Vecchio Lupo wrote:
While its true I've read what I could in the mainstream press, this from Erik himself:
But if our bike had a bigger engine, how could it not be unfair? Well, the journalists sold their readers a pile of ignorance when they talked about power-to-weight advantages. Yes we had some power-to-weight, which showed on straights, but our power was restricted a lot, and you need to remember rider weight in the equation. So it was far less than people claimed.
Secondly, we ran heavier, which on identical 600-type tires was really a big issue. How much time on a race track are you at full power compared to how much time you are at the traction limit of the tire? All the time you are at the traction limit of the tires—accelerating, cornering, braking—we were at a disadvantage. Third, we had more inertia than the 600s, which makes the bike harder to turn, especially, once again, on 600-spec tires. Fourth, we were told to run bodywork that was not very aerodynamic to hold down top speed to less than the fast 600s. We were very artificially constrained with power, weight and aero, while the 600s were at the ragged edge on power but were on perfect tires. It made for great racing.
What utter BS. The industry was busy destroying itself over egos, while spectators were robbed of some of the greatest races ever—in the middle of a hideous recession. At the end, the DSB championship was decided in the last race of the year by a couple of points, and could have been a Suzuki, a Yamaha or a Buell. Danny won on consistency as well as huge talent. Our bike was not a dominant force; the rules were set to make the bikes equal.http://www.cycleworld.com/article.asp?s ... le_id=2119I know that racing is the proving ground for good ideas, but some people say American Stockcar racing is boring because all the cars are exactly the same, and that the European Touring Car series is great because every vehicle has different strong and weak points. Maybe it's just me that doesn't care to watch a field of identical 600s battle with fuel and tire consumption as the factors.
Racing is a business, with sponsors and ratings and merchandise sales, it's not the mechanical olymics where truth and justice prevail. If a series is boring, people won't watch, and the series will die. That is the Darwinism of sports. Remember Bowling on TV.
I agree with you VL. As you point out the competition motorcycle is a complex animal and not just a power to weight/capacity race. Thats why mixing engine sizes and configurations is also complex and makes for interesting racing. Look at how fast the pure racing (stinkwheels I know) 250 stroker became before they were banned.
Notice also how F1 has refined itself into a procession of identical piloted missiles because of engine capacity, fuel, tyre, and practice limitations.
It needs some radical thinking like racing bikes to introduce different engine configurations/capacities for cars. F1 could start with a low 10,000rpm limit, but allow 5 litre V8 engines, a 16,000rpm limit with 3 litre V12s, and a 13,000 limit with a 3.7 litre V10 etc, etc. Then watch the chassis and tyre designers struggle with torque loadings. They could easily adjust fuel and rpm limits if any one class showed too much advantage.
a 7 litre V6 at 7000rpm anyone?
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
well wicked 
I like where this thread is going. I agree in better mousetrap and better pilot.
I met him afew years ago at Mallory Park and he was very pleasant.
