| Author | Message | ||
     Classax |
All I know is there are a lot of club racers who put huge money into RC8R, 1098, and 1198 RACE bikes only to see the dyno spin just under or right at what an RX makes bone stock. If you're talking ole school big torque V2 power delivery the 1190 is tough to match and even harder to beat. | ||
| Stevel |
Gregtonn, When you post quoting external sources of data, you have no control of its accuracy. Your last post is no exception. Even the reporter that you quoted is quoting someone else's statement. On the other hand, when I post something, it is first hand data that I derived myself with my own observations, measurement tools and equipment and I try very hard to identify data that I do not know first hand. You do this community no good by propagating BS. Until you disassemble 1125, RS and RX engines and actually observe the differences yourself, you really don't know anything. I have disassembled 1190RS engines and physically held factory race parts in hand, but I DO NOT KNOW anything about the RX. I can however make some very educated guesses. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Stevel, The person being quoted in the article is Tony Stefanelli Director of Product Development at EBR. I suspect he may know what he is talking about regarding the RX engine design. Unfortunately developing the 1125 engine is likely a dead end. That was a Buell engine and thus under the control of Harley Davidson not EBR. I understand why it is difficult to get "hard parts" for it. Selling "hard parts" or releasing prints is likely in violation of EBR's Do Not Compete agreement. For EBR and any vendors involved it would be stepping a murky legal swamp populated by rabid lawyers. I also understand that you are frustrated so I'll ignore the "propagating BS" comment. When HD yanked the rug out from under Erik Buell he landed on his feet and hit the ground running, not everyone was able to do that. G | ||
| Stevel |
G, You clearly don't get it. The EBR RX motor is not a different engine from 1125 full stop. The RX does use different ancillary equipment like throttle bodies, exhaust etc. and it does use a different piston, but most of the engine parts are interchangeable with the 1125. I would identify the 1190 as a configuration change, not a new motor. I agree with your admiration of Eric Buell, as most folks here do. He went through a lot and survived, but please put that success story aside. EBR has not, to anyone's first hand knowledge, changed the design of any of the engine castings. Tony Stefanelli is probably an exceptional individual. I certainly do not know otherwise, but he is far from a disinterested, unbiased party. The success of the RX is critical to the future of EBR and embellishment of reality is not beyond the realm of possibility. Eric has most of his beans in this basket and Tony works for Eric. At the moment, without disassembly, I must remain a doubting Thomas. You must also admit that the performance in WSB and independent testing has not helped credibility with the stated power of the RX. | ||
| Classax |
At the moment, without disassembly, Buy a bike and tear it down. problem solved. I must remain a doubting Thomas. You DON'T HAVE to, you CHOOSE to. Big difference, and as I recall Thomas had to eat his words when he finally got a chance to handle what the other disciples had been telling him all along. I'm just saying. You must also admit that the performance in WSB The only thing we can glean from WSBk aside from the engines will blow up if stick them in the wrong gear at red line and 210HP is just barely enough to get you on the grid, thus far is: A: The team has struggled with ECU set up. B. The Team has struggled with how correctly assemble the engines on a least one bike and fired an engine builder and has not had the same issues since. C. The near street component engines simply aren't up to the task of the race homologated superbike kit parts being run on other factory teams. D. A $50K machine competing against $140K EVO Kawis and $400K plus RSV4 and Kawi superbikes has a snowball chance in summer of running at the front. E. Mid level pace AMA riders, as amazing as they are, simply aren't on the same planet as the aliens who run at the front in WSBk F. 210 BHP suberbikes, vs " EVO's" that are supposedly stock yet produce more BHP than any stock machines I've seen, yet right in line with bikes with factory race kits leads me to believe EBR needs to release a "stock" race kit for their machines as well. G.WSBK performance has nearly no correlation to real world performance other than to see what the engines can do at the extreme upper end of abuse. People who think anymore are being delusionally naive. and independent testing has not helped credibility with the stated power of the RX. So far every dyno test published including my own puts the RX in the 160-167rwhp range with given standards of transmission efficiency means its making between 183-188 hp at the crank. I don't work for EBR, CycleWorld doesn't. GOE EBR, Cycle City and a few other dealers do but the dyno sheets are there for anyone to review. Seems like their stated numbers are right on the money. Part of EBR having to start over meant that although the Helicon was the design basis they have developed it into something more than just a big bore iteration of the same engine. Call it Gen 2 if you have two but having seen both engines side by side, the 1190 is NOT a big bore 1125. Even if it were, EBR is under no obligation to help you or anyone else use their research and development dollars and IP to support your own private/commercial "hobby" operations. 1} | ||
| D_adams |
I'd bet not.
