to reality

[JJS209]

but i think marcquez would ride a 500cc in his own style, not in the old rider style.

[HornetMaX]

It has more to do with the tires than the bike actually.

Well, tyres are a (major) part of the bike for me. Anyway, I'd also give a fair share of what MM can do today to electronics and engines too: you don't lean that much without being 100% sure that there's no sudden torque increase when you pass 10,000 RPMs and without being 100% sure that the TC can warn you clearly and reliably that you're at the very limit.

One of the reasons we see what we see is that today's bikes do warn a lot more than bikes from 20 yrs ago. You can feel the limit without the need of being a totally crazy cowboy ready to have your bones shattered at each turn exit.

MaX.

[Hawk]

It has more to do with the tires than the bike actually.

Well, tyres are a (major) part of the bike for me. Anyway, I'd also give a fair share of what MM can do today to electronics and engines too: you don't lean that much without being 100% sure that there's no sudden torque increase when you pass 10,000 RPMs and without being 100% sure that the TC can warn you clearly and reliably that you're at the very limit.

One of the reasons we see what we see is that today's bikes do warn a lot more than bikes from 20 yrs ago. You can feel the limit without the need of being a totally crazy cowboy ready to have your bones shattered at each turn exit.

MaX.

Well said Max! 
It's the one reason I would rather support Classic bike racing because I don't feel that modern MotoGP riders are true racers nowadays(Oooo... That should get tongues wagging! LOL). That is not the fault of the riders of course, just the stupid governing body allowing the developers to go way too far in my opinion. Now unfortunately it's almost pull the trigger and just hang on riding. 
Okay so I'm exaggerating a touch, but only about as much as modern riders get a helping hand from todays technology. 

Having said that, I still watch MotoGP and I'm a big supporter of it. But I do wish they would go back to the 500cc 2 stroke bikes.... SO much more exciting to watch. 

Okay Max, I'll shut up now.... I know I'm like an old record.... But I can't help hoping for sense to prevail and a return to the spectacular 2 stroke bikes. 


Hawk.
PS: Would love to see a classic race between not only Rossi and Marquez, but just to put the whole of a todays grid of Moto GP riders on the Classic 500cc 2 stroke GP bikes and see how they faired?! That would be one hell of an event, even if only a one off event for the fans.

[WALKEN]

"Hawk.
PS: Would love to see a classic race between not only Rossi and Marquez, but just to put the whole of a todays grid of Moto GP riders on the Classic 500cc 2 stroke GP bikes and see how they faired?! That would be one hell of an event, even if only a one off event for the fans. "



There is no replacement for displacement!

How about they all get on 750cc triples, that is how I always felt when the 990's came on the scene against the 500's. 2 stroke forever!   

[Hawk]

"Hawk.
PS: Would love to see a classic race between not only Rossi and Marquez, but just to put the whole of a todays grid of Moto GP riders on the Classic 500cc 2 stroke GP bikes and see how they faired?! That would be one hell of an event, even if only a one off event for the fans. "



There is no replacement for displacement!

How about they all get on 750cc triples, that is how I always felt when the 990's came on the scene against the 500's. 2 stroke forever!

Absolutely! +1 on that WALKEN! 

It was such an unfair change over from the 2 strokes to four stroke machines. Seems they were going to make sure that the public would except the change over better by showing how competitive the 800cc or 990cc 4 stroke machines were over the 500cc machines. It was such a stupid comparison by FIM to have made...... I don't think it would've ever have been excepted had a 500cc 4 stroke been put on the plate for the change over to 4 stroke machines because the 500cc machine would've blown them into the wind. Lol

I've heard it said the change over was because of exhaust emissions, I say, "What a load of CROCK!". Any race event is not going to make that much a difference to air quality of the planet that warrants a change to a cleaner emission machine at the expense of the spectacle of the event. Now they've virtually done the same mistake with bringing in the new hybrid F1 engines.... Just doesn't sound right and destroys the spectacle of F1. Even the teams are now wanting to go back to normally aspirated F1 engines because of the complexity and expense of these new hybrid engines. I hope the governing body see's sense for once.
But it's the same for the bikes in that the 2 stroke engine is a simpler engine and a lot less expensive to produce than the 4 stroke machines, so yeah I think at the time there was a lot of backroom back handers going off there between particularly Honda(Who've always wanted to produce 4 stroke machines rather than the 2 stroke bikes) and high rank FIM board members to ram through the change no matter what.

We are now left with a situation in MotoGP which would be like riding GPBikes with all the aids switched on! And I don't know any rider here on the forum that would want to ride GPBikes in that way. Yet a lot of the younger members of the community seem to like the way MotoGP is now in the Modern era..... That just doesn't compute in my mind.

