Hansd wrote:Japhrodisiac wrote:What amazes me most at this point is that they bring out several new bikes, all of which seem to have no geometry or engine placement options. If i were as lost as they are, wouldn't you build a test lab version with movable everything?
I agree, however with the L-engine being fairly long they have few options for engine placement. Now that the L seems to be titled backwards this shortens the engine and opens up some new engine placement options.
The engine rotation would allow for more placement options, which they have forgone in favour of a static balance measure - by my supposition. What they appear to have done is rotate it backwards without taking advantage of the ability to push it forwards as seen in David's pit lane photos (the radiator fully covers the front cylinder head). The first iteration of the new bike - the GP0 - had identical geometry to the carbon bike, which seems to have been more about Prezi proving to himself (and management) that he was 'not wrong' in pursuing the carbon path for so long. I don't think he was wrong either, the material itself is a blank canvas, but they do appear to have gotten the weight distribution mucked up very long ago, and this is the one thing that has never been adjustable. Remember that the carbon bike had the same geometry as the trellis framed bike, so we are talking about similar weight distribution issues since 200? . Without the ability to move the rider or engine, the 2 heaviest components, they resort to making massive compromises in setup ie shortening an already short wheelbase, raising ride height dramatically etc.