[39003]

It's about time...as much as I love the V-twins (I have an SV650), this past weekend's race proved to me that it's time for the restrictors to go. So the GSX-R is going to have an "unfair advantage" over everyone - the RC51 (VTR1000 SP2) seemed to have its perks for a good while. As one poster recently suggested, it might even force Ducati into creating a V-4 streetbike and Aprilia into releasing a triple for the masses. Those are two sounds I wouldn't mind hearing on the road every once in a while.



In case you couldn't tell, I'm all for some rule changes. As a result, I give the following advice: Honda, beef up your 954RR. Yamaha, get that R1's motor up to snuff (well, relatively speaking). Kawasaki, stop putzing around and give EBos a bike that he can ride the balls off of...I got love for the old 7R, but I'd have more love for either (a) a ZX-9R that has some game or (b) a ZX-10R...and for Christ's sake, get fuel injection on all your bikes. And Ducati, don't turn into some whiny bi***es - if you can pull off what you have done in MotoGP, then this shouldn't be a problem.



So if WSBK ditches the restrictors, is this the end of the V-twin? Hell no, there'll always be Harleys...just kidding. The V-twin is always going to have a place on the street, and my guess is that we have not seen the last of it on the track either.



Until I can afford more, I'll live with my 10.5k redline and two chugging cylinders (and eat my cake too). Viva la resistance! Riiight...

 

[Grappelli]

Here's the issue: If you make litre 4's the standard and not restrict them, then shortly these engines will be producing Grand Prix levels of horse power. And this will HAVE to be in the street versions as well to meet the rules. So we will be talking about 200+ bhp bikes.



Now I think there are people who can handle this and others who can be taught.. BUT:



It will force legislative changes if 200bhp bikes become freely avaliable to the public, especially in places like california, where the bike test comprises of riding in a circle. There is no way that this prepares people for 120bhp bikes, let alone 200bhp bikes. And make no mistake. People will pass their test, walk to the dealer and buy these like many already do with R1's.



So how do we stop the politicians interfering o prevent these bikes? Multi level bike tests? BHP restrictions? What?



Discuss.

 

[brickl]

I'm all for a tiered license structure. But I can guess who'll be most concerned about such a wise development - HD. Do you think your 50 year old dentist will want to haul his porky, pink wife around for 2 years on the back of a Honda Rebel in order to qualify for his Road King? He'd probably stick to the Sea-Ray or the Winnebago.

 

[12er]

No no no no no, what kind of crazyness is this? They need to hire a bunch of physics professors and figure out a handicaping system to where even your beloved SV can compete fairly.

 

[3917]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Formula Extreme unrestricted? If you check the lap times of the Formual Extreme bikes aren't they around the same as Super Bike?

 

[12er]

Come on Boost King!!!



"What the hell is... zooooommm... > Uh... was that?"

 

[josxr]

AMA Superbike is unrestricted, WSBK is restricted. There are riders contesting AMA SBK on FX machines, but they are not as fast as the factory superbikes.

 

[bwarbiany23]

I'm all for WSB removing the restrictors...



The simple fact is that it's obvious watching the races that the new 999 is a good 5-10 hp over the rest of the field. While Lavilla on the GSXR can fight pretty well with the 998's on the field, there's not much chance of him taking a championship without the ability to hang with Hodgson on the straights...



I also want to see the AMA reduce the weight limit for the 750-800 cc I-4's... They're way down on HP compared to the liter twins and liter fours, and they should get their old maximum weight back. While I think E-Boz should join the new milllenium and ride a liter bike, I think if he had his 15 lbs weight advantage back, it would be a much better series...

 

[39003]

I highly doubt the streetbike versions will be making 200 bhp any time soon...the reliability would be questionable and all the other inconveniences of a race bike engine come into play. The rules in both series allow some level of modifications to the engines...the "Best of the Best" feature on MO has a pretty good bit about what are the trick parts on a Team Yoshimura GSX-R1000 vs. your street version. Granted, even in its street version, the GSX-R1000 is a beast, and we might need to have a tiered license system. That idea, by the way, is something we might want to pursue with cars - how is your average lawyer equipped to drive a 493 hp MB SL55 or 582 hp Lambo? While there is no doubt driving 4 wheels on the street is a bit easier, make no mistake, those are formidable amounts of power to have in any car...is the average driver (in terms of skill, not money) really trained to handle those types of cars properly?



If people weren't as stingy with money and realized that they enjoyed amazing fuel prices and low insurance rates, I would say make them pay extra for mandatory time at California Superbike School or Pridmore's STAR School - and make exotic car buyers take at least a day-long Skip Barber course. This is, of course, in my ideal world where I was the reigning MotoGP champion and Rossi was furiously trying to take me down. But all improbability aside, there is no way that more education could hurt riders/drivers, especially when dealing with such powerful machines on 2 and 4 wheels.

 

[rsheidler]

Last year, the FX times were generally significantly SLOWER than superbikes. This year, the main reason why they are similar is that Ben Spies' FX bike is in fact identical to Mladin's and Yates' SuperBikes.



Cheers

Bob

 

[dnakase]

I think social Darwinism has been working well so far. If you're fresh off the MSF course and can handel an R1 fine. The only modification I'd make is a mandatory organ donor program for anyone who is allowed to drive, 2 or 4 wheels.

 

[nokneedragin]

This is one of the oldest problems in motorcycle racing. If all displacements are equal, then the 4 cyl (5 in GP) make more power, then the 2 cyls are at a disadvantage. So they try other things, like restrictors in WSBK, or weight restrictions based on number of cyls (like GP). IMO the rules in the AMA need to go more toward the GP way. They could even have different weights for different displacements (but unobtainium is hard to come buy for the privateers). I'd like to see different type of bikes go at it, each having its own advantage at different parts of a track.

I hated watching the vtwin advantage in WSBK, but the original rules where based on the possible technology of the time, and the tech caught up and burried them.



Itis the cunundrum of balancing power output, weight, engine configuration and somehow geting the most competitive, entertaining, and varried racing.

 

[rsheidler]

Within the level of tuning currently allowed in AMA and BSB (which is what FIM seems to be suggesting for WSB) the circa 150 hp production bikes are boosted to probably over 180hp. I suspect that over time, if the WSB follows this path, the factories will produce bikes which can be tuned to produce 200hp, but what they produce for the street will be based on what will sell -- especially the Japanese manufacturers are oriented to selling bikes in large numbers, not a small number of race bikes.



Already the open class bikes are utilizing electronically managed torque profiles (once they have electronic ignition and efi, that is the logical next step) that can adapt torque curves to what gear you are in etc in order to make a 150, or even 200 hp street bike reasonably tractable on the street.



I understand that already the gixxers in AMA and WSB are using this technology on the race track to give a managable power curve, which is more important than absolute power.



As someone else pointed out, we have 500-600 hp performance luxury cars that can be driven around Beverly Hills by Yuppie lawyers, in part because the manufacturers have found ways to tame this power.



Cheers

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Any MCN Subscribers Here?

>>it might even force Ducati into creating a V-4 streetbike<<

MCN's web site has a teaser about an article in its print version on a supposed plan to introduce a V4 Ducati for the street. Does anybody get the print issue? Curious to see if there is any solid info or just more idle speculation.

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Graduated Licenses

Without getting into the question of whether new riders should be required to do an "apprenticeship" on a small and/or low-power cycle for some time before getting a regular license, I think a very good case could be made for the serious performance bikes -- perhaps to be able to ride any bike with over X hp (perhaps 125?) a rider must show proof of having satisfactorily completed some type of advanced skill course (MSN Advances Course, Pridmore, Code etc class). Maybe the criteria should be weight/hp rather than just hp to distinguish the GoldWing types from the GSX-R 1000s.

Regards

Bob

 

[KPaulCook]

Keep it simple stupid

I have a sign that says "Keep it simple stupid" in my office. It great to hear "Superbike rules must be more simple and less expensive, like the Superbike rules in force in the United States, Japan or Great Britain." I would love to see four international classes MotoGP, Unlimited CC production based bikes , 1000 CC production based bikes, and 600 CC production based bikes.

Forget 2 strokes in road racing. Perhaps the production bike classes would settle on inline 4s but that would be only because of the production advantages they entail. However, as long as MotoGP is around in its current form innovation will survive and you will see V-5s, inline 4s, triples, etc. Maybe boxers 4s and 6s will be produced. The minute you go to a NASCAR "stock" car thing complicated rules, restrictor plates, even fairing regulations, then things get boring.

 

[KPaulCook]

V-Twins suck but V-4s are sexy. How V-4s are like women

I always hated V-Twins cause I hate asymetry. I think V-Twin came about cause it sit the best in the bicyle frames of early Harleys. To me a V-Twin with one long pipe and one short pipe is like a women with one boob. Now a V-4 is symetric, sexy and has potential.. Now if I could just convince my wife on the VFR.

 

[32324]

Each rule change over the past 20 years has been made to encourage a particular engine configuration. AMA SBK allowed 1000cc twins against 750cc fours to encourage Harley. WSBK did the same to encourage Ducati. MotoGP allowed 990cc 4-strokes against 500cc 2-strokes to encourage 4-strokes.



The problem is that they've always upped the displacement of the engine they wanted to encourage instead of reducing that of the currently dominant design. And they upped it too much so it became dominant. They should pay attention to basic engineering. A long time ago it was noted that theoretically (4-stroke) engine power is more nearly proportional to total piston area than displacement. If they had paid attention to that they would have allowed 944cc twins against 750cc fours. Or 800cc fours against 1000cc twins.

 

[rsheidler]

Re: V-Twins suck but V-4s are sexy. How V-4s are like women

Each to his/her own opinion, but KPaul, if you say that "V-Twins suck" and "V-4s are like women," does that not imply that you prefer to be sucked by men rather than women, and if so, how does your wife feel about that?

Aside from a few Harleys, how many V-Twins have one short and one long pipe? Oh, and I suppose you would stop loving your wife if she had a mastectomy?

Since cylinders are commonly refered to as "jugs" that would imply that a twin would compare to a "normal" woman with two tits, while a four would be like a woman with 4 tits -- like I say, different strokes ;-)

Cheers

Bob

 

[Buzglyd]

Re: V-Twins suck but V-4s are sexy. How V-4s are like women

I'm still trying to figure out how twins are asymmetrical.

Whether it's 90 degree, 45, or boxer, they're all pretty damn symmetrical.