KTM better or worse

Discussion and debate about the MotoGP class
motor
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:02 am
Location: Bangalore, India

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by motor »

hdot wrote:They could all drop weight if they wanted to.
So, noticed this the other day:
We still have to bring down 4 to 5kg of weight
https://www.crash.net/motogp/news/92020 ... -criticism
Once more into the fray
Into the last good fight I'll ever know
Live and die on this day
Live and die on this day

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Mikesbytes »

Not being the Motogp Frame in the video would answer my question on whether the engine was a stressed member, making it irrelevant as we don't have info. On closer look the frame being built in the machine is a completely different frame giving another clue to possibly conclude that the video is a bunch of marketing footage pieced together to make a MotoGP info video interesting to watch. What I would expect to see for the Motogp frame is more than one horizontal spar on each side, like what is shown in the Moto2 frames that fingernails has posted

In regards to the metals, weight wise alloy is about the same strength as steel for the same weight, the advantage that alloy gives is that its easier to work with to provide strength where its needed and less metal where strength isn't needed. Anyway I don't think that weight is an issue with the frame, otherwise the manufacturers would have gone CF
My signature isn't particularly interesting

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

Mikesbytes wrote:
In regards to the metals, weight wise alloy is about the same strength as steel for the same weight, the advantage that alloy gives is that its easier to work with to provide strength where its needed and less metal where strength isn't needed. Anyway I don't think that weight is an issue with the frame, otherwise the manufacturers would have gone CF
Aluminum is one of the lightest engineering metals, having strength to weight ratio superior to steel.

.....the low density of aluminum is the main driver for using it in many structural applications. The high strength to weight ratio is the number one reason for the development of the aircraft industry.


https://www.ispatguru.com/comparison-of ... -aluminum/



Agree that if low weight was the primary characteristic desired. Then CF would be in use.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

I dont know how hard it is to reach the 160kg weight limit of a motogp bike however.
There may well be a few kilos in the frame.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Fingernails »

Thanks. That is what I read when I said before that the KTM was overweight, but couldn't find the link when challenged. (The Olivera quote I posted instead was less clear.)
warthog1 wrote:
Aluminum is one of the lightest engineering metals, having strength to weight ratio superior to steel.

.....the low density of aluminum is the main driver for using it in many structural applications. The high strength to weight ratio is the number one reason for the development of the aircraft industry.


https://www.ispatguru.com/comparison-of ... -aluminum/

Agree that if low weight was the primary characteristic desired. Then CF would be in use.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

I dont know how hard it is to reach the 160kg weight limit of a motogp bike however.
There may well be a few kilos in the frame.
While fairly straightforward steel alloys are heavier than common aluminium alloys for the same strength, I believe that things get more complex when you're looking at more advanced alloys. E.g. comparing 4130 steel to 6160 aluminium. However, things may becomes different when comparing e.g. maraging steels to aluminium. It's possible (though I do not suggest likely) that KTM may use 4130 steel or similar while developing their frame design, and then switch to a lighter (per unit strength) steel alloy once the frame is more developed and needs fewer updates. That might explain KTM being overweight now. But, so could many other things.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by speeddog »

Unfortunately, many of comments in this thread use 'strength' and 'stiffness' interchangeably.

They.
Are.
Totally.
Different.

It's just as productive as a discussion using 'dog' and 'cat' interchangeably.
"My cat was barking all night"
"Well, you should have heard my dog purring, it was awesome!"

Which is to say, it's basically talking nonsense.

Please, everyone go read this to start with:
https://pediaa.com/difference-between-s ... stiffness/

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

Does I don't believe a steel frame that resists the forces applied on it by a racing motorcycle, will be lighter than an aluminium one that performs the same task, suffice?

