Foggys bike,old KR and the original kawasaki moto gp bike(this raced in the JSB series for 1 season when X formula bikes could race with the superbikes)
just a few scans from the old british racer magazine
the Foggy bike was so beautiful...
It is really too bad the Foggy-Petronas didn't do better than it did. It seems the switch to literbikes killed it, they were stuck with 900cc. Does anyone remember that the engine was an offshoot of an attempt to build a motorcycle engine by F1 team Sauber-Petronas? The original prototype was a dry sump IIRC and was extremely tall, unsuitable really for a motorcycle chassis.
Would still make a neat streetbike if they ever decided to actually sell something like it.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable will answer my old doubts about the Foggy-Petronas bike.
If I remember correctly some F1 engineers were hired to help design the engine and the frame, correct? Anyone remembers the names?
How were they capable to race in WSB for so long without having a single production bike to their credit?
Finally has anyone really bought any of the production bikes ASSUMED they ever rolled out of the factory?
Thanks.
A friend of mine at Recaro engineering in Shoreham (UK) worked on it, he was adamant that the engine should have been a full litre rather than the 900cc.
A friend of mine at Recaro engineering in Shoreham (UK) worked on it, he was adamant that the engine should have been a full litre rather than the 900cc.
But at the time it was conceived, triples were only allowed 900cc?
It would likely have been competitive against 750 fours, it didn't do so hot against the 999 though.
At first glance 3 cylinder configuration conjures up expectations of a
low weight high power engine but due to it's higher reciprocating
weight than a 4 cylinder competition... it has as yet to lived up the
promise...
Quote Comparison of Four Stroke MotoGP Engines (SAE 2004-01-3559),
both by G. Cantore and E. Mattarelli.
"After careful analysis of all factors, the engineers determined the
three-cylinder configuration to be the least advantageous for a number
of reasons. First, the lesser number of cylinders will mean larger and
heavier moving components (rods, pistons, valves), which limits the
maximum rpm range which the motor can reliably reach. This in turn
makes it difficult for the motor to produce an equal amount of
horsepower to the other configurations. Another problem comes from the
comparatively large bore of the three-cylinder - a larger bore means
that the combustion process takes longer and is more difficult to
properly manage, which makes it difficult to achieve the necessary
part-throttle rideability mentioned above, and also has a negative
affect on fuel consumption."
The main advantage of the three-cylinder configuration is the lower
overall weight limit if allowed by the rules committee...
Considering that the original Sauber engine was basically three cylinders off a V10 F1 engine (300cc and 90 hp per cylinder), the engine certainly had potential that was never realized.
F1 still has 300cc cylinders and now make over 100 hp per cylinder. They now are restricted to a maximum bore of 98 mm (Foggy only had 88mm). At the time several F1 teams had bores over 100mm in the search for ever-higher revs and power.
You could argue that the FP1 could have been even more radical in its bore/stroke ratio and revved higher (thus making more power). IMO they really did intend to make a production street model, albeit an expensive one. But it would then have to idle and sit in traffic without destroying itself, so no doubt the design was compromised due to real-world considerations.
Today with the huge minimum quantities of bikes to qualify for production homologation, the days of the specials like the FP1 are over.
Considering that the original Sauber engine was basically three cylinders off a V10 F1 engine (300cc and 90 hp per cylinder), the engine certainly had potential that was never realized.
I think MotoGp realized that the 3 cylinder was a no hoper... you need 4 or more...
I think MotoGp realized that the 3 cylinder was a no hoper... you need 4 or more...
If MotoGP ever removes the electronic aids you will likely see at least one manufactuer move to fewer cylinders and less peak, but more managable, power levels.
In 2001, long before Ducati ever displayed the desmosedici, their engineers had concluded through computer models that an odd number of cylinders (whether that was 3 or 5 is anyone's guess) produced the optimum race times. Somewhere along the way they decided to have a V4 that sounded like a twin for marketing reasons, but then the cranks wouldn't last so they went to the glorious screamer D16 until they got the twin-pulse to be reliable. In the meantime the electronics came to dominate most performance aspects and you could make the engine bascially as peaky and powerful as you wanted and let electrons sort it out between the rider's wrist and back tire.
