Engineered rule bending
Discussion
PhillipM said:
I'd be rather surprised that anyone sacrificed 40bhp for 10kg to start with...
Not just about the weight on acceleration, etc but also the effect on handling. I would suggest (as a total engineering idiot) that the answer is that the pay off between the two wasn't worth it when they could get down to the base weight but was worth is once that base had increased.PhillipM said:
I'd be rather surprised that anyone sacrificed 40bhp for 10kg to start with...
The GP bikes of that era were almost un-ridable, narrow power bands, very steep, almost vertical power curves, carbon/carbon brakes, no traction control and tyres that were to put it politely... s
t!For comparison a Yamaha YZF-R125 learner bike weighs in at a claimed 140kg and puts out about 15bhp and has ABS against 120kg/160bhp of a 500GP bike!
The extra strength in the crankcases allowed Honda to build a big-bang engine where all four pistons fired within about 60-80 degrees of each other which did weird things to the power delivery and made the bikes much more rideable. This meant the riders could use an extra 40bhp without being spat over the highside and into the medical centre every other race.
It also meant Cagiva, Yamaha and Suzuki had to spend loads of cash to build new bikes so instead of slowing things down and making the racing cheaper those extra 10kg re-ignited a developement/horsepower war.
Tango13 said:
The extra strength in the crankcases allowed Honda to build a big-bang engine where all four pistons fired within about 60-80 degrees of each other which did weird things to the power delivery and made the bikes much more rideable. This meant the riders could use an extra 40bhp without being spat over the highside and into the medical centre every other race.
Surely in that case they'd have just done it before?HughG said:
Tango13 said:
The extra strength in the crankcases allowed Honda to build a big-bang engine where all four pistons fired within about 60-80 degrees of each other which did weird things to the power delivery and made the bikes much more rideable. This meant the riders could use an extra 40bhp without being spat over the highside and into the medical centre every other race.
Surely in that case they'd have just done it before?Tango13 said:
The GP bikes of that era were almost un-ridable, narrow power bands, very steep, almost vertical power curves, carbon/carbon brakes, no traction control and tyres that were to put it politely... st!
For comparison a Yamaha YZF-R125 learner bike weighs in at a claimed 140kg and puts out about 15bhp and has ABS against 120kg/160bhp of a 500GP bike!
The extra strength in the crankcases allowed Honda to build a big-bang engine where all four pistons fired within about 60-80 degrees of each other which did weird things to the power delivery and made the bikes much more rideable. This meant the riders could use an extra 40bhp without being spat over the highside and into the medical centre every other race.
It also meant Cagiva, Yamaha and Suzuki had to spend loads of cash to build new bikes so instead of slowing things down and making the racing cheaper those extra 10kg re-ignited a developement/horsepower war.
Do you not think it more likely that Honda (let's face it, Honda were pushing hard on the engine front even years before the change) were developing that engine anyway because of the rideability issues, and the 10kg raise just fell in line at the right time for them to mitigate the extra weight? t!For comparison a Yamaha YZF-R125 learner bike weighs in at a claimed 140kg and puts out about 15bhp and has ABS against 120kg/160bhp of a 500GP bike!
The extra strength in the crankcases allowed Honda to build a big-bang engine where all four pistons fired within about 60-80 degrees of each other which did weird things to the power delivery and made the bikes much more rideable. This meant the riders could use an extra 40bhp without being spat over the highside and into the medical centre every other race.
It also meant Cagiva, Yamaha and Suzuki had to spend loads of cash to build new bikes so instead of slowing things down and making the racing cheaper those extra 10kg re-ignited a developement/horsepower war.
I don't think it's likely that they go for 40bhp just because of the extra 10kg, given what they were like to ride anyway, and I don't think it's exactly 'rule-bending' either.
Edited by PhillipM on Tuesday 27th January 21:31
Wh00sher said:
I think the blatant cheating, where they knowingly BREAK the rules is unacceptable.
Interpreting the rules and spotting a loophole is acceptable.
IMO.
Interesting you say this, would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this...Interpreting the rules and spotting a loophole is acceptable.
IMO.
Imagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.
Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
TobyLaRohne said:
Interesting you say this, would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this...
Imagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.
Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
That's an oddly specific example. Are you worried you are cheating?Imagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.
Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
TheAllSeeingPie said:
TobyLaRohne said:
Interesting you say this, would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this...
Imagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.
Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
That's an oddly specific example. Are you worried you are cheating?Imagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.
Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
My opinion was that if you've tried to explain the flaws to the scrutineers and they've listened then rejected the advice, you cant do much more. You certainly have no obligation to help the other competitors.
TobyLaRohne said:
Just curious to know peoples thoughts. There's been alot of talk about this very subject recently and I thought I'd propose the same to you lot to see what you thought.
My opinion was that if you've tried to explain the flaws to the scrutineers and they've listened then rejected the advice, you cant do much more. You certainly have no obligation to help the other competitors.
I'd probably of the opinion that the dataloggers were supplied by the officials, and therefore as long as they haven't been modified, it seems like a perfectly fair bending of the rules. If the logger has been tampered with then that's cheating.My opinion was that if you've tried to explain the flaws to the scrutineers and they've listened then rejected the advice, you cant do much more. You certainly have no obligation to help the other competitors.
A similar one would be the "shaving" of car silhouettes, which if the cars had to be a "production shell" then that's cheating, whereas if they just have to "resemble a production shell" then it doesn't seem so naughty.
Like all things there's a fine line between blatantly trying to cheat and just taking advantage of the flaws in the rules.
TobyLaRohne said:
Interesting you say this, would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this...
Imagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.
Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
As long as you're happy that what you're doing is ok and would stand up to any investigation, what the other competitors are or aren't doing isn't your concern IMOImagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.
Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
It's the interpretations of the rules and the measures taken to pass the tests that keeps motorsport alive imo.
It gets the creative minds working and makes the rule makers wording crucial, it also spits out anyone who thinks the spirit of the rules is key, uhuh! technical dissemination and exploitation of the flaws in the wording until the competition/rule makers catch on is almost as much fun as the racing imo.
It gets the creative minds working and makes the rule makers wording crucial, it also spits out anyone who thinks the spirit of the rules is key, uhuh! technical dissemination and exploitation of the flaws in the wording until the competition/rule makers catch on is almost as much fun as the racing imo.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff