| Author |
Message |
    
Sarodude
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 10:23 pm: | 
|
The point I'm trying to make WRT Honda and an air-cooled RC is this:
Mercedes would NEVER make a pushrod engine or put their name on one (IlMor actually did it, but after Mercedes had bought them and they had to convince Mercedes execs).
What's the homologation number, anyway? If I read the rules correctly (I'm woefully clueless in MC racing rules) there IS no homologation number in FX - it just needs to be a street bike and approved by the AMA.
While the squids may not care for the RC-AC, it seems that all they'd need to do is build a few and find a nice way to market it to some older chaps who LIKE a/c bikes - whammo.
Also, let's SAY that Honda and Ducati decide to jump on the 1350 bandwagon. Then the AMA says that only pushrod 2-valve motors can be 1350 cc's. I still see that a company can clean sheet a higher revving motor than the sporty derived short stroker. For example, what IS a pushrod motor, anyway? They'll have to stay savvy and define a pushrod not only in function, but as some proportion of engine stroke to keep from someone using a teeny, tiny, 1" pushrod just to say they have pushrods. The rules would just seem to get silly at that point...
The Guzzi & BMW thing is interesting too. To me it seems more likely with Guzzi - but that is just me.
Some of the coolest forms of auto racing have had various engine configs allowed and various methods of equalizing them. Unfortunately, many of them were based on varying vehicle minimum weights - something that turns into a safety issue on a bike. That can be a tough nut to crack.
But this is all just conjecture. Oh, and it IS cool looking into how my favorite brand of VEHICLE may be defeated.
-Saro |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 01:22 am: |
|
Saro,
Pretty sure it has to be based on a bike that is available to the general public, something like the XB9R or RC51 for example.
Higher revving means shorter stroke and larger bore. You can only make cylinders so big before hitting the point of diminishing returns, especially with two valves. Honda's XR650R a single cylinder 650cc four-valve has a 3.94" bore. The XBRR with only two valves has a 4.08" bore. Something tells me that the H-D engineers know a little bit about making big two-valve engines produce competitive power. The XR750 is still kicking butt and taking no prisoners on the big flat tracks.
If a 5000 FPM mean piston speed is the limiting factor, the XBRR with its 3.125" stroke would be limited to 9600 RPM, so maybe Buell is keeping some revs in their pocket? At 8500 RPM mean piston speed is a relatively sustainable 4427 FPM.
I agree, the touring car championships and GT competition is great and allows for various engine configurations.
MotoGP itself assigns different minimum weight limits based upon number of cylinders.
Superbike allows a higher level of engine modifications for twins than for four cylinder machines. The rules for FX are no different, simply intended to bring parity to a class with various configurations of engines.
Fun stuff for sure. |
Ceejay
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:14 pm: |
|
That is what racing is all about isn't it?
Run whatya brung...
instead of what it seemingly has become, yamaha, honda, suzuki, and a little kawazaki all fighting over the same bone with, for the most part, the same dog in the fight... |
M1combat
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 01:03 pm: |
|
Exactly... People should be able to bring whatever dog they'd like as long as it isn't too "big". The problem with Americans and the way they see racing is that "big" to them is defined by the dictionary. As in "large". They don't look into it deep enough. They see 1350cc and think... CRAP... There's no WAY the 600cc IL4's can be competitive... Let's go bitch to someone about it. Why does BUELL get all the advantages? They generally can't see the forest for the trees.
Freakin' NASCAR!!! They suck on so many levels... Every one of them except for the "four wide around Daytona for hours" level... That's fairly cool... |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 01:08 pm: |
|
I dig NASCAR. I just can't sit through an entire race. The inches away at 200 MPH scenario is riveting though. Some folks don't give them enough respect. I cannot imagine doing 500 miles flat out in the conditions and scenarios that they do. It is amazing stuff. The road course races are quite good too. |
Ceejay
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 01:36 pm: |
|
I think the drivers are amazing, just as you said blake "inches away at 200" but it's so damn boring to watch...guess if I went to one it'd be different, but I'd rather watch bikes and drag racing. I imagine that IL4 guys are already crying foul and they haven't even raced yet, just as they did during drag racing, they'll get over it though, remember folks competition is a good thing... |
M1combat
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 02:13 pm: |
|
I hear you... The NASCAR racing itself, when you get right down to it IS excellent racing. I just hate to see everything look exactly the same. And the thing that REALLY bothers me about NASCAR is that they suck up all the sponsorship money from a LOT of very large companies. I understand that those companies need/want to go where they eyes are but it still sucks. Look at the DP series... They're hurting for sponsorship and not too many people go to the races. That series would be a big hit in Europe and if you ask me... The Euro's understand racing much better than the average American.
NASCAR just seems like some sort of sham to me. That said... I like to watch the Daytona and Bristol.
