PiBoSo Official Forum

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/226619/1/500cc-suter-enters-isle-of-man-tt.html

Oh yes!

This is  going to be brilliant!! ;D

Finally time to show everone how inferiour 2 smokes are nowerdays ;) :P

Quote from: matty0l215 on February 16, 2016, 03:45:27 PM
Oh yes!

This is  going to be brilliant!! ;D

Finally time to show everone how inferiour 2 smokes are nowerdays ;) :P

Haha! This will be very interesting indeed...... Get ready to eat your helmet Matty! Hehe.  ;D

Hawk.

Quote from: matty0l215 on February 16, 2016, 03:45:27 PM
Oh yes!

This is  going to be brilliant!! ;D

Finally time to show everone how inferiour 2 smokes are nowerdays ;) :P

Just a bit of a reminder-   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMUiClqXeJs

Alex Barros seems to be getting on well against bikes with double the displacement, imagine if they had introduced 750cc 2 strokes. 

Quote from: WALKEN on February 16, 2016, 04:07:03 PM

Quote from: matty0l215 on February 16, 2016, 03:45:27 PM
Oh yes!

This is  going to be brilliant!! ;D

Finally time to show everone how inferiour 2 smokes are nowerdays ;) :P

Just a bit of a reminder-   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMUiClqXeJs

Alex Barros seems to be getting on well against bikes with double the displacement, imagine if they had introduced 750cc 2 strokes.

He did a brilliant job there, I enjoyed watching that! Thanks WALKEN!  ;D 8)

Yeah... They should've gone with the 750 2 strokes instead of changing to the 4 stroke devil machines.... Bloody politics!  :P

Hawk.

Hawk, the reality is, the 990 4 strokes would have been eaten alive if that had been the case.

People can debate 2 stroke vs 4 stroke to the end of the earth but the reality of it remains very clear. You can't consider one to be better than the other as they are simply different and should never compete in the same class.

In my personal opinion 2 stroke bikes are way more fun to ride and either put a huge smile on your face or scare the colon out of you!   

Quote from: WALKEN on February 16, 2016, 05:38:47 PM
Hawk, the reality is, the 990 4 strokes would have been eaten alive if that had been the case.

People can debate 2 stroke vs 4 stroke to the end of the earth but the reality of it remains very clear. You can't consider one to be better than the other as they are simply different and should never compete in the same class.

In my personal opinion 2 stroke bikes are way more fun to ride and either put a huge smile on your face or scare the colon out of you!   

Very true mate, and we have had many discussions here in the forum about this subject; a lot on my part is just banter with the 4 stroke supporters, I love winding them up and likewise I'm sure they love winding us 2 stroke supporters up too. Hehe.

However, I do feel that the 2 stroke 500cc championships should be brought back or even create a 750cc 2 stroke championships, also I think they should bring back the 350cc 2 stroke WC's..... I'm convinced that the majority of the public would go to watch them rather than the 4 strokes..... They are not only more fun to ride but more fun to watch too in my opinion.  It would also be interesting to see what would happen if the majority went to watch the 2 strokes and very few watched the 4 strokes? Would they finally scrap the 4 stroke events? That would be very interesting to see what would happen. "Power to the people!"  Hehe. ;D

Hawk.

Here is my derogatory remark of the day-

4 stroke bikes are like watching front wheel 4 cylinder cars with turbos burn out  ;)

Garden tractors are cool but why try and make them fast?

Quote from: WALKEN on February 16, 2016, 05:38:47 PMYou can't consider one to be better than the other

You can when it's about pure performance (which is the goal of a pure race bike) and two stroke is the clear winner.
Less weight, more power and smaller. Pretty simple.


Anyway, really looking forward to onboard videos from the Suter at the IOM!

Quote from: Hawk on February 16, 2016, 04:32:35 PM

Quote from: WALKEN on February 16, 2016, 04:07:03 PM
Just a bit of a reminder-   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMUiClqXeJs

Alex Barros seems to be getting on well against bikes with double the displacement, imagine if they had introduced 750cc 2 strokes.

He did a brilliant job there, I enjoyed watching that! Thanks WALKEN!  ;D 8)

Yeah... They should've gone with the 750 2 strokes instead of changing to the 4 stroke devil machines.... Bloody politics!  :P

Hawk.

Quote from: matty0l215 on February 16, 2016, 03:45:27 PM
nowadays ;) :P

Go home you dinosaurs :P (jokes)

No more until they race and ill see if i have to eat my helmet  8) ;D

Quote from: vin97 on February 16, 2016, 08:10:06 PM

Quote from: WALKEN on February 16, 2016, 05:38:47 PMYou can't consider one to be better than the other

You can when it's about pure performance (which is the goal of a pure race bike) and two stroke is the clear winner.
Less weight, more power and smaller. Pretty simple.


Anyway, really looking forward to onboard videos from the Suter at the IOM!

Putting it in the context as you have then its simple- 2 stroke will always win hands down.  Its pure fact! No debating!  a 990cc 2 stroke vs a 990cc 4 stroke would be comical. This is why I made the statement about them being completely different and shouldn't race together as it takes double the displacement in a 4 stroke to match a 2 stroke = more weight etc. If both had equal CC's than the 4 stroke would be left so far in the dust it would be a laughing stock.

Any engine within reason can be built to beat another engine. If MotoGP used both 2 and 4 strokes with the same CC output, there wouldn't even be a race.         

Hehe but 4 strokes already won!  ;) ;D ;D sorry

Quote from: BOBR6 84 on February 16, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
Hehe but 4 strokes already won!  ;) ;D ;D sorry

One of us... :P

Quote from: matty0l215 on February 16, 2016, 11:18:41 PM

Quote from: BOBR6 84 on February 16, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
Hehe but 4 strokes already won!  ;) ;D ;D sorry

One of us... :P

??? ?? oh, woahh im not eating my own helmet dude  ;D

Quote from: WALKEN on February 16, 2016, 10:21:41 PM
Putting it in the context as you have then its simple- 2 stroke will always win hands down.  Its pure fact! No debating!  a 990cc 2 stroke vs a 990cc 4 stroke would be comical. This is why I made the statement about them being completely different and shouldn't race together as it takes double the displacement in a 4 stroke to match a 2 stroke = more weight etc. If both had equal CC's than the 4 stroke would be left so far in the dust it would be a laughing stock.

Any engine within reason can be built to beat another engine. If MotoGP used both 2 and 4 strokes with the same CC output, there wouldn't even be a race.       

People always seem to think that displacement is all that matters. Saying things like "990cc 2 stroke vs a 990cc 4 stroke would be comical" is just equivalent to say things like (in a F1 context) "a 1.500cc atmospherical vs 1.500cc turbo charged would be comical". It would be comical all right, just as "500cc 2 stroke vs 500cc nuclear would be comical". As a bonus, nobody will even think to create a 990 2 stroke (no more than people are thinking about creating a 1980cc 4 stroke). I'm not even sure a 750cc 2 stroke is needed: 500cc could still be the sweet spot.

But what about 500cc 2 stroke vs 990cc 4 stroke (which technically is what one could call a fair comparison) ? Or, if you dispute the fairness of that, what about whichever displacement for 2 and 4 strokes, but with limited fuel (because in the end, no matter the displacement, the energy that goes in depends on how much fuel you burn) ? Would that still be "comical" ?

Anyway: if that bike was as fast as many seem to think it is, Suter would *not* take it to the TT. He would take it to a known, iconic racetrack, with a known rider and would smash laptime records with it in front of journos from the world's top motorbike mags. Could you imagine the instant attention it would attract from media and bikers ? But somehow, I doubt it will happen, and rightly so. Because romantic people prefer a nice video with the "sound of the beast" (revving up, bike standing still in a parking lot, smoke included).

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 17, 2016, 08:03:09 AM
People always seem to think that displacement is all that matters. Saying things like "990cc 2 stroke vs a 990cc 4 stroke would be comical" is just equivalent to say things like (in a F1 context) "a 1.500cc atmospherical vs 1.500cc turbo charged would be comical". It would be comical all right, just as "500cc 2 stroke vs 500cc nuclear would be comical". As a bonus, nobody will even think to create a 990 2 stroke (no more than people are thinking about creating a 1980cc 4 stroke). I'm not even sure a 750cc 2 stroke is needed: 500cc could still be the sweet spot.

But what about 500cc 2 stroke vs 990cc 4 stroke (which technically is what one could call a fair comparison) ? Or, if you dispute the fairness of that, what about whichever displacement for 2 and 4 strokes, but with limited fuel (because in the end, no matter the displacement, the energy that goes in depends on how much fuel you burn) ? Would that still be "comical" ?

Completely agree with that! Could not have said it better. I won't dispute anyone's opinion on whether they prefer the 2 stroke era. That is just a matter of personal taste (and propably the pyschological effect of romanticization of the olden days). But trying to derive some sort of superiority of 2-strokes by saying "990cc 2 stroke vs a 990cc 4 stroke would be comical" is just not a very well founded statement - because that comparison does not make much sense technically.

Actually the 2 stroke 500cc bike should go well at the TT because it should have an advantage on the more twisty sections of the course... The only question is, has it the speed on the fastest sections to keep up with the big 4 strokes? If it has and they get the right rider then there is no reason at all it shouldn't blow away the 4 strokes.  Let us pray for this. Lol. :P  ;D

Hawk.

Maybe getting up the hills will be the hardest bit for the torque-less 2 stroke. Speed should be fine I reckon its just them damn hilly bits hehe! 

Wonder what its like to have a '2 stroke seize up' at 200mph on the TT course

I think your ass would be watertight until the clutch gets pulled  ;D lol

Quote from: h106frp on February 17, 2016, 01:07:00 PM
Wonder what its like to have a '2 stroke seize up' at 200mph on the TT course

Quote from: Napalm Nick on February 17, 2016, 01:18:03 PM
I think your ass would be watertight until the clutch gets pulled  ;D lol

Lol!  ;D

Yeah an oversize nappy would come in handy too. Hehe!  ;D

Hawk.

Why is it so difficult?

I'm not delusional and to old to understand technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YZ250

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YZ250F

Math- the YZ is putting out 48.8 HP with 32 ft torque.  YZF is putting out 43 HP with 21 ft torque- so much for torque concerning the 4 stroke.

