KTM

Discussion and debate about the MotoGP class
Japhrodisiac
Posts: 1542
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Japhrodisiac »

Nice shot of Kallio testing the KTM from MCN

Image

andrebt
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:57 am
Location: orlando, florida

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »

Anybody seen this video? Look like pretty quick bike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQfJRBMw5zU

Dayle88
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 4:59 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Dayle88 »

Looks like a pretty cool mish mash of other GP bikes. Impossible to tell how fast it is without a stop watch or another bike for comparison though. I expect beating Aprilia, assuming they don't drastically improve next year, will be a big win for them unless they nail it right away like Suzuki.

andrebt
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:57 am
Location: orlando, florida

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »

Dayle88 wrote:Looks like a pretty cool mish mash of other GP bikes. Impossible to tell how fast it is without a stop watch or another bike for comparison though. I expect beating Aprilia, assuming they don't drastically improve next year, will be a big win for them unless they nail it right away like Suzuki.






All I can say is that I hope they participate in the mid-season test so their current level can be guaged as opposed to Valencia.

Fred Gassit
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:56 am

Re: KTM

Post by Fred Gassit »

+ 1.

Curious as to whether they'll line up with the same, or better, performance as Aprillia the Gorillia in their (KTM's) first season.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: KTM

Post by kenup283 »

I like the way it sounds more than the other bikes on the grid.

Looking forward to a wildcard at that track later this year.

In one view there was clock..2min lap?..

danwilliams
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: KTM

Post by danwilliams »

When he stops on the straight for a start, the tune from that motor/exhaust is intoxicating.
Agreed Kenup, she sounds "in tune".

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Fingernails »

Does anyone know the material used for the frame? Over on cycling forums there has been some excitement concerning new steels that are extremely strong, much stronger than previous generations of steel. E.g. SAM2X5-630. And research producing even newer and stronger steels seems to be progressing very fast.

Or, are they using a standard steel, such as Reynolds 953?

In cycling, the current gold standard frame material is carbon fibre. But, in Motogp it's aluminium. So, it should be easier to make a competitive frame out of steel in MotoGP than (e.g.) for the TDF.

hdot
Posts: 1178
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:49 pm

Re: KTM

Post by hdot »

Strength isn't necessarily the be all end all for MotoGP frames.... if they wanted strength they could do away with the frame and just mount everything to the engine case. Problem with that is you lose feel, which is what the riders need. So it's a compromise. Frame has to be strong enough to deal with all the loads of the bike, but it has to provide feedback and also be soft enough to somewhat act as a suspension when leaned over.

If there's anywhere I'm kind of excited for KTM with this steel stuff it's the possibility of them creating a high precision process for making trellis frames. From what I remember Ducati used to have problems getting things exact enough for MotoGP with their trellises... I am thinking manufacturing has advanced a good bit since then though.

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Fingernails »

hdot wrote:Strength isn't necessarily the be all end all for MotoGP frames.... if they wanted strength they could do away with the frame and just mount everything to the engine case. Problem with that is you lose feel, which is what the riders need. So it's a compromise. Frame has to be strong enough to deal with all the loads of the bike, but it has to provide feedback and also be soft enough to somewhat act as a suspension when leaned over.

If there's anywhere I'm kind of excited for KTM with this steel stuff it's the possibility of them creating a high precision process for making trellis frames. From what I remember Ducati used to have problems getting things exact enough for MotoGP with their trellises... I am thinking manufacturing has advanced a good bit since then though.
I'm analogising from discussions on bicycle frames, but steel is often said to have the best 'feel' of different bicycle frame materials. However, other arguments that sound very convincing to me is that for different metals it's possible to produce a frame that has different amounts of give and flex simply by making the tubes (or other cross section shapes) different thicknesses. E.g. titanium is strong for its weight, but thin titanium tubes can be really bendy. The advantage of a strong material is that it can be engineered to have the desired physical properties (such as flexibility) with low weight, while a weaker material would need more metal (and hence more weight) to achieve the same physical properties. I.e. you don't want strength to reduce flex/bendy-ness, you want strength to be able to get your desired flexibility (not too much, not too little) at a low weight.

