Two Stroke Motocross
Two Stroke Motocross Forum => General Two Stroke Talk => Topic started by: TMKIWI on May 13, 2010, 03:38:45 PM
-
I have been thinking lately about the never ending displacement debate.
Now the big five will never drop the four strokes so we need to look at it from a different angle.
Concentrating on the Lites class here, this is how I can see it improving.
These are rules the FIM/AMA need to adopt.
The only way 4/s can make big horsepower numbers is by rpmâ??s.
But by spinning at high rpmâ??s the reliability goes out the window.
The modern 250Fâ??s are spinning up to 13,000rpm and that has made them ticking time bombs.
People are leaving the sport in droves because of the expenses involved.
250Fâ??s need to have rpm limiters that are specified by the FIM/AMA.
Say 10,000 max, that way the reliability will come back as the stresses on the engine will be considerably lower.
The valve train can be beefed up because of the lower revs and will last a lot longer then present.
All the 250Fâ??s make peak power from 10-12k rpmâ??s.
By lowering the max rpm the engines will need to be tuned for lower rpmâ??s.
Thatâ??s quite easy. It will lower peak power by about 3-4hp.
That will make them more reliable and more tourqey.
Next the 2 strokes need to put on an even footing by way of regulations.
It needs to be settled on either 125 or 150cc engines and kept for a min 5 years.
That way all the manufactures can produce bikes for a set period.
All the manufactures can produce 150â??s without much retooling.
A handicap system then needs to be tested by neutral engineers to determine any tweaking such as air restrictors or max exhaust diameter.
Buy this I mean guys like Eric Goor and Mitch Payton (As examples) need to test bikes back to back with different modâ??s to make the bikes even.
No manufactures are allowed to be involved.
To take a leaf out of road racing, the rules can be modified throughout the season to keep the bikes even.
In WSB they allow a larger displacement for twins because they have less piston area then 4â??s.
But they have fitted them with air restrictors to keep it even.
As you can see in the rules below if one type of bike gets an advantage through the season they can modify the rules to suit. Change the 2 cylinder/4 cylinder to 2/S 4/S
If you want to see close racing look on YouTube at the second Assen race from a couple of weeks back. 5 manufactures in the top 5.
I stress that no manufactures are allowed in the rule making process.
All the above ideas can be done with existing bikes now.
It will need a settling in period but will produce good and cheaper racing.
It will be a win win situation as the big five will sell more bikes as they wonâ??t need rebuilding every 10 hrs.
All they would need to do is produce bikes set up within the rules. E.g. 40mm air restrictors, Min weights etc
And the fans will get to see good racing between 2 different types of bikes.
All forms of motor sport are trying to cut costs and the simplest way is to drop rpm.
Also you bring in a rule that motors have to last a certain amount of races.
That way you stop engineers from pushing things over the limit.
If you blow up you get a time penalty. 2 or 4 stroke !
Why isnâ??t motocross doing the same thing?
WSB Rules
Minimum Weights
2 cylinders over 850cc up to 1200cc: 168kg
4 cylinders over 750cc up to 1000cc: 162kg
Minimum weight of 2 cylinders over 850cc up to 1200cc will be updated, if needed, during the Championship in steps of ±3kg to 171kg as a maximum and 162kg as a minimum.
Air-Restrictors
Only 2 cylinders over 850cc up to 1200cc will be fitted with air-restrictors. Initial size will be equivalent to a �50mm circular area. Air-restrictors size will be updated, if needed, during the Championship in steps of ±2mm of diameter in a range from equivalent to a �46mm circular area to no air-restrictor at all.
Balance Of Different Motorcycle Concepts
Weight limit and then air-restrictors size of 2 cylinders over 850cc up to 1200cc machines will be updated, if needed, during the Championship, by a system analysing the race points obtained.
