Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Racing, Motorsports, and Track Days' started by MSCRacing, Dec 12, 2008.
Great. 600 Superstock. Again. :evil:
?????? So it's not now an arena for developing new technologies and ideas that will improve the breed, but a cookie-cutter formula? Why not give up and just go NASCAR?
I'm in two minds about this.
The only part of the bike that is production based is the engine. Everything else is free and open.
And how many people will pay 20,000 euro for a competitors engine?
Let's see how it goes.
Bring in super singles!
450mx bikes. Wahoo!
so long as they have a pit at the start and end of the main straight.
and they have manditory stops for valve adjustments and a top end rebuild.
EUR20,000 engine buy rule eh? If any one team has a huge development budget, competitors can just buy the winning bike's engine.
135kgs minimum for a complete 600cc bike is pretty light. World SuperSport is 158kgs. Superstock 600 minimum weights are 12kgs under the homologated empty tank weight, so typically in the 165-170kg range.
In terms of outright lap times under those regs, with full racing slicks, the lap times could approach to well within 2s of World Superbike lap times, perhaps even equalling at some circuits. Overall it doesn't look like the bikes should go much slower than the current 250GP bikes. Slightly slower mid-corner speeds, but slightly better acceleration and top speeds (with rider aboard).
More expensive to maintain than the strokers but.
Reading through the requirements, they limit the max RPM for each type of engine, (ie twin, 15000 rpm, triple 15500 rpm, & four 16000 rpm), would that not leave the the twins & triples at a disadvantage?
I don't know the formula for power, but more revs = more power right? Or am I missing something?
No, you're right MV. The rules as written pretty much favor I4's only. The triples get a 5kg weight advantage, and the twins a 10kg advantage, but that won't likely be enough to make a difference. A bigger telling factor is that there are no production 600cc twin or triple engines made by anyone, and given that such a production engine would need to compete against the 600cc I4's in the supersport sales market, then basically the rules as written pretty much mean that only engines from the current established Japanese big-4 bike makers will be able to participate.
Twins and triples get punished in WSS too, with them forced to carry 8/4kg weight penalties respectively, even though twins/triples in WSS haven't been able to compete on equal terms for about the last four years with those weight penalties applied.
It becomes fairly obvious then as to whose money is driving the regulations within WSS and 600GP.
I believe the intent of the 20,000 Euro rule is to stop development and therefore constrain costs. So everyone will have an IL4, making 120hp in a lightweight chassis.
David Emmet askes the question on Motogp Matters about whether the 600s in Moto2 will be outperformed or bear any similarity to 600SS machines and how that will affect spectator involvement. Which I'd say is a fairly ridiculous point to make.
The only thing a Motogp bike shares with mine is the engine type (4 stroke). It's the same for racing slicks that have no relevance outside pure racing circles.
I watch racing for close battles, seeing my favourite riders fighting for the lead with their sworn enemies. I give not a rats arse whether they're 2-Stroke, 4-Stroke, twins, triples or V5's. It's the same with tyres, I don't support Michelin, don't cheer when Bridgsestone win or buy the latest Pirelli based on their Supersport contract. I watch racing. And I think watching nutty 17 and 18yo's with crazy hair riding like lunatics on some of the best circuits in the World, on machines with lightweight parts and avantgarde chassis should be fun to watch.
A Few rules there areâ€¦ Confusing.
I understand this one, I am just amused by the poor English.
I remember a story by bangr about him helping in a satellite team for WSS and them going through more than 2 engines on a bike for the weekend. That makes this element more restrictive than WSS
Why? This means if someone works up an engine and does well with it, then they are forced to sell it.
I understand that this rule basically means that if you spend more than 20k on the engine you are giving away technology to your opponent, and as such enforces a 20k limit on engine build, but it seems strange to me.
waste of a good 250GP frame if you ask me ( just my 2c worth )
F-L, it's simple really.
The WHOLE intent is to limit costs. It's easy to build an engine that will last. Just not one that makes mega HP. And why would you want to tune it to buggery only to have it taken off you. It's a control engine in everything but name.
As for the English. I see a glass house and a box full of stones
( although I do have a distinct preference for a blue aromatic haze in the morning )
Has anyone noticed;
Thats pretty oldschool, and a very interesting dynamic.
That's an MX bike with forks and fairings.
You could pick up a used gp bike for the same price.
used to be called 'super mono'
other requirements typically included a broom and lots of cement. :grin:
And a Le Mons start!
The 250cc title will be boring, next year. imagine what it will be like after that .
The rumour is that 2011 date will be brought forward to 2010.
Hope so. Kill it quickly. The last "real" 250 title has happened.