moto Gp, torque pulsing and traction
#1
Posted 06 April 2012 - 11:26
skimming a book on Moto Gp technology I found out its a lot more than just engine tuning and dampers as I had thought. They run "twist by wire" throttles to limit torque and they have played with setting up strange engne firing orders to simulate a big twiin torque pulses to the rear tyre in 4 and 5 cylinder bikes.
The logic, apparently, is that if you give the rear tyre a big spike of torque then let it relax with no torque you can improve traction out of corners , one of a bikes weakest areas. This doesn't seem intuitively logical but as they all tried it there must be something in it.
Initially I thought the idea of rapidly loading and unloading the tyre with longitudinal force would just cause tyre surface break-away and wheelspin, then I began to think of the ultimate traction situation, a Top Fuel dragster. TF cars do not spin the wheels , at least not if they want low ET's. The tyre is hooked up at the start and it just wrinkles as the 6- 8,000 bhp is put into it. That gives 0 - 100 mph in under one second - maybe 5 g traction.
Now people marvel at the TF 500c.i. engienes doing "8,000 rpm" but what is more true is how few revs they actually do in a run. The std. rear tyre is 36" diameter and 114" circumference or 9.4 ft per rev. So with the ( original )1320 ft run its just 140 tyre rotations end to end. All the TF cars run a 3.20 rear end and no gears so the engine does 3.2*140 = 450 revs in the entire run. This is about 900 actual firing impulses to get from 0 to 320 mph in 4.5 seconds which says something for the power of each cylinder . One firing drives the 2,400lb car forward by 1.5 ft.
Now, going back to the Moto GP theory , if the TF tyre circumferance is 9.4 ft it gets just six ( 9.4/1.5) power pulses per rev. Given the huge power per cylinder and allowing for cylinder pressure rise and crank angles etc I have to believe that the actual thrust on the TF tyre is very non linear.Sso, like the Moto Gp theory, maximum traction ( 5g) is obtained whilst pulsing the tyre with torque and not very linear force.
A long intro. to my question - does the idea of getting the most traction from tyre by pulsing in a sine wave of torque have any theoretical basis and has anybody ever analysed or quantified it.
What puzzles me is that I have never heard F1 try it but as they will spend mega-money on any tiny but legal gain I would have expected thm to do so if the theory works?
Advertisement
#2
Posted 06 April 2012 - 11:56
#3
Posted 06 April 2012 - 12:04
As for MotoGP engines, you're probably thinking of recent Yamaha cross-plane I4 engine with uneven firing order (not bing-bang type, but still it had a 'spike' and a 'flat'). I don't think it was traction related experiment, and I would venture a guess that they felt that it was worth to have a go on account of (I think it was significantly) reduced inertia of engine internal components. Indeed it does seem logical, because it would produce engine with more usable power/torque (less would be used for accelerating engine components), but I don't think it has brought them much... I seem to remember that they reverted back to flat-plane crankshaft engine the next season.
* this may sound a bit odd... but I remember that even in recent years Ducati seem to have suffered from 'enough power, but too much torque' problem
#4
Posted 06 April 2012 - 12:13
#5
Posted 06 April 2012 - 14:15
#6
Posted 06 April 2012 - 14:22
and expand by a surprising amount at speed [ this is the cars 'gearing' ]
I don't know what the actual figures for expansion are - but when tubbing the arches on a saloon drag car running wrinkle tyres , a good few inches have to be allowed for expansion
This will alter your maths a bit ?
#7
Posted 06 April 2012 - 16:33
1) I don't have any data or experience to back it up, but with all the elasticities in the driveline, I would expect the engine pulses to be smoothed out significantly, especially by the time they reach the ground through the tire sidewall. Is this not the case?
2) I had the same assumption as desmo, which is that it had to do with power pulses interacting with a torsional tire mode.
