FJR Owners Forum banner
  • Hey Everyone! Enter your bike HERE to be a part of this months Bike of the Month Challenge!
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Summers here. :roll:


Well it's the start of the GP season this Saturday anyway, so as a relative newcomer to the delights of watching bike racing who should I be looking out for?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
I predict the MotoGP season won't start until 26 March in Jerez. But you might find the WSB boys out in Qatar. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Knew someone was performing in Doha this weekend. :D

They're on bikes, they're a lot faster than I would be and thats about the extent of my knowledge. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,826 Posts
Why was it called the GP of Doha?
Shouldn't it been called the WSB of Doha!

I noticed the Sheiks didnt want to get off the winning podium. :mrgreen:

Haga cost me points!! But I forgive him as he's ace to watch :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,589 Posts
woody said:
Haga cost me points!! But I forgive him as he's ace to watch :D
Sorry to see him fall in race 1. Looks like the R1 is going pretty well as is Pitt.

Bayliss is an absolute bulldog though, never gives up. As much as I hope Haga can win it all, you have to think Bayliss/Corser are the boys to watch.

Australia sure has a large group of top roadracers in both AMA and WSBK. What are you boys doing down there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,358 Posts
My wife was even peering over her laptop to watch the 'ding-dong' battles at Qatar. (Love those announcers)

Haga, Bayless and Corser are great fun to watch. WooHoo!

Wouldn't it have been great to have a microphone in Kagayama's helmet - you'd have to speak some GOOOOD Japanese!



I'll never understand how Haga doesn't win more of them. When you see him sliding all over the place, how could anyone argue that he could be riding any harder? :shock:

That Honda's front fairing looks positively porky, doesn't it? She goes, though. (One of the blue and yellow CBR1000s just landed at my friend's dealership - FUGLY!)

The other thing I'll never understand (and I've heard LOTS of opinings :roll: ) is; how the V-twin Ducati can keep up with all of those I-4s (except one) with more horsepower. I know exactly how a Duc feels vaulting out of a corner, which is a beautiful thing... but I also know how an R1 feels when trying to hold that 'GO' handle on - when you get a little room on the straights. On a big, open GP-capable track, I don't know how the v-twins hang. I almost wonder of the I-4s have their tires toasted by the later laps, and then the tractors come pulling back up... but that doesn't seem to be the case, judging from how the bikes retain positions through the races.

(STryder/fjr13r - please don't make this a 'Ducati's shit doesn't stink' post, please. Leave it at v-twins, K?)

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Liquidsilver said:
My wife was even peering over her laptop to watch the 'ding-dong' battles at Qatar. (Love those announcers)

Haga, Bayless and Corser are great fun to watch. WooHoo!

Wouldn't it have been great to have a microphone in Kagayama's helmet - you'd have to speak some GOOOOD Japanese!



I'll never understand how Haga doesn't win more of them. When you see him sliding all over the place, how could anyone argue that he could be riding any harder? :shock:

That Honda's front fairing looks positively porky, doesn't it? She goes, though. (One of the blue and yellow CBR1000s just landed at my friend's dealership - FUGLY!)

The other thing I'll never understand (and I've heard LOTS of opinings :roll: ) is; how the V-twin Ducati can keep up with all of those I-4s (except one) with more horsepower. I know exactly how a Duc feels vaulting out of a corner, which is a beautiful thing... but I also know how an R1 feels when trying to hold that 'GO' handle on - when you get a little room on the straights. On a big, open GP-capable track, I don't know how the v-twins hang. I almost wonder of the I-4s have their tires toasted by the later laps, and then the tractors come pulling back up... but that doesn't seem to be the case, judging from how the bikes retain positions through the races.

(STryder/fjr13r - please don't make this a 'Ducati's shit doesn't stink' post, please. Leave it at v-twins, K?)

:)
Lot of "I don't understands", in your post and I can't say I understand why you wouldn't understand as this type of thing, ie v-twin traction vs I-4 traction, peak power vs displacement advantage, has been kicked around for years, but I'll let the x-perts speak to that.

As far as I'm concerened, if people still think Ducati won all those sbk titles because they had a displacement advantage after watching those races, and after watching them set lap records last year, they *really* need to get a life, and stop whinning. The L-twin and the Ducati racing program rock, stop being apologists for the big four.