However, continuing that argument from bicycle frames leads to carbon fibre which gives far more control over the nature of its flexibility, e.g. to be able to specify different degrees of flexibility in different directions while still being strong and hence potentially light. So, it should be a really good material for MotoGP frames, but we all know the history of that. This makes me think, entirely possibly wrongly, that MotoGP designers don't really have a fully detailed understanding of how frames should flex in order to create desirable riding characteristics and 'feel'. (E.g. front end feel on certain Ducatis.) And that a team that cracks this could steal a march on the competition.

BTW: Which CRT team was it that had a carbon fibre frame? I think the had one bike with an alloy frame, and one carbon fibre.

Emoo
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Emoo »

I could be well off piste here, but if they where/are using a trellis frame I doubt it will be as competitive as other manufacturers. I very much doubt that a trellis frame is the way to go. I am sure that the other factories would have looked at the possible option, the advances in manufacturing works for all materials, the fact that none of them are using trellis would say all you need to know.

Someone with a higher intellect than me will not doubt confirm otherwise. This whole frame flex this is way beyond my capabilities but from memory of comments/observations of Carbon fibre which should be great for a frame material, for whatever reason it just isn't suited to Motogp.

Dayle88
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 4:59 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Dayle88 »

All of Ducati's 990's and Stoners championship bike were trellis framed and beat the Japanese fairly convincingly. Whatever happened with the rule changes of 2007 the entire bike had a part in the win. I think it was 2009 that they switched to the carbon fibre.

I think Ducati were hesitant to go backwards when the carbon wasn't doing the job but who knows what would have happened if they went trellis again instead of a traditional frame?

hdot
Posts: 1178
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:49 pm

Re: KTM

Post by hdot »

Fingernails wrote:
hdot wrote:Strength isn't necessarily the be all end all for MotoGP frames.... if they wanted strength they could do away with the frame and just mount everything to the engine case. Problem with that is you lose feel, which is what the riders need. So it's a compromise. Frame has to be strong enough to deal with all the loads of the bike, but it has to provide feedback and also be soft enough to somewhat act as a suspension when leaned over.

If there's anywhere I'm kind of excited for KTM with this steel stuff it's the possibility of them creating a high precision process for making trellis frames. From what I remember Ducati used to have problems getting things exact enough for MotoGP with their trellises... I am thinking manufacturing has advanced a good bit since then though.
I'm analogising from discussions on bicycle frames, but steel is often said to have the best 'feel' of different bicycle frame materials. However, other arguments that sound very convincing to me is that for different metals it's possible to produce a frame that has different amounts of give and flex simply by making the tubes (or other cross section shapes) different thicknesses. E.g. titanium is strong for its weight, but thin titanium tubes can be really bendy. The advantage of a strong material is that it can be engineered to have the desired physical properties (such as flexibility) with low weight, while a weaker material would need more metal (and hence more weight) to achieve the same physical properties. I.e. you don't want strength to reduce flex/bendy-ness, you want strength to be able to get your desired flexibility (not too much, not too little) at a low weight.

However, continuing that argument from bicycle frames leads to carbon fibre which gives far more control over the nature of its flexibility, e.g. to be able to specify different degrees of flexibility in different directions while still being strong and hence potentially light. So, it should be a really good material for MotoGP frames, but we all know the history of that. This makes me think, entirely possibly wrongly, that MotoGP designers don't really have a fully detailed understanding of how frames should flex in order to create desirable riding characteristics and 'feel'. (E.g. front end feel on certain Ducatis.) And that a team that cracks this could steal a march on the competition.

BTW: Which CRT team was it that had a carbon fibre frame? I think the had one bike with an alloy frame, and one carbon fibre.
I don't think weight is really a concern for MotoGP bikes anymore. The rule requiring a minimum bike weight somewhat reflects that, and now Ducati has more control over where the weight on the bike is with their new bike/engine. I mean if you look at various components of the bike, as far as weight goes, the frame is very low on the list. So the compromise you see in bicycles isn't really relevant.