3) Most of you have probably seen those super slow-mos of the dragster tires wrinkle up, so I presume you noticed that they do some serious stick-slip. I'm actually not sure off-hand if this has to do with power pulses, or just the typical nature rubber grip. Or a combination. But it certainly works out well for them, considering the almost unbelievable results. Why, though? I'm not sure. It could be heat, or maybe it's the intermittent 'cleaning' of the track by one part of the tire, allowing better static grip by another part, or both.
#8
Posted 06 April 2012 - 18:24
I don't know exactly how torque pulses might help traction but "tyre shake" is a big problem in Top Fuel and can make the driver unconscious so there are some major transient forces in the tyres beyond just normal weight.
If you can time the torque peaks from the engine every 1.5 ft of tyre rotation to coincide with a downward component of the tyre internal forces then it becomes better htan a zero sum game on traction
#9
Posted 06 April 2012 - 18:30
#10
Posted 06 April 2012 - 18:38
.... 450 revs .. ..900 power pulses
Possibly 1800 pulses?
Unless these are 'big bang' engines.
#11
Posted 06 April 2012 - 23:37
AFAIK, this all stems from the Harley-Davidson XR-750 dirt tracker with its idiosyncratic firing phasing caused by its 45 degree included v-angle and forked connecting rod's unbreakable stranglehold on the AMA Class C championship back in the '70-'80s. My assumption has always been that it is to do with the power pulses interacting with a torsional tire mode but your guess is as good (or better) than mine. If this is the case I'd expect the optimal power phasing/firing order to be dependent on tire carcass construction and aspect ratio.
Interesting that it works on dirt as well. Anyone remember the old Yankee 500 bikes? These were basically a pair of Ossa 250 cylinders grafted onto a twin cylinder bottom end. It was found that traction on dirt was drastically improved when they were phased to fire simultaneously. At the time I thought that was completely counter-intuitive - and still do.
#12
Posted 07 April 2012 - 01:53
With regards to rear tire traction, road race motorcycles present a different situation than most race cars. Back in the 80's, GP bike riders like Kenny Roberts and Freddy Spencer who started out racing dirt tracks, showed that the fastest way around a road course was to slide the rear end in the turns. Sliding the bike's rear end in turns requires precise throttle control, and getting the rear tire to break loose and start sliding using the throttle is made easier if the engine is "torquey". It takes much more torque to get the tire to initially break loose than it does to keep it spinning. Thus the engine guys intentionally design engines with firing orders that produce big torque spikes, making it easier for the riders to modulate spin of the rear tire using the throttle.
It's not just road race motorcycles that use rear tire sliding to go fast. Think about rally cars or sprint cars. Or flat rack and speedway bikes.
slider
#13
Posted 07 April 2012 - 02:51
If what Slider says is right - here's another aspect. If the torque at the rear tyre was completely smooth, sliding the rear would be a precipitous process - once the traction threshold is exceeded and the rear starts to slide, the friction coefficient starts to reduce, reducing the torque applied by the road to the rear wheel, which then allows the rear wheel to spin even faster and so on. It needs the engine torque to fall rapidly with increasing revs or very quick throttle reaction from the rider or both.
On the other hand, if the torque at the rear tyre is not smooth, the traction threshhold might be exceeded only briefly, causing a "very temporary" slide which is almost instantly "caught" when the torque is reduced between "bangs".
Perhaps this mechanism gives the rider some extra warning of the imminent slide allowing him to more easily apply the throttle control required?
#14
Posted 07 April 2012 - 03:35
For those unfamiliar with the concepts.
1. Slip ratio is the rotational speed of the wheel divided by the speed it would be doing if there was no torque applied (no slip).
2. Race tyres provide maximum acceleration (grip) when the slip ratio is maintained in a fairly narrow range. A typical range might be 1.0 to 1.15. Traction falls off on either side of this range, ie too much slip or not enough slip are both bad news.