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Mikesbytes »

warthog1 wrote:Does I don't believe a steel frame that resists the forces applied on it by a racing motorcycle, will be lighter than an aluminium one that performs the same task, suffice?
However its not a case of which is lighter, as there are plenty of other places to loose some weight but more of a case of getting the frame to do what is required and from what I can see of 3 out of 4 riders riding around at the back of the field, while one is a way more forward tells me that the issues are something that one rider can ride around, so its not something like a severe lack of ponies
My signature isn't particularly interesting

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

Mikesbytes wrote:
warthog1 wrote:Does I don't believe a steel frame that resists the forces applied on it by a racing motorcycle, will be lighter than an aluminium one that performs the same task, suffice?
However its not a case of which is lighter, as there are plenty of other places to loose some weight but more of a case of getting the frame to do what is required and from what I can see of 3 out of 4 riders riding around at the back of the field, while one is a way more forward tells me that the issues are something that one rider can ride around, so its not something like a severe lack of ponies
Yeah I just started banging on about weight due to the claim made in that link.
Runs contrary to the data I have read and what is used in applications where weight and strength are critical.
Agree weight is not the issue.
You could draw parallels between both JZ, JL and their respective bikes at the moment.
I'm tipping JL to be up the front quicker than JZ though.
More experience all round, manufacturer and rider.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Fingernails »

speeddog wrote:Unfortunately, many of comments in this thread use 'strength' and 'stiffness' interchangeably.

They.
Are.
Totally.
Different.

It's just as productive as a discussion using 'dog' and 'cat' interchangeably.
"My cat was barking all night"
"Well, you should have heard my dog purring, it was awesome!"

Which is to say, it's basically talking nonsense.

Please, everyone go read this to start with:
https://pediaa.com/difference-between-s ... stiffness/
Well, perhaps you could discuss what this means for MotoGP frames, and what the trade-offs will be in using steel to produce a frame that not only is sufficiently strong enough, but also has the correct stiffness in the right directions.

I did look at some sources on this, and it seems that there is information on the stiffness of various materials, and stiffness often closely tracks strength, and the terms are used interchangeably in many circumstances, as the reference you give mentions. Which is basically what has been happening in the thread.
warthog1 wrote:Does I don't believe a steel frame that resists the forces applied on it by a racing motorcycle, will be lighter than an aluminium one that performs the same task, suffice?
The reasoning behind this is likely, in my opinion, to be more interesting than the conclusion itself: so, why?

For maraging steels, they are 'strong' as defined by a number of properties including tensile strength. See, e.g, the table given in the answer here which compares maraging steels versus various aluminium alloys.https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-met ... ened-steel Note that I don't know if the properties of maraging steels make them suitable for MotoGP frames. Also, even if they were, it's possible that KTM won't use them at present as they'd lengthen the cycle of designing and producing a new frame due to the necessary heat-treatment cycle. It's plausible, but only in 'wild guess' mode, that they'd use a more common steel while developing the frames to allow quick (and cheaper) turnaround of new frame concepts, but use a more advanced material once their frame concept is more refined.

EDIT: Maraging 250 is claimedly widely used for racing car chassis components (but, it doesn't say which ones) https://www.aubertduval.com/markets/tra ... materials/

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Mikesbytes »

warthog1, I agree that its not true that steel is lighter than aluminium, seems to me to be a marketing message. And it does make me think that KTM are tied to producing a MotoGP bike that is closely linked with retail manufacturing, so they need to fix the problem with steel, which of course is totally possible

speeddog, that borders on being a grammar nazi LOL and well done mate. BTW I second fingernails on asking the question as to how the terms apply to motorbike frames, do you know? Does someone else know? Its an interesting point

Getting back to basics, what exactly is Zarco's problem? Is it front end feel?
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 »

Mikesbytes wrote:
Getting back to basics, what exactly is Zarco's problem? Is it front end feel?
Front end feel is part of it, but the main issue is that he refuses to adapt to the bike. He wants the KTM to be a Yamaha.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

hdot wrote:
Mikesbytes wrote:
Getting back to basics, what exactly is Zarco's problem? Is it front end feel?
Front end feel is part of it, but the main issue is that he refuses to adapt to the bike. He wants the KTM to be a Yamaha.
I don't know that he refuses. It isn't going to be easy to achieve. Pol wasnt that good on a Yam remember.
Zarco is clearly very good at being smooth. He went pretty well on the Yam.
Having such a finely honed skill doesn't mean he can just change from smooth high corner speed to stuff it in, square it off and fire out. His ability to do so successfully, is being measured against the best in the world.
It is no easy feat I imagine.

AL-2
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by AL-2 »

There has been a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of various frame designs and materials.

Many of the comments correctly assume that steel, aluminum or carbon-fiber could be used to fabricate a beam or tube frame with the proper combination of strength and stiffness. But, I think many people are underestimating the difficulty of getting to that sweet spot of strength and stiffness.

The main benefit of the aluminum beam chassis is the ease of making small incremental tuning changes. While the overall shape of the beams may externally appear to be simple, the inside surfaces are carefully machined to achieve precisely varying thickness along the length of the beam. I think that the thickness variations are quite complex in some parts of the beam, however, this would be fairly easy to achieve (and replicate) on a CNC milling machine. In addition, the relative simplicity of the overall beam exterior would allow strain sensors to be applied to collect data about the on track forces acting on specific points on the frame. Due to the relatively simple shape this data would be relatively easy to analyze. Using this data along with making a series of step-by-step machining changes along with more testing could allow an understanding of how the frame is working and to more efficiently develop a frame with the desired behavior. The same procedure could be made to work if the frame was made of steel. Carbon fiber could also be used by combinations of thickness and weave direction, but the long curing time would greatly slow down the reiterative fabrication and testing process.

The way I see it, the main weakness of the tubular frame chassis is the relative complexity of its shape. The complexity is primarily caused by the various tubes interacting with each other and the joints of intersecting tubes. The joints create discontinuities in the ability of the tubing to flex and due to variations in welds the discontinuities may not be consistent from frame to frame. The complexity and potential inconsistency makes predicting the performance results of a change problematic. While it is possible to change the characteristics of the frame by varying the tube thicknesses, changing one tube will potentially change the behavior of the connected tubes. Also, it would seem to be quite possible to reach the end of modification possibilities without moving a joint, and moving a joint might mean nearly starting over.

It’s true that is possible to make a competitive MotoGP tube frame, but I think it would much more difficult and time consuming unless you are very lucky and stumble on a good starting point almost by chance. Depending on being lucky is the lowest form of engineering. (One of our insults at my company)

When we consider the extremely small setup adjustments that are regularly done to change the behavior of a bike in preparation for a race, it would seem reasonable that during frame development at some point the amount of change desired will be very small, but exceedingly precise. I think this will be much more difficult for a tube frame.

As an engineer, if I was going to start developing a MotoGP frame I would definitely use an aluminum beam frame.

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 »

AL-2 wrote: I think it would much more difficult and time consuming unless you are very lucky and stumble on a good starting point almost by chance. Depending on being lucky is the lowest form of engineering. (One of our insults at my company)
it is your right to think that.

I'm pretty sure at KTM, they are not hoping to get lucky. they know what they are doing, but they sure as hell ain't gonna share that with us or the whole world (at your company, that would even be a greater insult, sharing your secrets with the competition :mrgreen: )
Bi-stroker Parallelus Bi-cylindricus

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Mikesbytes »

Great post AL-2. I didn't know some were doing CNC machining, as you have said that certainly helps technology refine how much the frame bends.

Stoner us to say that the Ducati trellis frames were inconsistent, ie 2 identical frames had different feeling. KTM claimed early on that they had this issue covered with their construction process, I'm presuming that means the welds. How accurate that is, only KTM know.

Rossi said when he went to Ducati that Ducati and he needed to meet half way, ie they needed to get the bike to work for him and he needed to change his ride style to work with the bike. In the case of Zarco is this the situation? He won Moto2 and that wasn't on a Yamaha and when he went to Yamaha he adjusted from Moto2 to MotoGP straight away, but this hasn't been the case going to KTM, which has been a bit like Lorenzo's transitions between manufacturers
My signature isn't particularly interesting

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

AL-2 wrote:There has been a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of various frame designs and materials.

Many of the comments correctly assume that steel, aluminum or carbon-fiber could be used to fabricate a beam or tube frame with the proper combination of strength and stiffness. But, I think many people are underestimating the difficulty of getting to that sweet spot of strength and stiffness.

The main benefit of the aluminum beam chassis is the ease of making small incremental tuning changes. While the overall shape of the beams may externally appear to be simple, the inside surfaces are carefully machined to achieve precisely varying thickness along the length of the beam. I think that the thickness variations are quite complex in some parts of the beam, however, this would be fairly easy to achieve (and replicate) on a CNC milling machine. In addition, the relative simplicity of the overall beam exterior would allow strain sensors to be applied to collect data about the on track forces acting on specific points on the frame. Due to the relatively simple shape this data would be relatively easy to analyze. Using this data along with making a series of step-by-step machining changes along with more testing could allow an understanding of how the frame is working and to more efficiently develop a frame with the desired behavior. The same procedure could be made to work if the frame was made of steel. Carbon fiber could also be used by combinations of thickness and weave direction, but the long curing time would greatly slow down the reiterative fabrication and testing process.