To match or exceed the YZ250, Yamaha put out the YZF450 4 stroke which is 250 pounds oppose to 212 pounds and the HP rating I believe is about 50hp.

Granted if you put two experienced riders on these 2 bikes you would find each bike has its weakness. But in the end both are different hence riding them differently.

The problem is the numbers! Displacement!

Believe what you want to believe but in reality it takes double displacement of a 4 stroke to match a 2 stroke, its simple math. And please stop with the smoke crap as I have owned 2 strokes that are running properly that don't smoke.

It will come back around one day and everyone who wants to conform to emissions propaganda will be eating their helmets in record numbers.

HP+torque+weight.       

Yeah, I don't know where this misconception came from but two strokes will always have more torque than a four stroke with the same power output.

Also, 500cc 2T vs 990cc 4T is only a fair comparison when both engines have the same bore/stroke ratio.

I disagree on the fuel idea, Max, because when your bike is a lot lighter with the same power, you can carry more fuel and still have a big advantage.

Quote from: WALKENIt will come back around one day and everyone who wants to conform to emissions propaganda will be eating their helmets in record numbers.

Can't wait to see what the Ryger engine will be able to do.

I thought the big advantage was torque and power 'spread' with rpm - you do not need to stay in the power band so a 4s is 'easier' to ride.

A 2 stroke will lose its torque rapidly up a hill where, for the same rev loss, a 4 stroke won't. So if you run out of revs (or gears) on your stroker you will see the 4 stroker disappearing.  Its easier to think of a 2 stroke having less torque on a hill than the actual maths of 'engineers' and the reverse truth, so that's why there is a misconception amongst the peasants.

And, frankly, if your 2 stroke never smoked you didn't add enough oil, did they Hawky?  ;D

Right on H !

Riding a 2 stroke is different to riding a 4 stroke in that to get the best out of a 2 stroke you do indeed have to keep the revs inside the powerband, and that's part of the excitement of riding 2 strokes. Plus I'd say because of that it takes a lot more skill to ride a 2 stroke well than a 4 stroke(as everyone says, a 4 stroke is an easy ride as Nick points out above).

As far as a 2 stroke being smokey? Well like most engines when cold they do smoke badly, but for sure when a 2 stroke is up to temp they don't smoke anymore than a 4 stroke in my opinion..... That is of course unless we have Nick mixing the fuel with cooking oil for visual effects. Hehe.  ;D

But yeah... If you sit on the grid giving it some with throttle on and off then of course they will smoke but normal throttle use doesn't produce anymore smoke than any other bike as far as I can tell..... But give me that good old school 2 stroke Castrol 'R' smell any day of the year!  ;D 8)

But to be honest, if emissions was the problem and reason they changed from 2 stroke to 4 stroke then why haven't we banned 2 stroke lawn mowers or chain saws or jet ski's??? They were and still are chucking out way more emissions than any motorcycle GP season ever has, and as far as the motorcycle market was concerned, motorcycles have never chucked out anywhere near as much emissions as cars and lorries have, especially now that majority of cars are diesel..... So who was the fool who promoted a change to diesel fuelled cars, eh?  Whoever it was I'll almost guarantee he was a conservative politician with their fingers in the pie of a company that would benefit from diesel car sales. Lol.
So you see the smokey or emissions argument doesn't hold true; In my opinion the change from 2 stroke to 4 stroke was purely down to politics and Honda who've always wanted to get 4 strokes into GP racing over the 2 stroke bikes, and only gave up trying to do that honestly when they failed to build a 4 stroke that could compete with the 2 stroke 500cc bikes.  :P

The quicker they bring the 2 strokes back into GP racing(looks like it's a start with the Seuter!  ;D :-* ), the quicker motorcycle GP racing will get it's soul back.  :P  8)

The younger guys here don't realise what they've been missing all these years. Lol


Hawk.

Quote from: WALKEN on February 17, 2016, 04:52:19 PM
Why is it so difficult?

I'm not delusional and to old to understand technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YZ250

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YZ250F

Math- the YZ is putting out 48.8 HP with 32 ft torque.  YZF is putting out 43 HP with 21 ft torque- so much for torque concerning the 4 stroke.

That's peak torque. Now go check mid-range torque and let me know.
And as a side note: you're showing cross bikes. It has already been stated clearly that for *some* applications, 2s do have advantages.
But it's not because you can build a better cross 2s that you can have a better motogp 2s. Not the same ballpark in terms of plenty of things (power, torque, revs, thermals, ...).

Quote from: WALKEN on February 17, 2016, 04:52:19 PM
The problem is the numbers! Displacement!

Believe what you want to believe but in reality it takes double displacement of a 4 stroke to match a 2 stroke, its simple math.

But I do agree with that. That's why it is *fair* to compare 500cc 2s vs 990cc 4s. It's you who's doing the silly thing (990cc 2s vs 990cc 4s).
The reason is trivial, once one know how a 2s and a 4s cycle works. I'm bored to try to explain why it is so. It's not even difficult to understand.

Quote from: WALKEN on February 17, 2016, 04:52:19 PM
It will come back around one day and everyone who wants to conform to emissions propaganda will be eating their helmets in record numbers.

OK, keep waiting then.
Anyway, if  they do come back (unlikely, but who knows), they will be a far cry from the 2s you all love.

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 05:12:31 PM
Yeah, I don't know where this misconception came from but two strokes will always have more torque than a four stroke with the same power output.

More mid-range torque, better power curve. Granted, on race bikes it is a bit less important, but still.

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 05:12:31 PM
Also, 500cc 2T vs 990cc 4T is only a fair comparison when both engines have the same bore/stroke ratio.

And why that ?
My understanding is that in motogp (and F1, if I recall correctly) they have limited the bore because that's what limits what the engine can do.
But that's valid when comparing across engines of the same type, like 5cyl vs 4cyl both 4s. I'm not sure it makes sense between 2 and 4 strokes.

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 05:12:31 PM
I disagree on the fuel idea, Max, because when your bike is a lot lighter with the same power, you can carry more fuel and still have a big advantage.

No man. The "same fuel comparison" measures how efficient an engine is. It's not a matter of overall weight.
If a 4s is heavier (which is the case), it will waste more fuel when accelerating, but that's it.

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 05:12:31 PM
Can't wait to see what the Ryger engine will be able to do.

Actually you can wait, as we all have been doing since a while. Wasn't it supposed to smash records somewhere at the end of 2015 ? (I can be wrong on that date, honestly I don't follow closely all the news about the super-secret Ryger engine).

It would seem you all have forgotten one major point about the difference between 2 and 4 strokes.....................Reliability!!!

When I was on the pit crew for Robert Mott who rode for Yamaha in MotoX. I had to rebuild the motor a LOT!!! 2 strokes eat the top end in a heart beat while in a racing scenario. 4 strokes are not so aggressive on the parts and mean they have less chance of failure!!!.............................I wonder if that may have been the reason for the change rather than just emissions?
And add to that the cost of the parts!!! Why do you think there is no Trabants in professional auto racing lol.

As a technician I will have to stick up for the 4 strokes, but as an out and out speed junkie, well give me an old Kwaka H2 baby.

DD

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 17, 2016, 08:16:40 PMThat's peak torque. Now go check mid-range torque and let me know.

That range is not relevant on a race bike.
That's why bikes have gearboxes.

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 17, 2016, 08:16:40 PM

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 05:12:31 PM
Also, 500cc 2T vs 990cc 4T is only a fair comparison when both engines have the same bore/stroke ratio.

And why that ?

Because the ratio defines how high the engine can rev.
Doesn't really make sense to compare engines that produce their peak hp at very different revs.

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 17, 2016, 08:16:40 PM

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 05:12:31 PM
I disagree on the fuel idea, Max, because when your bike is a lot lighter with the same power, you can carry more fuel and still have a big advantage.

No man. The "same fuel comparison" measures how efficient an engine is. It's not a matter of overall weight.
If a 4s is heavier (which is the case), it will waste more fuel when accelerating, but that's it.

The 4 stroke engine is more fuel-efficient (at the moment) but a four stroke bike will still be less weight-efficient, even if you take into account that the engine needs less fuel.
If you compare a two stroke race bike against a four stroke one with the same max. power, the two stroke will always win.


If we want to go into the rideability discussion, then always remember that the most advanced electronics the 500s had was none, so it doesn't even make sense to compare them against modern superbikes with traction control and anti-wheelie (let alone MotoGP bikes).

Vin, I mean the actual physical reliability, nothing to do with electronics bro. A 4 stroke motor will outlast a 2 stroke any day and in racing it is important to have a motor that dont wear out so quickly. Work in the pits building race motors and you will understand what I mean.

DD

Max , maybe your misunderstanding me?

A 500cc jug is 500cc maybe 498cc but that is the diameter of the bore. A 990cc jug is 990cc bore. Soooooo my point is the bore is much larger on the 4 stroke to match the smaller bore of the 2 stroke hence more weight not to mention valves and the way the engine fires.  2 stroke= lighter, smaller, faster more efficient.   

Also about being "in the power band" a 500cc is much different than a 125cc or 250cc as you can easily lug a 500cc up a steep hill without going balls to the wall. If you get in trouble mid hill, simply twist the throttle. The only bad part is the guy behind you will get a face full of rocks. 

DD- I'd much rather rebuild a 2 stroke than adjust valves. And the engine breaking on a 4 stroke feels odd IMO.   

There is no debate from me that 4 strokes suck, they are just different. My confusion is that people debate that 4 stroke is better than 2 stroke?

DD pointed something out- The H2! Put an engine like that in a modern gpbike and you'll have a hard time getting that grin off your face! That is my point!

My buddy had 2 H2's a 500 and a 750. I once had a 600cc triple sled @ 100HP, sounded amazing with triple pipes, hard to keep the front end down in hard packed snow.   

Totally agree with you on the H2 grin Walken. When I said about working on the 4 stroke motor, I should have said, you dont have to work on it as it wont break so easily lol. I do miss the smell of castrol 2 stroke oil too. I spent too much time working on high end cars that 2 stroke kinda got lost in my life lol. A 2 stroke Aventador lol!!!

DD

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 09:02:20 PM
Because the ratio defines how high the engine can rev.
Doesn't really make sense to compare engines that produce their peak hp at very different revs.