Clearly the ultimate Top Fuel car would have electronic traction control which could control driveline torque and maintain the slip ratio at exactly the right value. (The rules do not permit traction control.) Perhaps what is happening during the "stick-slip" operation we have all witnessed is this:
- During the "stick" phase, while the drivetrain is "winding up" the sidewalls of the tyre like a giant spring, the slip ratio is increasing gradually across the "peak traction" region providing near-maximum traction.
- During the "slip" phase, the sidewall spring is rapidly unwound, the tyre surface rapidy skids across the road at less than optimum traction but because of the much higher slip ratio during this phase, a large rotationof the tread belt occurs in a very short time ie a very small corresponding rotation of the drivetrain ie a very large slip ratio.
When you combine the two processes on a displacement basis, the average slip ratio is high because of the large displacement of the tread belt during the slip phase.
When you add the two processes together on a time basis, the average traction is also high because the time spent during the "stick" phase is greater than the time spent during the "slip" phase. The average traction obtained will be significantly higher than would be the case for constant slip at the average slip ratio.
Perhaps this principle also applies for "big bang" torque impulses?
#15
Posted 07 April 2012 - 06:06
This is a fascinating subject.
If what Slider says is right - here's another aspect. If the torque at the rear tyre was completely smooth, sliding the rear would be a precipitous process - once the traction threshold is exceeded and the rear starts to slide, the friction coefficient starts to reduce, reducing the torque applied by the road to the rear wheel, which then allows the rear wheel to spin even faster and so on. It needs the engine torque to fall rapidly with increasing revs or very quick throttle reaction from the rider or both.
On the other hand, if the torque at the rear tyre is not smooth, the traction threshhold might be exceeded only briefly, causing a "very temporary" slide which is almost instantly "caught" when the torque is reduced between "bangs".
Perhaps this mechanism gives the rider some extra warning of the imminent slide allowing him to more easily apply the throttle control required?
gruntguru,
Can't personally say whether it's true or not. It's just what I've been told. I don't have the stones to test the theory on a racetrack.
Here's a cool video though:
slider
#16
Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:48
TF cars do not spin the wheels , at least not if they want low ET's. The tyre is hooked up at the start and it just wrinkles as the 6- 8,000 bhp is put into it. That gives 0 - 100 mph in under one second - maybe 5 g traction.
Not entirely correct. If the tyre hooks up to much it will slip and grip and slip and you get tire shake.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XttOe4rerLo#t=6s
Optimum grip is not at zero wheelspin either its at 4-10% or something.
The "racier" TCs got that programmed into them.
www.fasterandfaster.net/2011/10/2012-kawasaki-ninja-zx-10r-gets-racier.html
"The quickest acceleration requires a certain amount of wheel slippage, so to optimize traction, S-KTRC actually allows for optimum wheelspin.’"
http://www.sportride...ol/viewall.html
#17
Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:58
Engines with little i consider "nevrotic" and nervous. too responsive if you like.
In RC racing its very common to program the ESC to be more "sluggish" less punch and so on. Would not be surpriced to se similar features on the E bikes.
http://www.rctech.ne...ntrol-best.html
Edited by MatsNorway, 07 April 2012 - 09:17.
#18
Posted 07 April 2012 - 09:09
One thing I didn't mention , which complicates the power pulse argument on a dragster, is that they use a slipping clutch to bring the wheel speed up to the engine speed in the first part of the run. Don't know if cylinder pulses could get through the clutch slip.
The mention of dirt bikes makes me wonder if the Sprint car community have ever played with firing order. As far as I know they have not
#19
Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:33
Good point. Certainly affects the number of engine revolutions required for a pass. AFAIK its full throttle all the way and the revs are dictated by the torque level set by the clutch. The clutch torque begins relatively low (lack of aero DF means less grip) so the revs are high - up near the power peak. As the car builds speed and DF the clutch torque setting increases and the engine speed drops. When it gets to the torque peak, the clutch is locked and the car accelerates to the power peak (and beyond?) with no clutch slip. Interestinglythe high revs at the start-line do have an advantage - DF courtesy of thrust from the headers is maximised by the high gas flow. This is reputed to be 1000 lbs or more.One thing I didn't mention , which complicates the power pulse argument on a dragster, is that they use a slipping clutch to bring the wheel speed up to the engine speed in the first part of the run.
