J.A.W. wrote: ↑21 May 2017, 15:08
Bishop rotary valves are specifically proscribed in F1 tech reg's -"poppet valves only", & merit no mention in the Moto GP reg's..
.. but 2Ts are banned across the range of G.P. racing.. obviously - as a very real threat..
One notable disadvantage of 4Ts was demonstrated in today's French Moto 3 G.P. at Le Mans, when one of the unpleasantly
flatulent sounding 4Ts did actually drop its guts, spread copious lubricant, & brought down much of the field, like nine-pins..
Like an engine failing has never happened during a race before. Funny how they just work forever & have infinite TBOs.
Noting many terrible sounding two stroke engines, you don't have the acoustic tuning possibilities as one does with a four stroke.
Just love the way they are reaching 50% TE and support multiphase combustion where they can nearly double Bmep with little loss in TE while reducing peak cylinder pressure reducing bearing friction losses and torsional issues. 36 bar Bmep with mild increase of inlet pressure above ambient, and above 20 Na.
I noticed a boxer twin indirect injected 500 cc 2T engine from Italy from a decade ago on LinkedIn yesterday.
From sleep deprived to over sleep.
For more info on the EU Commission investigation that went on for years into the FIM & FIA banning the Bishop valve. There is a summary at;
http://www.espn.com.au/f1/story/_/id/13 ... ormula-one
Essentially Bishop failed to show the importance of racing to demonstrate an innovation for it to be commercially accepted.
Australian companies need not apply.
By setting the engine provider to one make locked them out of the second attempt to demonstrate it.
By introducing difficulties at every attempt to demonstrate the innovation at every turn they effectively banned it, how long was this going to continue.
How long must a company continue only to have each attempt banned in order to achieve commercialisation.
When would they actually not ban it thought some means, a business can't continue this path and others are just not as effective. Everyones first comment for anything innovation is to day of it was any good they would be using it in F1.
We just had two bad F1 accidents let's form a review to see what we can do, this gives us special powers to change the engine spec.
Let's change the engine spec to ban the Bishop but not increase safety.
Within that article is the link to the Commission report. My journalist friend has more, think he is OS at the moment being a foreign correspondent.
Short answer is they were not allowed to, it's not like the FIM have never played politics or favourites before is it!
What the rules say and what you get approval to race with are not the same thing.
Using lawyers doesn't work with opinionated organisations trying to prove you are meeting the rules when they administrate them. You can argue till your blue in the face but you can't race your bike in our events.
I don't know what the MotoGP rules will be in the 2020s maybe with new owners the FIM will allow a twin cylinder 800cc mild hybrid with continuously variable phasing Bishop rotary valve, the 398cc version of the motor without topology optimisation is a 60 kW+ micro hybrid, a racing version would be wild but that is the domain of the 711cc powerplant.
Seems coordinating work over multiple continents I slept maybe 30 hours, been trying to sleep twice per day. I lost a day. Didn't start my sleep tracker alarm. Support from new tech partner has been great while I slept, should do it more often!
Check out Bastion cycles, brilliant Engineering of printed Ti4 and wound carbon fibre with some amazing meshed honeycomb Engineering. Check out images in there FB page. This would be the technique to make the MotoInno TS³, not on my bike targeting the mid high end, but for the Shockwave that MCI are building with TS³ a $200,000 bike it would be.
I would go the ti with fibre reinforced polymer over moulding squeeze cast for faster production and Aero shape.