Well, OK. Let's settle at this: if we the take all the points that are in favour of 2s and we deem them important, and we take all the points that are in favour of 4s and we deem them irrelevant or we bias the comparison to introduce constraints like "same displacement" or "same revs" (mind, I'm not even sure revs are a real argument), then yes 2s are the world best engine humans have ever seen. But one could easily do the same for 4s, it would be as simple as having a min weight limit at 170Kg, and one of the 2s main advantages is gone down the drain.

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 09:02:20 PM
The 4 stroke engine is more fuel-efficient (at the moment) but a four stroke bike will still be less weight-efficient, even if you take into account that the engine needs less fuel.
If you compare a two stroke race bike against a four stroke one with the same max. power, the two stroke will always win.

Even if they have to run with the same fuel restriction ?
Because you see, today in motogp the limit is 22 (or 24) litres, no matter how light you can make your bike.
It's not as, assuming a weight limit at 150Kg, if yamaha can make a bike that weights 140Kg, then they can carry on 10 extra litres of fuel.
That's not the way it works.

But if the suter is soooo much better thanks to its almighty 2s engine, we should see some pretty amazing laptimes.
I'll wait for them. And for the Ryger. And for the clearly superior 2s ourboard (marine) engines that should just piss on 4s any given sunday.

I'm out of the discussion (and I'll self-spank myself for jumping in it, again).

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 17, 2016, 09:52:50 PM

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 09:02:20 PM
Because the ratio defines how high the engine can rev.
Doesn't really make sense to compare engines that produce their peak hp at very different revs.

Well, OK. Let's settle at this: if we the take all the points that are in favour of 2s and we deem them important, and we take all the points that are in favour of 4s and we deem them irrelevant or we bias the comparison to introduce constraints like "same displacement" or "same revs" (mind, I'm not even sure revs are a real argument), then yes 2s are the world best engine humans have ever seen. But one could easily do the same for 4s, it would be as simple as having a min weight limit at 170Kg, and one of the 2s main advantages is gone down the drain.

Fine, let's stick to comparing 2s to 4s with double the displacement.
The thing is, the points where 4s are in favour, are not relevant for race bikes (fuel consumption, emissions, nice flat power curve, service intervals, ...).

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 17, 2016, 09:52:50 PM

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 09:02:20 PM
The 4 stroke engine is more fuel-efficient (at the moment) but a four stroke bike will still be less weight-efficient, even if you take into account that the engine needs less fuel.
If you compare a two stroke race bike against a four stroke one with the same max. power, the two stroke will always win.

Even if they have to run with the same fuel restriction ?
Because you see, today in motogp the limit is 22 (or 24) litres, no matter how light you can make your bike.
It's not as, assuming a weight limit at 150Kg, if yamaha can make a bike that weights 140Kg, then they can carry on 10 extra litres of fuel.
That's not the way it works.

Well, obviously you cannot use rules designed for only one type of engine when you have different engines racing against each other.
There has to be enough fuel available so that the 2s will make the full race distance.
It does not matter if the 2s bikes have to carry more fuel when they will be lighter overall at any point during the race.

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 17, 2016, 09:52:50 PMBut if the suter is soooo much better thanks to its almighty 2s engine, we should see some pretty amazing laptimes.
I'll wait for them. And for the Ryger. And for the clearly superior 2s ourboard (marine) engines that should just piss on 4s any given sunday.

The Suter 500 is a low budget bike.
You know damn right that it's completely impossible to get anywhere near the MotoGP or WSBK record lap times without having a full factory team and shit ton of money behind you.
Full technical papers on the Ryger engine are to be released in a few weeks.


One last thing: Two strokes are not unreliable. They are very reliable in their projected lifetime (probably moreso than four strokes), meaning they won't fail randomly.
They have shorter service intervals, yes but again you cannot compare a 2s rebuild to a 4s one. Putting in new pistons for a race weekend on a race-2s is absolutely no problem (cost- and timewise) for any moderately skilled mechanic.

SuperMax

QuoteI'm out of the discussion (and I'll self-spank myself for jumping in it, again).

Hahaha OMG a thread about 2 vs 4 strokes and you are OUT????  Don't you like ON-topic Mawk? 

Hehe Only kidding you know I'm pulling your legs.  ;)

I don't think anyone REALLY thinks 2 are better than 4 or vice versa. It's like comparing an orange and a banana because they are all fruit (hey haven't I used that analogy somewhere else recently?). I might LIKE the 2 stroke Banana more than the nasty lumbering old Orange but that only makes it better To ME.

However, it is an important discussion (fight) to have believe in, and as we know, when there is a belief , there are always extremists.......

Fight ON.

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 10:18:50 PM
Fine, let's stick to comparing 2s to 4s with double the displacement.
The thing is, the points where 4s are in favour, are not relevant for race bikes (fuel consumption, emissions, nice flat power curve, service intervals, ...).

Concerning fuel and emissions, they are not relevant in your opinion. But they are indeed under today's rules. And there's a reason (which is not "kill the 2s", before Hawk chimes in with that :) ).
[btw I don't think service intervals are relevant to racing, never said so]

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 10:18:50 PM
One last thing: Two strokes are not unreliable. They are very reliable in their projected lifetime

Steve Jobs, get out of that body !
What's next ? The power curve of a 2s is not peaky, it's very flat within the powerband [AKA it's flat where it's flat] ?

Quote from: Napalm Nick on February 17, 2016, 10:26:29 PM
Hahaha OMG a thread about 2 vs 4 strokes and you are OUT????  Don't you like ON-topic Mawk? 

Hehe Only kidding you know I'm pulling your legs.  ;)

My legs are so pulled that I can kick the back of my head :)

Quote from: Napalm Nick on February 17, 2016, 10:26:29 PM
I don't think anyone REALLY thinks 2 are better than 4 or vice versa.

Oh man, I have a short-list of 3 forum members I can bet a "left lung+right kidney+your choice of testicle" combo on ...
Problem is, if I bet and someone takes, I'll win but then what ? I've go no use for spare parts :)

Haha yep those extremists don't need naming lol.
3 testicles are better than 2 'to stroke'  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB3exsZWpS4

Maybe Max is right?

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 17, 2016, 10:50:18 PM

Quote from: vin97 on February 17, 2016, 10:18:50 PM
One last thing: Two strokes are not unreliable. They are very reliable in their projected lifetime

Steve Jobs, get out of that body !
What's next ? The power curve of a 2s is not peaky, it's very flat within the powerband [AKA it's flat where it's flat] ?

Make fun about it but it is a very important difference, especially when you have to finish a race.
An engine that fails randomly but has a longer average lifetime is worse than an engine that doesn't fail randomly but has a shorter average lifetime.

Saying that one engine is better in general of course is not possible.
That's why we differentiate between street and race bikes here.

That is a great video, really shows the beasts at work. I was lucky to work for Suzuki in Stuttgart along with Speed Products and we had some full blown RG500's to play with. Soooooooo much fun.

You just cant beat the 2 strokes for the fun. Im an old fart now and need a 4 stroke CBR with training wheels lol

DD

Max is that you on the left wearing the pink shirt?    :-*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P__cQwU0AMo

Quote from: WALKEN on February 17, 2016, 11:53:49 PM
Max is that you on the left wearing the pink shirt?    :-*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P__cQwU0AMo

Haha!

Still better than being one of the jerks in the car tho.  ;)

Hehe, I have the feeling the whole discussion kind of went from discussing the differences to just trying to have a point. :)  The main (and from my understanding the only) initial real issue was that Walken kind of seemed to suggest that comparing a 990cc 2s vs a 990cc 4s would be a fair comparison. Other than that, there were no real substantial differences in opinion imo. MaX made some very valid points portraying pro's and con's of 2s and Vin made some very valid points concerning the 'raceability' of 2s, - so let's not end in a kind of black and white discussion like one could only love one concept and hate the other.

What I always wonder about, though, is that it always seems like people tend to think that 2s are superior because it can generate (in tendency) more max power per cubic capacity and is more weight-efficient. It is just a completely different concept where every stroke is being used for combustion, whereas 4s sacrifice strokes for better emission control. So (as often in life), advantages go hand in hand with disadvantages. And I'd agree with Vin, that per se (no other constraints than pure maximum power output per weight) the 2s might have an edge as the better concept for race bikes.  Fuel consumption, emissions, power curve, service intervals are not necessarily important in racing.

But looking at it globally, fuel consumption and emissions actually indirectly do matter in modern racing. And let me tell you why (I know the die-hard 2s lovers will totally disapprove the argumentation):
At least in non-developing countries 4s-engines have become the standard, and rightfully imo. I myself was raised in a country where even 80% of cars used 2s-engines - and the pollution was just really unbearable and close to being in compliance with the definition of grievous bodily harm. It is not comparable with the romantic memories of smelling some 2s exhaust gases on a racetrack evening. The hardcore 2s-enthusiasts might ask at this point "What do 4s-engine standards on public roads have to do with racing for god's sake?" Well (and I hope I do not hurt your romantic "pure racing" feelings here) the main reason why big manufacturers like Honda, Yamaha etc are taking the risky business of investing in MotoGP is not because of their competitive drive but because it is the single most important sales-promotional expenditure for sports bikes. And trying to sell 4s-bikes based on the success of 2s-racebikes is where customers would probably have second thoughts. So, in order to provide enough manufacturers incentives for investing in race bikes, it is a logic step imo to have the same engine technologies for racing bikes as for road bikes (imo going back to 1000cc class is also a result of that calculatio). Consequently, for the mainstream race categories (MotoGP, Superbikes, Superstock), it does only make sense to use 4s engines. But that does not mean that there won't be the possibility for niche racing categories with 2s engines.

So, the mainstream 2s-racing era is history imo, even if it might only be to the fact that 4s engines are the better concept for civil life public road usage and it does make sense for motorcycle manufacturers to invest especially in motorsports where there are engine concepts used that are relatively close to stock engine concepts. That is just my 2 cents on this topic.

A very valid point there Stout I think. It will always be about the overall profit. And although there is none in racing, it is a shop window driving sales and huge profits.  I am surprised the drive for electric and eco hybrid engines in motorcycle racing (other than the TT) is not further advanced considering how quickly these models are arriving on the streets (Just look at F1). Petrol based motorcycle racing will be considered very 'old hat' in next to no time.