Big problem IMO is that GP bike teams are incredibly conservative. The paddock is very "me too", with a lot of steps being very incremental. Ducati is probably the biggest risk taker, but now that they have a package that works I don't see them looking to rock the boat much. IIRC they do have the only CF swingarm on the grid which may play a part in their decent traction. But at the front it's too risky and there's just not enough time to thoroughly test and tune for something as big as a new frame. I think the earliest we would see a return to the CF frame from Duc would be 2018, but if Lorenzo is able to get them their first win on a conventional twin spar I think that will be highly unlikely.

I don't like the conservatism of the factories or the rules. I think enabling tech like active variable valve timing (not the passive mechanical tech Suzuki has), dual clutch transmissions and other stuff that is commonplace in $20K economy cars could be huge for the sport as well as street bikes. Those kinds of tech could save some $$$ too... a DCT is way cheaper than the current seamless box and probably not much less effective.

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Fingernails »

I find it difficult to believe that carbon fibre couldn't work as a MotoGP frame material. It hasn't yet worked, but that's a different thing. I'd guess that the reason it hasn't been used completely successfully so far is that a body of knowledge has built up concerning how to build alloy and steel frames, and that it would take a sizeable amount of research (and time) to learn how to design better CF frames. CF works in all sorts of applications, and I see nothing particularly special about MotoGP frames that would prevent CF working.

I agree that weight is not nearly so much of an issue for MotoGP bikes compared to bicycles. If the weight of the frame can be reduced then the minimum weight can be made up by placing weight whereever it is most effective for handling purposes. But, the frame doesn't weigh a lot compared to the engine, that might be less important. It might be a matter of the teams not having infinite resources and money and time not spent on the frame can be spent elsewhere.

It was Avintia Blusens who had a CF framed CRT bike.

This article talks about frame flex and mentions the 'super-rigid' Ducati CF frame. http://www.cycleworld.com/2015/10/16/mo ... ning-races

User avatar
Squidpuppet
Posts: 3924
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: CdA, ID

Re: KTM

Post by Squidpuppet »

IIRC CF as a frame material has not been embraced by the manufacturers because of build time and testing schedules. If they decide that a frame is great except for this one particular area which needs a little more/less flex, it takes too long to make the changes and have it ready to test soon enough.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: KTM

Post by kenup283 »

Fingernails wrote:Does anyone know the material used for the frame? Over on cycling forums there has been some excitement concerning new steels that are extremely strong, much stronger than previous generations of steel. E.g. SAM2X5-630. And research producing even newer and stronger steels seems to be progressing very fast.

Or, are they using a standard steel, such as Reynolds 953?

In cycling, the current gold standard frame material is carbon fibre. But, in Motogp it's aluminium. So, it should be easier to make a competitive frame out of steel in MotoGP than (e.g.) for the TDF.

I would expect it too be made of Carbon Steel, specifically 4130 material, but I do not know that from any source it's just the workhorse of tubular steel frames. A quick Google on that Reynolds 953 shows it to be a basic derivative of this same stuff.

As for the other SAMxxxx googling it shows it to be a bulk metallic glass. Which means it's a cermic. So it will not be weldable. The bike forums may be exited about it but it has no practical application. Might as well be talking about using carbon nanotubes for your bike frames.

As for other factors specifc to motogp the rules do limit materials which can be used. The goal to keep people using common metals, no titanium or Berillium alloys. The last beign ruled on on basis of specifc moduls, stiffness dived by density. Incidentally this same specifc stiffness limit would also rule out many "carbon fiber" materials depending on the fiber material, resin and most important, the construction pattern and direction considered, as these materials can be made incredibly stiff for their weight in one direction yet plyable in another. I would guess that the fairings could easily exceed this criteria and possibly even swing arms, but they specifically leaves the door open for nonmetalics.

2.4.3.10 Materials
-NB. “X-based alloy” or “X materials” here means the element X (e.g. Fe, for ferrous or iron-based alloy) must be the most abundant element in the alloy, on a % w/w basis.
-The use of titanium in the construction of the frame, the front forks, the handle-bars, the swinging arm spindles, and the wheel spindles is forbidden. For wheel spindles, the use of light alloys is also forbidden.
-The basic structure of the crankshaft and camshafts must be made from ferrous materials, steel or cast iron. Inserts of a different material are allowed in the crankshaft for the sole purpose of balancing.
-Pistons, cylinder heads and cylinder blocks may not be composite structures which use carbon or aramid fibre reinforcing materials.
-Brake calipers must be made from aluminium materials with a modulus of elasticity no greater than 80 Gpa.
-No parts of the motorcycle or engine may be made from metallic materials which have a specific modulus of elasticity greater than 50 Gpa / (g/cm3).
-The use of MMC (Metal Matrix Composite) and FRM (Fibre Reinforced Metal) materials is forbidden.
-In the MotoGP class, hollow structure connecting rods are not permitted. Oil galleries of less than 2 mm diameter in the connecting rod are permitted.
Last edited by kenup283 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Fingernails »

Squidpuppet wrote:IIRC CF as a frame material has not been embraced by the manufacturers because of build time and testing schedules. If they decide that a frame is great except for this one particular area which needs a little more/less flex, it takes too long to make the changes and have it ready to test soon enough.
It should be possible to build a carbon fibre trellis frame out of standard tubes quite simply. Junction blocks can be used to attach the tubes to make a frame. BMW are developing this technology for their road bikes: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2015 ... re-frames/ You'd think that KTM would be able to create a CF trellis frame if they wanted to. And given that it would be made from CF tubes cut to length, surely they would be able to change the frame reasonably quickly. See this aftermarket (but seemingly not junctionboxed) CF after market frame for a Ducati road bike:

Image

The Britten V1000 had large amounts of carbon fibre. This was back in the 90s and this was a bike made by a small scale business, not a massive great company like Honda or Yamaha. However, given that Honda and Yamaha have extensively researched flexibility of frames, they must have seriously considered CF and have a reason not to use it.

If BMW moves to carbon fibre for its RR1000, would that mean that they'd use that frame in Superbikes?

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: KTM

Post by kenup283 »

Fingernails wrote:If BMW moves to carbon fibre for its RR1000, would that mean that they'd use that frame in Superbikes?
Yes the frame would have to be as homologated. But they could easily continue to homologate their older bike or two versions of a newer one.

Part of the issue is also crash damage and detecting it. Recall Ben Spies at Qatar in 2012.

Also in WSBK they are limited to one spare bike. Frames are recorded with serial numbers and to change must be on notification to technical director in event of crash damage. So two wreks in a weekend can stop you from participating further or risk some unforeseen structural damage.


Edit: here are some intersting papers on frames worth a look. Be sure to click on the preview, and you can read the first five pages.

http://papers.sae.org/2015-32-0723/

http://papers.sae.org/2015-32-0839/

http://papers.sae.org/891772/

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Fingernails »

kenup283 wrote: I would expect it too be made of Carbon Steel, specifically 4130 material, but I do not know that from any source it's just the workhorse of tubular steel frames. A quick Google on that Reynolds 953 shows it to be a basic derivative of this same stuff.

As for the other SAMxxxx googling it shows it to be a bulk metallic glass. Which means it's a cermic. So it will not be weldable. The bike forums may be exited about it but it has no practical application. Might as well be talking about using carbon nanotubes for your bike frames.
The 4130 steel is not easily weldable, requiring both pre- and post- weld heat treatment to avoid cold cracking. So, it's not going to be a matter of doing a quick weld at the trackside. If it's a matter of going back to the factory, surely CF trellis frames could be produced in similar times.

Looking at the regulations some specific materials are ruled out. (Though, I'm not sure if they are suitable frame materials or only usable for other components.) However, specifying the modulus of elasticity wouldn't rule out CF as it can have any elasticity (within any practical frame building limits) the designers want. With less weight than a similarly elastic steel or aluminium alloy frame.