It's the same with Champ cars and the Speed GT series. Awesome cars, awesome racing and inches from walls that are at a high angle relative to the vector. Good passing and race-craft, excellent drivers, the wrecks are cool to watch (every NASCAR wreck is pretty much the same), they race in the rain... There's so much more that makes it "better racing" but everyone over here has their eyes glued to a NASCAR race... WHY?
Anyway... That's VERY MUCH a topic for it's own thread  .
(Message edited by M1Combat on February 17, 2006) |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 04:31 pm: |
|
Guzzi has a bike, they were going to race it a few years ago, but when Aprilia got into trouble they had to stop the program. Maybe now with Piaggio at the helm they'll take a crack at it.
BMW is working on it. I talked to Nate Kern, who races BMWs here in CCS/WERA and in the BoxerCup in Europe, at the Washington DC IMS Show last month.
According to Nate, they're trying to get the new R1200S bike ready by August to race it at the FX race at VIR.
Nate, along with BMW N.America, are also trying to convince the AMA to allow the K1200R either into Superstock or FX, because current AMA rules don't permit this bike to race in any of their classes.
Here's Nate, his K1200R and myself a the bike show.
I would let that bike into FX, but that's just my opinion. It displaces what 1160cc's but it has a shaft drive and it it weighs about 500 pounds.
(Message edited by josé_quiñones on February 17, 2006) |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 04:37 pm: |
|
BTW, if I was the AMA I would also allow the Triumph Daytona 675 in to the FX class. |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 04:39 pm: |
|
And one last point, there is nothing stopping Suzuki from building/selling a few SV-750's in full race trim with the best of everything and right at the 350 pound limit for the FX class. |
Blublak
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 08:00 pm: |
|
Jose.. If they let the K1200s in.. Then the 'Busa just became legal since the 4 cylinder, liquid cooled rule just went out the window. That's the problem with it. Now, if they beefed up an R1200.. Now that would be a dog you could bring to the fight.. hehehehe..
Not too sure about the 675, but I'll bet it could be done if Triumph anted up and pushed (just a little) for some consideration..
I'm sure that someone at Suzi thought of that, but it got put down since they now own SuperBike and don't need to worry about lil old FX.. For now. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 12:06 am: |
|
A K1200 in FX? Way too much power in that IL4 1.2 L engine versus the competition. The R1200S will be a great entry in the class though.
JQ,
You make it sound like a trivial affair for Suzuki to come up with a competitive 750cc FX engine for their SV platform. Based upon the performance of even the most hopped up SV650's turned 700cc racing engines, I don't see it. |
Imonabuss
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 09:27 am: |
|
Blake,
I had to laugh at that as well. The "SV750" is one theoretical model that won't show up in FX. If it did it would be absolutely crushed. And I can't imagine why anyone would propose the 1200 4 valve water cooled K bike in FX??? From a company that can afford to go F1 car racing? After people screamed bloody murder that Buell showed up with a 1300 air cooled 2 valve pushrod twin? There's definitely some much stronger brands of kool aid out in the market!!! |
Court
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 09:35 am: |
|
Well, ya'll asked for it. . . my old Steve Jobs quote "Real Geniuses Ship".
BUELL WILL BE AT DAYTONA
There are those that talk and those. . . . let me guess Fischer, MotoCizz and the Honda NAS are all "thinking" about coming to teach Buell a lesson.
Talk's cheap.
WE'RE BACK ! !
|
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 10:41 am: |
|
quote:Way too much power in that IL4 1.2 L engine versus the competition.
Agreed, but it's pushing a 500 pound, 60+ inch wheelbase shaft driven bike. Nate felt that it would be more at home in FX but they are also lobbying for Superstock eligibility.
The SV750, like a 1350cc air cooled Ducati SS is of course a theoretical bike, but the AMA must think a bike like that could be competitive otherwise they would allow liquid cooled twins more displacement to race in the FX class. They have done pretty good at the FUSA/CCS Thunderbike class level at Daytona the last year with Barnes and Ed Key on board. |
Jlnance
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
Bear (bare?) in mind this question is comming from someone who knows nothing about racing.
I read all the talk about eligibility rules. They are complex and somewhat ad hoc. I can't help but wonder if things might be both simpler and more interesting if rules went something like:
You can ride any 2 wheeled vechicle you like. You can only use 8 gallons of gas and you can not change the tires. |
Imonabuss
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
I'll bet Kearns would like to see a potentially 220HP bike legal for him to ride. He and BMW might have a chance then. Sorry to be snotty, but I was told he was talking serious trash at Daytona last year of how his trick BMW was going to crush the Buells in Thunderbike.
And, re. the SV, Thunderbike is power to weight limited. FX is not. The 750 H2O rule has to be in there for Ducati, like when ProThunder allowed 900cc for triples and 750 for twins! The 749 desmo factory bikes make a lot of horsepower. None of the Japanese have anything close. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
But JQ, wheelbase and weight can change significantly from street form to race form.