But, the season has only begung. I have no predictions, only prefereneces, and I prefer Ducati to kick "big-four" butt, just because I lke rooting for the underdog; same as I've been doing long before I owned one, and will be doing long after I sell mine and move on to another brand.

(Good for Toseland. 25 years old? Amazing rider)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,358 Posts
What? I said please. :roll:

st ryder said:
stop being apologists for the big four.
Ummm, okay... but call me when our beloved Ducati can park a 370-pound, 183-horsepower scoot under my arse, for about 10-grand... then perhaps I can stop apologizing for my Ducati.

You know, I own shares in a company that runs 5-star hotels and resorts... I know how the 'glossy paper' business works. I love my Duc, but don't tell me it's a lot more than glossy paper, K? It's a sweet bike, but there are many areas where it could learn a thing or two from it's oriental competition. Thankfully, among the fleshy-headed, overly brand conscious... glossy paper buys lots of factory race support.

Oh, and if you're rooting for the underdog, wouldn't Haga be the underdog? I love Bayliss, but he's not the underdog.

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Lot of "I don't understands", in your post and I can't say I understand why you wouldn't understand as this type of thing, ie v-twin traction vs I-4 traction, peak power vs displacement advantage, has been kicked around for years, but I'll let the x-perts speak to that.

As far as I'm concerened, if people still think Ducati won all those sbk titles because they had a displacement advantage after watching those races, and after watching them set lap records last year, they *really* need to get a life, and stop whinning. The L-twin and the Ducati racing program rock, stop being apologists for the big four.

But, the season has only begung. I have no predictions, only prefereneces, and I prefer Ducati to kick "big-four" butt, just because I lke rooting for the underdog; same as I've been doing long before I owned one, and will be doing long after I sell mine and move on to another brand.

(Good for Toseland. 25 years old? Amazing rider)[/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mate you need an attitude refreshment. Apparently you are unable to understand the difference between a quietly posed "I don't understand" which opens the door for further rational discussion and an open insult of anothers views. If you have an opinion and want to defend that opinion, base it on facts not on how far you THINK you can piss. Put up or shut up!

Lenz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
From my perspective I will be making a decision this year between 06 FJR, 06 FZ1 or BMW K1200S. The reasons I would not consider any current Ducati is I feel the engines are not as powerful or broadly capable, the finish and attention to detail is not up to the same standard while maintenance and reliability is also a negative influence.

The Ducati organisation is currently in major turmoil with little apparent committment to meaningful sales development - the sales numbers speak for themself ! A commercial producer must SELL its product. Race programs for companies are usually a means to an end for R&D plus product exposure. Ducati seems more interested in racing than selling. Why they continue to "shuffle the deckchairs" with open wheel presentations and underseat exhausts and not build on the sales potential of the Desmosedici 90° V4 engine is a mystery to me.

If they built a bike of a similiar broad usage approach as the 06 FZ1 with only an upper fairing, steel trellis frame, conventional twin leg swing arm and a low centre of gravity dry sump 90° V4 1200cc with 130kw, 14+kgm and a dry weight under 200-210kg THEN they would sell numbers - hell I'd buy two ! Until then March / April 06 will see my money spent on products that offer the best blend of features, performance and reliability.

Lenz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,358 Posts
I chose the ST4S simply because it's the baddest (hard) bagger I could find. Its vastly lower weight puts its power to weight ratio well above the FJR... but not up to the FZ1, which brings me back the first question; why don't my buds on Fizzys run away from me on the Duc in the straights?

Same question; at the track, why are the Ducs, TL1000s, RC51s and Milles so hard to catch on the straights when I'm on an R1 that will just destroy them on a drag strip?

So far, my Duc has been reliable, but higher maintenance... short valve service intervals, odd rear brake adjustment requiring a make-shift fix, a niggly vent hose problem (fixed), bad front valve stem (fixed)... and I just finished a 3-hour job of rebuilding the gas cap (like taking apart a Rolex and putting it back together), but it's a thrill ride with a gorgeous soundtrack, so niggles aside... I'm still very happy with it.

I said I wasn't looking for the tired Duc glorifying/bashing stuff... I'm just wondering what benefits or disadvantages the current WSBK riders on both types of bikes might have on the different tracks. (on the topic)


:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,826 Posts
The 4's will be suffering when they come back to europe as the straits are far shorter and the lower weight advantage of the V's should help in the braking department.