The SAMxxxx is just an example, there are plenty of other examples of new types of steel. E.g. http://www.sciencealert.com/new-super-s ... es-cheaper I don't know which of these materials has made it into production/is available for actual use. But, I'd think that there are some more advanced steel alloys available somewhere.

EDIT: I'll look into the papers in your new post. Surely a CF trellis frame would be repairable.

EDIT: For impact damage to frames, it appears that there are methods that can detect damage: http://wings.buffalo.edu/academic/depar ... 0paper.pdf

EDIT: The second of your papers talks about the need for longitudinal stiffness, but lateral flexibility. This need for different stiffness in different directions would be a reason for considering carbon fibre as it's easy to control those stiffnesses independently. So, there must be a strong reason not to use it, otherwise they would.

User avatar
Tourn46
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 5:09 pm
Location: UK

Re: KTM

Post by Tourn46 »

Fingernails wrote:However, given that Honda and Yamaha have extensively researched flexibility of frames, they must have seriously considered CF and have a reason not to use it.
This sentence is beautifully simple, but for me it is spot on. There's no way Honda or Yamaha won't have investigated it and if there was reason to believe it could be better, they'd be using it. There just must be a reason as to why they haven't/don't.

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Fingernails »

The NR500 at one point had a carbon fibre frame. http://powersports.honda.com/experience ... 19b8f.aspx

User avatar
Tourn46
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 5:09 pm
Location: UK

Re: KTM

Post by Tourn46 »

Fingernails wrote:The NR500 at one point had a carbon fibre frame. http://powersports.honda.com/experience ... 19b8f.aspx
Which adds more credence to the notion that if it was a better material for the job, they'd be using it in my opinion.

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Fingernails »

Tourn46 wrote:
Fingernails wrote:The NR500 at one point had a carbon fibre frame. http://powersports.honda.com/experience ... 19b8f.aspx
Which adds more credence to the notion that if it was a better material for the job, they'd be using it in my opinion.
It's a bit confusing tracking frame versions for the NR500. I'm now not sure they actually had a carbon frame, or at least that they raced one. Carbon was considered as a material for the aluminium 'shrimpshell' frame, but that was discarded due to difficulty in making engine adjustments, as the engine had to be removed from the frame 'like a cassette' to adjust it.

More recently the Brough Superior moto2 machine had a carbon fibre monocoque. What happened to that? http://www.brough-superior.com/ws/front ... avigation1

hdot
Posts: 1178
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:49 pm

Re: KTM

Post by hdot »

Doesn't look like anything positive.

There is really just no upside to CF frames for motorcycles. Metallurgy and stress analysis are super advanced... and with weight not being an issue, I am imagining that anything they can do with CF they can do with metal. Plus the crash thing is hugely legit... a rider could go off, come back in and have his frame snap with CF. It's really just not worth it.

It would be cool to have that tech in road bikes but steel/aluminum work OK for now.

Nessuno
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:36 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: KTM

Post by Nessuno »

I don't question the decision to go trellis- KTM has made manufacturing trellis frames an integral part of their business. Not to mention, what 3-4 years of being at the pointy end of Moto3?
High precision steel frames with high-strength welding joints carried out by robotic welding machines. WP steel frames are weight-optimised and guarantee optimum performance.
http://www.wp-group.com/en/products/sho ... yC5ZzArLIU

And KTM has 'perfected' the manufacturing formula to a point that they were making customer race bikes on an assembly line!
A quantity of 40 bikes is too big to be built by a couple of specialists in the race department. At the same time it is not enough to be handled through one of the main four production lines in KTM´s factory. So the assembly of the race replicas came down to production line No. 5, which is otherwise used for training on standard motorcycle models. This line is shorter and more flexible, so it´s the perfect fit for reduced numbers of special or limited editions.
https://blog.ktm.com/deutsch-fertigung- ... inserie-2/

I for one am extremely excited about KTM coming in, Ducati built a Honda and Suzuki built a Yamaha- the KTM looks to be a KTM, lets hope it comes with its own unique style as well... :geek:

Post Reply