No replacement for displacement!

[HornetMaX]

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 ...

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.

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.

[Vini]

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.

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).

[WALKEN]

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 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. 
     

[HornetMaX]

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 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 ?

[WALKEN]

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. 

[HornetMaX]

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.

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 ?

[WALKEN]

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?

[HornetMaX]

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.

[WALKEN]

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

[HornetMaX]

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.

[Stout Johnson]

Nice overall summary MaX. In my role as the peacekeeper here  , 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. 

[HornetMaX]

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 ?]

[Hawk]

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.

[Stout Johnson]

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... 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; 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 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 

From what I hear though, there are concepts 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.

[WALKEN]

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.