If you've ever had the chance to ride a triple, they are fantastic street motors. The perfect compromise between the torque of a twin and top-end rush of a four. A lot like your description of the 45.
If you've ever had the chance to ride a triple, they are fantastic street motors. The perfect compromise between the torque of a twin and top-end rush of a four. A lot like your description of the 45.
I have had the pleasure sburns and you're right the power of the 990 I3
was a lot like my 750 V4... completely different than an standard crank I4 I
might add... however if you ever get lucky enough to sample a 45 you
noticed the difference straight away... the I3 will not rev as quick and will
feel heavy and ponderous in transitions...
Quote the S3 Triumph Triple owner Andrew:
"OMG. The RC45 is amazing. It feels nothing like a VFR motor (Which I don't
think is anything special, anyhow.) The RC45 motor is amazing, smooth,
torquey, not at all lumpy like I think of the VFR. Larry may have converted
me to a V4 aficionado."
If MotoGP ever removes the electronic aids you will likely see at least one manufactuer move to fewer cylinders and less peak, but more managable, power levels.
In 2001, long before Ducati ever displayed the desmosedici, their engineers had concluded through computer models that an odd number of cylinders (whether that was 3 or 5 is anyone's guess) produced the optimum race times. Somewhere along the way they decided to have a V4 that sounded like a twin for marketing reasons, but then the cranks wouldn't last so they went to the glorious screamer D16 until they got the twin-pulse to be reliable. In the meantime the electronics came to dominate most performance aspects and you could make the engine bascially as peaky and powerful as you wanted and let electrons sort it out between the rider's wrist and back tire.
If you've ever had the chance to ride a triple, they are fantastic street motors. The perfect compromise between the torque of a twin and top-end rush of a four. A lot like your description of the 45.
Agreed. The I3 is a magnificent street motor (even comes standard with the low-intertia torque of a "cross-plane" inherent in it's configuration, but which also needs a power-robbing balance shaft to quell the rocking couple.
While Ducati was dominant with their 990 screamer 360-crank, before they went to the bigbang offset pin crank of the 800, I'd kinda disagree that electronics can provide as effective a drive as a configuration that has natural mechanical grip. Simply eliminating wheelspin doesn't necessarily provide the same level of effective drive torque/tire-road grip as something that has better mechanical grip. Or so my rusty old intermeidate school physics tells me!
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
so what if next year someone brings a crusher twin to the spec class and outruns some vetro 4s? you gonna still squalk unfair advantages then?...
And with the Checa W/SBK twin being faster than the Rossi Desmocedici V4 on some of the same tracks this year, thay is not as far fetched as it sounds, except for one small item which makes that impossible.
No motor in 2012 can have a bigger bore than 81MM. This means that every motor will be a four cylinder (the maxiumum number of cylinders allowed next year).
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
so what if next year someone brings a crusher twin to the spec class and outruns some vetro 4s? you gonna still squalk unfair advantages then?...
Not me... if a I3 proved to be a no hoper then the engineers know that a long
and ponderous low revving V2 ain't got a chance in hell of beating the top 4 cylinders...
While Ducati was dominant with their 990 screamer 360-crank, before they went to the bigbang offset pin crank of the 800, I'd kinda disagree that electronics can provide as effective a drive as a configuration that has natural mechanical grip. Simply eliminating wheelspin doesn't necessarily provide the same level of effective drive torque/tire-road grip as something that has better mechanical grip. Or so my rusty old intermeidate school physics tells me!
I don't think we really disagree that much, but what the modern TC does is allow an extremely powerful, but basically unridable, engine to be used. The rider gets the benefit of the higher peak power numbers without getting spit off when they get it wrong. I don't disagree that an engine with inherent traction-enhancing characteristics plus aids would be better than a peaky engine with aids.
In 2007, Capirossi rode the 800cc Ducati w/o aids just to test, and siad it was more difficult to ride safely lap after lap than an old 500 two stroke. But with aids Stoner was able to destroy the competition.
Last edited by sburns2421; 10-13-2011 at 05:09 PM.
remember these..
Linear Mode
