1000cc in 2012

[gm2]

Can someone explain the physics of this to me? or give me a link?  Is it the same principle as 600 v. 1000 in non-MotoGP racing (which I understand intuitively, but can't explain that well in writing)?  Seems like the point-n-shoot style versus corner speed style makes much less of a difference with modern electronics.  Is that wrong?

basically the 1000cc powerplants are too much power.. but with more power available than you can really use, you can make line & racecraft adjustments mid-corner and still have enough in reserve to not lose time or place.  with the 800 there is, essentially.. at the GP level, one line through any corner. 

if you're on the limit 99.9% of the time, you get follow the leader racing.

[EvilSteve]

I'm no expert (far from it) but I don't buy the "too much power" argument. I don't see factories saying "oh, well, we have an extra 20hp so we don't need to do any work on our motor or electronics". Nor do I believe that a change back to 1000cc will lead the factories to remove any of the electronics which have cost a lot of money to develop.

I've asked/said before and I look for a correction from some of the more knowledgeable members; GP bikes are a function of the riders, the best riders came through GP bikes, they focus more on corner speed, that's why the bikes have gone the route they have, the best riders are faster on bikes like this than point and shoot WSBK style bikes.

[derby]

I'm no expert (far from it) but I don't buy the "too much power" argument.

from an available traction point of view, you can definitely have "too much power."

[Cider]

I'm no expert (far from it) but I don't buy the "too much power" argument. I don't see factories saying "oh, well, we have an extra 20hp so we don't need to do any work on our motor or electronics". Nor do I believe that a change back to 1000cc will lead the factories to remove any of the electronics which have cost a lot of money to develop.

I sort of agree.  Once the electronics pandora box has been opened, I don't know how to close it without a rules change.

However, if it's just as easy to park the bike on the apex, stand it up, and use ridiculous amounts of power to rocket off the corner, that might be a cheaper solution.  The theory is that 1000cc bikes make that strategy more realistic, especially for private teams (and Suzuki  ).

[EvilSteve]

Sure but that's not the argument here is it? On one hand we're arguing that the 800s have too many electronic aids and on the other we're saying a return to 1000cc bikes would produce a bike which would overwhelm traction. I'm talking from a developmental perspective, with the 800s having enough power to overwhelm the rear as well (based on the highsides we've seen) what's the difference? How will 1000cc bikes change the equation?

[DarkMonster620]

Untill this year, we had 125/250/GP[800].

Now we'll have 125/600/800... Doesn't sound like there'll be too much difference between the two 'upper' classes.

I'm for 990cc GP class once again, all manufacturers have the tech to be on the same even playing field.

Regarding to weight, remember FIM told HRC to 'add' weight to Pedrosa's bike to have an 'even' weight field, back in the day? Stoner is heavier, not by much, but heavier than Pedrosa or should we add weight to Edward's motorcycle?

I'm for 990cc back on GP, the electronics, just make them to regulate fuel delivery and maybe, traction control, let the riders battle it out with both, man and machine, that's why Rossi is so good. He is from way when...

My 0.02

[Cider]

How will 1000cc bikes change the equation?

Kind of what we've been discussing.  One theory is that they can point-and-shoot a 1000cc bike just as fast (or possibly faster) than they can use a corner-speed style on a 1000cc.  Part of the theory is that point-and-shoot is cheaper and easier to produce than corner-speed, bringing costs down.  I can't prove the theory, but I think it's interesting.

[EvilSteve]

Right, I'm asking why anyone thinks we can wind back the clock to the point and shoot style of riding? I'm saying that yes, we get more power with a 1000cc but the electronics we have now would probably be able to account for that so I don't see how it's going to change anything?

[Speeddog]

I don't recall where I saw it, but the 'cornerspeed' solution was said to be a result of the fuel capacity limits.

Less fuel consumed due to less acceleration.
Point'n'shoot could get quicker laptimes, but then run out of fuel before the end of the race.

[derby]

Right, I'm asking why anyone thinks we can wind back the clock to the point and shoot style of riding? I'm saying that yes, we get more power with a 1000cc but the electronics we have now would probably be able to account for that so I don't see how it's going to change anything?

i think you'd possibly end up with both; a cornerspeeder out front with a point-n-shooter trying to dive up under him to take a position without getting re-passed due to lost momentum.

[Cider]

Not totally on-topic, but here's a good article where The Ben talks about the differences between a WSBK bike and a GP bike:

http://www.roadracerx.com/features/tuesday-conversation/tuesday-conversation-ben-spies/

[OT]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though the main reason to go to "1000 cc" engines was because these (stock) engines can largely come 'off the shelf' and (supposedly) reduce major engine-developement costs to the racing team (whick keeps them around for a few more years).

I would think the cost of developing and maintaining the electronic systems on the bikes is very high.

Seems the 'governing bodies' are trying a little too hard to write equipment specs/standards....They could all race 500s again and I'd still enjoy watching it.

Just pick something and let's go racing    [moto]

[sbrguy]

the argument for going back to 1000 is flawed.  this is motogp this is not super stock or slightly stock class.  its an expensive proposition, tha tis the game if you aren't willing to do the development work then you don't go into it.  even when they go back to 1k motors they are not the same motors as what you get on a bike.

do you see ducati making all their bikes v4 like the d16? obviously not, and that is the only thing thing are using for racing, until they made the d16 they didnt' have a 1k motor that they raced in gp that was sold off the shelf.  even now that is basically a limited bike and really its not helping them "save money" by going back to that bike, because even though its 'like a gp engine" its not a motogp engine.

i think the only reason why some want to go back to the 1k motors is because thier 800 motors are basically being stomped so badly i the past years, ie, honda, suzuki, and kawa... i think when they go back to the 1k motors and they see the sam epeople winning they might might realize its not the engine size that is doing it but the riders only.

if they want to make motogp a bit tougher, make them use 87 pump gas instead, they can mod the electronics all they want but make them actually use pump gas and pass emissions too.   it would show what a factory backed team "could" do with an emissions legal motor but will be able to tweak everything else like they do.

[gm2]

....what?

[derby]

the argument for going back to 1000 is flawed. 

<snip>

the argument for going back to ~1000cc is that the 800cc racing sucks.

the argument for production-derivitive motors is that it'll bring costs down.

they're separate issues altogether.