KTM better or worse

Discussion and debate about the MotoGP class
User avatar
Mikesbytes
Posts: 2532
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:04 am

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Mikesbytes »

I've got no issues as to what people want to discuss or hijack threads or whatever, its fan based discussion and sometimes we are on the money and other times we need to review what we are smoking :D

How do you connect your investment in MotoGP with greater retail sales? I suspect that this is part of the reason for using a steel trellis frame and the other part is that they have the skills in making steel trellis frames and not alloy of CF

Back on topic KTM better or worse, its looking like a bit of both;
2019 Pol is doing better than 2018 Pol
2019 Zarco is doing worse than 2018 Smith
Yeh there's a lot of reasons for that
My signature isn't particularly interesting

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by hdot »

Tourn46 wrote:
hdot wrote: Unsubstantiated speculation isn't a legitimate avenue of discussion, and that's about all I'm seeing in the discussions about KTM's frame. It could be a disadvantage or an advantage. We don't know. Trying to guess one way or another feels like talking conspiracy theories.
May as well close this topic down then and half the topics on the forum.

Fortunately, you don't get to choose what we can and can't discuss.
I'm just offering my opinion like any other poster. And in my opinion the blaming of all KTM's problems on the frame is silly. KTM down on top speed? Must be the frame. KTM weak through sector 2? Must be the frame. Only Pol can get something out of the RC16 huh? He must understand the frame better than anyone else. It's lazy and boring in my opinion. There is plenty of data and rider feedback available to glean more substantial info about the bike from, rather than deciding that the frame is the problem and trying to use all the data one can find to bash it.

But w/e I guess we have to agree to disagree.... I'm already bored of this.

User avatar
Tumi
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 12:49 am
Location: Kuusankoski, Finland

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Tumi »

My opinion is clear on this. If I were to build a racing bike faster than Honda / Yamaha / Ducati, I wouldn't start by trying to copy their designs without prior experience with beam frames and expect the result to be better than the original ones.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Tourn46 »

hdot wrote:
Tourn46 wrote:
hdot wrote: Unsubstantiated speculation isn't a legitimate avenue of discussion, and that's about all I'm seeing in the discussions about KTM's frame. It could be a disadvantage or an advantage. We don't know. Trying to guess one way or another feels like talking conspiracy theories.
May as well close this topic down then and half the topics on the forum.

Fortunately, you don't get to choose what we can and can't discuss.
I'm just offering my opinion like any other poster. And in my opinion the blaming of all KTM's problems on the frame is silly. KTM down on top speed? Must be the frame. KTM weak through sector 2? Must be the frame. Only Pol can get something out of the RC16 huh? He must understand the frame better than anyone else. It's lazy and boring in my opinion. There is plenty of data and rider feedback available to glean more substantial info about the bike from, rather than deciding that the frame is the problem and trying to use all the data one can find to bash it.

But w/e I guess we have to agree to disagree.... I'm already bored of this.
But nobody is placing all blame on the frame are they? I'm not sure who you're aiming this at.

Vmax666
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Vmax666 »

Either frame or suspension only ktm and riders know what is to blame
However in moto2 a slight increase in bhp and torque and ktm are struggling
In MotoGP one rider is performing better than last year but so are all the other manufacturers
3 out of 4 are really not showing their best potential. If any of them were on the yamaha they would be further up the results and the yamaha is not the best bike on the grid at the minute

Alternate technology is not always the best, everyone one else uses ohlins as they are the best. Everyone else uses alloy frames because they are currently the best
Theories and engineering principles might work perfectly in F1 but not on a bike otherwise everyone would be on carbon frames
No doubt as more experience is gained in composites then more composites will appear

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by JanBros »

Vmax666 wrote:Either frame or suspension only ktm and riders know what is to blame
no, not either one of them.
If that is true, Aprilia would be fighting for victories with their twin spar and öhlins. but they are not. Even Yamaha is most of the time not. What are people blaming they are not competitive ? can't blame the inline4 as Aprilia has a V4.
Vmax666 wrote: Alternate technology is not always the best, everyone one else uses ohlins as they are the best. Everyone else uses alloy frames because they are currently the best
Theories and engineering principles might work perfectly in F1 but not on a bike otherwise everyone would be on carbon frames
No doubt as more experience is gained in composites then more composites will appear
if that was true, we would still be using drum brakes. the first disks were totaly rubbish compared with the drums at that time , they had years and years of development behind them. the first injection systems, the first ... and so on and so on ...

developing something new ALWAYS follows the same patern : the idea is to develop something that does things better than what currently is available or fits within your brand better. At first, 99% of the time what you've come up with will be worse. than you (try to) find out why it was worse and start developing it, improving it. and as long as improvement is made and you come closer to your goals, there is absolutly no reason to leave the chosen path. NONE, not even if 10 armchair experts try to explain you a 100 times you are wrong and others do it differently and all of them do it exactly the same.

Why don't you tell Ducati they are stupid to use desmo and that they will never ever become WC with it ? And that they only became it once because of Casey's talent despite the desmo ? After all, all the others have become champions with springs or pneumatic valves !
why don't you tell Ducati that they are stupid to develop swing-arm spoilers ? wheel covers ? They surely are stupid because nobody has ever become WC with those things...

do I need to go on ?
Last edited by JanBros on Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by hdot »

Yea, everyone using something doesn't make it the best. MotoGP's tech conservatism/herd mentality is one of the things I hate about the sport. It seems the fans encourage it. This is prototype racing. Factories should be trying any and everything to get an edge rather than just copying whatever seems to work for everyone else.

Truthfully I'd trade a couple of rounds for more development time if it made the bikes more interesting. The racing itself is phenomenal but the bikes are totally boring. I hope KTM succeeds if for no other reason than to blow up the tech orthodoxy on the grid.

User avatar
Mikesbytes
Posts: 2532
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:04 am

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Mikesbytes »

Looking at the KTM frame in this video there is one one vertical layer of tubes connecting the front of the frame to the back of the frame, so it appears that they are using the engine as a stressed member

https://youtu.be/wmx4JpF7Uws
My signature isn't particularly interesting

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Fingernails »

Mikesbytes wrote:Looking at the KTM frame in this video there is one one vertical layer of tubes connecting the front of the frame to the back of the frame, so it appears that they are using the engine as a stressed member

https://youtu.be/wmx4JpF7Uws
Now, that's interesting. In that they state that theoretically a steel frame can be lighter than an aluminium frame for the same strength. (Though, of course it's not just strength.) I would therefore expect that in theory for any required balance of stiffness/strength/flexibility in the right dimensions, that it would be possible to build a lighter steel frame than an aluminium one. In which case, KTM may well be right to stick with steel.

warthog1
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:15 am

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

I saw that weight statement as not well considered . Coming from bicycles which have gone from steel>aluminium>carbon fibre. It is the profile of the tubing that gives the frame the torsional strength. Carbon fibre rules as you can run a much bigger profile at the same weight The strength around the bottom bracket comes from the large cross sections around that area.
It is complicated in a m/cycle frame by the triangulation of the tubing to attain strength. That triangulation means extra tubes and more material. The weight claim doesn't add up to me.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by JanBros »

Mikesbytes wrote:Looking at the KTM frame in this video there is one one vertical layer of tubes connecting the front of the frame to the back of the frame, so it appears that they are using the engine as a stressed member

https://youtu.be/wmx4JpF7Uws
I couldn't find a single picture of the actual frame/bike without faiting to see the frame, yet you still thought they would just show the frame like that in a video ?

just look at pictures of all current KTM GP bikes (GP, 2 and 3) and you will quickly realise the frame he holds (or the drawn frame in the video next to the aluminium) is not of a (late/current) GP bike. They all have 2 tubes. On the GP bike, on most pictures you can just see the second tube.
you jump to conclusions that are not there. It's all in the details.
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by JanBros »

a triangle is much much more dificult to disturb than a rectangle , just look at any metal bridge/roof construction. so if you use triangles, you need less material to get the same strength.
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

warthog1
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:15 am

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

They use steel in bridge construction due to it's resistance to fatigue and cost is my understanding.
Weight is not an issue.
Not too many aircraft made out of it.
The beam frames on aluminium moto gp bikes get their strength from the deep cross section I would imagine.
Bicycle frames, where strength and weight are an issue, aluminium are more rigid than steel and achieve it whilst still being lighter as they can use larger tube diameters without becoming too heavy. Carbon are lighter and more rigid again, with even bigger cross sections.
I am not an engineer however.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by JanBros »

any metal bridge that does not have an arche (arches are very good at dirstibuting/diverting forces to the foundations) are made up of arches. you will never ever find a big bridge without an arche that is made solely made up of rectangles. it can have major rectangle parts, but it will always have diagonals (so making actualy 2 triangles) because without them the bridge will not be stable enough.

the same goes for metal roof constructions.

just look at any of the pictures :

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... u_jw1f5PSc

https://www.google.com/search?q=metal+r ... 49&bih=903

look at any trellis frame, and you'll see it is always constructed as a sum of triangles.
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Fingernails »

I'm not sure why we're discussing triangulation. I would think that everyone's aware of triangulation in structures such as frames and bridges, and why it's used.

For me at least, the discussion on tube diameters is interesting. Does this mean that there are necessary compromises in the frame that could prevent KTM producing a frame of desired characteristics that's lighter than an equivalent aluminium frame?

Actual KTM motoGP frames are hard to find, but here is a Moto2 frame, presumably for the Honda engine due to the age of the image.

Image

And here's some moto3 frames.

Image

There has been some development of the Moto3 frames, with more recent frames looking different from the Jack Miller moto3 frame that can be seen with appropriate searches on Google Image search.

I've searched for hints as to what the MotoGP frame looks like, if not the comparatively simple frame shown in the David Coulthard video, and I can't find anything.