Dude, seriously, his name is EriK (with a K, not a c) get it right.
I'm currently waiting on a response from the factory on this, I will update later. Regarding Tony, I've only spoke with him once. Yep, pretty nice guy, I also doubt he'd be where he is if he wasn't pretty damn smart.
What's being embellished? Power numbers? I have an RX, it makes 162 hp at the wheel, which is right in line with what I expected. Can it make more? Yep. How much remains to be seen, but the bike I bought is a STREET bike that can be taken to the track and raced, so reliability is more of a concern to a street rider. I expect it to last quite a while, EBR apparently does as well since it came with a 2 year, UNLIMITED mileage warranty. I'm pretty sure they don't want to rebuild a bunch of motors under warranty, they built them to last and I expect nothing less. Can we dispense with the whining now? | ||
| Court |
>>>>I agree with your admiration of Eric Buel His name is . . . and has been for 63 years . . . ERIK. >>>Seems like their stated numbers are right on the money. That's accurate. >>>>EBR is under no obligation to help you or anyone else use their research and development dollars and IP to support your own private/commercial "hobby" operations Accurate and commercially/legally prudent. Not only are they under no obligation but to deal with "hobby" operations incurs potential liability. I have a shelf of unopened boxes from folks who have sent me their "better ideas" over the years. I once had a fellow strike up a cordial conversion only, 5 minutes later, to hand me a set of what he described as technical drawing describing "improvements Buell could make". I politely handed them back. There was a time, in the auto industry, that was a bit of a game . . a dangerous one. This does not mean there are not professional development partners deeply involved as Buell has been in the past . . doing engineering for other entities. (I'm talking well before HD ever entered into the picture) >>>Tony Stefanelli is probably an exceptional individual. Very accurate. Tony is a brilliant engineer. Sharp minds know his background in auto racing and engine development. | ||
| D_adams |
The answer is yes, the castings are different. My source on this is impeccable, it IS first hand knowledge now. 2nd hand via me, but I know for a FACT that the castings are different. I also asked (just to clarify) what engines are being used. The WSBK are RX engines, although they are modified. Pegram's bike at Laguna is also an RX engine, I had seen it listed as an RS at some point. | ||
| Jdugger |
> but most of the engine parts are > interchangeable with the 1125 > I'd bet not. There's a decent amount of interchangeability, in truth. I, too, have now been through both motors and can definitely say there's a lot in common between them. Obviously the top end is almost all totally new parts, but the bottom is where you might feel right at home. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Sure; and you could trace the roots of the Sportster derived mill of the XBs all the way back to the 1952 K model Harleys. That doesn't mean a Firebolt engine was just an improved K model engine. The difference being decades and technological advancement. The Helicon on the other hand hasn't been around more than five minutes compared to the venerable Sportster engine, so hardly a comparison able to prove your point. Just saying..... Rocket in England | ||
| Jens |
Don´t forget to mention the new oil filler cap! | ||
| Gregtonn |
The "venerable" Sportster engine has a new oil filler cap?! Wow! I'm impressed! G | ||
| Fresnobuell |
As I am sure it has been mentioned, ol' EriK Buell himself was at Laguna Seca. We had the privilege of speaking with the MAN for about 10 minutes, mostly about the challenges of WSBK. He basically said the Italians were not listening to Geoff about suspension issues (not sure if electronics were mentioned, I was drinking.) Since the Italian crew has experience on the European circuits and Geoff didn't, the Italians setup the bike like they thought it should be, ignoring the rider input. Of course with no data on the circuits, it was hard to convince the Italians of their error(s). But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see there is/was a problem as the EBRs have been consitently 4-5 seconds down per lap from the front runners. Anyhow, Erik was excited at returning to a track where the 1190 had some data from past races. Finally, they had "proof" as Geoff was a second slower a couple weekends ago than when he ran with the AMA at Laguna. Hard to refute the fact something is seriously wrong when you are a second slower with a superior machine and electronis aids. Disclaimer: I have not personally looked at the lap times, just relaying the conversation with EB. | ||
| Classax |
Man that's three strikes for the Italians. 1)Always listen to the rider on set up. 2) The 1190/1125r are very sensitive to suspension settings, particularly in the rear. 3) The 1190/1125r doesn't necessarily adapt well to conventional settings from other bikes. | ||
| Hootowl |
