actually, he had already been there and parted company. he was teammate to capi for 2 years when the desmosedici got invented.

Report this comment

If anything, Ducati blew it when they didn’t bring Bayliss to MotoGP. The guy wins a WSB title, then pops in for the last race of the MotoGP season as a wildcard on the “old” 990 and takes the win, CONVINCINGLY!!! If anything, this was the man they should have had racing for them in the top class and developing their bike.

On a side note, the only guy to win consistently on the Duc, and really only through sheer force of will was Stoner. As good as Rossi is, he is past his prime and just doesn’t have that raw talent and the crazy drive that he used to, and that Stoner has now.

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

while not an insignificant amount of time, that was only for a span of 5 years (’98-’02). while the rules AFFORDED an extra 250cc’s for the twins, ducati technically didn’t run a full “liter bike” until the 916SPS homologation in 1998… and then it was only 996cc. prior to this of course was 851, 888, 916, 955, etc. in hindsight, a nice tuning variable to have at one’s disposal for ultimately building a company and a brand. note, honda’s SP1/RC51 was a full 999cc for all 3 years it competed (’00-’02). HRC swung for the fences knowing full well they were just biding their time until they could focus their attention BACK on grandprix and “important stuff”. history now records this important stuff as the V5 “shock and awe campaign”.

Report this comment

exactly. i contend this is but a notion people unwittingly project ON to moto-side from their exposure to car-side. understandable when you consider automobiles (and it’s associated elements of performance and racing) are what 99% of people first come in contact with. it’s all around us. motorcycling…? let alone roadracing…? not so much.

Report this comment

i’m afraid we DO know. in ’03 they weren’t allowed a displacement advantage and we’re forced to run “even stevens”. ducati still manage to bag superbike titles 4 years straight…!? ’03, 04, ’05 over in BSB, and again in ’06. note, iirc the i4′s only ran with their intakes plugged on the world stage a single year (’03).

Report this comment

maybe yes, and maybe no. the V12′s are forced to run with a restrictor. i’m not saying they don’t have an advantage, but one has to ask how much is that 20% being “eroded” by the use of a single sided swingarm…? the supposedly inconsistent trellis frame…? the mis-placed weight of underseat pipes…? the poor chassis positioning of an L-twin…? and the “coup de grace”… throttle bodies homologated @ 64mm, choked down to only 50mm…? that’s like asking an asthmatic to breath thru a crazy straw… no…?

Report this comment

Carlos Checa won a World Championship last year, Impressively.

As I recall when he was racing in MotoGP he used to practice on a R1 on a go-cart track, that would have been a sight…

I remember him in Utah have an electrical/mechanical failure (fly-by-wire?) while leading causing a DNF, twice. After the second race he was still composed, calm, classy, to my amazement. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not into the temper tantrums/punk kids routine. I might have swore some and have been in a bad mood though, at least. Not his first rodeo.

Carlos has been a top competitor for a long time, he’s the defending World Superbike Champion. With his wealth of experience, Carlos Checa would seem a natural asset, amoung others, in helping Ducati rise to the top in MotoGP, yet again.

Go Ducati!!!

Report this comment

750-fours were competitive with 1000-twins because of weight restrictions and lack of development (and capacity) of the twins. Once the twin grew to a full 1000cc, and was sufficiently developed to not only trounce the 750-fours with torque, but match it with top-end HP as well, the 750-fours had enough of replacing crank cases every 500 km’s to remain competitive (Bostroms 800cc four was a missile in AMA, but was extremely costly to run… Enter the 1000-four. (http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2002/11/25november02kawasaki800cc/) But, with air-restrictors (and a weight penalty?) to minimize inherent HP advantages of the 4 vs. 2.

Once the 1000-fours had developed enough torque to match the twins (Fours already had top-end) the 1000-twins were forced to chase top-end power to remain competitive, and soon got sick of having to replace crank cases every 500 km’s to remain competitive with the fours, so welcome the 1200-twins, but with air restrictors and weight penalties. (sound familiar?)

Moral of the story?

1) HP does in fact matter if you want to win motorcycle races, but so does torque.
2) A 2-cylinder engine is not competitive with a 4-cylinder engine given equal restrictions (Why are there no twins in motoGP?)
3) Trying to balance rules between different engine configurations is very difficult, and no matter what you do the factories will eventually find a way to make their chosen design competitive, but may not be able to stomach the cost for very long, at which point they will lobby for a rule change. (Japan and Italy have both done this in the past decade)

I therefore submit that the real reason for a twin versus a four is to take advantage of current SBK rules (RSV1000, VTR1000, TL1000R, or if you’re late to the party RC1190 for twin biased rules, or RSV1000 and S1000RR for four biased rules…)

I would also counter you by stating that the only reason for alternate layouts (Inline or Vee) is for packaging. Kawasaki tried to minimize the width of an inline-four by doing their monocoque frame on their initial ZX-10 that went over the top of the engine (versus around the side of it) and all of the Vee engines are constantly fighting fore-to-aft engine position and wheel base issues, or doing crazy things like rotating the engine backwards so the front wheel doesn’t hit the front cylinder bank. (Seriously, when was the last time you heard of an inline 4 engine having front wheel clearance issues?) Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages, it’s simply a matter of which constraint you are better equipped to deal with. Why were Suzuki and Honda’s GP engines (And Aprillia’s SBK) less than 90 degrees? Because it was simply easier to package a narrower “V” despite the fact that a narrower angle restricts inlet tracts, and negates the primary balance benefits of a 90 degree layout thereby requiring counter-balancers that rob HP

If you want that “Classic V-4 torque”, build your I-4 crankshaft with a specific firing order like Yamaha did with their cross-plane R1 and sacrifice top-end just like the RC30′s did. If you want that “classic 4-cylinder top-end rush”, build a screamer V-4 just like the Honda did with the RC-45 and Ducati did with their 800cc motoGP bike.

Engine layout has very little to do with anything beyond packaging, and aerodynamics, which is itself a variation of packaging.

Report this comment