Looking at different pictures of the RC16, it's hard to see what's happening behind the fairing, but it might be the case that there are significantly differences in different versions of the frames.

https://imotorbike.my/news/wp-content/u ... M-RC16.jpg

http://amcn.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2 ... 654144.jpg

I wonder if the simple frame shown by Coulthard is a KTM road frame, not a MotoGP frame at all. It's described as a 'road racing' frame in the page that this image comes from:

Image

User avatar
Tumi
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 12:49 am
Location: Kuusankoski, Finland

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Tumi »

Fingernails wrote:
I wonder if the simple frame shown by Coulthard is a KTM road frame, not a MotoGP frame at all. It's described as a 'road racing' frame in the page that this image comes from:

Image
That is a RC 8 R.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Fingernails »

Tumi wrote: That is a RC 8 R.
Thanks. That frame, to me, looks similar to the frame shown in the video with David Coulthard, and different from the racing frames from the lower formulae.

Vmax666
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Vmax666 »

I am pretty sure steel frames and trellis frames are old technology
When aluminium frames came out Steele was preferred due to the ease of welding
However welding technology improved and made it easier to make aluminium frames
But wherever a weld is in either Steele or aluminium there is the possibility of introducing weakness in the weld area
Which is why lotus in the Elise opted for bonded joints which also helped in stiffness and lightness
I am sure ktm will not be using steel but a alloy ( mixture of different metals) which requires special welding techniques and that is part of the reason updates are not done quickly enough
Technology levels are very high in MotoGP but unfortunately all is hidden inside fairings etc.
Everyone has their own ideas which should benefit healthy discussion

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by hdot »

How do we know KTM's frames aren't being updated quickly enough?

Or that they even need to be updated at all?

warthog1
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:15 am

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

JanBros wrote:any metal bridge that does not have an arche (arches are very good at dirstibuting/diverting forces to the foundations) are made up of arches. you will never ever find a big bridge without an arche that is made solely made up of rectangles. it can have major rectangle parts, but it will always have diagonals (so making actualy 2 triangles) because without them the bridge will not be stable enough.

the same goes for metal roof constructions.

just look at any of the pictures :

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... u_jw1f5PSc

https://www.google.com/search?q=metal+r ... 49&bih=903

look at any trellis frame, and you'll see it is always constructed as a sum of triangles.
Of course it is. It is a way of increasing strength over a given span whilst using the minimum of material.
A trellis frame is however made of tubing. If you compare aluminium tubing to steel tubing, for the same weight aluminium can be made stronger as you can use more material and increase the diameter.
The larger size tubing is more rigid as a result of the larger diameter.
I dont doubt they can triangulate the steel tubing and make it strong enough for the application.
To argue it can be stronger and lighter is contradicted by the use of lighter materials in applications where weight is critical. ie aviation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by JanBros »

warthog1 wrote: A trellis frame is however made of tubing. If you compare aluminium tubing to steel tubing, for the same weight aluminium can be made stronger as you can use more material and increase the diameter.
The larger size tubing is more rigid as a result of the larger diameter.
I dont doubt they can triangulate the steel tubing and make it strong enough for the application.
but the frame needs to be stiff logitudonal which it is because of the many triangles -even with the "small" tubes, and it needs to flex lateral which it does because of the small diameter of the tubes and the lack of triangles. I realy don't see why it wouldn't be perfect.
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

warthog1
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:15 am

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

JanBros wrote:
warthog1 wrote: A trellis frame is however made of tubing. If you compare aluminium tubing to steel tubing, for the same weight aluminium can be made stronger as you can use more material and increase the diameter.
The larger size tubing is more rigid as a result of the larger diameter.
I dont doubt they can triangulate the steel tubing and make it strong enough for the application.
but the frame needs to be stiff logitudonal which it is because of the many triangles -even with the "small" tubes, and it needs to flex lateral which it does because of the small diameter of the tubes and the lack of triangles. I realy don't see why it wouldn't be perfect.
It may or may not be good eventually.
I understand their reasons for sticking with it.
It differentiates them and may help sales of ktm road bikes.
I just think they have made it harder for themselves to get to the pointy end quickly rather than replicate what works on the bikes that are at the pointy end.

What I am arguing here is that steel is not stronger and lighter than aluminium.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by JanBros »

warthog1 wrote: What I am arguing here is that steel is not stronger and lighter than aluminium.
I don't think anybody said so
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

warthog1
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:15 am

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

JanBros wrote:
warthog1 wrote: What I am arguing here is that steel is not stronger and lighter than aluminium.
I don't think anybody said so
This AHEAD episode deals with chassis of MotoGP bikes. Only two materials are suitable for frames: aluminium and steel. All of the current MotoGP teams use aluminium - it is light and sturdy. But KTM - an Austrian manufacturer - uses steel, despite it being heavier. High-strength steel is three times stronger than aluminium. That means you need less steel to create a frame with the same stability as an aluminum one. Less material means less weight

https://youtu.be/wmx4JpF7Uws

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by hdot »

There is no hard proof that KTM has weight issues. Generally speaking it doesn't seem like total weight is an issue for any of the manufacturers on the grid:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ight-limit

They could all drop weight if they wanted to. The bigger issue is weight distribution, particularly with the dynamic issue of fuel. But again I haven't heard or seen anything indicating KTM specifically had any issues with weight aside from that one quote from one rider... and that was not attributed to the frame.

Post Reply