Another good point. Cylinder pulses cannot get through a slipping clutch so the torque delivery will be smooth.Don't know if cylinder pulses could get through the clutch slip.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:27
If you could see and handle a Top Fuel or Funny Car tire demounted and uninflated, it has very little carcass structure, almost like an innner tube -- you can easily wad it up with your hands. It's like a big, semi-inflated beach ball, no kidding. So when it is mounted and running on the car, its width, diameter, aspect ratio, etc are determined primarily by wheel speed due to centrifugal / centripetal /angular (choose your argument) forces. This is easy to see in videos: in burnouts or at the finish line, the tire is very tall (also narrow) due to centrifugal force. This variation in tire diameter with wheel speed also serves as the vehicle's only transmission as it were.
Since the tire is distinctly lacking in sufficient structure of its own, a significant amount of longitudinal slip aka wheelspin aka wheel speed is required at low speeds to keep the tire's carcass from wadding up against the traction forces at the pavement. In terms of longitudinal slip, in the range of 15 to 30 percent.
This is what tire shake is, essentially: the wheel speed falls too low relative to the grip forces, the tire wads up against the pavement (just as when you wad it up with your hands, see above) and then, while absurdly distorted, loads and unloads in a series of violent oscillations. If you have ever seen it in person or experienced it, TF/FC tire shake is probably the most violent dynamic in motor sport that does not involve hitting a wall. Drivers are knocked out as their helmets are battered against the roll tubes or they simply black out from the extreme vibration.
#21
Posted 07 April 2012 - 14:45
If there is no torque (force x angular velocity) applied, wouldn't the angular velocity and thus wheel speed be 0?WRT drag racing. Perhaps the advantage of the wrinkle tyre is to allow a much wider range of slip ratios without too great a loss of traction.
For those unfamiliar with the concepts.
1. Slip ratio is the rotational speed of the wheel divided by the speed it would be doing if there was no torque applied (no slip).
#22
Posted 07 April 2012 - 15:31
If you could see and handle a Top Fuel or Funny Car tire demounted and uninflated, it has very little carcass structure, almost like an innner tube -- you can easily wad it up with your hands. It's like a big, semi-inflated beach ball, no kidding. So when it is mounted and running on the car, its width, diameter, aspect ratio, etc are determined primarily by wheel speed due to centrifugal / centripetal /angular (choose your argument) forces. This is easy to see in videos: in burnouts or at the finish line, the tire is very tall (also narrow) due to centrifugal force. This variation in tire diameter with wheel speed also serves as the vehicle's only transmission as it were.
Since the tire is distinctly lacking in sufficient structure of its own, a significant amount of longitudinal slip aka wheelspin aka wheel speed is required at low speeds to keep the tire's carcass from wadding up against the traction forces at the pavement. In terms of longitudinal slip, in the range of 15 to 30 percent.
This is what tire shake is, essentially: the wheel speed falls too low relative to the grip forces, the tire wads up against the pavement (just as when you wad it up with your hands, see above) and then, while absurdly distorted, loads and unloads in a series of violent oscillations. If you have ever seen it in person or experienced it, TF/FC tire shake is probably the most violent dynamic in motor sport that does not involve hitting a wall. Drivers are knocked out as their helmets are battered against the roll tubes or they simply black out from the extreme vibration.
Yes sir......that is exactly how Eric Medlen died in 2007 as the result of extreme violent tire shake!
Eric Medlen
John
#23
Posted 07 April 2012 - 16:35
A long intro. to my question - does the idea of getting the most traction from tyre by pulsing in a sine wave of torque have any theoretical basis and has anybody ever analysed or quantified it.
The theory has no basis. I'm not really sure how it started or why, but motorcycle racing engine developers have known the secret for some time. Yamaha finally made it public leading up to the release of the new crossplane crank R1.
Basically, a naturally balanced engine is better than a 180 crank with balancing components. This only tells half the story, though. Torque delivery to the rear wheel is superior, but the Yamaha engine also supposedly torques the front wheel off the ground. Lofting the front wheel reduces the rate of acceleration as the rider backs off or wheelie-control kicks in. Yamaha crossplane race bikes have wheelie control issues. In a longitudinal layout, the engine would torque severely to the right or left.
Also, what the video doesn't say, imo, is that balancing the engine with the firing order essentially reduces the rate at which the engine can accelerate. In F1 they didn't use balanced engines b/c they needed the acceleration and they had traction control to sort the issue. Eventually, 180-degree cranks were mandated to protect the sound, imo. In MotoGP, the rate of acceleration is controlled by the bike's propensity to wheelie. Screamer config in a racing motorcycle basically creates a machine that wheelies and slides all over the track. Big Bang configurations are more beneficial.
#24
Posted 07 April 2012 - 17:30
The myth about pulses and power delivery started with Ducati twins..
Edited by MatsNorway, 07 April 2012 - 17:33.
#25
Posted 07 April 2012 - 18:48
Interesting that it works on dirt as well. Anyone remember the old Yankee 500 bikes? These were basically a pair of Ossa 250 cylinders grafted onto a twin cylinder bottom end. It was found that traction on dirt was drastically improved when they were phased to fire simultaneously. At the time I thought that was completely counter-intuitive - and still do.
Actually, to me it doesn't sound surprising at all- I think that other considerations might be more relevant for gravel and snow (loose surfaces)... Just as locked wheels when braking might shorten the braking distance (wasn't it an argument against ABS when it was introduced- that on loose surfaces braking distances were longer?), I would suspect similar thing happening with 'torque/power spikes' which might cause instant and momentary wheelspin and sweep the looser topmost layer of the surface...
#26
Posted 07 April 2012 - 21:23
Are we supposed to buy that if the engine rotates the same way as before and delivers the same power to the wheel as before it now somehow a magical force is pulling it down for faster acc?
No. That's not how it works at all.
#27
Posted 08 April 2012 - 00:21
Torque is force x lever arm not force x angular velocity.If there is no torque (force x angular velocity) applied, wouldn't the angular velocity and thus wheel speed be 0?
TF does burnout - lots of torque applied - wheelspeed much greater than roadspeed = large slip ratio.
TF finishes burnout and continues to roll down the track - zero torque applied - wheelspeed equals roadspeed - slip ratio = 1.0
#28
Posted 08 April 2012 - 00:32
Large fluctuations in "inertial torque" (actually fluctuations in crankshaft velocity) are a feature of in-line 4cyl where all four pistons stop simultaneously, transferring all their momentum to the crankshaft every TDC and BDC. This phenomenon is reduced or not present at all in engines with more cylinders eg V8 F1 engines.Also, what the video doesn't say, imo, is that balancing the engine with the firing order essentially reduces the rate at which the engine can accelerate. In F1 they didn't use balanced engines b/c they needed the acceleration and they had traction control to sort the issue. Eventually, 180-degree cranks were mandated to protect the sound, imo.
#29
Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:35
#30
Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:52
Assuming my arithmetic is right this time (!) 0 - 100mph in one second occupies only 60 - 70 ft of track or 8 to 10 tyre revolutions.
that is assuming 0 - 100 in 1 second gives an average of 50mph ( not quite right I know ). 50 mph is 73 ft/ second so the acceleration to 100 mph takes just 70 ft. With a 9.5 ft tyre circumference that just 8 tyre rotations , excl. slip, to move 2,400lb at 5G.
If the 15 - 30% slip is true it is still only 9 to 10 tyre rotations. I appreciate that the wall wrinkling reduces efective diameter a bit but it is all quite extraordinary in terms of force application and result.
If you assume the effective tyre radius is , say 1.25 ft , and not the full 1.5 ft then , I think, you need 3,000 ft lb torque at the axle for 1 G. That means 4,700 ft lb from the engine to get the required 5g acceleration. ( 3,000/3.2*5).
IF I have got the calculations right this time that suggests that 5,000+ bhp for a TF engine is real or 0 - 100 mph in one second isn't real.
Now that is all simple calculation BUT there is no allowance for the controlled clutch slip they use. So I am puzzled - if my calcs. are right you need all 5,000 bhp to do 0 100 in 70 ft AND you need clutch slip to keep th engine at 6,000 rpm so how does it all really work?
One answer might be that TF engines do actually produce the 7,000 bho plus some people claim, 2,000 bhp goes into clutch slip heat (!) and the rest is the required torque.
Edited by mariner, 08 April 2012 - 11:37.
#31
Posted 08 April 2012 - 11:36
60 ft 0.852 sec
330 ft 2.164 sec
660 ft- 3.071 sec 277.54 mph
1000 ft 3.837 sec 321.42 mph
I can attest that the absurd hp numbers bruited about -- 7000, 8000 hp, more -- are legitimate because I have seen the data from load cells on the driveshafts. More exact figures are difficult due to all the signal noise, variables, and brief event durations, but that is the genuine neighborhood.
Tire slip is highly variable in the 60 but as you can see is >100 percent at times.
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
#32
Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:01
I think the overall acceleration works out at just under 4 G ( 3.83) for the whole run.
What is also interesting is that the top speed has hardly dropped with the cut from 1,320 ft to 1,000 ft.
Slightly defeats the original objective of the distance cut though!
#34
Posted 09 April 2012 - 02:00
TF dragsters and RR bikes are similar in how they use 100% rearward weight transfer to maximize rear tire traction when accelerating in a straight line. But that is the only similarity I can think of.
RR riders slide the rear end in turns because it results in quicker cornering, and not because it results in better power transfer. There is also a difference in the amount of rear tire torque needed to initially break traction and that needed to keep the tire spinning/sliding. Using the throttle to initiate and maintain rear tire spin takes skill, but it is made easier if the engine has high peak-to-mean instantaneous torque characteristics. Breaking the tire loose requires far more torque than keeping it spinning. The high peak-to-mean torque characteristics require less precise throttle modulation.
TF dragsters aren't set up for using tire spin to run quick. Maximum power transfer is obtained by operating the tires right at their point of traction loss. They use controlled clutch slip to modulate power to the rear tires in order to prevent tire spin. They use rearward weight transfer. And they use low structural stiffness in the tire sidewalls and chassis to allow some accumulation of strain energy that would otherwise contribute to tire spin at launch.
slider
#35
Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:30
Mass = 1045 kg
Power = 8,000 hp
COF = 2.6
Exhaust down thrust = 731kg (1630 lb) (I needed to set this artificially high to get the 60' times down to the right ballpark. My spreadsheet does not allow for a momentarily high COF at launch courtesy of static friction andlifting of COG as the tyres expand off the line)
CdA (lift) = 1.5
CdA (drag) = 1.45
Outputs from the spreadsheet for the above inputs are:
60' time = 0.9s @ 96 mph
1000' time = 3.7s @ 321 mph
Top speed (with optimum gearing) = 359 mph
Interesting points from the graphs.
- Car is traction limited to about the 1.5 sec, 200 feet mark and power limited above that.
- Acceleration increases during traction limited phase due to increasing DF from the wing.
- Acceleration spike at launch not shown as mentioned earlier.
- Car is till accelerating at 1.3G at the end of the run. This is in spite of the speed at 320 mph being only 40 mph shy of the 360 mph top speed.
