Ducati Monster Forum

I was thinking about the WSBK VS GP lap time conversation, and being an enginerd was wondering how close are we to the asymptote of 2 wheel racing? 

If there were no design rules, what could be done to go faster around the entire circuit - not just straight line of course.  The machine would also need to finish a race on tires and fuel as well.


(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6147/5988164776_65fedc276d_b.jpg)


mitt

well...there have to be some rules...like, are there spec tires? spec'd fuel capacity?, spec'd fuel?

I gotta think they're getting pretty close with the lean angles being achieved on the 800s. Stoner is damn near dragging his shoulder!  :o  It would depend on the track, but more horsepower would help for the longer straights, but corner speed and braking is still the limiting factor.

I'd just put NOS on an 800 the new 1000s for the straights.  ;D

the big limiting factor is traction...

even so, current traction is already at the "i can't believe i can do this on two wheels" point.

Are this hypothetical mods?

I would consider some sort of surface-intelligent, gyroscopically controlled traction system.  It doesn't just know speed, it knows lean angle, g forces, tire wear (sensors) and surface condition (sensors)

Traction really is the limiting variable.  Current systems are reactive.  If one could have predictive and reactive, ...we ll..


but then one might as well have robot riders then.

Honestly, the top speeds don't impress me as MUCH as the course mastery.   yes, speed is part of that, but the difference in 150 and 175 mph is negligible to the viewer. 

Longer wheelbase, putting more engine / frame / components between the wheels to lower the center of gravity.

Not really rules - just needs to finish ~25 laps.

This is all hypothetical, and blue sky ideas are encouraged!

I agree that traction is the limit now, and that is a strange statement considering the riders are already defying physics it seems.  

Predictive suspension maybe partnered with GPS technology could cut out a few 10ths I imagine, good idea tiz.

HP doesn't seem to get you much anymore.  I am not sure the 1000's will be any faster than the 800s.  There is an optimum response curve for most things, and I wonder how close were are to it with weight, power, tires, etc.

mitt

There is nothing preventing teams from this today, so are they at their optimum?  The longer the bike, the slower it turns in, so there is of course a balance.


mitt

Can we put big ole adjustable wings on the bikes?

I think a lot of the basic demonsions and underlying architecture of the modern race bikes has evolved to what they are today to achieve the best results.  I don't we can tweak it any further to make it faster.  It would take further advancement in rubber, internal combustion engine (or another form of power source), and/or aerodynamics to gain another fractions of a second.  Then again, I ain't no engineer or mechanics. 

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2663/5762791612_33646c03c8.jpg)

yes. See: Desperate attempt at front grip.

(http://robotpig.net/_images/posts/gp10_5.jpg)

MotoGP bikes already have GPS-based adaptive traction control.

Current power is rules limited by max fuel capacity.
So a couple more liters and a 1000cc or so engine would likely get power up to wheelie/wheelspin limits at all times.

Active suspension, coupled with the above TC so it knows where it is on the track.

Aerodynamics of MotoGP bikes are pretty well limited by the rules.
So, dustbin fairing and long tail would help some.

Winglets on the Ducati are purportedly to assist radiator airflow.
Effectiveness is dubious, as the factory Ducs don't have them any more.

Wings on motorcycles are very tough; unless they pivot to remain horizontal, it just makes the bike act heavier in the turns.

Maybe 3 - 4 seconds lower laptimes if unrestricted rules ......

Yeah, what he said.

Well, yeah...that's what I meant by cornerspeed since it's governed by traction.  :)

hmmm... for me, all i can think of are really sci fi ish future tech...

active aerodynamics = dynamically changing the aerodynamics for top speed to cornering to braking.  like what the mclaren f1 used.  so low cd of drag on straights, switches to high front end downforce on braking, lessening as you go into the turn and back to low drag on the way out.  and eventually being able to compensate for crosswinds.

and in the far far future...  active tires.  sort of like what neal stephenson wrote about in his book snow crash, tires that can actively change their profile/shape/traction to fit what it's needed role.  he wrote about them in the book at first on a skateboard but then in the end used on a motorcycle.

here's a quote from the book and a link talking about the concept:

"Smartwheels use sonar, laser range finding and millimeter wave radar to identify mufflers and other debris. Each one consists of a hub with many tiny spokes. Each spoke telescopes into five sections. On the end is a squat foot, rubber tread on the bottom, swiveling on a ball joint. As the wheel rolls, the feet plant themselves one at a time, almost glomming into one continuous tire. If you surf over a bump, the spokes contract to roll over it. If you surf over a pothole, the rubber prongs probe its asphalt depths. Either way, the shock is thereby absorbed, no thuds, smacks, vibrations, or clunks will make their way into the plank or the Converse hightops with which you tread it. The ad was right - you cannot be a professional road surfer without smartwheels."

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=117 (http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=117)

While it may be slower to turn in, I was thinking about the added centrifugal grip and stability from a lower center of gravity, so turns could go faster, and the bike could come out of the turn faster without short shifting. Not just talking about an extended swing arm like you see on a drag bike, but an extended frame and lower body position. And if the same rake / trail could be preserved (clip-ons behind the forks) but the rider position be back further, then speed going into the turn could also be preserved. The lowered body position would also be more aerodynamic, somewhat like the gentle slope of the back of a supercar. When you think about it, traction in the turns does not come from downforce from a spoiler, it comes from centrifugal energy as the mass of the rider and the bike are pressed outward from the center of the circle. So, having a high seat does nothing but create turbulance and a low pressure vortex behind the rider (allowing competitors to draft).

