Sepang Test 2017

Discussion and debate about the MotoGP class

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby kenup283 on Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:51 am

Mikesbytes wrote:Of course we also don't know what's in the salad box, it looks too big simply to be ballast. The theories out there are;
1. Electronics. Moved out there so their prior space can be occupied by something else. If this is the case then why not put half on each side of the exhaust
2. Gyroscopic device. That would make sense that its centered. But how is powered within the rules?
3. Exhaust valve. Don't know much about these, but why only one bank of the V and not both?
And there's the jet exhaust theory too, which is not related to the salad box



I don't have a clue what it is. A place to put some testing datalogging stuff inside was my first thoughts, also maybe they found the aero is better without the exhaust blasting out at the pont where the air is trying to come back together mighr be another. Balast could be possible. Maybe being up heigh and rearward would help the rear come around mid corner from its intertia to want to keep going straight and pitch the bike around the turn. Some weight higher up would also enable the bike to corner with less lean angle for the same cornering speed (lateral g's). This would also directionally help with cornering performance.

Thinking a balast box some more it would be funny if Gigi made it full of water in a way that it would evaporate away and they could run it dry and be underweight during the race and then fill it back up to "normal level" later for scrutineering. This would be picking at a recently added poorly worded rule revision which would be fitting to do for jest.

I do not think it is a gyro, you would need a power source for it and it would not be very effective in that small size. But it could be within the rules. You'd just need to control it independently from the control software/ECU. Make a standalone board signaled off a sound sensor mapped to the engine noise to work from RPM for example.

That said my outside the box idea would be to have a hydraulic reservoir in their and use it to open up the rear swing arm under accerlation to keep the front down and plant the rear tire. It would have to be via a rider controled input like a rear brake foot lever that's otherwise unused. The catch is it could not be a pressurized resivour so it would not be able to make any meaningful amount of swingarm extension.

Here's one section of the rules:
"Adjustments to the suspension and steering damper systems may only be made by manual human inputs and mechanical/ hydraulic adjusters."

But then here's another:
"The use of hydraulic and/or pneumatic pressurized powered systems is not allowed, with the exception of cylinder inlet/exhaust valve springs in the MotoGP class. All hydraulic systems on the motorcycle must be powered only by the rider’s manual inputs"
kenup283
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Mikesbytes on Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:37 am

Japhrodisiac wrote:KTM has some ways to go it looks like, but if they can surpass Aprilia in the 1st season in the bigger picture and given how tight the field appears to be they will be doing fine.

I like to compare them with Aprilia too even though its a little difficult as the first year for Aprilia was a CRT/Factory hybrid and the competition was quite different to this year. Perhaps we could look at how many seconds they are behind the winner at the end of the race?

kenup283 wrote:<snip>

Here's one section of the rules:
"Adjustments to the suspension and steering damper systems may only be made by manual human inputs and mechanical/ hydraulic adjusters."

But then here's another:
"The use of hydraulic and/or pneumatic pressurized powered systems is not allowed, with the exception of cylinder inlet/exhaust valve springs in the MotoGP class. All hydraulic systems on the motorcycle must be powered only by the rider’s manual inputs"
Good analysis kenup
Reading those rules doesn't seem to exclude active suspension and if this suggestion is correct, then why place it at the rear like that?

I've read an article somewhere that also talked about spring loaded counter weights . But I'm wondering if there's any photo's showing what is going in/out of the box, which I'm guessing is well hidden. Are there any photo's showing the exhaust system? If not we can't even eliminate that its a fancy piece of exhaust pipe wrapped around.

Whatever it is, its caught our attention.

BTW now that Yamaha have brought out their fairing, will that mean the others will bring out theirs at PI. Or is Yamaha doing a double fox by having yet another fairing for the upcoming season?
My signature isn't particularly interesting
User avatar
Mikesbytes
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby oldboyonrgv on Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:57 am

oldboyonrgv
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Peeortsmuff U.K

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby kenup283 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:02 am

Mikesbytes wrote:BTW now that Yamaha have brought out their fairing, will that mean the others will bring out theirs at PI. Or is Yamaha doing a double fox by having yet another fairing for the upcoming season?


Yamaha's fairing concept I'd imagine is to make one with an outer shell ducted space at the maximum dimension allowed and one normal fairing. The rules then allow them to change back and forth between them, it also allows them to make any changes they want within the duct space of the shell fairng and it not count as a different fairing.

