Posted by T3 on May 17, 2005, 9:51 am
It's been said, "the only bad thing about horsepower, is the lack of
it," but is MGP approaching the point of diminishing returns on outright
power? Given the current state of the art in tire technology they may
well have already exceeded those limits and the fact that one of the
less endowed engines has won 3 of the first four races, could make one
believe, enough is enough. While chassis dyno results have historically
been held the closest of secrets, it's fairly common knowledge that the
Yamaha is down 12-18 BHP on the Honda and possibly even a little more to
the Ducati. (depending on who you hear it from) So how has Valentino
won, is it all just a matter of his superior skill and cunning or have
Honda and Ducati over stepped that fine line in usable power and tuned
themselves into a supporting role? Or are there other unseen or not
noticed factors at work? Mugello is next and that fast and fairly long
straight may help answer those questions, we'll see...
T3
Posted by Champ on May 17, 2005, 11:01 am
>It's been said, "the only bad thing about horsepower, is the lack of
>it," but is MGP approaching the point of diminishing returns on outright
>power? Given the current state of the art in tire technology they may
>well have already exceeded those limits and the fact that one of the
>less endowed engines has won 3 of the first four races, could make one
>believe, enough is enough. While chassis dyno results have historically
>been held the closest of secrets, it's fairly common knowledge that the
>Yamaha is down 12-18 BHP on the Honda and possibly even a little more to
>the Ducati. (depending on who you hear it from) So how has Valentino
>won, is it all just a matter of his superior skill and cunning or have
>Honda and Ducati over stepped that fine line in usable power and tuned
>themselves into a supporting role? Or are there other unseen or not
>noticed factors at work? Mugello is next and that fast and fairly long
>straight may help answer those questions, we'll see...
Horsepower has never been the whole story. Schwantz was able to win
races on the RGV500 with less power than the Hondas and Yamahas, even
at so-called horsepower tracks.
What's most important is throttle linearity. Each 1% of throttle
opening should add 1% more power to the rear tyre. This is an
incredibly difficult thing to do, it seems (I'm not engine guru,
mind). Of course, even if you get close to this nirvana, you've still
got to have some outright power too. Like everything else on a racing
machine, it's a compromise.
--
Champ
Posted by Bill Smith on May 17, 2005, 11:26 pm
>It's been said, "the only bad thing about horsepower, is the lack of
>it," but is MGP approaching the point of diminishing returns on outright
>power? Given the current state of the art in tire technology they may
>well have already exceeded those limits and the fact that one of the
>less endowed engines has won 3 of the first four races, could make one
>believe, enough is enough. While chassis dyno results have historically
>been held the closest of secrets, it's fairly common knowledge that the
>Yamaha is down 12-18 BHP on the Honda and possibly even a little more to
>the Ducati. (depending on who you hear it from) So how has Valentino
>won, is it all just a matter of his superior skill and cunning or have
>Honda and Ducati over stepped that fine line in usable power and tuned
>themselves into a supporting role? Or are there other unseen or not
>noticed factors at work? Mugello is next and that fast and fairly long
>straight may help answer those questions, we'll see...
> T3
The folks that build engines in that league all know full well the
tradeoffs between top end and grunt. Build too much of a screamer and
lose. Build too little of one and lose too. We've only rumors of
actual top end horsepower on these bikes and no real clue at all what
their power curves look like. It's probably changing week to week,
track to track anyway. The engine management systems will now permit
an astonishing amount of power curve shaping that simply wasn't
available only a few short years ago.
The trick is shaping it to the rider's ability. I've only built
engines at the club level and an awful lot of riders want things they
don't know how to use, or that simply can't be used on a road course,
rather than what they need to go more quickly. I'm thinking this
occurs a lot less often in the big leagues, but I do wonder sometimes.
If you have somebody like Rossi on your bike, you can have a bit more
of a screamer than someone more ordinary can deal with.
When power valves first appeared on TZ Yamahas in the early 80s, the
book said they were wide open at a tad over 8000 rpm. One rider told
me he never let the revs fall that far and to lock them open. His lap
times immediately went in the dumper. What he was doing and what he
thought he was doing was different, and this was a guy who won races.