-
They are all great ideas TMKIWI and I'd love to see them happen!On another note I've been thinking about one of my personal favorite brand of bikes which is KTM & I know one of your faves' is the TM and in my opinion both of those brands build top notch 2-stroke dirtbikes I think it would be awesome if TM & KTM would merge together kind of like BMW did with Husqvarna except unlike BMW just buying the Husqvarna company I would like to see KTM and TM team up & work together to build the ultimate 2-stroke Motocross bike! I know they could do it and I'm quite sure it would be a "Masterpeice" of a ride to say the least!I mean with the Italian company & their precison built 2-strokes and the Austrian company with such a wide range of purpose built 2-stroke engines and bikes if the Italians & Austrians teamed up and put their minds together for one purpose & one purpose ONLY!And just start building MX-250t's,300,maybe a couple 360cc.'s-a 380cc. and even maybe a 440 to 500cc. 2-strokes make them FI or DI and also make them in enduro,motocross & maybe even a few Supermoto variants....!!!!! THAT WOULD BE SICK!!!!!!In a good way! :o >:D :P ;D
-
Not a bad idea.
But it is good to have variety in life.
KTM probably build the best all round 300 engine.
TM build the craziest 300 engine. The exhaust ports are ridiculously high and you really need to run them on avgas.
But thats good.
And thats why i have mine.
Different engines to suit different people.
I would hate to see bikes too similar.
It's good catching up with people at the end of a ride and having a chat about the different bikes.
It's good at my age that most guy's are not to one eyed about a particular brand.
It get's boring when some prick goe's on about his Honda/yamaha/whatever is so much better then anything else.
Any way, got 2 rides this weekend through 2 different forests.
There will be about 3-400 riders at each ride. And tommorrow is forcast for rain. ( Can't wait )
-
Have you ever read the story of Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut? What we need is less rules and regulations, not more. Have a look at the motorsports that have brought in waves of new rules to keep things fair and produce close racing. Formula One? NASCAR? What do we know about these sports? Well, they were better in the olden days, and that's because the machines were different enough in capability that people could cheer for a manufacturer. Let's face it, people who cheered for Richard Petty did so as much for his car as they did for him. It was a Ford-Chevy-Mopar sport, and every couple of years, one of them would do something big and wipe out the competition, until someone else did something big and wiped out the competition. Meanwhile, the racing was intense and awesome, even though it wasn't necessarily "close." These were days when you didn't see a gigantic rectangle of cars moving in a circle at exactly the same speed for three hours. Some were better than others, and that's what made it interesting. Now, you can't deny that NASCAR is the epitome of close racing - nobody is ever more than a meter away from the car in front of them. REAL exciting stuff there...
And I don't like the idea of having this big web of different rules, where if you have such-and-such a type of engine, then you have to have such-and-such displacement, which implies that you fall into category such-and-such, which means that your bike can only have X and Y, but not Z. What it's doing is taking the motor element out of motorsport. It's turning it into a pure, 100% man-against-man contest, and I just don't think that's what people want to see. They want to see Kawasaki (or whoever) make an awesome new bike (which they can buy!) and wipe out the World Champion with a rider no one's heard of.
I agree that the manufacturers shouldn't have a word in the rule-making process, but I also don't think there should be much of a rule-making process, simply because there shouldn't be all that many rules. Someone should be able to explain the engine rules of a given class to someone else in fifteen seconds or less. "Everyone gets this much displacement to work with, in a naturally-aspirated, internal-combustion piston engine." Full stop.
This would allow for struggles between the riders, AND between machinery! And, because we would still require some production rule (not in raw numbers, but something like bikes-per-dealership or something) there would be no six-digit-priced Works bikes that would give an economic disadvantage to one team over the other. It'd be stock and tuned production bikes. The upshot of this is, every manufacturer that wants to beat their rivals in motocross racing would want to produce a superior motocross bike. If they don't, then they will lose market share by the bags full (somehow market share is measured in bags, now.) This would result in a constant, mad competitive struggle to give US, the amateur racers and weekend riders, superior technology.
The best part is, it would be fair in the real philosophical sense. There is ONE standard of measure (displacement) and from there it's up to the engineers to produce the best bike. The best bike will be, for once, the best bike, and not just the one that managed to find a loop-hole in the rules. There's no way to make the rules so utterly "fair" in result that someone doesn't get screwed over. In road racing, the rules with the twin- and four-cylinders allowed the twins to swoop in with vastly more horsepower and lay the smack down. An inferior design (less piston area, right?) was put on the regulatory welfare, but the dole was just a little too much and the inferior design BEAT the superior design. Remember the 125-250F rule? Wasn't that originally sold to everyone as a way to keep everything fair? Remember, it took the manufacturers a while to jump on it, so it probably wasn't the result of a big lobbying effort of the AMA.