Here is a pic of their Philip Island fairing. Here we can see they have a diffent internals on the shell than they had in Sepang. Here it looks like the idea is to funnel air in and the shell perform like an airfoil while leaned over rather than vanes for down force while upright.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crash_motogp ... 40/photo/1
kenup283
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Mikesbytes on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:08 am

kenup283 wrote:
Mikesbytes wrote:BTW now that Yamaha have brought out their fairing, will that mean the others will bring out theirs at PI. Or is Yamaha doing a double fox by having yet another fairing for the upcoming season?


Yamaha's fairing concept I'd imagine is to make one with an outer shell ducted space at the maximum dimension allowed and one normal fairing. The rules then allow them to change back and forth between them, it also allows them to make any changes they want within the duct space of the shell fairng and it not count as a different fairing.

Here is a pic of their Philip Island fairing. Here we can see they have a diffent internals on the shell than they had in Sepang. Here it looks like the idea is to funnel air in and the shell perform like an airfoil while leaned over rather than vanes for down force while upright.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crash_motogp/status/831639538816675840/photo/1


That makes the fairing rules almost a complete joke. How is that going to cut development costs?
My signature isn't particularly interesting
User avatar
Mikesbytes
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby speeddog on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:49 pm

kenup283 wrote:~~~snip~~~

it also allows them to make any changes they want within the duct space of the shell fairng and it not count as a different fairing.

~~~snip~~~


By my understanding of the rules, I don't think that's the case at all.

At Qatar, they can have a wingless version of a '16 fairing, and whatever '17 fairing they get past Danny.
Both are homologated, so no changes to them are allowed.
At some point in the season, they can introduce a new design, which will be homologated also.
But they must drop one of the previous versions.
So only two fairing designs in play at one time, per rider.
User avatar
speeddog
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:43 pm
Location: The foggy coast of SoCal

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby kenup283 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:52 pm

Pg.100-101 of PDF
http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/

10. MotoGP Aero Body Homologation
The MotoGP Aero Body is de ned as the portion of the motorcycle bodywork that is directly impacted by the air ow while the motorcycle is moving forward, and is not in the wake (ie. aerodynamic “shadow”) of the rider’s body or any other motorcycle body parts. Therefore the Aero Body consists of the two separate components Front Fairing and Front Fender (Mudguard), as per the diagrams the Appendix, General: Fig.4, Fig.5.
Only the external shape, excluding the windscreen, is de ned in this regulation, so the following parts are not considered as part of the Aero Body: windscreen, cooling ducts, fairing supports, and any other parts inside the external pro le of the bodywork.

a) The Aero Body is homologated and samples or detailed drawings (to the satisfaction of the Technical Director) must be delivered to the Technical Director prior to the close of technical control at the rst event of the season.
b) Homologation is on a “per-rider” basis, so different riders with the same motorcycle manufacturer may have different Aero Bodies.
c) One update per component (ie. the 2 components are Front Fairing and Front Fender) is allowed at any time during the season, for each rider. Samples or drawings of the updated items must be delivered to the Technical Director prior to the updated items being used on track. The update may consist of using a previously-homologated Aero Body component from the same manufacturer. Both the updated and the original Aero Body may be used (ie. each rider may have a maximum of 2 Aero Bodies available), but each Aero Body component is a separate homologation and parts may not be interchanged between them. The 2 components of the Aero Body may be mixed, eg. the initial Front Fairing may be used on the motorcycle together with either the initial or the updated Front Fender (and vice versa).
d) Each homologated Aero Body component (Front Fairing and Front Fender) may consist of different parts, all of which must be able to t together on the motorcycle. The parts of each component are considered together as a “kit” and different options of the same part are not allowed. It is allowed that some parts of a homologated Aero Body component may not be mounted on the motorcycle (eg. hand guards used in wet weather only).
e) Material may be removed (eg. trimming, drilling of holes, etc.) from Aero Body parts without affecting the homologation, but material may not be added.
f) As a one-off exemption from clause c. it is allowed to homologate one 2016 Aero Body to be used in the 2017 season only. Therefore a rider may start the 2017 season using both the 2016 and the initial 2017 Aero Body. Such 2016 components must be identi ed and homologated by the Technical Director prior to the end of the last event of the 2016 season.
If and when a rider takes a 2017 season Aero Body component update according to clause c. either the 2016 or the initial 2017 Aero Body component must be removed from that rider’s options, so that only 2 options are available per rider at any time.
g) This one-off exemption will not apply at the end of the 2017 season, so for the 2018 season only the initial 2018 Aero Body and the one in-season update (if taken) will be available to each rider.
Manufacturers in their rst season of participation in the MotoGP class are permitted to make an unlimited number of updates to Aero Body components as described in clause c., provided each Aero Body design complies with the rest of these regulations.