The whole pollution debate is likely to apply to 4 strokes in the near future exactly as it appears to 2 strokes now. There will come a day where a battery isn't considered green enough (lets face it they aren't particularly green now!).

Fortunately I will be dead by then haha.

Always try and catch the TT zero event, one of the few events that can still be considered 'anything goes prototype' although last years was obviously a case of huge budget=event win.

I think we can find all arguments that Stout put nicely down in at least 4 different past threads about 2s vs 4s. Of course they didn't make it to some brains (and likely, never will).

I can grant that if in 10/20 years from now an electric bike spanks whichever 4s or 2s bike, die hards will still find that 2s or 4s were better. No matter what.
One of the arguments could even be that it is not fair to have 500cc 2s competing with electric bikes with 1000cc batteries (or 1000cc 4s vs 2000cc batteries). We all know that there's no replacement for displacement ...

Quote from: WALKEN on February 17, 2016, 11:05:53 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB3exsZWpS4

Maybe Max is right?

Ah now I get it, sorry. When you said "2s are better" you actually meant "2s are harder to ride".
In that case yes, you're right, they are better-in-your-own-definition-of-better.

Quote from: WALKEN on February 17, 2016, 11:53:49 PM
Max is that you on the left wearing the pink shirt?    :-*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P__cQwU0AMo

You just won the 2016 award for "Funniest bike-sim forum moderator". Congrats. You can rest for the rest of the year now, job done.

Can't tell if its me or not with the pink shirt, what I know for sure is that I'm not the guy that made the video and felt compelled to add "(2 strokes)" to the title. That says a lot about him.

Quote from: Stout Johnson on February 18, 2016, 08:55:58 AMBut looking at it globally, fuel consumption and emissions actually indirectly do matter in modern racing. And let me tell you why (I know the die-hard 2s lovers will totally disapprove the argumentation):
At least in non-developing countries 4s-engines have become the standard, and rightfully imo. I myself was raised in a country where even 80% of cars used 2s-engines - and the pollution was just really unbearable and close to being in compliance with the definition of grievous bodily harm. It is not comparable with the romantic memories of smelling some 2s exhaust gases on a racetrack evening. The hardcore 2s-enthusiasts might ask at this point "What do 4s-engine standards on public roads have to do with racing for god's sake?" Well (and I hope I do not hurt your romantic "pure racing" feelings here) the main reason why big manufacturers like Honda, Yamaha etc are taking the risky business of investing in MotoGP is not because of their competitive drive but because it is the single most important sales-promotional expenditure for sports bikes. And trying to sell 4s-bikes based on the success of 2s-racebikes is where customers would probably have second thoughts. So, in order to provide enough manufacturers incentives for investing in race bikes, it is a logic step imo to have the same engine technologies for racing bikes as for road bikes (imo going back to 1000cc class is also a result of that calculatio). Consequently, for the mainstream race categories (MotoGP, Superbikes, Superstock), it does only make sense to use 4s engines. But that does not mean that there won't be the possibility for niche racing categories with 2s engines.

Nicely said.

I think there is still a lot of potential in the two stroke engine once we have finally understood the gas dynmaics but sadly it needs independent, small companies to do such experiments because the risk of not coming up with a good solution fast enough is keeping every big manufacturer from investing a lot of money and trying it themselves.
Yamaha or HRC not experimenting with modern two strokes in racing does not mean that there is no future for two strokes (it will just take longer to arrive).

Oh my lord Max, lol I'm purely just breaking your balls man. Stop it  :)

Stout is the voice of reason here.

I think the M1 is awesome! I'd love to take a serious rip on Vales bike no doubt! So its not a matter of me thinking 4 strokes suck.

Maybe I'm not good at explaining myself?

My thought is about the common debate between the two and what is often over looked. The displacement

Let me put it in a different language- a 100watt tube amp will 97% of the time give a guitarist touch sensitivity as well as power to cut through the ranges of sound in a band setting oppose to a solid state amp.

This debate is almost the same.

I have found that after 39 years of amps if you want tube sound there has to be a tube there somewhere to create the signal that gives touch sensitivity and overall feel and warmth. I no long use/carry 100watt Marshall's around as technology has gotten to a point where with a simple preamp tube you can dial in the exact sound minus the 70 pounds of transformers to lug around.

That being said, I know guys that swear by vintage gear that is irrelevant in our current environment as you maybe point at me suggesting the same plain of thought.

I realize MotoGP uses 4stroke's and they are awesome machines.

What bothers me is comparing displacements that are off. Like 125cc 2 stroke vs 250cc 4 stroke. This is the common ground. My point is they are different and should not share the same track with one another because if they do then the 2 stroke gets short changed on displacement every time. So if and when the RCV 990 was introduced back in 2002 then to be on equal grounds they should have introduced a 750cc 2 stroke and in which case would have superseded the 990cc easily. Better yet why didn't they introduce a 1000cc 2 stroke ;D Could you even imagine?

I'm not arguing you or anyone for that matter that both technologies have their place, just not in the same league.

Again if the situation curtails both machines then the displacement can't be kept equal because the 2 stroke would eat the 4 stroke alive as the 4 stroke needs at least double the displacement to match or exceed that of the 2 stroke where in which case the 2 stroke will struggle as the 4 strokes engine is built to challenge a much smaller, lighter , nimble bike.  But even if they didn't match the displacement in 2002 and introduced a 750cc 2 stroke being less displacement of the 990 but bigger displacement of the 500cc it would destroy the 4 stroke as it not only has the same chassis but even more power.

Doesn't that make sense without me sounding cocky or opinionated or biased?   

Am I a fan of 2 stroke? Of course, but that doesn't mean I'm not open minded enough to understand reason. 
     

Quote from: WALKEN on February 18, 2016, 07:23:17 PM
What bothers me is comparing displacements that are off. Like 125cc 2 stroke vs 250cc 4 stroke. This is the common ground. My point is they are different and should not share the same track with one another because if they do then the 2 stroke gets short changed on displacement every time. So if and when the RCV 990 was introduced back in 2002 then to be on equal grounds they should have introduced a 750cc 2 stroke and in which case would have superseded the 990cc easily. Better yet why didn't they introduce a 1000cc 2 stroke ;D Could you even imagine?

Walken, you still haven't figured out why it is fair to compare Xcc 2s vs 2*Xcc 4s. Go get somebody that can explain that to you.

@Stout: see what I meant ?

No I understand it perfectly.

Its like trying to explain how a 4 cylinder car with a turbo in it can go as fast as a 8 cylinder car without a turbo.  Point is its different and the 8 cylinder with a turbo will mop the floor with it.

Or its like the explanation of coefficient. Less resistance equals faster but there is always a cross section where it meets but the more streamline of the two will win always. In order to exceed the more streamline of the two you must create more force in the beginning which can alway be superseded by the more streamline of the two.

So a 2 stroke can always exceed a 4 stroke based on the same bore size is the point. Also a 2 stroke can exceed a 4 stroke even if the bore is 200cc less, due to its design.

That simply makes it a different design is all and when we are talking about premier Motorcycle racing I would think the technology would be better suited to 2 stroke.  We can debate the different nuance's of handling between the two but again entirely different response. One can debate 4 being smoother lines but with modern electronics its also a moot point.   

edit-    "@Stout: see what I meant ?"   

you see that is implying that I am  ignorant which I do not think is the case. Also you are looking for affirmation as a follower not a man who stands his ground with his own beliefs. 

Quote from: WALKEN on February 18, 2016, 08:29:05 PM
No I understand it perfectly.

That's what you believe. But in fact you still don't get it. What you said above proves it.
There's a damn simple and physically sound reason why comparing 500cc 2s to 1000cc 4s is fair.
Dorna/FIM knew it (when they decided to put the two head to head), everybody with a minimal understanding of how an engine works knows it. You don't seem to know it.

Quote from: WALKEN on February 18, 2016, 08:29:05 PM
edit-    "@Stout: see what I meant ?"   

you see that is implying that I am  ignorant which I do not think is the case. Also you are looking for affirmation as a follower not a man who stands his ground with his own beliefs.

In this specific case, I think you're indeed ignorant of the basic reasoning behind the 500cc 2s vs 1000cc 4s. At least judging from all your blabbing about it being unfair.

But please show me wrong: why did FIM/Dorna decide to put 1000cc 4s versus 500cc 2s ? What was the reason that made them decide on exactly twice the displacement ?

Because it takes double the displacement (990cc) of a 4 stroke to match the horse power of a 500cc 2 stroke.

Pretty logical simple stuff. Still don't see what I seem to not understand?

Quote from: WALKEN on February 18, 2016, 11:00:23 PM
Because it takes double the displacement (990cc) of a 4 stroke to match the horse power of a 500cc 2 stroke.

Pretty logical simple stuff. Still don't see what I seem to not understand?

Wrong answer pal. As I suspected. Cheers.

OK then explain how it is wrong then? Rather then simply telling me its wrong.

OK, but I doubt you'll listen.

A 2s fires once every cycle, a 4s once every 2 cycles. This is the root reason why it makes sense to start from a 2s with half the displacement.
What you said (twice the power, or half the displacement for the same power) is a consequence of that (and other details, like revs range).

Nobody on earth will dispute that iso-displacement a 2s will spit out much more power (even if past 500cc, it may not scale as well as some thinks, at least on bikes).

But if the goal is to have 4s and 2s compete, it makes sense to start from there. And it kind of worked, as your video with Rossi and Barros shows: they were close.
If they wanted to keep 2s in the competition they could have fine tuned the whole thing (allow a bit more/less displacement, or a bit more/less min weight, etc).
But they didn't want that anyway, 2s were planned to go. Reasons have been explained by Stout.

Now if one says "a 500cc 2s weights less than a 1000cc 4s", that's fine.
If one says "a 500cc 2s is more pleasant to ride than a 1000cc 4s", that's somehow personal but it's fine too.

Where it does get wrong is when one says "they should have allowed 750cc 2s to compete with 1000cc 4s", or "I don't care about fuel limitation because I have a lighter bike so I can carry more fuel for the same total weight". Racing regulations does not amount to only "same displacement and same overall weight, everything else is free". I know some can't get it, but there are some industrial implications behind, even if the fans may not understand why in hell a motogp bike must finish a race with no more than 22 litres of fuel.

