Oscar wrote:on corner entry that seems to defy conventional logic. I THINK it is a quick twitch of the bars to a strongly in-turned position, almost scrubbing the tyre sideways to generate extra heat and force the thing to start moving in the new direction, followed by the counter-steer movement to get the bike laid down for the corner. The nearest thing I can think of by way of explanation would be the flick-turn entry to a corner for rallye drivers but it's not exactly that either.
sir_nj wrote:don't get me wrong Albert I enjoy your posts and I have appreciated your objectivity but the repetitive theme about SOME POSTS just made me think...
TwoStroke Institute wrote:I dunno Albert but the place to look would be the major differences , which will always be the frame.
TwoStroke Institute wrote:RatsMC wrote:TwoStroke Institute wrote: Something that a 70deg V angle might fix..........................
That 90 degree v that Ducati is religious about has always struck me as quixotic. I mean just looking at my Buell with its 72 degree angle I feel the damn thing it just too crowded and really limits the configuration options. I mean, you should see what the Buell racing team has done just to try and fit radiators in the thing.
Closing the V helps with packaging, but as I said before the Ducati 'fix' is more about the company than the bike.
deviant wrote:n my opinion the major stumbling block will be a desire to make one headstock/subframe/airbox combo that works at every track....as i dont think this is currently possible with carbon fibre....however if they acknowledge the limitations of the material and take a selection to each race then there's no reason why they cant have a bike that is competitive whatever the track and whatever the conditions.
Oscar wrote:The second problem I believe is the variability of BS tyres, which I consider to be suspect.
sir_nj wrote:Oscar how much of a problem will it be to also have a host of hand laid CF front ends when trying to work out which one gives the best flex?
TwoStroke Institute wrote:Your prediction of JB and co working all winter has come true Oscar, as Gary Coleman was due to come to a local bike club meeting next week , something he has done for the past 4 or 5 years.Then it's straight back into it after new year. Would say there is a bit of culture shock coming from a well resourced Japanese team to a small European team under the pump.
Would be a struck match in time taken to make iteration of a carbon or aluminium frames, steel trellis would be fastest.
TwoStroke Institute wrote:Making the MDF mould would consume time though even that can be CNC machined.
Oscar wrote:deviant wrote:n my opinion the major stumbling block will be a desire to make one headstock/subframe/airbox combo that works at every track....as i dont think this is currently possible with carbon fibre....however if they acknowledge the limitations of the material and take a selection to each race then there's no reason why they cant have a bike that is competitive whatever the track and whatever the conditions.
Two issues I see. The first is that with a subframe configuration, you have to take out the bending (or build in the compliance) in a very short distance compared to a longer beam type configuration. Since the ultimate strength of the subframe MUST be sufficient to withstand the greatest force applied to it without snapping, over a short distance that means the compliance options will be more limited no matter what the material.
The second problem I believe is the variability of BS tyres, which I consider to be suspect. The possibility of getting it spot-on for one specific tyre and then throwing on another, apparently identical, tyre and finding the set-up is out the window is real - it has happened to riders on other than Ducatis, including Edwards, Spies and Capirossi. If you look at Stoner's comments about 'not knowing how much grip for the first four- five laps' in the context of how fast Stoner is apparently able to guage what is happening in practice - typically three/four laps - I think the tyre variability must be considered a realistic issue.
L34 wrote:Since 2009 which teams' data have Bridgestone been using to develop their tires?
Sure they will say all the teams, but would one teams data be easier construct a tire for than the rest?
Or are the BS tires a good compromise for most and the teams have built their bikes to suit the them with the excepton of Ducati who simply could not find a fix for their front end woes?
ducati1098s wrote:The traditional alu beam frame must allow flex along its length and therefore presumably flexes underneath the rider, allowing him to feel much more of whats going on underneath him. If the flex permitted is only in that v short space around the headstock/airbox then that must surely be flex which is much more remote from the rider being further away?
I have not posted in a long time but wanted to share my thoughts on the Ducati issues. I am on expert at what so ever, the following is just my personal hypothesis.
I believe the problem is not with the front end or frame-less design, but with weight distribution. I think the bike has too much weight over the rear wheel...
Faster1 wrote:,,not one to ever be too PC,, my observation and crystal ball future calls,,,
end-of 2011 Crystal Ball shots
WayneG wrote:My prediction for 2011 .....
If Casey becomes one with the Honda as I believe he will, then I think we could well see a repeat of 2007 with the rest of the field wondering where he went. For my money he is the best and fastest rider on the planet at the present time and on a bike he is fully confident with I think he may single handedly create a new category a step above "alien".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest