KTM

Discussion and debate about the MotoGP class
User avatar
robbieguy85
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:59 pm

Re: KTM

Post by robbieguy85 »

I think a CF frame could work in MotoGP, indeed, the effort by Ducati wasn't that bad. I think the bigger issue around different frame/suspension types is that currently we're in the realms of spec tyres. When everyone else is on a twin-beam and you're the only factory on a CF Frame, the spec tyre will always leave you as the outside edge case.

I know the limits of traction are hit much more often in MotoGP, but the Panigale is a CF Headstock and Chaz Davies isn't doing too bad in WSBK on the Pirellis. Indeed, even as a roadbike, people aren't complaining about a lack of feel.

With a Motorcycle, engineering will always be a least compromise debate - i.e. less rear/less front traction, more corner-speed, more power/better feel/better 60-160mph power and the like. Which compromises cause you and the rider the least trouble across the 18 or so races you go to throughout the year?

With the least compromise, I think the tyres, especially spec are a huge element of that. I'm almost certain that if each factory could have tyres made to align to the strengths of their own bikes, then they'd all go a little bit quicker. As they can't they chase the evolution of the spec tyre and marry that to their own bikes DNA and contracted riders to the best of their ability. This is a very interesting conversation though!

I'm not sure on the Trellis for KTM. I guess if the manufacturing consistency is spot on, that may help, though I understand it's very difficult to do, but surely not impossible. Again, it's a compromise, what's the gain for perfecting that process? How easy is it to apply flex changes and still keep the consistency of production? After a crash can it easily be measured/checked during sessions, or is it an entire frame swap - i.e. at the wrong time in the weekend, that time spent on a rebuild might have been spent thinking about how to get another few tenths per lap.

I'd like to see them do it, I think a Trellis might have a better chance than a CF headstock/stressed member engine approach with the current tyre selection. This article here is quite interesting;

http://www.cycleworld.com/2015/10/16/mo ... ning-races

It'll be interesting to see how the KTM goes against the others. I think the electronics have provided some levelling in that you can't do NASA Grade HRC stuff anymore, but money, resource and time will shift to another compromise, and that's once the factories have figured out how to get the most out of the current electronics, which without doubt there still seems to be a lot of room for improvement on.

User avatar
JanBros
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: The land of Francorchamps

Re: KTM

Post by JanBros »

Panigale doesn't use CF
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

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

Re: KTM

Post by Squidpuppet »

I should probably step away from the CF frame discussion.

I am an avid bicyclist and I also restore old (70s or earlier) bicycles. I have to admit that I am an anti CF frame guy. :oops: I don't go around trash talking CF, and I know that tests prove it's worthy of the task, but It just doesn't work in my head. And you'd never see me riding a plastic CF fork. :D

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1588
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Fingernails »

I think that's a good point on being out of step with other manufacturers in a series with a control tyre.

Concerning KTM - I read about their production line, and also the article discussing Yamaha's frame design policy as part of background research for this thread already.

The Honda NR project showed what can happen if a company tries too much new tech at once. It could be that even if an aluminium spar frame has more potential, going in with a steel trellis may allow them to concentrate on the tech where there are the biggest immediate wins.

One of the three papers posted some time ago mentioned something about the weight of the rest of the bike versus the weight of the engine. The English isn't perfect, but I think they said that a bike may not work if it's a great heavy engine attached to a super-light rest of the bike. That might be what counts against CF. If both (i) I've understood that correctly and (ii) it's true.

There is a lot of science concerning steel frames. But, it's not possible to do everything with steel that can be done with CF without a weight penalty. E.g. people keep saying that we might see steel return to the Tour de France, but it hasn't happened yet.

I think there's some old-style romanticism with steel - which I appreciate myself. One of my bicycles is an old Reynolds 531 jobbie. But, CF is definitely a very good material and can be used to make very strong light ... 'things'.

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

Re: KTM

Post by kenup283 »

Fingernails wrote: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.
there are no special needs in low wall thickness found with tubing for frames. it strikes the right balance for easy fabrication and strength which is why it is so popular and is used across all forms of motorsport and industry without any special welding pre or post heat treatments. People in their garages can do this. but again nothing saying this is used here.
Fingernails wrote: 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.
composites would beg the question what such a limit would apply to which why I think they left it out. so its wide open if anyone finds the need to go there. personally I would like to see it tried more.
Fingernails wrote: 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.
again another example of something not practical for fabrication. materials are compromises. what gets used for any given application is the best compromise and not the highest of any particular measure.
Fingernails wrote: EDIT: I'll look into the papers in your new post. Surely a CF trellis frame would be repairable.
not necessarily. for what we are talking about they would be scrapped at the first sign of cracks or delamination. they owe they strength to their form not their inherit properties. once that is compromised in any way the rest goes quickly
Fingernails wrote: EDIT: For impact damage to frames, it appears that there are methods that can detect damage: http://wings.buffalo.edu/academic/depar ... 0paper.pdf.
a thought which makes me cringe every time I fly these days. not something you'd expect to see in racing where when in doubt replace. but the rub becomes when these parts make it down to the level of teams who cannot afford to buy new all the time.
Fingernails wrote: 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.
absolutely, except they already do that with the aluminum by changing the wall thickness and cross sections along the spar. these changes can easily be machined into metal at very controllable thicknesses and repeatable way. similarly changing the properties either by fiber orientation and or thickness of a composite layup along its section is less precise very time consuming and subject to greater variation.

