If there was no rules, how could you make a bike that was faster than todays GP?

[thought]

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

[ManaloEA]

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

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.

[vaclav]

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

+ a couple more years

they are catching up quick!

[derby]

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.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.

[ManaloEA]

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

[gm2]

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.

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

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

[Triple J]

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

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.

[thought]

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

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

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

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.

[Jester]

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

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.

[zarn02]

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.

[gm2]

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.

[Drunken Monkey]

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.

[ducatiz]

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

[fastwin]

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.

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. 

[gm2]

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