I make no claims about the accuracy of the simulation but it does answer a lot of questions and gives a reasonable picture of general trends throughout the run.
By gruntguru at 2012-04-09
By gruntguru at 2012-04-09
Edited by gruntguru, 09 April 2012 - 07:37.
#36
Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:00
peak-to-mean instantaneous torque characteristics.
Could you explain this further. Possibly with a graph?
#37
Posted 10 April 2012 - 10:29
#38
Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:54
Could you explain this further. Possibly with a graph?
Hypothetically speaking, it's rather simple. Say you have peak-to-mean torque ratio of 1 (meaning constant torque), once you have reached breakaway (and here an analogy would be apt- the breakaway point is similar to coefficient of friction, where static coefficient is higher than dynamic... if you want to get something moving and then move it at constant speed, you'd have to reduce the force once it starts to move) you'd have to reduce the torque almost immediately because until you do the tyre will keep accelerating the spin (causing the loss of grip, and even major oversteer and loss of control).
Then take, for example, peak-to-mean ratio of 1.5 (most simple example would be that half a revolution is at 1.5 times the average/mean torque, and half at 0.5). So, when approaching the point of breakaway, the 'spike' would cause the tyre slip, followed by drop in torque which would allow the tyre to regain traction and the driver that 'half-a-rev' to react by closing the throttle a bit...
In this respect, as Bigleagueslider has said, throttle control would be easier, but I think it might not be so simple- in a way, I'd say big-bang engines were harder to master than 'screamers'. I have a feeling that by the end of 500cc era, the only driver that was able to constantly extract the maximum from big-bang engined bike was Doohan (and being partial to him, I'd say Biaggi, were he not a rookie at that time, would've been too), and even he reverted to screamer for his final championship (and I'd say OTTOMH prior to that he was the only one using them). I'd draw a comparison to olden days of F1 (say, late '50ies, early '60ies) when it was easier to get into a slide (whether understeer, oversteer or 4 wheel drift) and to control/maintain the slide, but only a few drivers have truly mastered it to a degree that they could a) do it constantly and consistently, b) feel their way into the slide and get the exactly right amount of slide to gain time instead of scrubbing off the speed...
#39
Posted 10 April 2012 - 22:03
To intimidate his team-mates who were all riding big-bang engines like his and allowed to see the majority of his data. He didn't like this so pushed Honda into letting him test a 180 degree and 90 degree screamer engine after the 96 season.
With the advances in electronics from 1991 to 1997 when he used it first, the engine was found to be actually better for the tyre and Mick managed to gain an edge he was never to lose really, because the first time Criville used it he crashed and never used it again until the next year when he had to. Similarly other team mate Okada tried it a few times and was miles slower.
Electronics and tyres tamed the screamer engine and made it easier to ride, and later on from I think 99 on all NSR Honda's were screamer spec.
But Yamaha and Suzuki never tried it, I think Suzuki may have tried a screamer with Kenny Junior but I dont think it worked, but remember theri engine was twin crank and Honda's was one.
#41
Posted 10 April 2012 - 22:16
Then take, for example, peak-to-mean ratio of 1.5 (most simple example would be that half a revolution is at 1.5 times the average/mean torque, and half at 0.5). So, when approaching the point of breakaway, the 'spike' would cause the tyre slip, followed by drop in torque which would allow the tyre to regain traction and the driver that 'half-a-rev' to react by closing the throttle a bit...
Suspiciously like traction control. (OMG OMG!!!) If I remember correctly Kevin Cameron suggested that the real secret of the XR-750 wasn't the odd spacing of the power pulses but simply that the bikes were slid in cornering just over the top of a falling torque/power curve so that if geared and tuned correctly they would self-correct for too much wheelspin; passive traction control.
#42
Posted 10 April 2012 - 22:41
Edited by Greg Locock, 10 April 2012 - 22:45.
