Nice try but we get 95 RON fuel here in Europe and sometimes, when the Tooth Fairy is extra nice, we also get some true 98 RON.
PS: why are people so opposed to traction control? Troy Bayliss always liked the idea and now we get it on production machines too (BMW, Ducati, now Kawasaki too). This isn't NASCAR still running carburetors when all of the world moved on to fuel injection.
PPS: they are already running on control tyres in pretty much all the series around the world. MotoGP is no exception and I frankly believe it to be a very stupid idea. Let tyre manufacturers to compete between themselves as bike manufacturers do. Having no opposition and contracts saying your tyres cannot be criticized is pretty sweet though...
To save costs (key driver for the change), they MUST increase the fuel limit or allow free fuel capacity.....to reducethe incredibly expensive electronics package development, which might be the biggest single cost in MotoGP.
Some ideas:
1. 1000cc limit
2. 2-5 cylinders allowed
3. total valves seat perimeter restriction
4. Engine stroke length limit
5. 4-stroke
6. naturally aspirated
7. No fuel capacity limit but run 93 PON E-85 fuel (just like we can get on the street)
8. A Control Blackbox electronics system enforced, with no traction control.
9. Machine PLUS rider minimum weight rule (no more Pedrobot advantage! Let Ben and the big guys compete equally!!)
10. 6-speed manual gearbox. No autoshift.
11. Control tire
12. Big balls required
#3 and 4 are to equalize the various cylinder count configurations (reduce the advantage that a greater number of cylinders such as a five or four cylinder has over a twin or triple). The aim is to have as many different types of motors as possible...for some much needed variation. Different sounds, different characteristics, different advantages and disadvantages make for more fun viewing.
getting different configs is great, just not for GP. the economy and such blows worldwide and the costs of these bike for racing only puts teams with small budgets out IMO. i think if they can make rep bike and sell some to recoup some costs it would make the series better or just make everybody make the same config to keep costs from ruining the series
"Exercise restraint and discipline, only responding to posts from legit customers and those with constructive positive intent, you will find that the handgrenades explode harmlessly. You have many satisfied customers who are happy to have the parts you've made. My suggestion to you is keep making good parts, keep getting more customers, take care of them and let them speak for you."
Let 'em race 750 2 smokes too, if they can be al bore eco friendly!
-Rocky-
__________________
ROCKYMT
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
Nice try but we get 95 RON fuel here in Europe and sometimes, when the Tooth Fairy is extra nice, we also get some true 98 RON.
PS: why are people so opposed to traction control? Troy Bayliss always liked the idea and now we get it on production machines too (BMW, Ducati, now Kawasaki too). This isn't NASCAR still running carburetors when all of the world moved on to fuel injection.
PPS: they are already running on control tyres in pretty much all the series around the world. MotoGP is no exception and I frankly believe it to be a very stupid idea. Let tyre manufacturers to compete between themselves as bike manufacturers do. Having no opposition and contracts saying your tyres cannot be criticized is pretty sweet though...
93 PON is higher octane than 93RON. It's equivalent to 97-98 RON.
PON = (RON + MON) /2 - which is the US standard, and which is a "tougher" standard than Europe's RON.
MON is usually between 8 and 10 points lower than RON, so averaging the 2 in the USA means the SAME fuel is given a rating 4-5 points lower than EU.
If a fuel is 93 PON in USA, the same fuel will be ~ 97-98 RON in EU.
Regarding traction control - well, yes, it's because it clearly places more emphasis on rider control. It makes for nice tire smoking darkies on corner exits, it requires significantly more rider finesse and skill in the wet, and also for tire wear management by the rider.
I'm no Luddite, but I do think that having a cheaper formula for the premier class will allow the smaller factories to enter the class, and also allow privateer teams to be a little closer to the factory guys....if the super high-tech, expensive engine management, telemetry, fuel management systems are no longer required or allowed.
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
PS: why are people so opposed to traction control? Troy Bayliss always liked the idea
Well maybe he liked the idea because he knew the Marelli-Magneti system used by Ducati is one of the very best (or THE best).
The Japanese would be at disadvantage...certainly in SBK and even in MGP - just as Honda and Suzuki have been recently in MGP, and it's taken Yamaha some time to develop their M-M system to the point where it is today.
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
Ben Spies said in his interview in Motorcyle Racer magazine that he felt it was necessary to come to MotoGP now so he could learn the tracks and be ready when they went back to 1000 cc's in 2 years. He was confident they were gonna go back and wanted to be ready to ride a manly bike.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrgrn
why don'y you do yourself a favor and put me on ignore
Let 'em race 750 2 smokes too, if they can be al bore eco friendly!
