Ten Years of MotoGP History- Four-Stroke GP Bikes

Ten Years of MotoGP A decade of four-stroke GP machines.

November 1, 2012 By Kevin Cameron 9 Comments
Photographer : Gold & Goose

MotoGP began with great fanfare and high expectations. Because of the magical words “four-stroke,” many believed a flood of Formula One-like money would pour into the series, big teams would materialize from thin air and all would be sweetness and light.

Fortunately, the rapid decrease in lap times distracted people from what would otherwise have been disillusion. Four-strokes, with their ability to deliver modulated power from first throttle movement, allowed riders to begin acceleration much sooner than they had been able with the more brutal two-stroke 500s. Lap records fell and have been falling ever since.

Honda, whose 2002 RC211V prototype had been nearly unrideable in early testing, fought back to dominate the field with smooth, controllable power. Yamaha and Suzuki battled self-imposed demons as they struggled with ambitious clutch/throttle/shift systems. Engine braking was a new problem, causing many crashes as dragging back wheels slid, lost direction and began to oscillate violently side-to-side.

Ducati shocked the hierarchy by arriving in the series with high power and top speed in 2003, putting both of its bikes on the front row at Jerez, getting a second at Mugello and winning at the fourth event in Barcelona.

Valentino Rossi, feeling undervalued at hardware-centered Honda (our bikes win races, not our riders), went to Yamaha for 2004. Honda replied to Ducati’s power with more of its own, making the RC-Vs harder on tires and harder to ride, thereby helping Rossi to a third MotoGP title.

1 2 3 4 5Next

http://twitter.com/WilCon76 William Connor

Good story all around. I am probably in the minority with my next statement. I believe WSBK is the better show, the better series and truthfully should be the top racing series. Let’s let real riders, ride real bikes. This year saw Ducati, Kawasaki, Aprilia, BMW, and Honda win in WSBK with Suzuki taking podiums. That is every manufacturer in the series with a podium finish and all but one with multiple wins. With twice as many manufacturers as MotoGP that is saying something.

stoner

I’m with you William. I’m a big motogp fan, but it sucks so completly latey I just can’t hang. WSBK is where it’s at.

Ransom

Prototypes of what? I’d rather see them be the ultimate expression of what a bike I might want to ride could be. The artificial fuel limits, the stratospheric revs, the corner-specific electronics… These require expenses to do development dubiously useful to building sporting production motorcycles.

I’d also love to see a reduction in the number of tire compounds available, thus requiring that each be capable of use over a much wider range of conditions. Yes, these will be slower tires. But they should spit fewer people off, and for the show, they should allow a broader variety of chassis to work. After all, isn’t one of Ducati’s issues (and previously Suzuki’s) that they simply couldn’t get the front tires up to a working temperature? Well, not “simply”…
bikerferlife

Thanks Kevin, great story as always. I have been riding, racing and building bikes for over 30 years and have followed MotoGP with great interest over most of those years. The only racing series’ I care about are MotoGP and much lesser, F1. The rest are just ‘diesels’ to quote a famous ex champ. If This CRT movement takes over and prototypes are no longer on the grid, I will with great and utter sadness no longer have any interest in the series. I pray this does not come to be.
Andrew Horton

Kevin, Some points to consider.

Ducati’s performance advantage in the first two years of the 800cc/21litres fuel formula is often attributed to “Ducati’s new Ferrari-inspired electronics allowed him to “just snap open the grip and let the system handle it.”” This is only half of the story as the valve spring engines of the Japanese had much greater internal energy losses (crucial in a fuel economy formula like 800cc MotoGP) not only under full throttle but more importantly in the modes away from full throttle. A valve-spring engines energy losses are related to revs, not throttle position so the fuel consumption penalty is proportionally higher in part throttle situations. With these bikes at 100% throttle for only 30 to 40 % of a lap this is significant. Under breaking when with all the manufactures using fly-by-wire electronics to reduce engine breaking (butterflies open, fuel-in) the valve spring engines consume much more fuel. All this fuel hoarded by Ducatis energy efficient desmo engines this way was able to be used for acceleration down the next straight.
As you said forks in the road are often unseen and the 800cc/21litre rules handed Ducati with its traditional desmo system an unexpected early advantage only nullified by the switch of the others to hideously expensive pneumatic valves.

The other point to ponder that the “Petit Prix” future is not just a function of the restrictive current engine rules ( 1000cc 4-cylinder only 21 liters vs 2002 990cc unlimited fuel with twins triples fours & even a V5) but chassis diversity is stunted by the control tyre concept. For example Ducati’s carbon subframe chassis idea cannot be dismissed as a failure because tyres could not be developed to explore the concepts potential. As for something as exciting as the elf project? Forget it.

Moto2 with its control engine, ECU & tyres is a warning on more than one level. On the one hand chassis design has stagnated with the paradigm of a twin-spar monoshock & fork chassis in place. Prototype racing it is not. On the other hand its an entertaining class with real racing where the rider & the crew chief make all the difference.

MotoGP? With the current control tyre rules & with all the “prototyping” being done (unsighted by the spectators) in the electronics MotoGP is expensive & adrift. CRT will not kill MotoGP. Get rid of fuel tank limits & the control ECU will kill costs, not racing. But most of all if “prototyping” means design experimentation get rid of the control tyre & give us the chance of chassis innovation.

BTW Casey Stoner rode for LCR Honda in 2006, not Gresini.
jfc1

“For example Ducati’s carbon subframe chassis idea cannot be dismissed as a failure because tyres could not be developed to explore the concepts potential”

LOL you could say that about all rules. They prevent participants from reaching their “potential”. That’s the tradeoff you make by having rules. In this case Ducati made a tradeoff that switching away from the CF frame was better than trying to convince the powers that be to spend money in developing an optimized tire for a carbon-framed bike *after*, you know, they had already developed the frame and brought it to the track, yes? Or maybe they should have played round-robin until they found a rider who could win with it…plus whatever other changes would compliment the frame?

I guess that’s why Stoner is retiring now

seriously any change they make to keep costs under control are obviously going to have an effect on engineering, development and performance. That’s the whole point: short of a brilliant new idea that’s not expensive, teams will simply buy fractions of a second through outrageously expensive design, fabrication and materials. They still can have The Luck of Ben Spies so they now need to spend money for “redundancy”.

And ultimately the racing becomes all about the money.

jfc1

…simple question: are bikes 2.5x better in performance compared to 1980 as to now, to match the 2.5x increase in price due to inflation?

rohorn

This is great reading before picking up the December issue and reading Kevin’s “Hall Of Mirrors” article.
That Weirdo

Great article as always Mr. Cameron. Whenever road racing is spoken of however, the money vs. common man access problems always seem to be the key issue. Cinderella stories never happen to heavy money racing, and technological advancement doesn’t come if finance is not there. . .there’s the yin/yang or east/west of it all. Curse this bipolar world!

After reading this post, I’m reminded of a Monty Python skit with a game show about Proustian analysis that never left a contestant with enough time to answer. In the end no contestant won, and the prize was given to a non-competitor: “The Girl with the Biggest T#ts.”

Obtuse, but it seems to always be the case in this goofy world.