Did anyone notice how Baylis could pull back any mistake he made within 2 corners! So his corner speed is far greater than the 4's but just didnt have the power to go past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Aren't the Ducatis supposed to have the best traction control system of the bunch at the moment? That would explain the ability to catch up rapidly in the turns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,826 Posts
Traction control is more for acceleration than use in the bends as the riders use all the corner speed they can, so putting more weight on to the rear tyre will make the front light and wash out.

I think Baylis is using the lighter weight of the Ducati to carry more corner speed and pushing the front tyre more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
@ lenz

My comments were dircted at Liquidsilver and I didn't see any attitude in them. The differences in power delivery between the I-4 and the L-twin have been discussed over the course of many years, so why an informed and talented rider like he would "not understand", is something I don't understand. As Woody alluded to, and generally speaking, the Ducatis are know for their cornering speed, and the I-4s for their straightaway speed, the dynamics of which are attributable to how they make and deliver power, as Liquid notes in his track experience, and as seen on different continents, again astutely noted by Woody, wherein Euorpean tracks with short straights result in better outcomes for twins as opposed to American tracks with long straights which favour I-4s. This is common knowledge. What's there to not understand?

BTW, Ducati is a niche player and has been for years, like 60. No amount of marketing or product development will overcome that. Many similar players in the market, thank goodness(!!), or we'd all be fed a steady diet of bland I-4s instead of having the wide variety of choice we now enjoy.

@Liquid

I didn't think I glossed over anything, just stated my preferences. I prefer to root for Ducati. The fact that they can't offer me a bike with 150 hp for under 10 grand means nothing to me, just as surely as the fact that R1s really have never won much of anything and are perennially beaten by GSXRs mean little to you. You still prefer the R1, regardless of it's obvious inferiority to the Suzuk. So do I, therefore, we are both of the same opinion in a wide sense: The "facts" don't sway our allegiences. You prefer the R1 over a better "R" bike, better in the senes that it actually wins year in and year out world and national championships, and I prefer a bike with less horsepower for more costs, because we like what we like for our own reasons.

Nothing in motorcycling is objective, there is no final right or wrong. It is as much poetic as it is mechanical. Room for all to enjoy.

Forza Ducati! :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,358 Posts
st ryder said:
so why an informed and talented rider like he would "not understand", is something I don't understand.
Dude, hearing comments about corner speed from a person that could bear to ride a Harley Low Rider for more than one week is far more difficult to understand.

st ryder said:
Euorpean tracks with short straights result in better outcomes for twins as opposed to American tracks with long straights which favour I-4s. This is common knowledge. What's there to not understand?
Your logic is as faulty as the KoolAid you drink, bud. Because Hodgson whipped almost every 'superior' GSXR on almost all of the American tracks. And one guy on a miserable I-4 beat almost all of the twins on the tightest tracks. What do you do with Chris Vermuellen? YOUR understanding of the situation is obviously not as proven as you think it is. Perhaps I should ask for the opinings of someone that knows a little about track riding, no?

st ryder said:
we'd all be fed a steady diet of bland I-4s instead of having the wide variety of choice we now enjoy.
That's pure bunk, bro. Harley rhetoric translated to Italian?

st ryder said:
You still prefer the R1, regardless of it's obvious inferiority to the Suzuk.
In your infinite wisdom, you say this because Suzuki's race teams and riders win races, on bikes that barely resemble their street bikes in the showroom? You're more delusional than I thought! I might own a GSXR if I didn't find the looks of the stickers and kid graphics objectionable. I've passed many at the track, and I detected no superiority, in any regard.

st ryder said:
Nothing in motorcycling is objective, there is no final right or wrong.
You mean, everything in motorcycling is subjective? Performance statistics do set some standards, though.

st ryder said:
It is as much poetic as it is mechanical.
Yes, I believe I was reciting poetry as I was rebuilding the friggin gas cap on my Ducati last night. 3 hours I could've been riding one of those droll Japanese machines.

Don't sell me on Ducati, I own one, and I'm happy with it, but it hasn't eaten my brain.