Nice overall summary MaX. In my role as the peacekeeper here  :P, I think it is fair to say that there was not that much of disagreement after all. I guess Walken acklowledged the fact, that comparing 2s vs 4s on same cc's does not make much sense. In general, I think Walken (obviously as many other die-hard 2s fans) just does not really want to accept that it is more or less a logic consequence that 4s had to be THE mainstream racing engine concept.

MaX and myself look at it dry an unemotional, whereas the 2s-fan just wants to have those beasts still in racing - no matter if it would be a wise decision from a business standpoint. But racing technology nowadays is not a standalone technology anymore, is is more and more in connection with mainstream technologies. And that mainly due to business calculations by manufacturers involved.

So shake virtual hands and bury the hatchet.  ;)

Quote from: Stout Johnson on February 19, 2016, 10:15:10 AM
So shake virtual hands and bury the hatchet.  ;)

OK for me. Until the Ryger is out at least :)

[Seriously, I do hope they Ryger is as good as it is claimed, who wouldn't like a better engine ?]

I don't claim to know all the in's and out's and the science behind 2 and 4 strokes, but just feel it was a big step back as far as the fans were concerned when they introduced the 4 stroke GP bikes into the class. Would've been a lot better just to have introduced the 4 strokes as a separate class in it's own right and see how popular they would've been as far as a fan draw? Or were they frightened that the 4 strokes just wouldn't have been a draw at all at the time with the 500cc GP's being "THE" blue ribbon championship event at the time?
But I still feel that it was more a political decision than a business one, because getting things into perspective, there was never going to be as many 2 stroke engines, or 4 stroke motorcycle engines for that matter, that would've made such an environmental impact in the modern world in comparison to all the other vehicles in civil use. As for third world countries getting polluted by their use - well has anything changed? I believe not. Most major or highly populated cities around the world are still massively polluted by vehicle fumes, be they motorcycle and other vehicles..... So just what impact has the change from 2 stroke to 4 stroke motorcycle GP racing made to cleaning up the air in cities? Best part of none in my opinion. There are just not enough motorcycles on the roads in comparison to other heavily polluting vehicles to make any substantial difference. So sorry but I don't see the argument for that at all except a political back door decision for Honda to get what they've always wanted.

Now if you made the same argument for every other vehicle on the road to start using electric or hydrogen fuels then that would make such a major impact that the difference could genuinely be realised. But getting rid of 2 stroke motorcycle engines for pollution reduction reasons? Naaarh, it just doesn't hold true in my opinion for the reasons that are being put forward.

Hawk.

Quote from: Hawk on February 19, 2016, 12:56:13 PM
But getting rid of 2 stroke motorcycle engines for pollution reduction reasons? Naaarh, it just doesn't hold true in my opinion for the reasons that are being put forward.

I see your arguments Hawk, they seem legit. It looks like motorcycles could not possibly be a concern in terms of pollution and health issues. And concerning western european cities you could probably debate whether motorcycles are numerous enough to be a health concern. BUT...

• banning 2s-engines generally is a good idea - period. just look at this (http://www.autoglasklar.de/autobilder/bigpicture/zweitaktnebel_trabbi.jpg)... this is how I grew up. I am getting sick by the look of it
• if governments decide to ban 2s-engine for cars, why not consequently for motorcycles?
• worldwide pollution of 2stroke engines from 2-wheeled vehicles indeed is a major problem - see here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247506/); in some Chinese cities they banned 2s engines and could reduce air pollution parameters by up to 80% (!!!)
• even in western europe cities where there are relatively few 2s engines still in use (e.g. scooters) - those few 2s engines actually can produce more fine dust than all 4s engines combined; this owes to the fact that one 2s engine can produce 1000x the pollution of a 4s engine, especially in cities where there is a large share of idle-operation of the engines
• in relation to worldwide emission reduction protocols western civilization also has to be the role model... so it would not make sense to make exceptions for 2-wheeled vehicles if they are a major pollution factor in 3rd world countries
• motorcycle and scooter manufacturers (at least the major ones) produce world wide - so it does make sense to have only one engine concept
• in Europe they even try to minimize sound emissions of motorcycles.... so wondering about reducing air emissions from motorcylces should not make you wonder

So, I am not in a position to evaluate whether Honda actual did have an influence or whether the change might have had a 'political' tone. It might have been a contributing factor. But if one tries to put it, as if the debate on pollution could not have been a valid reasoning, I would really disagree. 2s-engines, even when not numerous, really are a major health concern. We seem to neglect that fact because for many years they were widely used and nobody gave a shit. Consequently they were banned, and for the reasons already posted before it was logic to see this transformation also in racing, at least for the main categories - again, not because of health issues from those few race bikes, but due to marketing strategies.
If I am on a training ride with my bicycle, maybe uphill with 160+ bps and my lungs crying for oxygen and then I hear one of those bastard 2s-Scooters crying out behind me, overtaking and fogging me in blue dust, I swear I can feel the lung cancer growing ;) Every time I want to kick these riders over and beat them silly ;D I wish I could then tie them to a chair in their backyard behind the scooter and rev up that thing for one hour and let them get a taste of their own medicine  ;D

From what I hear though, there are concepts (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/21-two-strokes-and-youre-out) that might make 2s engines 'greener'; obviously they use an in-cylinder fuel-injection system, allowing fuel to enter the combustion chamber when the exhaust port is closed, thus eliminating nearly all the unburned fuel significantly and subsequently pollution substantially.

I'm not mad at you Max in any way shape or form. Just so you know.

I am just a bit confused that I'm not disagreeing with you but it seems that you think I am?

My point is- If I was in a garage and the mechanic gave me two choices of an engine to stuff in the Yamaha M1 chassis, a 990cc 4stroke or a 750cc 2 stroke I would choose the 750 as it would out perform the 4 stroke easily. Thats all.

I would go for the 750 2s too, BUT if I wanted to get to the pub after the race I would go for the 990 as I would be pissed if I did not get a beer due to fooked piston rings!!!

Just trying to bring a smile to the fight.  ;D

DD

Quote from: WALKEN on February 19, 2016, 04:45:08 PM
My point is- If I was in a garage and the mechanic gave me two choices of an engine to stuff in the Yamaha M1 chassis, a 990cc 4stroke or a 750cc 2 stroke I would choose the 750 as it would out perform the 4 stroke easily. Thats all.

Walken, what would be your answer towards me if a mechanic gave me two choices of an engine to stuff in the Yamaha M1 chassis: a 990cc 4stroke or a 250cc 2 stroke - and I would choose the 990cc 4stroke engine. What would be your answer to that hypothetical scenario?

Obviously the 990cc 4 stroke as the 250cc 2 stroke would be a pip squeak compared to it. lol

Quote from: Stout Johnson on February 19, 2016, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: Hawk on February 19, 2016, 12:56:13 PM
But getting rid of 2 stroke motorcycle engines for pollution reduction reasons? Naaarh, it just doesn't hold true in my opinion for the reasons that are being put forward.

I see your arguments Hawk, they seem legit. It looks like motorcycles could not possibly be a concern in terms of pollution and health issues. And concerning western european cities you could probably debate whether motorcycles are numerous enough to be a health concern. BUT...

• banning 2s-engines generally is a good idea - period. just look at this (http://www.autoglasklar.de/autobilder/bigpicture/zweitaktnebel_trabbi.jpg)... this is how I grew up. I am getting sick by the look of it
• if governments decide to ban 2s-engine for cars, why not consequently for motorcycles?
• worldwide pollution of 2stroke engines from 2-wheeled vehicles indeed is a major problem - see here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247506/); in some Chinese cities they banned 2s engines and could reduce air pollution parameters by up to 80% (!!!)
• even in western europe cities where there are relatively few 2s engines still in use (e.g. scooters) - those few 2s engines actually can produce more fine dust than all 4s engines combined; this owes to the fact that one 2s engine can produce 1000x the pollution of a 4s engine, especially in cities where there is a large share of idle-operation of the engines
• in relation to worldwide emission reduction protocols western civilization also has to be the role model... so it would not make sense to make exceptions for 2-wheeled vehicles if they are a major pollution factor in 3rd world countries
• motorcycle and scooter manufacturers (at least the major ones) produce world wide - so it does make sense to have only one engine concept
• in Europe they even try to minimize sound emissions of motorcycles.... so wondering about reducing air emissions from motorcylces should not make you wonder

So, I am not in a position to evaluate whether Honda actual did have an influence or whether the change might have had a 'political' tone. It might have been a contributing factor. But if one tries to put it, as if the debate on pollution could not have been a valid reasoning, I would really disagree. 2s-engines, even when not numerous, really are a major health concern. We seem to neglect that fact because for many years they were widely used and nobody gave a shit. Consequently they were banned, and for the reasons already posted before it was logic to see this transformation also in racing, at least for the main categories - again, not because of health issues from those few race bikes, but due to marketing strategies.
If I am on a training ride with my bicycle, maybe uphill with 160+ bps and my lungs crying for oxygen and then I hear one of those bastard 2s-Scooters crying out behind me, overtaking and fogging me in blue dust, I swear I can feel the lung cancer growing ;) Every time I want to kick these riders over and beat them silly ;D I wish I could then tie them to a chair in their backyard behind the scooter and rev up that thing for one hour and let them get a taste of their own medicine  ;D

From what I hear though, there are concepts (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/21-two-strokes-and-youre-out) that might make 2s engines 'greener'; obviously they use an in-cylinder fuel-injection system, allowing fuel to enter the combustion chamber when the exhaust port is closed, thus eliminating nearly all the unburned fuel significantly and subsequently pollution substantially.

I hear what your saying Stout and can understand were your coming from in this debate, but I'm sure your not seeing the whole picture:

On your bullet mark 1 and 3: This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say what good has the change to 4 strokes for GP racing done for reducing the pollution through excessive exhaust emissions, in cities in particular, whether that's via 2 stroke or 4 stroke engines? You see my point? Again, I suggest it was a political decision more than a business decision. :)

Regarding your 2nd bullet mark: Motorcycle riders are a small minority of all vehicles on the roads of the world, and even now if all motorcycle riders used 2 stroke engines it would have no substantial effect on air pollution in comparison to other vehicle users.