#43
Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:08
As an aside, seeing how bike tyres don't get much load in lateral direction, which is the most dominant contributor to their heating? Is it longitudinal slip or their 'vertical springing' in corners?
#44
Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:16
That statement should cause some comment!As an aside, seeing how bike tyres don't get much load in lateral direction
At the apex the tire is all Fy
I think the contact patch work (Fx and Fy) are the dominant generators of heat, but that is just a guess.
#45
Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:55
One can listen to the pronouncements of various experts, especially of the Internet variety, only to discover they don't have their basic facts straight, like who was running what crank phasing where. And the terms "big bang," "long bang," "screamer," and so on aren't used with any particular rigor or even consistency. Blah blah blah blah. It's like a perfect storm of defective info. At some point you start to wonder if bad info is the basis of the controversy.
There is one person in a unique position to have an opinion: Jeremy Burgess, engineer for both Doohan and Rossi. How interesting that the man who might be most qualified to have an opinion has the least to say about it. He did once famously offer this view: that MotoGP is 20 percent bike and 80 percent rider. What part of the 20 percent is crank phasing, he's never specified.
I don't know any more about it than anybody and a lot less than most, but I wouldn't be surprised if we don't eventually learn the whole thing comes down to individual rider comfort, feedback, and confidence and there are no tangible benefits that can be materially validated. That is, it's completely subjective.
This occurred to me a few weeks ago while talking to Travis Pastrana about a totally different but oddly related topic, cars vs. bikes and the challenges of adapting to each. As he sees it, "Car is man and machine. On a bike you are part of the machine."
#46
Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:36
Not as far as I know either. Though in years past they did use reverse rotation engines. I have not heard of any for a good while so I guess they are not used anymore.yes, hogits, you are right 1800 pulses per run, so much for my arithmetic skills! Hopefully it doesn't invalidate asking the question though.
One thing I didn't mention , which complicates the power pulse argument on a dragster, is that they use a slipping clutch to bring the wheel speed up to the engine speed in the first part of the run. Don't know if cylinder pulses could get through the clutch slip.
The mention of dirt bikes makes me wonder if the Sprint car community have ever played with firing order. As far as I know they have not
#47
Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:54
As others have said the electronics have largely alleviated any real gains on any style of engine. They are all good, lets get the electronics working properly, and get the best rider on the bike.
Bikes really will put more emphasis on rider than what F1 does. Not many average [top echolon] riders win Championships unlike in cars where quite a few have through best equipment and a sensible continually scoring points has won titles.
#48
Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:36
That statement should cause some comment!
At the apex the tire is all Fy
I think the contact patch work (Fx and Fy) are the dominant generators of heat, but that is just a guess.
Greg, I sort of forgot to make a distinction between contact patch and the wheel. But during steady cornering the wheel will be subjected to very little lateral force and overturning momentum (those two being almost exclusively caused by contact patch migration and CoG movement caused by the driver*)- so when cornering the wheel will be subjected to normal force increased by 41% (if it was cornering at 1g) and I thought that this constant oscillations in normal force should cause both the tyre and the air inside it to heat up.
* if driver kept his butt firmly planted on the seat, the wheel would 'see' lateral force pointed in the 'wrong' direction
#49
Posted 11 April 2012 - 14:32
#50
Posted 11 April 2012 - 22:34
I think I see what you mean, but the lateral force is still generated tangential to the tire isn't it?Greg, I sort of forgot to make a distinction between contact patch and the wheel. But during steady cornering the wheel will be subjected to very little lateral force and overturning momentum (those two being almost exclusively caused by contact patch migration and CoG movement caused by the driver*)- so when cornering the wheel will be subjected to normal force increased by 41% (if it was cornering at 1g) and I thought that this constant oscillations in normal force should cause both the tyre and the air inside it to heat up.
* if driver kept his butt firmly planted on the seat, the wheel would 'see' lateral force pointed in the 'wrong' direction