Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO Reader Feedback

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-21-2003, 09:17 AM   #101
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: AMA Superbike rules will prove to be better over WSB.

Racing should reflect the bikes ridden on the street, but not EVERY bike ridden on the street. Bikes that are manufactured for street use have all sorts of purposes other than for going very fast----comfort, LOOKS, SOUND, storage, wind protection, passenger capability, etc.....should we say that race bikes should have saddlebags and big chrome headlights too? No? Well, guess what, the fastest streetbikes are all inline fours, because it's easiest to make big power out of them, especially in an economic sense. A stock GSXR1000 beats a stock 998 just as a factory race 1000 is now killing (when it's not handicapped to the hilt) the factory 998's.



Why do we need to handicap the best engine designs simply to make sure that we have diversity in exhaust notes?
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 05-21-2003, 09:21 AM   #102
SeanAlexander
Founding Member
 
SeanAlexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Newport Coast, CA
Posts: 1,538
Default Re: Go back to school Sean. Intuition can only be used by sucessfully by women

Ok lets keep this simple. Piston weight is a RECIPROCATING mass. The Space Shuttle doesn't accellerate to orbital velocity, stop and re-accellerate to orbital velocity 11,000 times in one minute. If you increase the distance that a given weight is being cycled through but keep the time (rpm in this case) the same, you are INCREASING the accelleration of that weight. This means that a longer stroke, even with the same piston weight will result in higher piston accelleration at any given rpm. Modern materials technology has a limit, hence maximum allowable BMEP and Piston Speed. That is why F-1 and for the most part the rest of modern high performance motors are trending to more "oversquare" (greater bore, shorter stroke) designs to allow higher rpms at the expense of some torque.



Still think my logic is flawed?
__________________
I thought I'd found true happiness in my personal bath body bar.... Then I tried DOVE! with 1/4 moisturizing cream!!!
SeanAlexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2003, 09:27 AM   #103
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: Go back to school Sean. Intuition can only be used by sucessfully by women

Holy crap KPaul you must be some kind of idiot to completely ignore the "all other things being equal" part. That rules out your whole deviant discussion of differing materials.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2003, 09:58 AM   #104
The_Aerodynamic_Head
Founding Member
 
The_Aerodynamic_Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nash Vegas, Tennessee
Posts: 446
Default Re: '03 Best of the Best Feedback

Cute.



Our Imperial Personage sentences you to death by "reading debate between Longride and KPaul, with Lemon Juice put on the cuts" for the crime of being snide. :-p



So let it be written; so let it be done.
__________________
Headlight Fluid?! How dumb does he think I am? When I get back to base with that Elbow Grease, I'm gonna have a talk with the Sarge.
The_Aerodynamic_Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2003, 11:01 AM   #105
KPaulCook
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,752
Default Re: Go back to school Sean. Intuition can only be used by sucessfully by women

That is all very interesting use of techno buzz words back up with no actual physics and your logic is still flawed. You are slyly coming around to my point by saying "Modern materials technology has a limit" but the rest is novice psuedo techno babble. To remind of your high school physics class acceleration is change in velocity period. Shuttle goes from 0 to very fast . Velocity is both speed and direction and acceleration is the change in velocity (any change). Force is the product of mass time acceleration. Thus the forces on the Shuttle are great pal. Yes a piston goes up (accelerates-then decelerates) stops then goes down (acclerates and decelerates) NOTHING SAYS MASS IS THE LIMITING FACTOR. OR STROKE (the length the mass travels) on speed. By increasing the stroke you increased the engine displacement thus the more gas explodes more force more acceleration etc. To save face you say "Modern materials technology has a limit, hence maximum allowable BMEP and Piston Speed. That is why F-1 and for the most part the rest of modern high performance motors are trending to more "oversquare" (greater bore, shorter stroke" Whatever pal so I am right its a material issue not a law of physics. Hey I am "only" an electrical engineer go ask a mechanical engineer. Given ideal materials a V-TWIN should be able to rev as fast a inline 4. I suspect valves may have more to do with why real world twins can't . But leave pistons, bores and strokes out of it. Oversquare has to do with the quality of the torque or more percisely the shape of the torque curve not rather there is a limit to rpm.
KPaulCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2003, 11:04 AM   #106
fizzchem
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 204
Default Re: I'm pretty sure that's funny!

I assume of course you know that a CB-1 is a torqueless 400 cc I-4.
fizzchem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2003, 12:01 PM   #107
SeanAlexander
Founding Member
 
SeanAlexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Newport Coast, CA
Posts: 1,538
Default Re: Go back to school Sean. Intuition can only be used by sucessfully by women

KPaul, so you admit that in the REAL world, He and I were both correct, BUT You're also continuing to assert that what I said was in someway equivilant to saying the big Space Shuttle can go no faster than the small 172?



You say: "Leave pistons, bores and strokes out of it." Why would we leave them out of it, when discussing the limitations of a particular engine configuration under an XXXcc cap? STROKE is precisely the reason that revs are limited in a V-twin superbike. Not coulda, shoulda, woulda.... but IS the reason. Yes, it is due to the limitations present with modern materials. That limitation being the inability of the crank, journal, con-rod, piston, pin, etc., to handle any greater accelleration.



Saying "Given ideal materials" is a cop-out. When we have "ideal" materials available for engine building, we can continue this discourse. Until then, your physics book should remain closed, on you shelf, and you should start talking to people who actually design and build engines with todays state of the art metals.



__________________
I thought I'd found true happiness in my personal bath body bar.... Then I tried DOVE! with 1/4 moisturizing cream!!!
SeanAlexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2003, 12:12 PM   #108
SeanAlexander
Founding Member
 
SeanAlexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Newport Coast, CA
Posts: 1,538
Default Re: Go back to school Sean. Intuition can only be used by sucessfully by women

You state: "Oversquare has to do with the quality of the torque or more precisely the shape of the torque curve not weather there is a limit to RPM"





Uh... take that man's cigar away. No sir KPaul, the term "Oversquare" is simply a word used to describe the ratio of Bore to Stroke in an engine which has a greater bore than stroke. The shape of the torque curve is indeed partially affected by the Bore / Stroke ratio, but that's not what the term "Oversquare" is referring to.





__________________
I thought I'd found true happiness in my personal bath body bar.... Then I tried DOVE! with 1/4 moisturizing cream!!!
SeanAlexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2003, 02:01 PM   #109
KPaulCook
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,752
Default Re: Go back to school Sean. Intuition can only be used by sucessfully by women

Now you are retreating. You guys said V-Twins are limited by some psuedo tech law that bigger pistons can't go up and down fast. PERIOD. "STROKE is precisely the reason that revs are limited in a V-twin " WHY? WHY? What is the Physics behind your babble????? Big deal the piston goes farther. That does not tell me why it limits revs? Good grief Sean what was your major again???? Given ideal materials it makes no difference. THERE IS NO SCALE IN PHYSICS. Same principles apply to BIG things and tiny things.
KPaulCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2003, 02:08 PM   #110
KPaulCook
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,752
Default Sean's big **** theory of cylinders i.e. big ****s go slow

You dip sh_t I That ratio has nothing to do with your " big **** cylinder limit of RPM theory" It is just a ratio I know what oversquare is big ***** deal. You still have no physics behind your argument only psuedo tech babbling. You read something by some Cycle World guy and think is the law. Well as a engineer I can't afford to do that. I have to challenge everday assumptions. You are really hung up on this Bore/Stoke ratio. Engine designers have been playing with that since Damiler.
KPaulCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off