I'll end this post with an analogy (or metaphor, or whatever). Two cars are lined up at a drag strip. One is a '68 Charger, built to the hilt with racing tires, wheelie-bar, and over a thousand horses on the dyno at the wheels with a big #2 painted on the sides. In the other lane, is a bone stock Toyota Prius, except for the #4 on the side. Now, should we keep things "fair" by letting the Prius go first and then let the Charger take off later, so that they cross the finish line at roughly the same time, as determined by... some guy? Or, should we keep things "fair" by having the lights go green in the same nanosecond, and let the faster car win? In the end, it's not our choice, but I say we hit the lights at the same time and let the superior machine receive the victory that it rightly deserves.
-
First NASCAR isn't racing it's a 'show' always was, always will be.Second you want to pull high revving 4T engines into line then just do as Dorna have done in MotoGP make a max bore size. Then you force longer stroke engines, this drops rpm ceilings by mean piston speed limits(around 25m/s for a massively over square F1 engine). Air restrictors have been dumped in WSBK for many years.
So all you really need for a 250cc or 450cc format is a bore size limit.
-
Waitaminute... how is it not racing? I mean, it's not much of a race now because of how the rules have crippled it, but when I watched the footage from 1970, what I saw was cut-throat racing, just as much as motocross races I've seen from that era. If you want to call that a show, then I submit that Supercross is just a show, and so we should just do an Edit | Replace thing on the site and talk about changing the rules for the show.
-
I agree JETZ, as little rules as possible. Set a CC limit and run 'em. Then let the best technology or rider take the checkers. If 250s vs 250fs were the case I bet some riders would take the 250f for the smooth tractable power, and some would take the 250 for raw HP and expense. And I would love to see 300-400cc 2 strokes lining up against 450fs.
I think were still in the akward transitional phase were the dust settles and the classes will be set in stone world wide. I think the Jap manufacturers hoped the 2 stroke would die to make it easier, but they just keep getting more popular.
-
Waitaminute... how is it not racing? I mean, it's not much of a race now because of how the rules have crippled it, but when I watched the footage from 1970, what I saw was cut-throat racing, just as much as motocross races I've seen from that era. If you want to call that a show, then I submit that Supercross is just a show, and so we should just do an Edit | Replace thing on the site and talk about changing the rules for the show.
Have you read Smokey Yannick's book? What about the famous "Let Broc by" hand written on a pit board? The 70's were a long time ago, but then they would throw out the yellow flag to close up the field for the slightest reason. It's more so now but there was still team owners doing deals in the back room to take turns in leading. The thing that has changed in NASCAR is the sophistication of the marketing and professionalism of the drivers.That is the same across motorsport(and the world in general), in the same era F1 drivers wives or girlfriends would be on pit wall taking the lap times.
Might I digress from the original post, if you want to limit rpm just make a bore size limit. Done. With 250's you can have max 72mm bore and a 450 a max 81mm bore. Is that simple enough?Be that 2T or 4T.
-
To many rules can back to bite you in the ass! Remember when Mercedes returned to Indy? they discoverd a old rule that a push rod engine could run a displacement much much greater than over head cams, So they wrote a huge check to Mc clerane and we all saw what happened Sneaky,cleaver whatever and that rule was dropped the following year.
I often thought that races, fights and just about every other sport can be "thrown" its all a show so for me motocross and supercross are the GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LET'ER BUCK
-
I agree with the Keep It Simple Stupid idea of fewer rules is better.
I would love to see that simplified to it's most basic level: Run what ya brung. Have a maximum displacement limit, require all bikes to be production models, and require that all performace parts and modifications be limited to items and services available for sale to the general public. No "works" production bikes from the factories, no unobtanium suspension or engine parts.
If you think you can win on your XYZ 200 two-stroke against somebody on their ABC 425 four-stroke, then by all means enetr the race with it and give it your best shot.
In such a scenario, manufacturers would have a real incentive to innovate and be creative to build what they believed to be the best overall package.