Let's get back to real motorcycle racing I say!  Let's go back to the 2 strokes!

Okay.... I'll get off my soap-box before I get told to shut up. Hehe 

Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

Hawk, I do get you're deeply in love with 2 strokes and I respect that, but your arguments above are weak.

The switch to 4 strokes was motivated by emissions, but not because racing on 4 strokes would save the planet, but because 2 strokes were to progressively disappear from commercial road bikes. There was no point in keeping 2 strokes in competition only. The death of 2 strokes for road bikes was already planned worldwide. Keeping the racing on 2 strokes would have made little sense.

Also, don't buy the argument "a 2 stroke is cheaper": this may be relevant for lower classes (125, moto3) where budget is an issue. For motogp it's totally a non-issue. Honda/Yam/Suz would invest the exact same budget in a 2-strokes motogp, even if that would mean sand the cylinders with mars-powder (mars the planet, not the chocolate bar).

Displacement: the 500 vs 990 was dictated by the way engines work. Before going live with 4 strokes, nobody could have had a very precise idea of what was the correct displacement to have "a 4 stroke that goes as fast as a 2 stroke", hence the choice that, at the time, made sense (990). Notice also that the "There is no replacement for displacement!" is not always true. They went down from 990 to 800, but then back to 990 because the 800 were *faster* in the turns. But 2 strokes were to disappear anyway. so nobody really cared.

The aids argument: it doesn't seem to me that with the aids the field is level ... if it was as easy as you say to ride with the aids, we'd have 25 marquez aligned and 100 more in line for a seat. We know that's not the case.

To me the thing that really really sucks at the moment is that they allow engine/bike real-time tuning depending on the position of the bike on the track. This is utter non-sense, from any point of view: useless on road bikes, no advantage in terms of safety, brings nothing to the spectator ... I can't understand why the hell it is permitted ... maybe it's hard to enforce the ban, but that wouldn't be a good reason not to ban it ...

I don't think today's motogp races are less spectacular than 500cc races. I enojoy both periods, each at his own time. But time moves forward. That's why we have "classic bike" races Go have your 2 strokes shot there

MaX.

[BOBR6 84]

Its almost like who can trust the bike more.. The bike knows where it is on the track, how much TC and power to deliver.. Scarey lol. Especially if it malfunctions...

[Hawk]

Hawk, I do get you're deeply in love with 2 strokes and I respect that, but your arguments above are weak.

The switch to 4 strokes was motivated by emissions, but not because racing on 4 strokes would save the planet, but because 2 strokes were to progressively disappear from commercial road bikes. There was no point in keeping 2 strokes in competition only. The death of 2 strokes for road bikes was already planned worldwide. Keeping the racing on 2 strokes would have made little sense.

Give me a good reason they decided to kill the 2 stroke road bike market? I cannot see any good reason they decided to do this.

Also, don't buy the argument "a 2 stroke is cheaper": this may be relevant for lower classes (125, moto3) where budget is an issue. For motogp it's totally a non-issue. Honda/Yam/Suz would invest the exact same budget in a 2-strokes motogp, even if that would mean sand the cylinders with mars-powder (mars the planet, not the chocolate bar).

Granted and agreed... Teams would spend the same today even if they were still 2 stroke.

Displacement: the 500 vs 990 was dictated by the way engines work. Before going live with 4 strokes, nobody could have had a very precise idea of what was the correct displacement to have "a 4 stroke that goes as fast as a 2 stroke", hence the choice that, at the time, made sense (990). Notice also that the "There is no replacement for displacement!" is not always true. They went down from 990 to 800, but then back to 990 because the 800 were *faster* in the turns. But 2 strokes were to disappear anyway. so nobody really cared.

That's exactly what myself and Walken are talking about: Why didn't they make change with a same 500cc 4 stroke? Because the 500cc 4 stroke was not quick enough to compete with the 500cc 2 stroke bikes, therefore the transition in public eyes would've been seen as a nonsense, so they unfairly decided to make the 500 compete with the 990 and 800 cc bikes.... Why didn't they allow, as WALKEN stated above, the two stroke bikes of at least 750cc and then let the public decide what they wanted to see in the GP's?? To me it was a manufacturer/FIM political decision rammed through by the likes of Honda(who at the time and still are a very powerful influence in the politics of motorcycle racing); it's well known that at the time Honda were desperate to move to 4 stroke bikes. They would've succeeded earlier in the eighties if they had there way, but they couldn't make a 500cc 4 stroke strong enough or fast enough to compete at the highest levels, but seems they got their way eventually. 

The aids argument: it doesn't seem to me that with the aids the field is level ... if it was as easy as you say to ride with the aids, we'd have 25 marquez aligned and 100 more in line for a seat. We know that's not the case.

I did say I was exaggerating about the aids making things SO easy for modern riders, but it's undeniable that riders have probably lost that ability to ride a motorcycle from the seat of their pants these days. This is why I would be seriously interested in these guys racing in a classic GP event just to see how they'd compare with the likes of Rossi, Lawson, Gardner, Doohan, Roberts, Sheene, Spencer, Mamola, etc, etc. I'm sure Rossi would still have the muscle memory left from the 2 stroke era.

To me the thing that really really sucks at the moment is that they allow engine/bike real-time tuning depending on the position of the bike on the track. This is utter non-sense, from any point of view: useless on road bikes, no advantage in terms of safety, brings nothing to the spectator ... I can't understand why the hell it is permitted ... maybe it's hard to enforce the ban, but that wouldn't be a good reason not to ban it ...

Absolutely agree on this point. It's a disgraceful decision to allow such a thing and can on detract from the sports integrity in the eyes of the true fans of motorcycle racing.

I don't think today's motogp races are less spectacular than 500cc races. I enojoy both periods, each at his own time. But time moves forward. That's why we have "classic bike" races Go have your 2 strokes shot there

MaX.

When I say less of a spectacle, what I mean is that although we still have great races in the modern era of MotoGP, we all know that they are using advanced aids to ride the bikes like they do, so that heroism and respect that you could truly associate with the classic riders just isn't  there for me personally. Yes of course they are good riders, all of them, but to me giving aids to a rider like they do is a form of cheating the fans, a façade.... You might as well watch them playing MotoGP 2014 on your TV screen.... that's just as false an image as you get these days compared to the raw skill, talent and spectacle the classic GP guys gave us.

Yes I do feel very strongly about the way they rammed the 4 strokes through into taking over from the 2 strokes because it was a political decision taken from the pressure of Honda. The demise of the 2 stroke road bikes was in my opinion manufactured to add to the weight of the argument for change.... Honda finally found a way to get there way after a decade or more of trying, and they did it in the very same way that politicians con the public into going to wars that are not justified. You can get people to accept the destruction of anything if you can make it their enemy. They conned everyone to get their own way, I've no doubt about that.

Of course I realise that there will never be a change back to the 2 strokes no matter how much I and many other fans would like this to happen, but when you realise the real reasons they made the change.... Well to me it's an absolute tragedy, and look were it's led us, to a definite mockery of modern Motorcycle Racing in comparison to the classic years.


Hawk.

[Hawk]

Its almost like who can trust the bike more.. The bike knows where it is on the track, how much TC and power to deliver.. Scarey lol. Especially if it malfunctions...

Good point Bob! Absolutely.... I wouldn't like to trust a computer with my life in such a life or death situation. I'm surprised someone hasn't used a device to disrupt the controls on these bikes before now.... I'm sure some idiot will before too long.

Hawk.

[WALKEN]

Anybody who has twisted the grip on a coffee can piston 500cc 2 stroke only understands the reality of it. 

4 strokes are for Harleys and tractors.  Sure any race engine can be made fast with torque and power hence the high revving 4 stroke race bikes. Politics are for sure the plot behind getting rid of 2 stroke tech.

Food for thought- why is the meanest outboard (Etec) a 2 stroke? Fuel injected 2 strokes are way different than an old carb yz125.  I'm all for technology and evolution but front wheel rice burners and 4 stroke bikes/snowmobiles/quads are meh IMO.  I use to own 2 Suzuki LT500r quadracers and there is no quad on the market that would even come close in stock form, ever!  Nothing.  When it started to walk away with you all you could do was hold on.   I also owned a Polaris 600cc triple 2 stroke and that thing on hard packed snow was unbelievable. Any 4 stroke I have ridden was roll on power which a 500cc 2 stroke can grunt with roll on power and not have to stay pinned. I also like the sling shot effect of a 2 stroke that a 4 stroke can not give you for that last minute snap needed to send you off a lip or snap your rear in place...

I don't care if your a fan of either or, 2 strokes are in many ways better, not even open for debate.  Why is 4 stroke tech always trying to match that of 2 stroke?  I rest my case.       

[HornetMaX]

Give me a good reason they decided to kill the 2 stroke road bike market? I cannot see any good reason they decided to do this.

Emissions: that matters for road bikes.

That's exactly what myself and Walken are talking about: Why didn't they make change with a same 500cc 4 stroke? Because the 500cc 4 stroke was not quick enough to compete with the 500cc 2 stroke bikes, therefore the transition in public eyes would've been seen as a nonsense, so they unfairly decided to make the 500 compete with the 990 and 800 cc bikes.... Why didn't they allow, as WALKEN stated above, the two stroke bikes of at least 750cc and then let the public decide what they wanted to see in the GP's?? To me it was a manufacturer/FIM political decision rammed through by the likes of Honda(who at the time and still are a very powerful influence in the politics of motorcycle racing); it's well known that at the time Honda were desperate to move to 4 stroke bikes. They would've succeeded earlier in the eighties if they had there way, but they couldn't make a 500cc 4 stroke strong enough or fast enough to compete at the highest levels, but seems they got their way eventually. 