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Heres is an "oldish" article that summarises some of Kevin Camerons articles and if you read through it it does state that I-4s make more power of the straights and v-twins better toruque in corners, but what do I know, I'm not an international racing champion like you :lol: but I do agree that in the top racing series, v-twins are a better design. You may feel differently. Oh ya, lenz, I'll be waiting for your facts bro, since you asked for mine. And btw, I'm not trying to sell anybody anything; just talking bikes. :ale: I've pretty much decided my next bike will be a Triumph Speedmaster, for it's cornering abilities :lol: Enjoy:

There are lots of engine options for motorcyclists: Singles, Twins (in parallel, horizontally opposed and Vee configurations), Triples, inline-Fours and V-Fours, horizontally opposed flat-Sixes, rotaries and even jet turbines! Yet with all these options, the most popular engine types for motorcycles have been, and continue to be, V-Twins and inline-Fours. As the pinnacle of motorcycle technology has arguably swayed in favor of the 1000cc Superbike, let’s look at these two engine configurations up close and do a little compare-and-contrast examinations.

V-Twin sportbikes, from the high-dollar Ducati 999S to the low-buck Suzuki SV650S, have been making a strong resurgence in recent times. Excellent midrange performance courtesy of relatively high torque values means easy access to engine power in the hands of the average rider.

But what makes this so? It’s not simply displacement, because in this comparison, we’re only looking at one-liter engines. Instead, the reason V-Twins have relatively more torque than an inline-Four has nothing to do with what you’d expect, such as the engine’s basic layout.

As CW Technical Editor Kevin Cameron explains, “For the most part, this is a function of valve area. The temptation in doing any sports or racing engine is to put into the head the largest valves that will fit. When this is done with a four-cylinder engine (250cc per cylinder in a one-liter Four), the result is more valve area per displacement than with a Twin of the same size (500cc per cylinder in a one-liter V-Twin). The result of this tactic is power concentrated at the top of the rev scale for the four-cylinder, and power concentrated in the middle for the Twin.”

Why is that? It all has to do with intake-charge velocity. When the intake valves open, the downward movement of the piston creates a vacuum (unless you’re running boost, but that’s a story for another day) in the cylinder, drawing a fresh air/fuel mixture into the combustion chamber. Internal-combustion engines are nothing more than glorified air pumps; so because our one-liter inline-Four and V-Twin engines have the same displacement, they therefore flow a similar amount of air per crank revolution. And that means the volume of the incoming charge will be similar in either engine type.

Because the charge volume is determined by displacement, that volume of air and fuel has to squeeze through the comparatively small carb throats/fuel-injection throttle bodies, intake runners, ports and valves of either configuration. Unlike rush-hour traffic, our orderly fuel and air molecules do this by traveling at high velocity. And because velocity increases as the cross-sectional area of a given passage decreases for a given volume, the cylinder heads of an inline-Four engine will have a naturally higher intake velocity than those of a V-Twin.

To take advantage of this fact, the engine designers strive to increase the intake velocity of the V-Twins to help them make more peak horsepower, while they try to decrease the intake velocity of inline-Fours so those engines can make more peak torque. What they end up with are two different engine platforms with very similar intake velocities.

“Every competent engine designer attempts to use the highest intake velocity he can get away with,” says Cameron. “In earlier times, sharp port angles and sudden changes of section interfered with flow, so the engineers came to believe that very large ports were necessary. But as better shapes came into being, they found that smaller ports could be made to flow just as much–if not more–air as before. This has been the legacy of the recent ‘flowbench’ period of port development–that small, well-shaped ports can flow plenty of air and improve torque by raising the average velocity in the port.”

We know, however, that Twins and Fours are not equal, and the reason is that there are still limitations that having more open valve area cannot solve. First, as intake velocity is increased, you begin to have a problem with the intake charge reaching supersonic speeds. A shock wave builds inside the intake tract and air begins to “back up” behind the wave. This severely impedes intake velocity and imposes the limit at which an engine can inhale. Additionally, an inline-Four has twice as many power pulses in any given time period than a V-Twin. What’s more, Twins have more frictional losses in the valve train, thanks to needing two sets of slightly larger cams, two cam chains, stiffer springs pushing on larger, heavier valves moving through more lift and, of course, all the bearings necessary to support all the extra hardware.

To counteract the fact that a V-Twin only produces half as many power pulses per crank revolution, you could simply make the engine rev higher. But even if you were able to ignore the frictional losses (which increase by the square in relation to cam rotation speed–and remember, you have four cams pushing on the aforementioned bigger valves and hardware), you’d run into an even bigger issue, in fact the biggest issue: piston speed.

“What really determines how high an engine can rev is its peak piston acceleration, reached at TDC on every revolution. This is typically something like 7000 gs right now. Above that, there are problems with piston and ring reliability. Peak piston acceleration is directly proportional to stroke length, and to the square of rpm. In Superbike racing’s previous 1000cc Twin/750cc four-cylinder formula, this difference worked in favor of the Twins, even though the formula had been carefully set up so that the difference in displacement would be offset by the smaller engine’s shorter stroke and ability to rev higher. But in fact, the Fours could not rev as high as that formula assumed, because they reached that maximum piston acceleration sooner than thought.”

From an engineering standpoint, torque alone doesn’t make an engine configuration viable. That’s why packaging has played such a strong role in the success of the V-Twin. Not only are V-Twins narrower, but contrary to popular belief, they offer greater flexibility in fore-aft weight distribution due to their broader polar moment. Inline-Fours, on the other hand, are wider than V-Twins, obviously, but longitudinally shorter. In a front-to-rear plane, at least, that shortness is helpful in achieving the “mass centralization” goals that most sportbike manufacturers currently ascribe to. But the width of inline-Fours means they are generally harder to flick side-to-side than their V-Twin counterparts.

But wait! There’s more. By utilizing a shorter stroke, with smaller valves in smaller bores, Fours can rev much higher than Twins can. And because a smaller bore size means a smaller combustion chamber, the mixture is likely to burn more completely because the flame front has a shorter distance to travel; and that, in turn, allows the use of higher compression ratios. All of these factors equate to an engine that produces more peak horsepower than a Twin. No matter what sort of engine format you like, more power pulses per revolution, with more revolutions available over a given time period, equal more power.

Then there’s the subjective feeling that V-Twins provide. Producing one large power cycle per crank revolution, and staging those pulses at staggered intervals, not only yields a character that can be felt and heard, it punches all the right feel-good buttons.

Does that mean inline-Fours are better? Absolutely not. As Cameron puts it, “In simple terms, the four-cylinder should slaughter the Twin in terms of power, but when can you use it? For a few seconds at the end of the straights? Meanwhile, the strong midrange of the Twin can allow its rider to get a better jump off most turns, which gives an advantage most of the way down the next straight.”

What all this means is that, unless you’re involved in a serious racing program, it doesn’t really matter what motor layout powers your bike. Whether it’s a torquey V-Twin or a high-revving inline-Four, the bottom line is that a rider’s emotional preference is, as is often the case, the only real measuring stick that matters.

– Calvin Kim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
@st ryder

A good parry - that was genuinely worth reading - for me anyway.

The article touches on the different number of power impulses per rev between the I4 and Vtwins. While it is probably already well understood and documented perhaps the drive / traction effects of increased spool time between power impulses of 2 stroke vs four stroke is similiar in its drive / traction effects between I4 and V2. I believe the Ducati GP5 Desmosedici V4 uses a twin pulse firing pattern (2 cylinders firing simultaneously). This 90deg V4 with twin pulse that Ducati has used since Assen in 2004 seems to offer the best of both four stroke configurations. (engine balance and revs) I've seen the results of an I4 running a twin pulse setup in a dirt circuit / speedway sidecar and it was generating significantly more drive than conventional sequentially firing I4 bikes. Accelleration out of the tight corners was seriously ahead of the competition.

Lenz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,358 Posts
Liquidsilver said:
(and I've heard LOTS of opinings :roll: )
Yes, I'm quoting myself. Yes, lots of opinings. Yes, the opinions you've reprinted here. Yes, I've heard that. Thanks.

But those points are not being supported by results of late. The results are often contradicting those opinions. Thanks.

Sorry Woody, I really WAS talking about racing in my first post;

Liquidsilver said:
(STryder/fjr13r - please don't make this a 'Ducati's shit doesn't stink' post, please. Leave it at v-twins, K?)
Yes, I'm quoting myself again. Here's to great racing, in all the series.

I'll usually find a few riders that spark my enthusiasm. The factories they ride for don't matter to me as much. I like Haga and I like Bayliss. I think Bayless will take it. I just wish Bayliss were riding a Kawasaki, which worldwide racing experts will surely proclaim... is an OBVIOUSLY inferior bike. :roll:

:)
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top