"3) The 1190/1125r doesn't necessarily adapt well to conventional settings from other bikes." Different in every sense. | ||
| Stevel |
D-, What castings are different and what are the changes? | ||
| Gregtonn |
http://www.crash.net/wsbk/interview/203844/1/scott -smart-wsbk-technical-director-qa.html Crash.net interview with Scott Smart. It's looong._G Scott Smart (WSBK Technical Director) Q&A It's been a rollercoaster six months for Scott Smart. Leaving Assen at end of the British Championship round in September, he thought he had two remaining rounds to race before the season ended. Not so. A chance meeting with Paul Bird's team saw him drafted into the English MotoGP team as Michael Laverty's crew chief for three rounds. He was then recruited by Gregorio Lavilla in the off-season to become World Superbike Technical Director at a transitional time for the series when new technical regulations are being established for 2015. Crash.net spoke to Scott about his turbulent winter, his new role and the direction World Superbike rules are taking for the following year. Crash.net: First of all Scott I heard you got a nasty injury skiing over the off-season. How are you holding up? Scott Smart: Well I had already done a deal for next year in British Superbikes with TAG Kawasaki. Then this job opportunity came along and I spoke with TAG. They said 'It's a great opportunity, you should take it.' I'm still working closely with them. I was still supposed to be preseason testing and riding their bikes but I'm just at the keyboard, doing electronics. In the meantime, having ridden bikes for eighteen to twenty years, I've broken a few bits but nothing too serious. I then broke my neck snowboarding so I had a broken in half C7 and a broken T4 but I picked myself up, flew back to the UK and after two days drove myself to the hospital. Then I ended up strapped to a bed for three days. It was just as well I did because it could have got really messy. At Phillip Island I was the only person in the paddock with a big neck brace on so I couldn't hide. Anyone in the paddock looking for the new technical director just had to look for the guy in the neck brace. What an introduction! Luckily three weeks ago I had the brace taken off and was given the all clear. I'm not allowed to actively do anything stupid. Passive stupidity is apparently allowed! Crash.net: So how did the position of technical director come about? Scott Smart: I've known Gregorio [Lavilla, WSBK Sporting Director] for a long time doing the British Superbike Championship and we always ended up parked next to each other. I was the person that proposed the current British Superbike rules a fair few years ago. I was the one rider allowed to come and argue at the technical and team's meetings. That was obviously down to Stuart Higgs and Jonathan Palmer to say 'yes' or 'no' so I wrote the initial rules package and then amended it for the first couple of years. That was my introduction into being involved with writing rules. Gregorio knew that and we had some important discussions. The aim is to set out your stall with what you want to achieve and then there's a continuous case of negotiation so you need to push very hard in your first year with a strict rule book and then you can compromise a little bit in the second season and develop the rules package to be fair to everyone in the championship. I'm in Spain quite a bit and I talk with Greg on Skype calls, just running ideas past each other. They suggested I come and work in 2015/16 with the current technical guys Steve Whitelock and Fabio Fazi [former WSBK Technical Directors] because a lot of my background is in electronics of the bikes. I make wiring harnesses and set up ECUs so I understand how they work. It's a current level of technology that's only been around for seven or eight years since fuel injected bikes came and traction control arrived when Pirelli did so with the control tyre. So it's quite a contemporary science and they felt I'd be able to bring something to the championship with my knowledge there. Through the winter the championship went separate ways with the current technical guys, which is a shame because Steve Whitelock was my dad's technical guy back in the 70s. I knew him since I was a kid – I think he was the first guy to take me to the cinema. I got a phone call from Greg saying, 'OK, so we've gone our separate ways… Can you start Monday?' This was the tenth of December [2013] and I said no, I had a British Superbike ride. Greg then gave me one of those 'talkings to' that Greg does. After a ten minute monologue I was like, 'I'm doing it then, am I?' That was me, flying off to Geneva to start working on the rules. Crash.net: Has it been an intense period of adaptation considering you've only been in the job a couple of months? Scott Smart: It's been a baptism of fire but the rulebook is something I understand. The other aspects of the job are more difficult. Like how technical control works and managing all the pit lane marshals. I didn't know that many people here in the organisational side. Additionally I would have spent more time in the homologation process in the office in Barcelona but with a broken neck I only got permission