-Rocky-
modern, high-tech 750 two-strokes would annihilate one-liter four-strokes. It would be great to see but don't hold your breath, some of the major players (notably Honda) worked very hard at getting rid of them...
#3 and 4 are to equalize the various cylinder count configurations (reduce the advantage that a greater number of cylinders such as a five or four cylinder has over a twin or triple). The aim is to have as many different types of motors as possible...for some much needed variation. Different sounds, different characteristics, different advantages and disadvantages make for more fun viewing.
Mercy!!! no no equalization... let technology rule the battle of engine architectures... not anyone's desires or wishes...
modern, high-tech 750 two-strokes would annihilate one-liter four-strokes. It would be great to see but don't hold your breath, some of the major players (notably Honda) worked very hard at getting rid of them...
Two strokes worked hard getting rid of themselves... one ring a ding ding ding at a time...
Gee I watched the complete Philip Island race and there was plenty of sideways and tyre smoking action and they sounded great. So I cannot see why you feel the need to go to bigger engines??
The last thing MotoGP wants to be is the bike equivalent of CART or Indycar or whatever it is called, ie. big lazy engines chugging around with no real changes to engine design for 20 years ... heck it's almost a single seater version of NASCAR. No wonder it has puttered out of existence ... almost.
Sorry motor racing needs technology development ALSO to be interesting, and making the engines occassionally smaller gives the engineers something brilliant to do. Making them bigger doesn't push boundaries, especially if they then have to last x number of races between rebuilds like F1.
Also dropping the 2-strokes and going to 4-stroke gave us the v5 Honda , so change can be good ... but going backwards, hmmm??
Pete
__________________
'97 Suzuki GS500E
'90 Suzuki GN250 - Sold 57000 km's later. Cost less than 12c per km to run ...
Grumpy Kiwi.
Why fly when ya can make a lot of noise
IF (big if) you could get a two-stroke to have the same emissions through direct injection or some other means as a four stroke, I think you could make a case for their return. There would have to be an equivalency in displacement. 500cc wouldn't have a chance and would be down 50 hp if not more to a 1000cc four stroke.
Perhaps 600cc or 650cc would give the two-strokes enough power to be competitive. They would probably be much lighter and easier on tires (assuming TC is still allowed).
You would probably have tracks that would prove advantageous for them (Laguna for example). But most of the time it would be the still more powerful four strokes passing them down the straight and the two-strokes attempting to stay close in their draft to pass them back on the brakes and in the corner.
Gee I watched the complete Philip Island race and there was plenty of sideways and tyre smoking action and they sounded great. So I cannot see why you feel the need to go to bigger engines??
The last thing MotoGP wants to be is the bike equivalent of CART or Indycar or whatever it is called, ie. big lazy engines chugging around with no real changes to engine design for 20 years ... heck it's almost a single seater version of NASCAR. No wonder it has puttered out of existence ... almost.
Sorry motor racing needs technology development ALSO to be interesting, and making the engines occassionally smaller gives the engineers something brilliant to do. Making them bigger doesn't push boundaries, especially if they then have to last x number of races between rebuilds like F1.
Also dropping the 2-strokes and going to 4-stroke gave us the v5 Honda , so change can be good ... but going backwards, hmmm??
Pete
Normally, I'd be in 100% agreement with you. But I'd prefer to see some slightly lower-tech, fun-to-watch, megapowerful, almost-uncontrollable MGP bikes with a full grid and lots of factory support, than some depleted grid of super expensive, ultimate-technology bikes - without Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Aprilia, Ducati, BMW, KTM, etc. All of these MIGHT be willing to either continue, or join/rejoin the grid, if the costs were not so incredibly high, and success so unlikely for the smaller players.
It's a difficult question, I agree.
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
I just want to see the return of the riders controlling the bike. I want to see the best riders in the world riding the most insane, savage bikes. puting skill against skill instead of a bunch of binary B.S. Haga summed it up best when he left the Aprilia gp team. "I would just rather ride an analog bike"
news flash fellers we have a whole bunch of RS3 cubes out there right now, albeit much better sorted ones.
I just want to see the return of the riders controlling the bike. I want to see the best riders in the world riding the most insane, savage bikes. puting skill against skill instead of a bunch of binary B.S. Haga summed it up best when he left the Aprilia gp team. "I would just rather ride an analog bike"
news flash fellers we have a whole bunch of RS3 cubes out there right now, albeit much better sorted ones.
That would be cool. I love I-3 motors. Best sound of the lot, IMO. But then again, the RS3 while plenty powerful, was not exactly the MGP bike of dreams.
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
, so change can be good ... but going backwards, hmmm??
Linear Mode