Regarding your 4th bullet mark: I'd have to disagree with you that the 2 stroke engines produce more particulates in the air than all 4 stroke engines combined; I mean, do you realise just how bad diesel engines are for chucking out particulates into the atmosphere, especially if you own a Volkswagen. Hehe  ;D

Regarding your 5th bullet: Does it really make sense to have only one engine concept on the world market?? I believe that leads to stagnation in the market, and besides, as you have stated, the modern concepts going into 2 stroke engines do hold a lot of promise for reducing the emission of unburned fuels now so I believe that argument of poor emissions from 2 stroke engines has or is rapidly being overtaken now.

Regarding your 6th bullet mark: Motorcycles are not the main problem with regards to air pollution in cities, even third world cities.... Believe me I have been to several 3rd world cities that are heavily polluted through exhaust emissions, and although in some of those cities there is a lot of 2 stroke engines, the vast majority are used in other vehicles not motorcycles. Cars and lorries are the main problem for excessive emissions but should we ban those too?

As I suggested, changing from 2 stroke to 4 stroke GP bikes for the reasons of reducing the pollution from exhaust emissions and/or subsequent product sales reasons was just a political cover to give a perceived good reason for doing what they did.  :)

But if air pollution is such a big issue(and believe me, I'm all for cleaner air to breath), and we are talking about banning certain engines, then why don't we ban the real culprits of all the excessive air pollution, ie: Cars, Lorries and planes, plus shut down all the power stations and factories that are chucking out massive amounts of air pollution?
But of course that is not the answer to the modern world and lifestyle we lead - We should strive to develop new and better ways of doing things and that certainly won't be achieved if we are restricted to single concepts in the name of efficient business practices, which usually means at the expense of the customer but more profit for the companies involved.  :)

Best thing would be to continue with the promising developments for the 2 stroke engine and not just to ban them outright.  :)

Hawk.

In 2002 when they introduced 4 strokes it was all planned out to saturate the entire series with 4 strokes hence why they agreed the 500cc could compete with the 990cc, it couldn't overall. Maybe on Sachsenring. If they allowed even a 580cc 2 stroke bike you would have had a different out come as the 2 stroke would have ruled the field. 

"Agusta effectively the only works team left in the sport until Yamaha (1973) and Suzuki (1974) returned with new two-stroke designs. By this time, two-strokes completely eclipsed the four-strokes in all classes. In 1979, Honda, on its return to GP racing, made an attempt to return the four-stroke to the top class with the NR500, but this project failed, and, in 1983, even Honda was winning with a two-stroke 500."

"Consequently, all machines were two-strokes, due to the greater power output for a given engine capacity. "

"Up through the 1950s and most of the 1960s, four-stroke engines dominated all classes. In part this was due to rules, which allowed a multiplicity of cylinders (meaning smaller pistons, producing higher revs) and a multiplicity of gears (giving narrower power bands, affording higher states of tune). In the 1960s, two-stroke engines began to take root in the smaller classes."

So as you can see 2 strokes were a progression in MotoGP for better performance.  You can easily read that they tried to compete with the 500cc 2 stroke with the NR500 which was a 500cc 4 stroke. It failed because the displacement was equal. Had they introduced a 990cc 4 stroke back then you would have seen history sooner. But again it isn't a fair match and they knew it in 2002.

So for anyone who wants to debate 2 stroke vs 4 strokes at least admit that 2 stroke technology can easily surpass 4 strokes in all out performance. 

Wonder if a gas turbine would be allowed under the rules, light, efficient and more powerful than any reciprocating engine and can be powered with pretty much anything that burns.

Just prodding with a long stick lol  ;)

Quote from: h106frp on February 19, 2016, 07:16:33 PM
Wonder if a gas turbine would be allowed under the rules, light, efficient and more powerful than any reciprocating engine and can be powered with pretty much anything that burns.

Just prodding with a long stick lol  ;)

Now that would be an interesting project! Hehe.  ;D 8)

Hawk.

Would sound pretty awesome as well

Just checked, the MTT Y2K turbine bike engine is 430hp at 50,000rpm!

Quote from: WALKEN on February 19, 2016, 06:26:30 PM
Obviously the 990cc 4 stroke as the 250cc 2 stroke would be a pip squeak compared to it. lol

That's an analogy to the situation you described ;) hope you now see the point MaX and I are trying to make...


@Hawk: In summary, I guess you pretty much misunderstood the whole point I was trying to make.

Quote from: Hawk on February 19, 2016, 06:29:51 PM
On your bullet mark 1 and 3: This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say what good has the change to 4 strokes for GP racing done for reducing the pollution through excessive exhaust emissions, in cities in particular, whether that's via 2 stroke or 4 stroke engines? You see my point? Again, I suggest it was a political decision more than a business decision. :)

Well you completely turned my arguments around, in a way it doesn't make sense :o  guess you would make a great politician Hawk :P I never said, changing to 4s in racing did anything to reduce pollutions... please read my former posts on this matter, to see my exact arguments there. In short, 2s were more or less banned on public streets and consequently it did make sense to also change to that engine concept in mainstream racing series (mainly due to marketing reasons for sports bikes). That's the implication, not the other way around.

Quote from: Hawk on February 19, 2016, 06:29:51 PM
Regarding your 2nd bullet mark: Motorcycle riders are a small minority of all vehicles on the roads of the world, and even now if all motorcycle riders used 2 stroke engines it would have no substantial effect on air pollution in comparison to other vehicle users.
[...]
Regarding your 6th bullet mark: Motorcycles are not the main problem with regards to air pollution in cities, even third world cities.... Believe me I have been to several 3rd world cities that are heavily polluted through exhaust emissions, and although in some of those cities there is a lot of 2 stroke engines, the vast majority are used in other vehicles not motorcycles. Cars and lorries are the main problem for excessive emissions but should we ban those too?

That is very true for western civilizations. But that is completely different for developing countries where 2-wheelers are just the average means of transportation (if not the donkey pulled wagon :)). In many asian and african countries scooters account for 80% of traffic. And concerning the emissions of 2-s engines, just do some research - they produce a staggering amount of emissions. It always depends on how they are operated, but according to my sources it can easily be 1000x the amount of a modern 4s engine. 
edit: one quick google try gave me this (http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/research_education/yellowstone/two-_vs._four-stroke_emissions.v2.jpg)

Quote from: Hawk on February 19, 2016, 06:29:51 PM
Regarding your 4th bullet mark: I'd have to disagree with you that the 2 stroke engines produce more particulates in the air than all 4 stroke engines combined; I mean, do you realise just how bad diesel engines are for chucking out particulates into the atmosphere, especially if you own a Volkswagen. Hehe  ;D

I said that they can  produce more particulates in the air than all 4 stroke engines combined. In a source that I read, it was stated that in some cities it is the case. And I don't doubt that. Obviously, it depends on the city and the share of 2s on the whole vehicles numbers. But for some asian cities where mostly 2s scooters are used, it is definitely true. If you doubt it, that's fine, but it's not my personal opinion, I found it in a source I read. Concerning diesel engines you are completely right: If diesel engines are operated without particel filters, then they are also very bad.

Quote from: Hawk on February 19, 2016, 06:29:51 PM
Regarding your 5th bullet: Does it really make sense to have only one engine concept on the world market?? I believe that leads to stagnation in the market, and besides, as you have stated, the modern concepts going into 2 stroke engines do hold a lot of promise for reducing the emission of unburned fuels now so I believe that argument of poor emissions from 2 stroke engines has or is rapidly being overtaken now.

Concerning first sentence: It was one of the weaker arguments, it is debatable. That's why I brought that one rather late ;) But if there are no substantial innovations that reduce 2s emissions, I think it is safe to say 2s will die out eventually. Even developing countries, who in general have other concerns than caring about pollution, are hard-pressed to do something about it has become bad. Concerning the modern concepts to reduce emissions. From all I know those concepts are very early have yet to be implemented on a broad basis in order to show effects.

Quote from: Hawk on February 19, 2016, 06:29:51 PM
Best thing would be to continue with the promising developments for the 2 stroke engine and not just to ban them outright.  :)

From my understanding, the concepts to reduce 2s-emissions may reduce 2s emissions substantially, but it is unlikely they will reach 4s cleanness... so not sure whether that makes sense other than provide a short-term solution for developing countries. Because you cannot just ban 2s-engines there from one day to the other, because people would just not have any means of transportation.

In general, I think I won't be able to convince you I guess. As I said, maybe political reasoning was also a factor in banning 2s in racing. But I am pretty confident, it would have happened anyhow... but it is hard to convince conspiracy theorists anyhow. ;)

Lol...... Okay mate.... I respect your position on this subject, but yeah, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. But just to say that in my experience in Asia, the majority of vehicles are not motorcycles or scooters but cars and wagons and put-put 3 wheel jeepster type vehicles, but the traffic jams and pollution is eye-searingly  bad, cough, cough, choke, choke!!  ;D

Hawk.

How about the technology that go's into a gas jugs cap these days!

What a pain in the @$$ they are, why can't I just buy a gas can with a simple screw on cap? Cause the design of the new caps are better? lol 

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 19, 2016, 08:17:30 AMI know some can't get it, but there are some industrial implications behind, even if the fans may not understand why in hell a motogp bike must finish a race with no more than 22 litres of fuel.

Care to name those industrial implications?
Keep in mind that relevance to street bikes (emissions, km range) is not given anymore anyway, once you re-introduce ('classical') two-strokes to MotoGP. So this reason would be invalid.

Quote from: Stout Johnson on February 19, 2016, 02:14:48 PM
If I am on a training ride with my bicycle, maybe uphill with 160+ bps and my lungs crying for oxygen and then I hear one of those bastard 2s-Scooters crying out behind me, overtaking and fogging me in blue dust, I swear I can feel the lung cancer growing ;) Every time I want to kick these riders over and beat them silly ;D I wish I could then tie them to a chair in their backyard behind the scooter and rev up that thing for one hour and let them get a taste of their own medicine  ;D

There has been some recent research that Diesel may be just as harmful as two-stroke oil, emission-wise.
Maybe I will find the paper again but just because you don't see or smell as much smoke does not mean that the air is healthier.
Of course it's not comparable to countries where everybody is driving completely inefficient two-stroke cars like it was the case in the past.
Not saying this is a reason to go back to two stroke vehicles on the street but there is certainly a lot of hypocrisy going on around this vehlice-emission-topic.

