No replacement for displacement!

[doubledragoncc]

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. 

DD

[Stout Johnson]

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?

[WALKEN]

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

[Hawk]

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.

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 

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.

[WALKEN]

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. 

[h106frp]

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 

[Hawk]

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. 

Hawk.

[h106frp]

Would sound pretty awesome as well

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

[Stout Johnson]

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.

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   guess you would make a great politician Hawk 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.

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

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 

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.

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.

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.

[Hawk]

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!! 

Hawk.

[WALKEN]

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 

[Vini]

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.

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.

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 

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.

obviously 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.....

[BOBR6 84]

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 

[Vini]

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

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.

[Stout Johnson]

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.

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.

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.

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.