starting to think the 800s are a mistake for motogp

the 990s are THE SHIT! barely tame-able fire-breathing beasts.

if they wanted to slow them down, then put restrictions on tire width
or restrictor-plates on the induction system or something else...

....but they should have left the fire-breathing engines in place!

 

Won't the 800s be as powerful as the 990s in a few years? And what's
the advantage of a 990 with a restrictor plate over an unrestricted
800? I'm not sure I'd like MotoGP bikes with skinny tyres, don't the
riders fall off enough anyhow? Or would skinny tyres not make them
harder to ride?

 

Won't the 800s be as powerful as the 990s in a few years?

perhaps. nay, likely.

THE NOISE!

true. i'm just brainstorming...i just want to keep the NOISE and
UNTAME-ABILITY of the 990s. perhaps this is an impossible goal,
keeping that and slowing them down at the same time.

[sigh]

 

Maybe someone could make an audio processing device that detects the
noise of an engine and allows you to tweak it however you want. So the
Brits could make the MotoGP bikes sound like a Triumph Bonneville, the
Americans could make them sound like Harleys, and so on

 

Barely tame-able? Those would be the old 500cc two-strokes. The MotoGP bikes
have enough electronic traction control and flat torque curves so they are far
easier to ride -- which is why you see more bikes contesting for the podium
now.

 

If the goal of reducing displacement is to slow the bikes down, it
isn't going to work. It's just going to increase the price of
participation, putting out of the reach of the privateers (like
the old WCM team). We'll soon see 799cc bikes with 230hp.

If they're serious about reducing speeds they should reduce the
fuel capacity and/or reduce the number of gears to, say, 4.

 

nope. the 990s are barely tame-able due to the technical developments
you mention...the 500s were *UN*-tameable! ;-)

 

I like the idea of reducing the fuel capacity. That would concentrate
the engine development on getting the maximum amount of oomph out of a
fixed amount of fuel, rather than getting more performance out of a
smaller total cylinder capacity. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I
thought that the efficiency of racing engines was pretty much up
against a hard limit, and most power gains were by getting more fuel
into (and burnt fuel out of) the engine, rather than burning
efficiently. By putting limits on the amount of fuel burnt, it's hard
for teams with big engine budgets to produce a much more powerful
engine than those with smaller budgets.

I can't comment on the gears idea. I've spent precisely one day of my
life riding motorcycles on a racing track, and I wasn't trying anything
fancy.

 

My biggest objection is simply the fact it is not a "classic" engine size.
How many 800 engines have been in prodution over the ages? Then again, maybe
we'll see more, and maybe it'll help counter the somewhat primitive trend
towards lunatic amounts of mostly unusable horsepower in production bikes.
Balance is better, always.

I don't think slowing bikes down in the corners is the right way to go. I
personally feel smaller displacement may be a purer motorcycle - lighter,
more agile, emphasis on corner speed. Brute power typically means faster in
a straight line. Yawn. I think the fact that 250s sometimes come damnably
close to the MGP bikes in lap times indicates that balancing the package a
bit is a good idea. We shall see, it's worth a try. I would have said higher
evs and peakier engines may contribute to the excitement, but with all the
electronic help...

My firm expectation is that at the end of the day, when the dust settles, we
will not see that much of a difference. The change from 250cc to 400 will be
far more radical. And what will happen to 125s?

....pablo