I think the 750cc rule was put in place with the Ducati 749R repli-racer in mind. FUSA Thunderbike was HP limited in order to create parity among the SV's and Buells. Without the HP limitations, the SV's, which are not repli-racers (kudos to Suzuki for that), would need a whole new engine, a race purpose engine like those that they build for the GSXR models. I agree though, if they wanted to do it, they probably could come up with a competitive 750cc twin engine. It'd have to rev to over 14K RPM in order to achieve the same dynamic displacement as the R6 and XBRR. Short of that, it ain't gonna be in the hunt in FX.
Jim,
I like your idea, a lot. That would make for a very cool new AMA roadracing class, "Formula Fuel"? |
Steve_a
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 02:28 pm: |
|
"Formula Fuel" would be a very interesting class. 8 gallons would be tight, and you'd probably want to specify a fuel -- otherwise, diesel, with its higher energy density per gallon, would be the choice, and the winning engine configuration would almost certainly be turbo-diesel.
But it would take the focus off displacement. Displacement was chosen as a way of comparing engines for taxation and racing because it's super easy to measure -- but it has almost nothing to do with the things you really care about in an engine -- the shape of the torque curve, the power-to-weight ratio of the engine, and its specific fuel consumption. Aircraft engines, both piston and turbines, have always been judged by power-to-weight and fuel consumption, for example -- displacement was just something that fell out of all the other design decisions you made to achieve the important things. |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 08:46 am: |
|
quote:I agree though, if they wanted to do it, they probably could come up with a competitive 750cc twin engine. It'd have to rev to over 14K RPM in order to achieve the same dynamic displacement as the R6 and XBRR.
yet they could call it an SV, and it would meet both the letter and the intent of the AMA rulebook, no matter what Honda says.
Ducati must feel like fools, wasting all that time/money/effort getting their 749R through the EPA to make it street legal just so it can be raced in the US. Just sell the RS versions of a regular 749 and they're good to go.
PS. how would you significantly decrease the weight or wheelbase on that BMW K1200R?
(Message edited by josé_quiñones on February 19, 2006) |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 08:48 am: |
|
A power to weight ratio class, like the ASRA/CCS classes, to me are the best way to encourage paritity between different types of bikes, but don't forget to include the rider in the weight, which FUSA/ASRA does not include at the moment. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
That's an interesting point, Jose, and one that gets hotly debated between the riders who weigh 120 and the ones who weigh 190! Ed Key would just HATE that rule! And, there was a certain large West Coast rider that would probably have been world champion if such a rule had been in effect. So, who will be the first guy to name him??? |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:26 pm: |
|
"yet they could call it an SV, and it would meet both the letter and the intent of the AMA rulebook, no matter what Honda says. "
Yep. And I'd aplaude Suzuki for doing so. But I don't see them tackling that scenario.
"Ducati must feel like fools, wasting all that time/money/effort getting their 749R through the EPA to make it street legal just so it can be raced in the US."
Your logic appears to be flawed on that. First, Ducati doesn't campaign a 749 in any form in America's dominant/major road racing series. Second, would you care to wagera guess at how many Ducati 749RS motorcycles serve street/track-day duty versus pure racing duty? Not sure Ducati should feel foolish for producing a high-dollar high-profit street-going repli-racer.
I have no clude who the big west coast racer might be. John Ulrich? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Nope, John is a slim guy. Next? I'll bet someone like Slaughter will nail it... |
Jima4media
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 02:13 pm: |
|
I was wondering if there was going to be anyone complaining that Jason DiSalvo only weighs 125 pounds, and his R6 bike is pretty light too.
Remember when Robbie Gordon was complaining that Danica Patrick was too light? Hahahha.
Keith Code? |
Jlnance
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 02:25 pm: |
|
A power to weight ratio class, like the ASRA/CCS classes, to me are the best way to encourage paritity between different types of bikes
It definitly gets you parity. The good thing about parity is that the race will (hopefully) be determined by rider skills.
The thing I don't like about the idea of parity is that it punishes manufactures for being innovative. If they come up with a good idea everything is fine. But if they come up with a great idea, then all of a sudden the bike isn't "fair" to race anymore.
What I was attempting with the fuel restricted class was to have the engineering of the bike be a valid factor in the race, but still have a way to segregate bikes into different groups that would make the race interesting and exciting to watch. |
Jima4media
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 03:40 pm: |
|
If motorcycle racing all comes down to rider weight, you'll see double leg amputees with carbon fiber and titanium legs.
 |
Whodom
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 03:48 pm: |
|
Hmm. I wonder if Danica Patrick has any interest in motorcycle racing? I understand the competitors at Indy were complaining about her having an unfair advantage due her (low) weight. |
Diablobrian
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 04:23 pm: |
|
More likely to see that in Indy cars than on bikes Jim.
Believe me I know how important legs are to motorcycle control.
My left leg is paralyzed because of a car vs. bike accident. |
Jon
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 05:42 pm: |
|
Jim,
That's pretty gross ... |
|
XBRR Threads Consolidated Here! »
XBRR causing a stir!