to fly the day before I went to Australia. If you're going to make stuff difficult for yourself come and ask me for tips! There have been rule changes for the teams [for 2014] so communicating some of that has been hard but everybody is learning. Phillip Island is always a difficult one as it sits a long way earlier than other championships start. Everybody is just ready – they haven't studied the rulebook. Communicating and educating the teams with regard to the new tyre limits, how the tyre limits work, we changed the sealing procedure of the motors so it's stricter. All those aspects were definitely a learning process. Crash.net: There are nine different manufacturers on the grid for 2014 and at Phillip Island there were five different manufacturers in the top six in race one. As an outsider looking in everything seems in order. Why the need to push for further change? Scott Smart: There are quite a lot of needs. One of the most important things is the introduction of 'Evo' – that's why the grid is so healthy. It gives the teams that want to come and race in World Superbike the option to be competitive. With the technical level that it's been we're talking MotoGP level electronics, very highly tuned engines. It's not something you can do unless you buy an existing set of knowledge and a team. That accessibility kept the grid smaller. As you can see 'Evo' instantly doubled the grid numbers. What's interesting is that some of the 'Evo' bikes are going as fast if not faster as those teams did with the 'Open' rules they were using last year. Those 'Open' rules leave so much room for improvement but so much room for error as well. Some aspects, particularly electronics, are so overly competitive that they never stood a chance of being competitive. That need is to keep the cost down. The world economy is pretty bad and it's meant the main budget has been focussed on the teams at the front. It's been difficult for other teams to realistically get a budget. If you look at other championships with a much more accessible level of technology that has swelled the grids as you stand a chance of being competitive without having to spend millions of pounds. For sure it's never cheap when you have to send teams around the world and it is the world championship so the level would never go down to the level of national championships but it's important for the FIM and Dorna to make a rulebook here that some of the national championships can adopt again. Crash.net: There is a great deal of disparity between the national superbike series' rules. Is that something you are looking to address in the near future? Scott Smart: The variety of rules around the world has grown. If you go back to the 70s superbikes were the same everywhere. The factory teams sold their bikes to teams in domestic series, they got handed down and there was a nice supply of equipment. Now that doesn't happen as the Italian championship is practically Superstock, the German is Superstock chassis with completely open electronics, the British championship is the one success story. The Australian series is down to two or three rounds next season, the AMA is down to five rounds – all with different engine and electronics rules. There's no economy of scale for the manufacturers to develop stuff. If we can get the engine and electronics rules closer, when a manufacturer has to make an engine kit and they're making it for a market of 50 to 100 teams that works. If it's for one factory team it means no one else is going to have access to the parts. There were a lot of proposals on how to move forward this year. Initially it was suggested factory teams should provide six bikes so those bikes could be bought or leased by teams down the field. Almost like the production Honda in MotoGP. It was such a difficult rule to manage as the teams here are still run by independent teams. We introduced 'Evo' and we're going to bring it up and Superbike down to meet in the middle for next season and go back to one class. It's better for the public watching but without trying to disadvantage any manufacturer. Crash.net: How do you feel the 'Evo' rules have affected the show so far? Scott Smart: You have two different philosophies on who should be competitive. You have one camp who say 'If a bike comes along with super-trick bit one, everyone should be allowed the super trick bit one. If another bike comes out with super-trick bit B everyone's allowed it.' That goes to the highest common denominator of equipment, which is where we're at now. In BSB we took away all those strategies and went to the lowest common denominator and it worked well. But it doesn't work for the manufacturers, as they still want to develop stuff. So we need to find a level in the middle that can give everybody a reasonable chance of success. Of course you have the other camp that say 'If you have an eight year old motorcycle why on earth should it be competitive against a bike that was released last year and has all the latest technology?' If you look at the homologation some of the bikes in this championship are getting quite elderly but they're still near the front. If you look at the