kenup283
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby kenup283 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:01 pm

Mikesbytes wrote:That makes the fairing rules almost a complete joke. How is that going to cut development costs?


That's what bugs Gigi about this, at first it was safety then it was to reduce costs... I've had another thread on this but I gave up on updating it when the 2017 rules came out with 2 pages on the topic a couple weeks back. I've kinda been enjoying the news outlets continuing to speak abou the topic incorrectly..
kenup283
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Kropotkin on Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:39 pm

kenup283 wrote:
Mikesbytes wrote:That makes the fairing rules almost a complete joke. How is that going to cut development costs?


That's what bugs Gigi about this, at first it was safety then it was to reduce costs... I've had another thread on this but I gave up on updating it when the 2017 rules came out with 2 pages on the topic a couple weeks back. I've kinda been enjoying the news outlets continuing to speak abou the topic incorrectly..


Thanks for the heads up, I have put in an email to Danny Aldridge asking for a clarification. I agree with your interpretation.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3097
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby speeddog on Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:55 pm

FFS, I didn't remember the wording that way at all.
My mistake.

As it is now in the rules linked to by kenup, yeah, it's clear as mud.

Hinges on how one defines the 'external profile'.
If 'external profile' is defined as anything other than 'cooling duct', the homologation restricts them as I described.

If 'external profile' is defined as just the outermost surface, then the sky's the limit on number of variations inside that surface.
User avatar
speeddog
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:43 pm
Location: The foggy coast of SoCal

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Kropotkin on Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:32 pm

kenup283 wrote:Yamaha's fairing concept I'd imagine is to make one with an outer shell ducted space at the maximum dimension allowed and one normal fairing. The rules then allow them to change back and forth between them, it also allows them to make any changes they want within the duct space of the shell fairng and it not count as a different fairing.


You are completely correct, brilliantly spotted. Got an email back from Danny Aldridge.

"You are correct in the fact that I only control the external shape/profile of the fairing. Meaning, Yamaha can in theory change or adjust their inner supports (I don’t like to say the words wings!), as often as they wish. When the regulations were being discussed with the MSMA, this was one of the criteria’s that they requested in the wording of the regulations."

I will be posting a story on this in the next hour or so.

ETA: once again, thanks a million kenup, great to have such keen observers of the sport discussing here.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3097
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Tourn46 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:04 pm

I like this a lot... innovation isn't totally stifled, but the bikes don't have ugly wings!
User avatar
Tourn46
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 5:09 pm
Location: UK

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Mikesbytes on Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:50 am

Tourn46 wrote:I like this a lot... innovation isn't totally stifled, but the bikes don't have ugly wings!

Partially agree, though the Suzuki looks ugly.

The Aprilla looks good, I could see that design ending up on a road bike. The disadvantage of the Aprilla design is that they can't change it without making a faring change. But as they have stated, their objective is not to impact top speed
My signature isn't particularly interesting
User avatar
Mikesbytes
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Cobbett on Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:58 pm

Kropotkin wrote: ETA: once again, thanks a million kenup, great to have such keen observers of the sport discussing here.


Yep - kudos kenup!
Cobbett
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:40 am
Location: UK

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Mikesbytes on Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:08 pm

Crash have reported on the internal fairing aerodynamics acknowledging motomatters for the heads up

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/240477/1/no-limits-on-internal-winglet-development.html
My signature isn't particularly interesting
User avatar
Mikesbytes
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Emoo on Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:06 am

I have no valid input for this thread, the technicalities of the rule book are beyond me, if I had the time and inclination I would get up to speed on all these issues. To be honest with the input from you guys, Krop, kenup, Janbros et al you all have expanded my knowledge in these areas, you spot things and back that up with the knowhow that blows my mind. For that I am eternally grateful. Thank you so much.
Emoo
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Tourn46 on Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:54 am

One for the super nerds... headphones recommended.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3CXk5gPj5UI
User avatar
Tourn46
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 5:09 pm
Location: UK

Re: Sepang Test 2017

Postby Emoo on Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:36 am

Cheers for that Tourn46, just spent 20 minutes watching that at my desk. A few co-workers gave me sideways glances.

Brings back happy memories of Silverstone 2 years ago when I had a pit walk. Love that sound.
Emoo
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 1:57 pm

Previous

Return to MotoGP Class

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests