MotoGP top speeds over the years.

[Cracker]

So, Kenny was scared and decided it was better if no-one rode the class - not just him?

Sounds American ........ so maybe it's true .......

[Epilot]

2T/4T it doesn’t matter, technology wins every time. The latest are always the fastest (sorry 5002T fans) but that’s just the way it is.

[Bensien]

On a MotoGP bike, top speed is not all that important. For every track, bikes are geared to produce the fastest lap time, not the highest speed at the end of the main straight. Highest top speed does also not necessarily mean that you can close distance on the straight. Even in drag racing, the losing car sometimes posts a higher terminal speed, but the winning car had better acceleration initially and opened up a gap that was too big to close.

[Epilot]

Quote, top speed is not all that important.

Tell that to the dude who is doing 20km/ph less than the rest of the field.

[Sheepman]

2T/4T it doesn’t matter, technology wins every time. The latest are always the fastest (sorry 5002T fans) but that’s just the way it is.

You miss the point - its not about 4t vs 2t its about top speeds over the years ( and later lap times ) - the 2 vs 4t spieel was just a bit of a googly from Sidetrack 
Of course bikes, like most other things, evolve and nobody lives in the past, yet besides all the evolution and good things, there is a lot of institutional knowledge here about where Moto GP comes from.
And, like it dont like it - those early smokers ripped for their time 

[Bensien]

Quote, top speed is not all that important.

Tell that to the dude who is doing 20km/ph less than the rest of the field.
[/quote

Please go back and read carefully. I did not say top speed is irrelevant. I said that the highest top speed does not necessarily mean the fastest lap time.

[Epilot]

@ bensien, I do get your point,  just stirring, a hp 2 will have a higher top speed than a moto gp bike, but the lap time will be crap.

[TheBear]

On a MotoGP bike, top speed is not all that important. For every track, bikes are geared to produce the fastest lap time, not the highest speed at the end of the main straight. Highest top speed does also not necessarily mean that you can close distance on the straight. Even in drag racing, the losing car sometimes posts a higher terminal speed, but the winning car had better acceleration initially and opened up a gap that was too big to close.

It is an extremely delicate balancing act and it differs from track to track.  At Mugello top speed would be more important than at Motegi, for instance and so, bike setup is critical.  There is no use for an extra 10km/h top speed, if you lose that advantage and more under braking and acceleration in the first corner.  Of course, if you can get the extra 10km/h and not ;loose the advantage then you are in the pound seats.  . 

@ bensien, I do get your point,  just stirring, a hp 2 will have a higher top speed than a moto gp bike, but the lap time will be crap.

HP2?  You will have 2SD barfing in his cornflakes, unless you meant H2R?   

[TheBear]

2T/4T it doesn’t matter, technology wins every time. The latest are always the fastest (sorry 5002T fans) but that’s just the way it is.

You miss the point - its not about 4t vs 2t its about top speeds over the years ( and later lap times ) - the 2 vs 4t spieel was just a bit of a googly from Sidetrack 
Of course bikes, like most other things, evolve and nobody lives in the past, yet besides all the evolution and good things, there is a lot of institutional knowledge here about where Moto GP comes from.
And, like it dont like it - those early smokers ripped for their time 

You are correct.  It is not about 2T versus 4T, albeit an interesting discussion as well.  It show the technology jumps.  The 800's were faster than the 990's.  That doesn't mean smaller is faster.  What it does show is how technology jumped, not just in terms of engines, but also tyres, brakes, suspensions, etc..

The 2 smokes did rip and one wonders, if the technology jumps we have seen with the modern 4T engine also happened with 2T engines, where they would have been.today. 

What I would have loved to know :

Compare 1999 with 2017 and we see that the 1999 smoker was 5.8 seconds a lap slower at Mugello than the 2017 4T.  That would be just around 2.5 minutes for the whole race.  What is the cost difference between the 1999 bike and team and the 2017 bike and team, i.e. what does that 2.5 gained minutes actually cost?

[Epilot]

 Sorry bear I meant that green Japanese bike, but what is interesting is the moto2 bikes are lapping faster than the old 500s, and there top speed is nearly 40ks off the pace. It just shows how tyres and suspension have improved over the years.

[2StrokeDan]

2T/4T it doesn’t matter, technology wins every time. The latest are always the fastest (sorry 5002T fans) but that’s just the way it is.

Technology wins every time, for sure, so put a modern 500cc 4stroke up against a modern 500cc 2stroke, both using the latest in chassis development.

The 2stroke engine do have double the combustion strokes, but it also have only half the 4strokes power stroke.

The way the fuel is carried from carb through transfer ports to combustion chamber, also limits the 2strokes' ability to rev as well as a 4stroke.

Yet, an equal size 2stroke will always beat a 4stroke.

In fact, I don't thinkyou can find a modern 350 4stroke to even beat a 1983 Yamaha RD 350.

But don't worry, the 4strokes are really good too, and actually much more usable over a wide range of applications.

[TheBear]

Sorry bear I meant that green Japanese bike, but what is interesting is the moto2 bikes are lapping faster than the old 500s, and there top speed is nearly 40ks off the pace. It just shows how tyres and suspension have improved over the years.

