Trojan |
I want to weld up the cylinder's open deck and machine the water ports where they are required. Which of course you cannot do in WSB (and shouldn't have to either). | ||
| Hughlysses |
Could you legally machine and press in inserts to accomplish the same thing (assuming they would accomplish the desired result)? | ||
| Stevel |
H, Perhaps welding in short bridges might help, but how do you do that and still preserve the bore? Correctly done, you should do this before the final bore, plate and hone. I have heard of others using spacers with retention screws from the outside. This would preserve the bore as well. I heard it was successful, but I don't think the engine case was under structural stress. |