-
I agree with Chokey, if he's including the standard displacement classes, 125, 250, and open class whether it be 2st or 4st. No displacement handicap!
-
I agree with Chokey, if he's including the standard displacement classes, 125, 250, and open class whether it be 2st or 4st. No displacement handicap!
Yep. Just set a maximum displacement. Let the market decide what bikes are the best suited for racing in each class. If manufacturers decide to build a 400cc two-stroke, or a 350cc four-stroke, and the public decides one or the other is better, that is the one that will sell and be used on the track. The other manufacturers will have to come up with their own ideas of what the best formula is, and sales will tell them if they are right or not. Innovation will become commonplace, and the public will reap the rewards of greatly expended choices of different models.
-
There are allready rules.
I was not trying to make new rules but as they stand at the moment the 125's dont have a chance against 250F's.
When they bought in the 125 v 250 they thought it would be fair but over time but this has proved to be wrong.
Now i like the max bore idea for cutting rpm's.
My idea on rpm limiters was so manufactors don't have to design new engines to suit that rule.
They can just put on a limiter on existing engine's.
The bottom line is RPM'S cost money. Thats why other forms of motor sport are cutting them.
Jetz: The twins DO NOT make more power then the 4's. They actually have less.
The advantage they have is in traction out of corners. Sound like 250F's anyone.
Your anolagy is some what strange.If the Charger is the "2 Stroke" and the Pirus is the " 4 Stroke" the pirus has already been given an advantage, It's called "Double Displacement".That was thought up by 'Some guy'.
2T Institute: The twin's do have 2 50mm restrictors in the fairing.
-
During the one day that I was paying attention, I recall there were twins with a 15hp advantage, but I'm guessing they put a leash on them very shortly after.
-
The twins did have an advantage years ago thats why Honda brought out the RC51 in 2000.
Aprillia had the RSV.
The twins now dont have the same advantage any more.
They are more then competative on tight tracks but lack the power at circuits such as Monza.
The point i was trying to make is that you have 2 different types of bikes that are evenly matched.
If they can do the same with the 'Lites' class we will get good racing.
The 125's will have an advantage at some tracks and the 250F's will at others.
And of cause costs can be lowered.
-
Still, I don't see the appeal of having two kinds of bikes equally-matched by handicaps. That's like entering a horse-drawn Charriot into an SCCA race and making the rules such that the charriot has a fighting chance at it. That's a big exaggeration, obviously, but I just don't get why you would want to bend the rules just to save some inferior technology. If something or someone is better, let them get the victory that they rightly deserve, rather than trying to hold them back for the sake of the losers. This still sounds like Harrison Bergeron to me.
-
WTF ? ???
Jetz are you saying the 2 stroke is inferior ?
Come on man.
What do you call 125 v 250F ? Thats the rules now !
Thats called a f***ing handicap >:(
-
I'm not saying the two-stroke is inferior. I'm saying that the inferior engine should be allowed to die on a level playing field. I don't know where you got the mysterious idea that I thought we should keep things the way they are, but the LAST THING we should be doing is adding three or four more layers of NEW handicaps to try and counter-act the old handicap. It's a recipe for changing motocross into a sport where whomever can make the best case that their bike is the worst will get the most help and subsequently win in the next season. I'm not saying that's absolutely going to happen, but what you're proposing does sound like a massive build-up of new regulations that stretch and wobble about every year. We need this sport to be accessible, without the dictionary-sized rule-book to scare people away.
-
I agree with the Keep It Simple Stupid idea of fewer rules is better.
I would love to see that simplified to it's most basic level: Run what ya brung. Have a maximum displacement limit, require all bikes to be production models, and require that all performace parts and modifications be limited to items and services available for sale to the general public. No "works" production bikes from the factories, no unobtanium suspension or engine parts.
If you think you can win on your XYZ 200 two-stroke against somebody on their ABC 425 four-stroke, then by all means enetr the race with it and give it your best shot.
In such a scenario, manufacturers would have a real incentive to innovate and be creative to build what they believed to be the best overall package.
I agree with Chokey. Keep the max displacement limit and leave it up to us to "run what we brung". Thats the way it should be.