Indeed.  Tyres, brakes and suspension made huge improvements over the years.  I think way more than we realise.  Keep in mind, this is Mugello with a heck of a long straight.  WOuld love to make a comparison with on of the tracks with a very short straight, like Motegi.  The issue is finding a track that has not changed between 1999 and now.  Mugello is one of few..

2T/4T it doesn’t matter, technology wins every time. The latest are always the fastest (sorry 5002T fans) but that’s just the way it is.

Technology wins every time, for sure, so put a modern 500cc 4stroke up against a modern 500cc 2stroke, both using the latest in chassis development.

It would be interesting seeing a 1999 2T 500 on a 2017 frame, suspension and brakes, with all the added engine management that could work on a 2T. 

The way I see it, the massive jump in tech came in tyres, suspension, frame and brakes.  Upgrade a 1999 500 with this and then compare.  I reckon they would be right there..

[Suzukli DL]

It would be interesting seeing a 1999 2T 500 on a 2017 frame, suspension and brakes, with all the added engine management that could work on a 2T.

The way I see it, the massive jump in tech came in tyres, suspension, frame and brakes.  Upgrade a 1999 500 with this and then compare.  I reckon they would be right there..

Interesting concept and I understand what you mean but the reality is that the entire package is built with synergy in mind and it would not work. Also, I fear that even with improved emission control on modern 2T's to comply with the tree huggers a complete build of a 2T MotoGp bike would be prohibitively expensive as R&D would have to start from scratch. Just my opinion though.

[sidetrack]

Sorry bear I meant that green Japanese bike, but what is interesting is the moto2 bikes are lapping faster than the old 500s, and there top speed is nearly 40ks off the pace. It just shows how tyres and suspension have improved over the years.

Indeed.  Tyres, brakes and suspension made huge improvements over the years.  I think way more than we realise.  Keep in mind, this is Mugello with a heck of a long straight.  WOuld love to make a comparison with on of the tracks with a very short straight, like Motegi.  The issue is finding a track that has not changed between 1999 and now.  Mugello is one of few..

2T/4T it doesn’t matter, technology wins every time. The latest are always the fastest (sorry 5002T fans) but that’s just the way it is.

Technology wins every time, for sure, so put a modern 500cc 4stroke up against a modern 500cc 2stroke, both using the latest in chassis development.

It would be interesting seeing a 1999 2T 500 on a 2017 frame, suspension and brakes, with all the added engine management that could work on a 2T. 

The way I see it, the massive jump in tech came in tyres, suspension, frame and brakes.  Upgrade a 1999 500 with this and then compare.  I reckon they would be right there..

I don't think so a 2T is inherently more difficult to ride. It would take a really good rider to make the most of it. All the older MotoGP riders will tell you that.

[TheBear]

Sorry bear I meant that green Japanese bike, but what is interesting is the moto2 bikes are lapping faster than the old 500s, and there top speed is nearly 40ks off the pace. It just shows how tyres and suspension have improved over the years.

Indeed.  Tyres, brakes and suspension made huge improvements over the years.  I think way more than we realise.  Keep in mind, this is Mugello with a heck of a long straight.  WOuld love to make a comparison with on of the tracks with a very short straight, like Motegi.  The issue is finding a track that has not changed between 1999 and now.  Mugello is one of few..

2T/4T it doesn’t matter, technology wins every time. The latest are always the fastest (sorry 5002T fans) but that’s just the way it is.

Technology wins every time, for sure, so put a modern 500cc 4stroke up against a modern 500cc 2stroke, both using the latest in chassis development.

It would be interesting seeing a 1999 2T 500 on a 2017 frame, suspension and brakes, with all the added engine management that could work on a 2T. 

The way I see it, the massive jump in tech came in tyres, suspension, frame and brakes.  Upgrade a 1999 500 with this and then compare.  I reckon they would be right there..

I don't think so a 2T is inherently more difficult to ride. It would take a really good rider to make the most of it. All the older MotoGP riders will tell you that.

It is not so much about a 2T versus a 4T, but rather about 17 years of development in technology.  Any 1999 bike will be more difficult to ride, if compared to its 2017 cousin. 

[2StrokeDan]

A 300 enduro bike is much easier to ride than a 450 4stroke.

The 500 GP bikes was difficult to ride simply because they are inherently 4 x 125cc high performance engines. Peaky as hell.

But make a 1000cc V4 2stroke, and you'll have a much more rideable bike, despite the power being more, because your powerband gets spread much wider.

[Rough Rider]

Its all about traction control; take that away and the gap will close significantly

[TheBear]

Its all about traction control; take that away and the gap will close significantly

Traction control must make a huge difference, but I believe other electronics  tyres, brakes and suspension also makes a huge difference.

[ktmmer]

A 300 enduro bike is much easier to ride than a 450 4stroke.

The 500 GP bikes was difficult to ride simply because they are inherently 4 x 125cc high performance engines. Peaky as hell.

But make a 1000cc V4 2stroke, and you'll have a much more rideable bike, despite the power being more, because your powerband gets spread much wider.

[/b][/size]

Imagine that !

[KiLRoy]

Modern Moto3 1 cyl 250 vs the best 1cyl 250 2stroke?