Quote from: Stout Johnson on February 19, 2016, 02:14:48 PMobviously they use an in-cylinder fuel-injection system

That is the main reason why I am so excited about the Ryger engine.
It promises those emission reductions without direct injection by using HCCI to achieve near 100% efficient mixture burning (which requires very advanced knowledge of the gas dynamics in the combustion chamber).
Direct injection on a high performance two-stroke motorcycle engine would be difficult because it would have to be fast enough to feed a four-stroke that revs to 30k.....

Diesel is terrible shit.. sits right on your lungs  :-\ just from the fumes.. without being burnt.

Hey, imagine if tyre and suspension technology moved forward even faster.. 2stroke 500s back in the day would have been fine to ride  ;D

Quote from: BOBR6 84 on February 19, 2016, 09:09:31 PMHey, imagine if tyre and suspension technology moved forward even faster.. 2stroke 500s back in the day would have been fine to ride  ;D

Yeah, I had the same thought some time ago.
'Modern' suspension and chassis technology arrived just 5 years or so too late to get into the 500cc 4 cylinder 2s street bikes before emission laws killed them.

If you want a proper street 500 today, you'll have to build it yourself (http://www.rgv250.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/49257-ade-sym-rgv-500-project/?p=491816).

Quote from: vin97 on February 19, 2016, 08:34:09 PM

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 19, 2016, 08:17:30 AMI know some can't get it, but there are some industrial implications behind, even if the fans may not understand why in hell a motogp bike must finish a race with no more than 22 litres of fuel.

Care to name those industrial implications?
Keep in mind that relevance to street bikes (emissions, km range) is not given anymore anyway, once you re-introduce ('classical') two-strokes to MotoGP. So this reason would be invalid.

Wow... that's thinking out of the box! :) Re-introducing 2s now that the 2s are off the streets - that might actually work. But tbh, don't you think it would somehow create the urge of customers to get one of these beasts for street use once they are widely used in racing? Because customers always somehow want to at least have the illusion of riding one of those bikes from MotoGP - that's why they were marketing the new R1 so heavily based on the illusion of being a derivate of the M1 - although that really is a long shot from a technical stand-point. But if you have nice modern 2s beasts and customers kind of wanting similar bikes for street use (but this not possible due to environment constraints), then the big bikes manufacturers would pretty much lose the best selling proposition (the seemingly relatedness of of race bikes to street bikes). Business-wise that would be bad for the big sport bike manufacturers. In consequence, they would probably have less motivation to invest into MotoGP, in consequence MotoGP might be risking to be less attractive.

Quote from: vin97 on February 19, 2016, 08:34:09 PM
There has been some recent research that Diesel may be just as harmful as two-stroke oil, emission-wise.
Maybe I will find the paper again but just because you don't see or smell as much smoke does not mean that the air is healthier.

Of course Diesel are as bad. Whenever one of those big street busses accelerates next to me, I try to hold my breath or drive a parallel street in order to avoid being exposed. I was not mentioning Diesels because this topic was on 2s ;) and having other polluters also, does not make 2s emissions less dangerous. If I had my way, Diesel cars would only be allowed with particel filters - including trucks and busses.

Quote from: vin97 on February 19, 2016, 08:34:09 PM
That is the main reason why I am so excited about the Ryger engine.
It promises those emission reductions without direct injection by using HCCI to achieve near 100% efficient mixture burning (which requires very advanced knowledge of the gas dynamics in the combustion chamber).
Direct injection on a high performance two-stroke motorcycle engine would be difficult because it would have to be fast enough to feed a four-stroke that revs to 30k.....

Hehe sounds like that's not doable then (at least at the moment). But if this could be done, I don't see why the 2s might not make a comeback. Actually, it is pretty likely, as soon as a manufacturer is able to produce high-performance engines that are also 'clean' they could be an exciting 'new technology'... which always sells good. But I guess they'd have to be fast. Sooner or later e-bikes will somehow become mandatory on the streets and all petrol based technology will most likely be gone. And since motorsports are not much more than a huge advertisement show for the big manufacturers nowadays, it most likely will also find its way into motorsports and most likely eliminate combustion technology I think. As sad as that would be, because I cannot really imagine MotoGP with e-bikes. Somehow they would have to artificially produce screaming engine sounds and torque-curves.  :D

Yes, that is the relevance to street bikes Max already explained.
Max seems to have some additional reasons why going beyond a certain amount of fuel is not a good idea or maybe I misunderstood him.
Re-introducing 2s to MotoGP would mean making it a pure racing series again that's just about finishing a race as quickly as possible without any other economic goals.
That's why these arguments would no longer be valid.

As I said, this is obviously not a reason to allow two strokes on the street again but it just shows that much of the emission laws were not written with the environment in mind but with economic interests.
If I had my way, Diesel cars would be banned just like (old) two strokes.


There is too much money in oil for petrol motorcycles to suddenly disappear even when we have the perfect battery.

Quote from: vin97 on February 19, 2016, 08:34:09 PM

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 19, 2016, 08:17:30 AMI know some can't get it, but there are some industrial implications behind, even if the fans may not understand why in hell a motogp bike must finish a race with no more than 22 litres of fuel.

Care to name those industrial implications?
Keep in mind that relevance to street bikes (emissions, km range) is not given anymore anyway, once you re-introduce ('classical') two-strokes to MotoGP. So this reason would be invalid.

But that's exactly why they are NOT gonna reintroduce 2s in racing. Because they are irrelevant industry-wise, at least right now.
Some seem to think that we ride 4s because motogp is on 4s. IT'S THE OTHER (BLOODY) WAY AROUND !

Quote from: vin97 on February 19, 2016, 09:50:09 PM
Yes, that is the relevance to street bikes Max already explained.
Max seems to have some additional reasons why going beyond a certain amount of fuel is not a good idea or maybe I misunderstood him.
Re-introducing 2s to MotoGP would mean making it a pure racing series again that's just about finishing a race as quickly as possible without any other economic goals.
That's why these arguments would no longer be valid.

The industry relevance I mentioned was referring to emissions in general.
Fuel limitations are there because making them tighter pushes the boundaries of research on engine technology. So they are a good thing (if used properly, F1 may not have been a good example in the past).

Constructors would not invest huge amount of money for a "pure racing series". Example: nobody gives a damn about dragsters, where you can use pretty much what you want to go from A to be as fast as you can (so it's as pure as it gets). And when I say nobody I don't mean fan/spectators: I mean constructors. Can you guess why ?

Quote from: vin97 on February 19, 2016, 09:50:09 PM
If I had my way, Diesel cars would be banned just like (old) two strokes.

That may well happen soon. Some cities are seriously thinking at limiting access to diesel engines (or to any engine that is not clean enough, no matter the engine technology).
But the day some areas go "zero emission or nothing" (i.e. electric), I can see plenty of people claiming their "right" to drive petrol cars and bikes, because they are better, more fun or err ... sound better.

I think the Mayor of Paris has already banned diesels, effective from 2020.. Could be wrong. I know London is thinking of following suit and Delhi is trying to ban the sale of new diesel models..

Looking for other stuff, I've just literally stumbled on this (from the book "Motogp Technology" by Neil Spalding, 2nd edition, 2010):

Quote
Emission Legislation

The timing of motogp has also been very advantageous. Over the last ten years motorcycles have enjoyed substantial leeway on emissions legislation. On the bases that there were not many motorcycles and that it is difficult to store emissions control devices on the typical motorcycle, we have been allowed emission standards that have hardly affected the sport wee love. Over the same ten years, however, cars and other forms of motorised transport have had their emission standards continuously upgraded, and they are now so rigorous that the allowances for motorcycles can be seen to be ludicrously generous.

We all associate heavy and hot catalytic converters with emissions legislation, but that is only part of the story. The efficient burning of fuel and the careful control of the use of fuel through an electronic throttle system is the other half of the story, and when MotoGP started we had absolutely no idea how to make such a system work safely on motorcycles. The technologies couldn't be transferred straight over from the car world because they are built for car use, and the simple act of balancing a powerful engine on two wheels means that we have a requirement for far more subtlety and precision. MotoGP has allowed the development of systems that will work in the real world and will allow us to keep motorcycling a valid form of transport, and at the same time retaining the fun element.

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 05:01:02 PM
Looking for other stuff, I've just literally stumbled on this (from the book "Motogp Technology" by Neil Spalding, 2nd edition, 2010):

Quote
Emission Legislation

The timing of motogp has also been very advantageous. Over the last ten years motorcycles have enjoyed substantial leeway on emissions legislation. On the bases that there were not many motorcycles and that it is difficult to store emissions control devices on the typical motorcycle, we have been allowed emission standards that have hardly affected the sport wee love. Over the same ten years, however, cars and other forms of motorised transport have had their emission standards continuously upgraded, and they are now so rigorous that the allowances for motorcycles can be seen to be ludicrously generous.

We all associate heavy and hot catalytic converters with emissions legislation, but that is only part of the story. The efficient burning of fuel and the careful control of the use of fuel through an electronic throttle system is the other half of the story, and when MotoGP started we had absolutely no idea how to make such a system work safely on motorcycles. The technologies couldn't be transferred straight over from the car world because they are built for car use, and the simple act of balancing a powerful engine on two wheels means that we have a requirement for far more subtlety and precision. MotoGP has allowed the development of systems that will work in the real world and will allow us to keep motorcycling a valid form of transport, and at the same time retaining the fun element.

That's interesting Max...... But are they trying to justify emission regulations for motorcycles?

It's basically saying that just because there are emission regulations on cars that bikes should have them too even though it clearly states a fact that the number of motorcycles in use doesn't warrant any emissions regulations as such and that is why none were introduced before.... Nothing has changed that fact so why introduce regulations that are genuinely not needed for motorcycles? That is of course unless everyone hopped onto a motorcycle as their main form of transport. Lol. Not likely though is it, but is the only situation I would agree on bringing in emission regulations for motorcycles.  ;)

Quote : "MotoGP has allowed the development of systems that will work in the real world and will allow us to keep motorcycling a valid form of transport, and at the same time retaining the fun element."

Haha.... The only truth in that quote is that MotoGP has developed the system, but if you believe  that is the only saving grace to keeping motorcycling a valid and fun form of transport then I hope your going to vote to stay in European Union because you'll love it!  ;D


Hawk.