newest bike, the HP4 BMW it's not necessarily dominating. So there's one group that says 'Why should that be the case?' That's fine as it makes great racing. At the end of the day we're all coming to watch great racing but there has to be a balance in there and it has been achieved. The technical rules here have made a brilliant balance for equality but by doing it to the highest level so it excluded the guys from the midfield to the back. We need to make it an inclusive class, not an exclusive class. Crash.net: How has it been managing manufacturers' needs? Scott Smart: That's politics. As a bike racer politics isn't high on my priorities. In the first meetings it was entertaining. There were a lot of manufacturers fighting – and rightly so – for what they need for their team. However as the person sitting in the middle you have to stop talking about little things. You're walking that tightrope of keeping everybody happy but you're not going to do that, as every manufacturer when you interview them will focus purely on the bad for them. The good thing is I'm pretty familiar with all the engines and the bikes out there – I've ridden a few of them and my team working with me have experience building engines. I have a fairly good idea of what people need and don't need. Crash.net: There have been interesting developments with Bimota joining the championship in 2014 regarding homologation numbers. Can you expand on that? Scott Smart: In essence the numbers have halved but the market place has halved from what it was five or six years ago, in both Supersport and 1000 categories. But there is a disparity between the numbers Honda would do for a Fireblade versus the smaller, more niche market places. For example Ducati in the UK are able to sell more 25-30,000 pound bikes than 12,000 pound bikes. On the flip side Kawasaki are able to sell 12,000 pound bikes and don't even have a 35,000 pound bike. By reducing the number of machines that needed to be homologated we needed to not allow the opportunity for manufacturers to produce a very low volume of machines that has a GP frame or engine. So we introduced a price limit, which is high, but you can't exclude bikes that are already in homologation and in use. We spent a lot of time trying to find a balance. Some think the level is too high, others are happy with it. It's a win – almost win situation. Previously we had bikes that run in the championship that may not have met previous homologation requirements. Petronas is still discussed today as is the Benelli Tornado. We want to avoid that so we've allowed the introduction of bikes on short notice so the Bimota is here. They haven't produced the 125 bikes needed for the initial homologation to be stamped and signed. However they have to meet all the other requirements: they have a bike, samples of all the parts, dimensions, drawings, everything we need. But not 125 bikes in a room to count. Until that happens they aren't allowed to score points. For us that's a fair balance. All the while Bimota are producing the BB3 they're going to be selling them out the door so it's hard to keep them in one place at one time to stamp the homologation. We've tried to make it so we can get new bikes in the championship. On the one hand we're pleased but others aren't pleased saying that it's a loophole – it's not a loophole. If you don't produce 125 bikes in four months you won't be scoring points. The three groups, the FIM, MSMA and DWO will meet to discuss their future. DWO, which is Dorna, promoter and owner of the championship, will meet to make a sensible decision. Crash.net: Bimota, along with Buell and MV, have all joined the World Superbike series for 2014. Have any other manufacturers shown an interest in joining in 2015? Scott Smart: A couple have approached Dorna. We obviously have one big manufacturer that isn't here so we're hoping to entice the remainder back. If we can look at next season with ten manufacturers on the grid I think we've done a good job in the technical and political arena. If it provides close racing hopefully we'll put the championship back to where it was in its heyday. Crash.net: With the proposed changes in place at the start of 2015 do you foresee a certain drop in lap times? Scott Smart: I don't think there will be. There were teams last year using quite an incredible number of engines. If you look at the limited number of engines for this season, they've actually gone up one or two horsepower from last year. They've been working so hard knowing the regulations are coming. Going to a much more 'Evo' based rulebook, I think the horsepower is going to drop for sure. Some of the engines are going to lose 20 horsepower, others six or seven. It should be fairly equal in terms of horsepower so I don't think lap times will go down by very much. All the time we're improving the tyres, set up is always improving, there are lots of improvements that are going to off set the tightening of the rules. Maybe in a year we'll be looking at a few tenths slower or half a second. It certainly won't be a second a lap slower. My hope is that the guys that are 22nd on the grid are going to be