User avatar
speeddog
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:43 pm
Location: The hotness of SoCal Inland Valley

Re: KTM

Post by speeddog »

Local folks to me, TaylorMade Racing, did an all CF monocoque-style bike for Moto2.

Part of the issue I think is that most high-precision CF parts that are manufactured in any sort of numbers are aircraft/race-car/marine which are quite large structures compared to a moto frame.

Moto frame is high point loads between suspension hardware and the 'frame', along with a hot, high vibration engine and all of the ancillaries.

Much as a race-car, but the scale and 2 vs. 4 wheel means little crosses over.

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

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »


AJracing
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:27 am
Location: Calgary, AB - Canada

Re: KTM

Post by AJracing »

Beautiful

User avatar
speeddog
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:43 pm
Location: The hotness of SoCal Inland Valley

Re: KTM

Post by speeddog »

I never imagined I'd ever say it, but those are nice looking KTM's. :D

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

Re: KTM

Post by Squidpuppet »

What is UP with those rear tires??

AJracing
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:27 am
Location: Calgary, AB - Canada

Re: KTM

Post by AJracing »

Squidpuppet wrote:What is UP with those rear tires??
I think those tires have not been run much on lean. Just seems like minimal straight wear in contrast with the sides...looks worse than it really is.

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

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »

What's the deal with Akrapovič? Seem with the exception of Honda everybody is using their stuff. Overall I'm loving the tail section as it look reminiscent of the 211V.

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

Re: KTM

Post by Dayle88 »

andrebt wrote:What's the deal with Akrapovič? Seem with the exception of Honda everybody is using their stuff. Overall I'm loving the tail section as it look reminiscent of the 211V.
Aren't exhaust 'suppliers' just sticker sponsors and the factories make all their own stuff?

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

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »

Dayle88 wrote:
andrebt wrote:What's the deal with Akrapovič? Seem with the exception of Honda everybody is using their stuff. Overall I'm loving the tail section as it look reminiscent of the 211V.
Aren't exhaust 'suppliers' just sticker sponsors and the factories make all their own stuff?
I was under the impression that when HRC swapped from Akrapovič to Termignoni it was for technical reasons...the same deal with Ducati swapping from Termignoni to Akrapovič.

Japhrodisiac
Posts: 1542
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Japhrodisiac »

AJracing wrote:
Squidpuppet wrote:What is UP with those rear tires??
I think those tires have not been run much on lean. Just seems like minimal straight wear in contrast with the sides...looks worse than it really is.
Looks like someone did a burnout on a brand new tire. Probably one of the toss away Michelins that they aren't using anymore is my guess

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

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »

Anybody know if the Misano test was even scheduled? Interestingly I see they now have Abraham as a development rider. They should've poached Aoki from Suzuki in the process :evil: :evil: ;)


http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/abr ... at-misano/

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

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »


User avatar
JanBros
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: The land of Francorchamps

Re: KTM

Post by JanBros »

KTM owns WP ;)
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

oldboyonrgv
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Peeortsmuff U.K

Re: KTM

Post by oldboyonrgv »

KTM will be steel trellis - they know how to make them, why the talk about CF, IT DOESNT WORK, CF is an insulator, frame materials need to be conductors, frames have to talk to the riders.
Zarco uses WP in Moto2 won a world championship on it.

User avatar
Wolfman
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:47 am

Re: KTM

Post by Wolfman »

In Wsbk the Kawasaki uses Showa (Honda owns Showa right?), and they were champions with Rea, the same for this year.

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

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »

JanBros wrote:KTM owns WP ;)
Yeah I know but I was under the impression that since ohlins is the choice of the other factories and riders are more familiar with them KTM would fall in line and go with as oppose to their in-house stuff.

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

Re: KTM

Post by andrebt »


Zeraz
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Zeraz »

These seem like sort of a crashpad to me?

And also: long time reader an lurker, now registered. Hi to everybody.
David, good job on this site, keep going!

Zeraz
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: KTM

Post by Zeraz »

andrebt wrote:
Dayle88 wrote:
andrebt wrote:What's the deal with Akrapovič? Seem with the exception of Honda everybody is using their stuff. Overall I'm loving the tail section as it look reminiscent of the 211V.
Aren't exhaust 'suppliers' just sticker sponsors and the factories make all their own stuff?
I was under the impression that when HRC swapped from Akrapovič to Termignoni it was for technical reasons...the same deal with Ducati swapping from Termignoni to Akrapovič.
Dayle, everything you see marked as ''akrapovic'', it really is made by akrapovic, no ''sticker only'' stuff in this case.

Andrebt, as for the technical reasons...could be.

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

Re: KTM

Post by hdot »

oldboyonrgv wrote:KTM will be steel trellis - they know how to make them, why the talk about CF, IT DOESNT WORK, CF is an insulator, frame materials need to be conductors, frames have to talk to the riders.
Zarco uses WP in Moto2 won a world championship on it.
No disrespect but what does electric conductivity have to do with frame communication?

I think the issue with CF is the frequencies at which communication happens are a lot higher and harder to tune for than plain old strength. Designing a CF frame that loads and bends like an aluminum twin spar is a piece of cake. Designing a CF frame that "talks" like aluminum is a different story. You tap aluminum, it dings... you tap CF, it's a dull knock. I get the strong feeling rider communication happens in the "ding" range of sound, not the lower knock. So I agree, talk of CF as a frame material is kind of bunk, unless teams can find a way to be fast with a frame that communicates in a completely different way.

Post Reply