The way I see it, the main weakness of the tubular frame chassis is the relative complexity of its shape. The complexity is primarily caused by the various tubes interacting with each other and the joints of intersecting tubes. The joints create discontinuities in the ability of the tubing to flex and due to variations in welds the discontinuities may not be consistent from frame to frame. The complexity and potential inconsistency makes predicting the performance results of a change problematic. While it is possible to change the characteristics of the frame by varying the tube thicknesses, changing one tube will potentially change the behavior of the connected tubes. Also, it would seem to be quite possible to reach the end of modification possibilities without moving a joint, and moving a joint might mean nearly starting over.

It’s true that is possible to make a competitive MotoGP tube frame, but I think it would much more difficult and time consuming unless you are very lucky and stumble on a good starting point almost by chance. Depending on being lucky is the lowest form of engineering. (One of our insults at my company)

When we consider the extremely small setup adjustments that are regularly done to change the behavior of a bike in preparation for a race, it would seem reasonable that during frame development at some point the amount of change desired will be very small, but exceedingly precise. I think this will be much more difficult for a tube frame.

As an engineer, if I was going to start developing a MotoGP frame I would definitely use an aluminum beam frame.
Thanks AL.
Very informative post, appreciate an engineers perspective.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Fingernails »

Great post A2.

KTM claim that they have solved the problem of consistency in frames. So, they say that this is no longer a problem - at least for them. Consistency is said to be a problem that Ducati had when they ran a steel trellis frame.

KTM also note that they have made tubular trellis frames successful on other forms of motorsport - mostly off-road bikes. I notice what looks like an aluminium twin-spar frame on an old KTM 125. But, the all-conquering Paris-Dakar rally bike is a steel trellis frame. Wikipedia says that KTM have won 216 different motorsports championships - presumably quite a few of these with steel trellis frames.

I note your comment about the complexity of the tubular frame, and the potential difficulties in development. But, KTM are developing this frame in 2019, and I would imagine that computer simulation and various forms of evolutionary computing would be able to greatly assist in that area. I can't imagine that KTM, with the number of frames that it's designing for both sport and consumer use, doesn't use some form of computer simulation and/or optimisation. Here's a paper on using computer optimisation in the development of a tubular Moto2 frame. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=geno20

The level of computer assistance in design that is available today is a whole new ballpark compared to when Ducati ran a trellis frame. I personally think that this will make a big difference.

I don't know how KTM have solved the inconsistency problem (if their claims are true). But, I would imagine that would involve advances in robotics, including computer vision feedback, etc.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Vmax666 »

There is a big difference between a 60bhp off reader and a 200+ bhp circuit racing bike
Moto3 they are competitive
Moto2 with new triumph engine not competitive
MotoGP not competitive
Whatever metals they are using on the frames or the welding process must be too complicated at this moment in time
Will they ever be the fastest time will tell
But if it’s not soon they will struggle to attract fast riders
After seeing zarco which top rider would make the switch ( unless they are chasing a last big payday)

AL-2
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by AL-2 »

I am definitely counting on computer modeling as part of the frame development. The problem is that a MotoGP frame is an incredibly niche application. There is little real technical data available. Honda, Yamaha and Suzuki are not going to reveal anything useful to a potential competitor. It all has to be developed in-house. Data from a different type of motorcycle would be of limited usefulness and could even lead development down a deadend path. Nothing else has to deal with the power, grip, stopping ability and lean angle of a MotoGP bike.

Just determining what the “answer” you are looking for is made more difficult by the wide variation of tires, pavement grip, tracks and riders that will have to be accommodated. As with most engineering problems there isn’t really a single “correct” answer, only the least bad compromise.

If chassis design was a straightforward easily defined engineering problem, Honda and Yamaha bikes would be perfect after all this time and would be quickly adapted to any tire, electronics, engine, rider or rules change. Obviously, this is not what happens. Frame development takes lots of small steps and lots testing/data collection. Having to deal with a much more complex structure does not seem to be an advantage.