much closer to that lap time. That's something apparent in British Superbikes. We went from a six second gap, where you're pushing the 107 percent rule, to one second back to 15th. That's the aim. Crash.net: When the 'Evo' rules were announced some of the critics said it would lead to all of the smaller/private teams using two or three of the manufacturers with the latest bikes, as you see in the Superstock class, lessening the diversity somewhat. How will you get around this? Scott Smart: That's a careful part of balancing the rules. Instantly 'Evo' favoured a couple of manufacturers this season. Some manufacturers offered a little more support so they [private / smaller teams] jumped in with them. The way we have the rules for next is that the slower road bikes will have the ability to get to a similar horsepower to favoured road bikes so it shouldn't work like that. With the best will in the world Superstock classes are more like that, there are always one or two manufacturers that dominate the championship because that's the current update road bike. Back to our philosophy thing, you have the 'make everybody even, have great racing' side and the 'if you've got a bad road bike why should you win?' side. Well Superstock 1000 is that [the latter]. We aim to keep a good balance between different manufacturers. Crash.net: One of the rumoured proposed changes is to allow teams with the older models to modify cam shafts and make other engine modifications… Scott Smart: Yes. There will be enough flexibility in the rules for next season and they'll be for one class. Crash.net: Are you reviewing the support classes or their roles at the moment? Scott Smart: The support classes won't be touched too much because at the moment we're working towards trying to understand the progression of riders through the championships. At the moment it's not that clear. You start at stock 600, you've got a pretty big choice to go Supersport 600 or 'stock 1000. Stock 1000 leads more naturally, at the moment, to Superbike than Supersport does. So if you go Supersport you might pigeonhole yourself but that might suit your style of riding. There isn't really a clear way through. We've been discussing rebalancing the rules to change the performance of the bikes to make sure there's a bit more of a tier structure. But at the same time we don't want to ruin it as there's no inch given in the Superstock 600 races and Supersport classes. Like in Phillip Island the Supersport race was fantastic, you didn't even know who would make it to the finish, never mind win. Crash.net: You could always make every race five laps… Scott Smart: [laughs] That was just the way it fell but it was a good race up until that point too! At the moment we've got a lot of teams running different budgets being fairly competitive so we'd like to introduce a few things that will stop any aspects blossoming or getting out of control. That's under discussion but won't necessarily be in next year's rules. We're in discussion with quite a lot of Supersport teams to get their opinions because there's no point dictating to them. They're all here doing the job so their opinion is exceedingly important. At the same these teams can't dictate what the championship is doing because someone has to make a final decision. That's how other successful championships work: you have your consultancy process and then you stick your marker in the sand [laughs]. Crash.net: When are we likely to have the rules for 2015 finalised? Scott Smart: The teams will be seeing it before the public because the process is, with the three bodies making the rules, everybody has to approve it before it can be published. The engine and chassis should be Tuesday [after the Aragon round] and the Wednesday after Assen should be the electronics rules. That will be internal to the paddock so if there are any loopholes or disasters within it the consultation process will ensue. Over the past few years different people have been involved in them so we want to put the wording in slightly more plain English and shorten them a little bit as they've got quite big. But when you live in a world with incredibly complicated electronics you do you still need a lot. Crash.net: How is it working with Gregorio Lavilla? Scott Smart: He stopped racing through injury, went to a meeting to help out and in the space of four meetings was effectively a team manager as his language skills are very good. He went to all the meetings for all the MotoGP classes and Javier Alonso [WSBK Executive Director] said 'I have a job for you next year!' It's great because the general director here is a year younger than me, Greg's a year or two older. So we're all within a few years of age. I think it's good because we know what our riders want because we were, we're not embittered about it yet, and we know what we need from the organising body because we've all been involved. Hopefully that gives us a balance. Crash.net: You spent some time at the end of 2013 working as Michael Laverty's crew chief in the Paul Bird MotoGP team. How did you end up there? Scott Smart: I get on really well with Michael as we raced together for