Wonder to what extent these concepts have been tested.

http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mission-r-mission-motors-635x420.jpg (http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mission-r-mission-motors-635x420.jpg)

+ a couple more years

they are catching up quick!

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/NSR500.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/NSR500.htm)

The '84 NSR's... downfall was the willfully innovative 'upside-down' chassis design - fuel tank mounted below the engine with expansion chambers sweeping back above the engine, for a low center of gravity. But motorcycle dynamics aren't that simple - the NSR's center of g was too low so the bike wouldn't transfer weight into and out of corners to aid front and rear traction.

So, it seems that the verdict is that nothing that anyone can think of can make a difference, so why try???

 [thumbsup]  there have been so many times i've nearly brought that up.

such a great book.  and the bike was a yamaha, btw  =)

Nah...the verdict is that everything which is easy to think of has alreaady been tried in some form. Nothing is really new.

The next step may be something radical...like the active tires.

yeah, i loved that book... right after reading it i went and read every other book he wrote :D

oh, i think another aspect to add in is perfected safety systems for the rider.  starting now with the airbag systems, but once they make it work perfectly, i think you'll see faster and faster times, not to mention no downtime due to injuries.  the assurance that, even if the rider has an off, they will pretty much come out of it with only bruising or less should allow the rider to a lot more comfortably push the bike.

I don't think fear of injury plays much into performance to be honest.  These guys already push the bikes into two wheel slides and have to save lowsides during many races.  Pushing harder would result in a crash, not faster times.

I don't know if it would make things faster, but I'd like to see unlimited cylinders. Get somebody to put a V6 (or whatever) on the grid, just to make things (hopefully) interesting.

it wasn't unlimited but there used to be a much bigger allowable number.  the infamous RC211v.  kawi was working on an I-6 at one point.

A mechanism to provide aerodynamic downforce directly on both wheels: F1 style wings pushing directly on the wheel rims, and tilted to remain upright as the bike leaned.

Maybe get rid of tires that lean altogether and just tilted the "body" of the bike and kept the wheels flat via a gyroscopic mechanism for more contact patch.

But personally, I'd just opt to let dustbin fairings be allowed again.

Something about a predictive system developed by BMW -- for SEAT/suspension mods on the fly:
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/forget-active-suspension-how-about-an-active-seat/18828.html (http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/forget-active-suspension-how-about-an-active-seat/18828.html)

You're going retro thinking to the old days of GP when Honda and others ran inline 6 motors. Honda's multi cylinder 125cc GP had like a 10+ speed gearbox. FIM finally shut down the madness as far as the gearboxes. The 6 cylinder motors went south shortly therafter. 

i'm also thinking of the V5 that honda ran until 2006 and the I6 that Kawasaki was considering before the 800 rules came about

I like the odd ball, out of the box thinking/engineering that go into engines like that. Like the oval piston four stroke Honda 500 GP bike lost in a world of 2 strokes. I still love the sound of an old CBX with a 6 into 1. Nothing on the street sounds like that any more. [thumbsup] But I guess if they want to curb costs they need to keep the rules as "normal" as possible as far as engine design.

Alternatively, tell them they can spend X million and make whatever they want.

While I understand cost concerns, personally I view prototype racing as the one place to just go absolutely bananas.

"Your engine must displace under [xxxx]cc. Go with God."

Something that I would think would be interesting to try is to have a chain and sprocket on both sides of the rear tire, and the driveshaft for the drive sprocket protruding on both sides of the engine. One would think that this adds extra weight, but then lighter drive components could be used. Also the swingarm and rear hub would not have to be over-engineered so much to handle the torsional force bias, therefore reducing weight. And alignment of drive components would be easier.

Another idea would be to have perimeter weighted rims. This would create a gyroscopic effect with the wheels, and possibly provide more straight line stability.

And yet another idea would be to run a refrigerant compression loop off the heat of the exhaust manifold to create an air-conditioning effect around the intake airbox to get a richer fuel-air mix.

Man, you must have really good weed.

  Since the biggest problem seems to be grip, what about the track surface? You never hear about it but is anyone working on surface technology or are all tracks just plain old asphalt? Is there anything stickier?

It has to be sticky enough to grip, but not-sticky enough to prevent drag. 

Use fly paper, it's pretty sticky.  Not not too good when it comes to drag.

Hehe. Had a rough couple of days, sleep eludes me right now.

Temperature control on the tires! Side to side, active suspension so the wheels could track over bumps vertically even when leaned over! Regenerative braking! Servo tiltable, gimbaled flywheel to keep the bikes from high-siding! Two-wheel steering! Only midget riders! Dogs and cats living together!

Man, this is starting to sound like a Dr. Bronner's label...

(http://givnology.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/4311023753/inlineimg/Y/dr-bronner-label-detail.jpg)

the funny thing is that whenever we talk about adding tech to the bikes someone always say "well why not just have robots ride them"

even with the advanced tc, fueling systems, quick shifters, better gearboxes, tires, etc...which mind you if you gave this stuff to someone 10 years ago they would think you brought it from a scifi show, and they would say "just have robots ride the bieks it will get too easy"

yet somehow even with all this stuff the riders, jlo and simocelli, both find ways to hiside themselves still, so you can't say that these bikes are rider proof to go fast, you still have to be able to ride the bikes to make them win.

case in point, stoner on the ducati, as shown by rossi not being able to ride the thing even close to victory.

as long as you still have humans riding these things, they will screw up even the best technology because the human will be the weakest point, and that is why we watch, to see which human is closest to being the best on the bike.  which if you think about it is what racing is about anyway.

Dammit. You just make too much sense. You aren't helping matters at all. [laugh]