In my opinion, while it will be possible for KTM to solve their chassis problems using a tube frame, I think it will be more difficult and take them longer than it could have. My fear is that the tube frame decision was made by management and marketing, not by the engineering department.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Fingernails »

Vmax666 wrote:There is a big difference between a 60bhp off reader and a 200+ bhp circuit racing bike
Moto3 they are competitive
Moto2 with new triumph engine not competitive
MotoGP not competitive
Whatever metals they are using on the frames or the welding process must be too complicated at this moment in time
Will they ever be the fastest time will tell
But if it’s not soon they will struggle to attract fast riders
After seeing zarco which top rider would make the switch ( unless they are chasing a last big payday)
It's true that they have succeeded in very different formulae from MotoGP. I'd guess that their 990cc Paris-Dakar rally bike had a lot more than 60bhp, though the stresses on the frame and the parameters that make a winning bike will be different in that event than MotoGP.

KTM themselves say that what's holding them up at the moment is knowing how the frame should flex (etc.) rather than the frame material/philosophy and that they can achieve any flex parameters they want - if they only knew what they need. They could of course be wrong or deliberately misleading, but TBH I doubt either. While they haven't succeeded in a series with anything like as much power as MotoGP, they are going to know an awful lot about engineering and materials. Their 125 bikes show that they will, or at least would in the past, use aluminium twin-spar frames. If they say that they can win with the steel trellis, then I'm prepared to believe that they can. Their 250cc two-stroke had a twin-spar aluminium frame too. They haven't, in the past, had a hard policy against twin-spare aluminium.

In Moto2 there has been a change, and it may well not be the additional power beyond what can be handled with a steel trellis frame that has made KTM less competitive. I think that it's simply the case that they didn't come up with as good a frame concept as Kalex (or Speed Up), and the frame material is irrelevant. However, I'm just guessing there - we'll see if KTM return to the front of Moto2 in future years.

Re: Top riders making the switch - as they are a factory team they will always be able to get decent riders. I suspect that the teams and riders know how good other riders are. If just decent riders start achieving good results on the bike, then top riders will recognise the team as a reasonable prospect. Witness Rossi moving too Yamaha. (Though of course his subsequent move to Ducati had a different result.) There may be a delay between the team reaching a good level and top riders moving there, but I would expect that if they get there, top riders will recognise that. Even if they had had a long fallow period before that. However, if they only achieve success with one rider, and other riders can't make the bike work for them, then certain well known precedents may dissuade riders.
AL-2 wrote:I am definitely counting on computer modeling as part of the frame development. The problem is that a MotoGP frame is an incredibly niche application. There is little real technical data available. Honda, Yamaha and Suzuki are not going to reveal anything useful to a potential competitor. It all has to be developed in-house. Data from a different type of motorcycle would be of limited usefulness and could even lead development down a deadend path. Nothing else has to deal with the power, grip, stopping ability and lean angle of a MotoGP bike.

Just determining what the “answer” you are looking for is made more difficult by the wide variation of tires, pavement grip, tracks and riders that will have to be accommodated. As with most engineering problems there isn’t really a single “correct” answer, only the least bad compromise.

If chassis design was a straightforward easily defined engineering problem, Honda and Yamaha bikes would be perfect after all this time and would be quickly adapted to any tire, electronics, engine, rider or rules change. Obviously, this is not what happens. Frame development takes lots of small steps and lots testing/data collection. Having to deal with a much more complex structure does not seem to be an advantage.

In my opinion, while it will be possible for KTM to solve their chassis problems using a tube frame, I think it will be more difficult and take them longer than it could have. My fear is that the tube frame decision was made by management and marketing, not by the engineering department.
I'll add my answer here as it follows on from the post above.

I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding here. To try and clarify I'll rather pretentiously label two parts the problem of designing a frame into Problem A and Problem B.

Problem A: Defining the parameters of a frame - how it should flex in which dimensions etc.
Problem B: Designing a frame that matches the specification created when solving Problem A.

I was only suggesting computer modelling for Problem B, which I think is far easier than Problem A. If Problem B can be solved by computer, then that may mean that even if it's harder to solve Problem B for a steel trellis frame than an Aluminium twin-spar frame, that isn't such a problem if it can be solved in a reasonable time by computer.