Bill Smith
Posted by T3 on May 18, 2005, 1:39 am
Bill Smith wrote:
>
>
>>It's been said, "the only bad thing about horsepower, is the lack of
>>it," but is MGP approaching the point of diminishing returns on outright
>>power? Given the current state of the art in tire technology they may
>>well have already exceeded those limits and the fact that one of the
>>less endowed engines has won 3 of the first four races, could make one
>>believe, enough is enough. While chassis dyno results have historically
>>been held the closest of secrets, it's fairly common knowledge that the
>>Yamaha is down 12-18 BHP on the Honda and possibly even a little more to
>>the Ducati. (depending on who you hear it from) So how has Valentino
>>won, is it all just a matter of his superior skill and cunning or have
>>Honda and Ducati over stepped that fine line in usable power and tuned
>>themselves into a supporting role? Or are there other unseen or not
>>noticed factors at work? Mugello is next and that fast and fairly long
>>straight may help answer those questions, we'll see...
>>
>> T3
>
>
> The folks that build engines in that league all know full well the
> tradeoffs between top end and grunt. Build too much of a screamer and
> lose. Build too little of one and lose too. We've only rumors of
> actual top end horsepower on these bikes and no real clue at all what
> their power curves look like. It's probably changing week to week,
> track to track anyway. The engine management systems will now permit
> an astonishing amount of power curve shaping that simply wasn't
> available only a few short years ago.
> The trick is shaping it to the rider's ability. I've only built
> engines at the club level and an awful lot of riders want things they
> don't know how to use, or that simply can't be used on a road course,
> rather than what they need to go more quickly. I'm thinking this
> occurs a lot less often in the big leagues, but I do wonder sometimes.
> If you have somebody like Rossi on your bike, you can have a bit more
> of a screamer than someone more ordinary can deal with.
I've heard (whispers) of somewhere between 240 to 260(rear wheel) and I
believe that's fairly close, had they been able to run China in the
clear we probably would have been able to extrapolate something fairly
accurate, given that long straight.
I would imagine a team (at that level) would or could use 2 or 3 (maybe
more?) cam profiles a season and possibly save their best flowing heads
for the top end tracks, even with the CNC stuff you always find one set
with a little more flow and volume. But all things aside, most of the
tuning happens on a Mac and when true ride by wire and GPS management
happens (soon too) the computer guy will become even more important.
I believe you are correct about the trick part is adapting something a
particular rider can use, especially so, when tire shredding power is
available. It also helps if the rider can communicate what he feels or
knows the bike is doing to the comp. guy and vice versa, which isn't
something that just happens overnite.
The fact we don't see many engine failures (mechanical) probably means a
horsepower level everyone is comfortable with has been found, at least
for the time being. When they finally decide what size the new engines
will be, it will all start anew...
>
> When power valves first appeared on TZ Yamahas in the early 80s, the
> book said they were wide open at a tad over 8000 rpm. One rider told
> me he never let the revs fall that far and to lock them open. His lap
> times immediately went in the dumper. What he was doing and what he
> thought he was doing was different, and this was a guy who won races.
Trust me on this, I've seen much worse...
Posted by Champ on May 18, 2005, 4:42 am
>When they finally decide what size the new engines
>will be, it will all start anew...
800cc, from 2008, I believe.
--
Champ
XML Sitemap
>it," but is MGP approaching the point of diminishing returns on outright
>power? Given the current state of the art in tire technology they may
>well have already exceeded those limits and the fact that one of the
>less endowed engines has won 3 of the first four races, could make one
>believe, enough is enough. While chassis dyno results have historically
>been held the closest of secrets, it's fairly common knowledge that the
>Yamaha is down 12-18 BHP on the Honda and possibly even a little more to
>the Ducati. (depending on who you hear it from) So how has Valentino
>won, is it all just a matter of his superior skill and cunning or have
>Honda and Ducati over stepped that fine line in usable power and tuned
>themselves into a supporting role? Or are there other unseen or not
>noticed factors at work? Mugello is next and that fast and fairly long
>straight may help answer those questions, we'll see...