years. It was bizarre. I was on the boat back from Assen having just crashed in the Supersport race there and Paul Bird's team said, 'Oi Smarty, what are you doing next weekend?' I told them I was having my first weekend off in literally two months. And they said 'No you aren't! You're getting on a plane on Tuesday, we need you!' So I alternated every weekend from Malaysia to BSB, then Japan to BSB but I missed out on the pit stop Australia race. Of all the races to miss! It was great working with Michael because when he started I was doing 500 grand prix and he was doing 125s in Joe Miller's team so we were effectively team-mates. I remember lending him my spare engine in Supersport once and he beat me with it so we nearly fell out at that juncture but it was good. I got to see a few different aspects, obviously coming from a riding background and having done a bit of crew chiefing. Crash.net: Is working as a crew chief something you can see yourself doing in the future again? Scott Smart: Probably not to honest. There are lots of other bits and pieces I intend to do. However I still want to get on a bike. I don't see myself doing a full season anytime soon though as this job is quite interesting and the rules are [changing] over the next couple of years. I do have a half mission to ride with the team I let down [TAG Racing] When you're the technical director you don't that much of a chance to watch the racing. That's the one bad thing in this job! You can't really see the races. When Gregorio and I walked on the grid at Phillip Island we looked at each other and [makes a frustrated face]. Half the grid were people we had been racing with so it's kind of funny. Crash.net: And finally Scott, looking ahead to the rest of 2014. Do you see anyone in WSBK standing heads and shoulders above the rest in the championship? Scott Smart: I don't know. I don't think anybody is going to stand head and shoulders above. That's brilliant. Where the bikes have changed for this year, I think we're going to see certain bikes better at certain tracks. The different characters of the bike come back so some are going to dominate the big, open tracks and others the tight and twisty tracks. For me that's quite fun. At Phillip Island you didn't really know [who was going to win] so hopefully it stays like that! Crash.net: Thanks for your time Scott. Scott Smart: No worries. | ||
| Classax |
...It's not something you can do unless you buy an existing set of knowledge and a team.... What's interesting is that some of the 'Evo' bikes are going as fast if not faster as those teams did with the 'Open' rules they were using last year. Those 'Open' rules leave so much room for improvement but so much room for error as well. Some aspects, particularly electronics, are so overly competitive that they never stood a chance of being competitive. Boy ain't that the truth! I really hope they can convince the tuning fork brigade to return to WSBK. | ||
| Hughlysses |
http://www.worldsbk.com/en/news/2014/Giulio+Bardi+ We+knew+that+it+was+going+to+be+a+challenge | ||
| Classax |
Now that the shop is slowly coming along with being able to work on the bikes between rounds and the Italians have been shown that the EBR suspension and engine are different animals than what they have encountered before. It wouldn't surprise me to see the team making SLIGHTLY more progress here in the second half. It's unfortunate they are having to develop the bike without the freedom to burn through engines other MFG's enjoyed in years past, but that's racing. | ||
| Hughlysses |
It's unfortunate they are having to develop the bike without the freedom to burn through engines other MFG's enjoyed in years past, but that's racing. You'd have to hope that the guys back at East Troy have been thrashing the living hell out of some 1190 engines on dynos and whatever tracks Cory has access to so that if they DO blow more engines, the replacements will be as bulletproof as humanly possible. | ||
| Buellmojo |
That there might very well be the problem...the engine is as bulletproof as possible already? The normal characteristics of the V2 engine is good for club racing, track days, and street, offering plenty of torque and mid range... yet at this level, to maintain the norm, is showing to be very stressful for the engine and components. I doubt Ducati and Aprilia truly wanted to go away from what their motorcycles were for many years, but to be competitive with the I4's of today, something had to change! EBR might need to take a look at a different direction, if they want to race at this level...keep the V2, but change the design to serve the purpose better. They have the SX, make the RX a more top level race friendly machine...or better yet, keep the RX the way it is, and redesign the RS for their racing needs. Just another low life, unsuccessful, normal persons opinion...sorry if anyone is offended by it, not my intention! (Message edited by buellmojo on August 13, 2014) | ||
| Aeholton |