Problem A is a much harder problem, and I'm not suggesting it could be solved by computer optimisation. I don't believe that it would be possible to model a racing motorcycle to the accuracy required and to evaluate frame designs in a short enough time to make optimisation feasible for actual use. I could be wrong, but this is what I believe right now. Certain parts of your post make me wonder if you interpreted my post as meaning that I think that Problem A can be solved through computer optimisation. I don't think that. I'm only suggesting that Problem B might be amenable to computer simulation. Which might equalise frame design/materials where Problem B is of different complexity if the computers can be left to run on the problem overnight.

KTM say that their problem isn't in producing a frame with the flex characteristics that they specify. Their problem is, they say, knowing how the frame should flex. They could be BS-ing us, but I don't believe this to be the case. They also say that they can design and build frames quickly. So, unless there's more evidence that what they say is wrong, I'm probably going to continue believing what they say - at least for a bit :)

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by warthog1 »

AL-2 wrote:
In my opinion, while it will be possible for KTM to solve their chassis problems using a tube frame, I think it will be more difficult and take them longer than it could have. My fear is that the tube frame decision was made by management and marketing, not by the engineering department.
They have stated as much. They are in motogp to help their sales of road bikes.
Problem is they may be achieving just the opposite by biting off such a challenge.

I wonder would it have been easier to replicate in steel what works in aluminium.
If they'd gone down the twinspar aluminium route and then tried to replicate it in steel trellis later once it is working.

Anyway appreciate an engineers insight [emoji106]

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Vmax666 »

If ktm can produce frames quickly then surely in moto2 you would see more changes to bring them bearer to the front
In MotoGP the only noticeable improvement was the switch to carbon swingarm, which has only been given to pol
With red bull backing I would have thought they would have access to f1 carbon knowhow and make enough swingarm for all the riders
Looks to me like zarco is being left out in the cold, maybe there will be 2 ktm seats available next year

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Fingernails »

Vmax666 wrote:If ktm can produce frames quickly then surely in moto2 you would see more changes to bring them bearer to the front
In MotoGP the only noticeable improvement was the switch to carbon swingarm, which has only been given to pol
With red bull backing I would have thought they would have access to f1 carbon knowhow and make enough swingarm for all the riders
Looks to me like zarco is being left out in the cold, maybe there will be 2 ktm seats available next year
It would be very strange for them to ignore Zarco this early on. Everyone has seen recent history with Lorenzo at Ducati. Perhaps they wanted to run both swingarms in the race on the factory bikes to get a comparison. They have the TECH3 bikes of course, but there appears to be a performance difference between the teams - for whatever reason. They may have wanted to run both Espargaro and Zarco with old and new bikes to get a good comparison.

It's been suggested before that with KTM running bikes in all three categories that they may not be able to give each class full focus at all times. There may also be issues of allocating budget between the categories.

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

Re: KTM better or worse

Post by Mikesbytes »

This has turned into an interesting thread and a lot of the discussion covers all of the makes, not just KTM. To repeat what fingernails wrote;
1. knowing what to make the frame do. Have to agree that's the hardest part. We have seen manufacturers extend the number of current year bikes on the grid to 3 or even 4 bikes, so (amongst other reasons) to get more data. We have also seen the advent of European test teams + the use of experienced MotoGP riders. It seems that they are scrambling for more information and that's coming at a $$$ cost.
2. knowing how to make the frame do what was determined in 1. Yeh, lets continue the discussion. To me carbon is the answer, add or remove layers, change the direction of the weave, however I do take the point about CNC machining when combined with data can get a frame from computer to completion in a shorter time.

In regards to retail marketing, did Ducati lose sales when they switched from Trellis to the carbon frame and then to the alloy frame. OK there's always going to be someone. At work in the early 80's a guy told me that the F1 Honda engine (V6 turbo) was the same engine as the one in the car being sold [which was a non turbo straight 4]
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 »

Cars and bikes are very different. I'd wager CF in F1 is all about making the chassis as stiff as possible to deal with the massive loads on the car. F1 drivers don't need chassis flex for feedback. So CF motorcycle frames are still uncharted territory. I'm sure they can design CF frames with whatever flex characteristics they want, but the feedback may be lacking.

Then again CF fork legs have been the norm for some time now, so perhaps frames are just around the corner. I'm still holding out hope for FFEs though. If anyone can take that gamble it's KTM.

Post Reply