It's very simple: a 4 stroke engine has 1 combustion (phase during which thrust is generated) each 2 revolutions; a 2 stroke engine has one combustion each revolution. Hence the 1:2 ratio (500cc 2 stroke vs 1000cc 4 strokes). For the same RPMs, a 4 stroke with displacement 2*X is roughly (very roughly) as powerful as a 2 strokes with displacement X.

As simple as that. No secret reasoning, no hidden agenda. But people still like to put the anti-2-strokes conspiracy theory on the table ...

Honda was for 4 strokes because, as largest road bike manufacturer, they saw no interest in continuing with 2 strokes when road bike were planned to go 4 strokes anyway.
It's not like Honda was having too much trouble winning in the 500cc 2 strokes class if I recall correctly.

But you're still missing the point: even if 500cc or 750cc 2 strokes were faster than 1000cc 4 strokes, 2 strokes would have had to go anyway. It was the plan from the beginning: they just let some teams race with 2 strokes for an interim period. It's not as if the faster of the two was to be kept.

2 strokes are good today, in some very specific applications. But for road bikes ... well, no, they aren't. For cars they aren't neither.

I don't care if your a fan of either or, 2 strokes are in many ways better, not even open for debate.

Oh well ... OK then, there's a big conspiracy of 4 strokes lovers that is preventing us to enjoy the pleasures of 2 strokes ... the 4th-stroke Reich maybe ... or an illuminati thing, now that I think about it, 2 is prime and 4 is not so maybe there's some deeper meaning to all this ... gonna ask one of my friends, as soon as he stops working on chemtrails ...

MaX.

[WALKEN]

2 strokes have reeds and ports for fuel mixture. 4 strokes have valves that need to be adjusted with springs and rods etc...

Not sure what the point is to be honest? "To reality" is the thread title, this is reality-      http://www.brp.com/en-us/innovation/eco-performance-technologies/2-stroke-engines

Personally I enjoy the power delivery a 2 stroke offers, whether or not MotoGP ever raced 2 strokes again isn't really a huge concern to me. I'm also ok with change and have no ill feeling towards MotoGP's direction.

I do know one thing though, if "I" was to buy a fun machine it would be a 2 stroke-    http://www.cyclenews.com/412/24543/Racing-Article/First-Look--2015-KTM-SX-Two-Stroke-Motocrossers.aspx   street tires on that would be fun.   Funny how its 2015 and they are still producing 2 strokes, it will come back around.

No offence   

[HornetMaX]

Not sure what the point is to be honest? "To reality" is the thread title, this is reality-      http://www.brp.com/en-us/innovation/eco-performance-technologies/2-stroke-engines

Or maybe the reality is that we have no road bike 2 strokes around (road bikes I mean, there're indeed some 2s for cross/enduro and they are good at that).

Every 3-4 years a new company pops up trying to convince the world they have a great 2 strokes that will change us all. But they tend to last just that, 3-4 years.

In fact I think the 2-strokes aficionados would have better chances asking something else: instead of asking for a 2 strokes, they could ask for a 4-strokes that tries (as much as possible) to behave like a 2 strokes. Something with a narrow powerband, zero torque in the low rpms, a very steep raise of torque when entering the powerband etc. That would be a poorly designed 4 strokes, but probably it would give what some seem to love. Smoke and smell could be fake, if requested

MaX.

P.S.
From your BRP link: read carefully where they describe the 600 and 800R 2s engines. They're just saying that they are better than other 2 strokes:

• consume 11.3 l/100 km (20.8 mpg) which is lower than any other two-stroke engine in the industry,
• have virtually no smoke or smell with the lowest oil consumption of any two-stroke engine in the industry; 50% less in comparison to current models in the market,
• the best emission rating in the industry for a two-stroke engine according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[BOBR6 84]

I like both but 4 strokes are more user friendly so I guess thats another reason why they rule now?

Racing tech trickles down to road bikes that they need to sell.. If road bikes were 2 stroke 500 beasts with a brutal powerband.. Biking on roads would probably be banned by now anyway lol

[BOBR6 84]

Anyway 2stroke racing still lives on...

Get yourselves over to the isle of man for the classic TT!
its no parade.. Bruce anstey set a new lap record on the yzr500 last year! Same machinery as the past legends used so it counted as a new 2stroke 500 lap record