EBR might need to take a look at a different direction, if they want to race at this level...keep the V2, but change the design to serve the purpose better. They have the SX, make the RX a more top level race friendly machine...or better yet, keep the RX the way it is, and redesign the RS for their racing needs. Not practical with homologation rules. | ||
| Classax |
That there might very well be the problem...the engine is as bulletproof as possible already? Possibly but I doubt it. The 1190RX makes more power than the RSV4, CBR1KRR, RC8R, R1 and GSXR in trim according to superstock rules. The Z10R, 1199, and S1kR edge it out on top but nowhere in the bottom to the middle. Yet in race spec with race trim with "hand selected factory parts" it seems all those machines are well over 210hp. It takes a ton of money, parts and head work to get to that level on the RSV4 and much less on the ZX10R. All the bikes on the grid except for the EBR are at least three year old designs with 3 years worth of development in the series. The design specs of the 1190 engine and cooling capacity suggests it should top out around 224.34HP at 11900rmp and redline at about 12700rpm, so on paper it has plenty of room to grow. What I suspect is that next year we won't see the ZX10R, GSXR, RSV4 or CBR making as big a HP gap on the EBR because of the rules changes. In the EBR you have an engine that makes big usable power but is also far greener than any before it. Once less eco friendly race oriented heads show up I think we will see some big gains in power. The normal characteristics of the V2 engine is good for club racing, track days, and street, offering plenty of torque and mid range... yet at this level, to maintain the norm, is showing to be very stressful for the engine and components. I doubt Ducati and Aprilia truly wanted to go away from what their motorcycles were for many years, but to be competitive with the I4's of today, something had to change! If you want go fast you have to make horsepower and that means revving higher OR harnessing torque and putting it to the ground for a better drive before you run out of revs. I think EBR has chosen the latter approach which may cut down on top speeds but eventually leads to equal or better lap times. I think EBR represents the last hoorah of the big bore V2 in racing at this level. The 1199 is perhaps the machine Erik always wanted to build but was never allowed to. Now that its here I'm kind of glad he didn't because the Panigale is a great machine in 15 to 20 minute spurts but a pain to maintain and work on with out a support crew and HORRID on the streets. The beloved 899 isn't much better. I think for us old school mid range junkies the 1190RX is a better weapon even if it won't ever get me on the podium at WSBK, but then again my superior lack of cash, talent, or bravery were already doing that, so there isn't much lost. | ||
| Bads1 |
The Rx doesn't make much more on the Dyno. I've seen a sheet or two and typically about 165 167 RWHP. | ||
| Diabuell |
"the 1190RX is a better weapon even if it won't ever get me on the podium at WSBK, but then again my superior lack of cash, talent, or bravery were already doing that, so there isn't much lost."\ I second that  } | ||
| Jscott |
Bimota suspended! http://www.worldsbk.com/en/news/2014/Bimota+suspen ded+from+further+WSBK+competition+in+2014 Maybe the Alstare dudes might be interested in running an EBR?  | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Let's hope Bimota get it sorted. The spirit of the competition is better for everyone if it's not just mass produced manufacturers who race when it suits them. We need smaller manufacturers to stir the pot, and public interest. Rocket in England | ||
| Hughlysses |
Rocket- I hate to see any manufacturer kicked out. OTOH, EBR obviously busted their butts to make the required production quota before they ever showed up, likely at the expense of having time to develop the race bikes. It wouldn't be fair to them to bend the rules for Bimota. OK- next race coming up. I am REALLY hoping we'll finally see a recognizable improvement from Team Hero/EBR, mainly because of what Erik says here: http://www.worldsbk.com/en/videos/2014/Erik%20Buel l%20on%20the%20EBR%20WSBK%20project What I get from what Erik says is that Pegram's success at Laguna Seca PROVED to the Italians running Team Hero/EBR that they have not been setting up the bikes correctly. They've had a long rest to mull that info over. (Were they able to do any sort of unofficial testing during this break?) If so, this might be the weekend that things finally turn in the right direction. Yes, I am the eternal optimist.  | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Does everything have to come back to EBR's plight? Bimota are not in the same league as EBR when it comes to production volume. Bimotas move is a bold one in its own right, though the task for them to reach even these few production numbers is monumental. As tough as it is for EBR to reach their quota I would doubt it would be anywhere near as hard a task as that of Bimota. Regardless, if the rules (or the organisers) were (even) more favourable it would not do other participants or the series any harm to allow an even broader level of lower volume manufacturers in. This my point entirely. Rocket in England |