Quote from: TheFatController on February 20, 2016, 03:34:48 PM
I think the Mayor of Paris has already banned diesels, effective from 2020.. Could be wrong. I know London is thinking of following suit and Delhi is trying to ban the sale of new diesel models..

That I do agree with..... Who on earth promoted diesel engines for cars?? They must be mad! Lol

Hawk.

Quote from: Hawk on February 20, 2016, 06:21:51 PM
That's interesting Max...... But are they trying to justify emission regulations for motorcycles?

It's basically saying that just because there are emission regulations on cars that bikes should have them too even though it clearly states a fact that the number of motorcycles in use doesn't warrant any emissions regulations as such and that is why none were introduced before.... Nothing has changed that fact so why introduce regulations that are genuinely not needed for motorcycles? That is of course unless everyone hopped onto a motorcycle as their main form of transport. Lol. Not likely though is it, but is the only situation I would agree on bringing in emission regulations for motorcycles.  ;)

This is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%". But then I know this more or less how UK works as far as I've seen.

Quote from: Hawk on February 20, 2016, 06:21:51 PM
Haha.... The only truth in that quote is that MotoGP has developed the system, but if you believe  that is the only saving grace to keeping motorcycling a valid and fun form of transport then I hope your going to vote to stay in European Union because you'll love it!  ;D

I have no referendum to vote for. But I'm glad that you'll vote to get out of EU as it has been clear for years that the UK has never really been in the union, but more on the back of it.
Who knows, once out of the EU, maybe you'll have 2s back. In the UK only, of course.

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 06:35:42 PMThis is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%".

The difference is that you are already doing more for the environment by riding a motorcycle instead of moving an additional ton of unnecessary weight, than any car driver can do by getting a newer, greener car that complies with the strict (car) emission laws.


Because I think you misinterpreted my previous comment, here is a different formulation:
What are your arguments against trading less dry weight for more fuel that has to be carried, when we are talking about a theoretical, pure racing series (forget MotoGP!)?

Quote from: vin97 on February 20, 2016, 06:41:09 PM

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 06:35:42 PMThis is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%".

The difference is that you are already doing more for the environment by riding a motorcycle instead of moving an additional ton of unnecessary weight than any car driver who decided to get a completely new and 'green' car.

But speaking for myself, I only use my motorcycle on ~10% of rides that I would have done anyhow (rides to and from work). On ~90% of rides I do hop on my bike just for the fun that's in it and pretty much create a transportation that would not have happened otherwise. So in essence, I also create extra pollution.

Quote from: vin97 on February 20, 2016, 06:41:09 PM

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 06:35:42 PMThis is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%".

The difference is that you are already doing more for the environment by riding a motorcycle instead of moving an additional ton of unnecessary weight than any car driver who decided to get a completely new and 'green' car.

Bikes are much less greener than you think. Check the mileage you can get from a modern car and compare it with the one you get from a modern bike.
Just on fuel consumption, the car likely wins (even with only the driver on board, when there's 1 or more passenger, it's not even worth to compare). Except maybe for very very savvy (i.e. boring) bikes. And even for the same fuel consumption, the emissions of bikes are worse than the ones of cars.

There are some arguments in favour of bikes (less parts to produce/dispose, more fluid circulation), but that's all.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-motorcycle-emissions.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-motorcycle-emissions.html)

Nah, man, motorcycles don't use almost as much fuel as cars (when comparing petrol 4s to petrol 4s).
That's simply not how physics works.
The mileage (just as the emission values) car manufacturers tell you have absolutely nothing to do with the real world.

Stout, this is a bit far fetched since there are also car drivers who use their vehicle just for fun from time to time.
And, as you probably know, this is already illegal in Germany, so emission laws are not the right place to deal with this 'phenomenon' (lol).

But why are there programs in some countries giving benefits to people who buy hybrid or electrics cars but no such thing exists for motorcycles?
Not only do they burn less fuel but it would also dramatically reduce traffic and stress on the infrastructure.

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 06:35:42 PM

Quote from: Hawk on February 20, 2016, 06:21:51 PM
That's interesting Max...... But are they trying to justify emission regulations for motorcycles?

It's basically saying that just because there are emission regulations on cars that bikes should have them too even though it clearly states a fact that the number of motorcycles in use doesn't warrant any emissions regulations as such and that is why none were introduced before.... Nothing has changed that fact so why introduce regulations that are genuinely not needed for motorcycles? That is of course unless everyone hopped onto a motorcycle as their main form of transport. Lol. Not likely though is it, but is the only situation I would agree on bringing in emission regulations for motorcycles.  ;)

This is the same as saying that in a country where 95% of the people are not allowed to steal, the remaining 5% is allowed to steal saying "Hey, we're only 5%". But then I know this more or less how UK works as far as I've seen.

Lol..... NOooo..... What I'm saying is that just because some jumped up EU Parliament says this is how it's going to be doesn't mean we should just sit down and except it when it obviously doesn't make any sense.

But exterminating the none harmful preferences of the minority 5% to satisfy the envy of the majority is spot on the mark when talking about EU parliamentary attitudes. In other words, "If I have to do this then you have to do it too", even if what your doing has no substantially harmful effects whatsoever in comparison to the harm they have to stop.

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 06:35:42 PM

Quote from: Hawk on February 20, 2016, 06:21:51 PM
Haha.... The only truth in that quote is that MotoGP has developed the system, but if you believe  that is the only saving grace to keeping motorcycling a valid and fun form of transport then I hope your going to vote to stay in European Union because you'll love it!  ;D

I have no referendum to vote for. But I'm glad that you'll vote to get out of EU as it has been clear for years that the UK has never really been in the union, but more on the back of it.
Who knows, once out of the EU, maybe you'll have 2s back. In the UK only, of course.

I am indeed going to vote to leave the EU.....  Though no doubt the sheep will follow the wolfs yet again and we'll end up staying inside the EU..... Shame because then I won't get my 2 stroke back. Hehe.

Hawk.

Quote from: vin97 on February 20, 2016, 07:07:32 PM
Nah, man, motorcycles don't use almost as much fuel as cars (when comparing petrol 4s to petrol 4s).
That's simply not how physics works.

My 2007 Hornet never did more than 16Km/litre. It's not much more than what I can do with a car.
But even assuming bikes can do a tad better on fuel mileage, their emissions are no comparison.
And on the car I usually have my 2 kids, back and forth to school and work.

I hate cars (cars below 80KEuros, let's say), but saying that bikes are greener sounds wrong.
If bikes were indeed greener, why are the emissions limitations well behind what we have for cars ?!

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 07:14:13 PM
I hate cars (cars below 80KEuros, let's say)

Can we get married?

Quote from: JamoZ on February 20, 2016, 07:37:18 PM

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 07:14:13 PM
I hate cars (cars below 80KEuros, let's say)

Can we get married?

Depends if the EU allows me polygamy.

Quote from: Hawk on February 20, 2016, 07:09:14 PM
But exterminating the none harmful preferences of the minority 5% to satisfy the envy of the majority is spot on the mark when talking about EU parliamentary attitudes. In other words, "If I have to do this then you have to do it too", even if what your doing has no substantially harmful effects whatsoever in comparison to the harm they have to stop.

According to your reasoning, as there are so few Ferraris and Hummers around, these cars owners (or constructors) could say "WTF ?! We are so few, let's drop the emissions limitations for us and keep them on Fords, Skodas and Fiats". Do you see the problem now ?

Quote from: vin97 on February 20, 2016, 07:07:32 PM
Stout, this is a bit far fetched since there are also car drivers who use their vehicle just for fun from time to time.
And, as you probably know, this is already illegal in Germany, so emission laws are not the right place to deal with this 'phenomenon' (lol).

Maybe some car drivers do that from time to time (I don't, and well probably only those with sexy sports cars really do that), whereas many bike rides are just for fun without a real necessary transportation reason. But whatever, it's not a particular important point of the discussion anyhow...

And it is not punishable. What you mean is the obvious running back and forth (and showing off) on city roads that can be punished in Germany. If I take my bike to the after-work joyride over different roads, then this cannot be punished whatsoever...

Quote from: HornetMaX on February 20, 2016, 07:42:41 PM

Quote from: Hawk on February 20, 2016, 07:09:14 PM
But exterminating the none harmful preferences of the minority 5% to satisfy the envy of the majority is spot on the mark when talking about EU parliamentary attitudes. In other words, "If I have to do this then you have to do it too", even if what your doing has no substantially harmful effects whatsoever in comparison to the harm they have to stop.

According to your reasoning, as there are so few Ferraris and Hummers around, these cars owners (or constructors) could say "WTF ?! We are so few, let's drop the emissions limitations for us and keep them on Fords, Skodas and Fiats". Do you see the problem now ?

Hmmm.... Okay. No that's not my reasoning at all......

It's obvious that with so many 4 wheeled vehicles driven in this world that their exhaust emissions are going to have a major effect on air quality; and a car is a car whether it's a Ferrari or whatever. But you want to include motorcycles into that category and treat them all the same because your breaking it right down to the direct source of polluting exhaust emissions, whether it be a car or a bike, your saying both have a combustion engine so all of them should be emission restricted. Am I right?

Looking at it seriously you do have a valid point if your looking at it from that particular point of view. But I think comparing individual makes of cars with motorcycle owners is pushing the comparisons a little too far. I mean you could break down any modern object to it's source of pollution, be that in it's use or manufacture. So should we start restricting the use of everything for fear of using it?
We just need to get things into perspective instead of looking at things in black and white and making cold decisions without taking into account the comparative harm they are doing.

Believe me,  I can see your point of view, and Stouts.  It doesn't mean I have to agree with it. That's why in politics it's so difficult to come to any compromise or agreements between nations.  Differing opinions, differing points of view, not because they don't understand were your coming from. :)

Hawk.

Some people pollute the air just by opening their mouth, lol (Disclaimer-its a joke)

Aaannnndddd they raped it...

(http://i.imgur.com/0kVixH1.jpg)

What the fuck is this shit....

Quote from: matty0l215 on May 25, 2016, 11:09:46 PM
Aaannnndddd they raped it...

(http://i.imgur.com/0kVixH1.jpg)

What the fuck is this shit....

Noooo! But i still want one no matter what colors they paint it :D