M/C Safety reqs
Moderator: DLRA
- AuotonomousRX
- Posts: 729
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:05 pm
- Location: Eyre Peninsula SA
Re: M/C Safety reqs
The SCTA Rules currently have that section you must be referring to Greg
200MPH +
In excess of 200mph special tires for racing
as designated by the manufacturer must be used.
So do we need to make sure this is not put into the Rules in the future?
I think the Fashion Accessory Hump reference is about off the shelf Road Leathers,
If you look at the size of the Moto GP humps they are a fair bit bigger than retail Leathers.
I found that Safety article because I have heard that they were there as a Safety Enhancement,
and from that article they are not.
Pete
#866
200MPH +
In excess of 200mph special tires for racing
as designated by the manufacturer must be used.
So do we need to make sure this is not put into the Rules in the future?
I think the Fashion Accessory Hump reference is about off the shelf Road Leathers,
If you look at the size of the Moto GP humps they are a fair bit bigger than retail Leathers.
I found that Safety article because I have heard that they were there as a Safety Enhancement,
and from that article they are not.
Pete
#866
Still trying to decide if I am a procrastinator
Pete
DLRA #866
Pete
DLRA #866
Re: M/C Safety reqs
I was looking at this and wondered if 'manufacturer' refers to the manufacturer tyre or bike? Cheers.AuotonomousRX wrote: 200MPH +
In excess of 200mph special tires for racing
as designated by the manufacturer must be used.
#866
- Greg Watters
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:57 pm
Re: M/C Safety reqs
Thats it Pete
i think most of the accepted tires have race written somewhere on the sidewall
i think most of the accepted tires have race written somewhere on the sidewall
-
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:57 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: M/C Safety reqs
This might be some useful progress from Goodyear and Sam. Be sure to watch both videos.
http://m.motorcycle-usa.com/499/14057/M ... 20mph.aspx
Cheers
Dave
http://m.motorcycle-usa.com/499/14057/M ... 20mph.aspx
Cheers
Dave
Good, Fast, Cheap, pick any two!
Re: M/C Safety reqs
I can't get this out of my head. Do you think it is possible that the places that the tread is missing corresponds to the ignition-combustion cycle of the engine? 12500 rpm (or whatever) @ 256 mph ... with how much boost banging into the equation? How far apart would each combustion pulse present at the tyre? perhaps if your gearing didn't spread the pulses (and you ended up with a hot-pulse spot) you will shred? Cheers.Greg Watters wrote:and another
I did this to a tire every run and from what i can figure out its cold tearing
PS: I know that you have shown a photo of a disintegrating front tyre, but I think that is a simple case of tread de-laminating from the carcass.
Re: M/C Safety reqs
interesting observation rgn,, i agree with the frount tyre delaminating,, however i question the rear tyre scenario,, have a look at my tyre (earlier post) compared with Gregs, my gearing at that time was at a "much" lower ratio than what Greg was running,, you notice that my blisters a closser together, with the lower ratio gearing thay should be further apart than Gregs blisters,, ,, the blisters seem to always appear at the leading edge of a groove, and in most cases are circumentrical(spelling ) around the tyre,,,
First Australian to ride a motorcycle over 200mph at Bonneville,,,
- gennyshovel
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: Broken Hill
Re: M/C Safety reqs
Screen shot of Greg's tyre chunks
The key tag has a hissyfit during the chunking as the wheel balance goes haywire too, which would have instigated an automatic Freckle response.
Tiny
The key tag has a hissyfit during the chunking as the wheel balance goes haywire too, which would have instigated an automatic Freckle response.
Tiny
Tiny DLRA# 484
Postiebike Racing , created & funded by TwoBob Engineering
Postiebike Racing , created & funded by TwoBob Engineering
- AuotonomousRX
- Posts: 729
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:05 pm
- Location: Eyre Peninsula SA
Re: M/C Safety reqs
Just thinking out loud, but there is clearly two things going on here, Chunking (rear tyres on Greg and Ron's Bikes) meaning the tread's being torn off and De-laminating the thing that happened to Greg's front tyre.
The confusing thing is that some Bike/tyre combinations get Chunking or some De-lamination and some don't.
Like rgn said there might be some suspension/tyre to ground contact thing happening with the rear tyres.
Also, all Hi Performance/Race Tyres, as far as I know, have an optimum operating Temp and just don't do what they are meant to do if they are not at that Temp.
Could the cold tyres + the extreme centrifugal forces be having unexpected consequences.
Is it worth experimenting with Suspension settings as well as Tyre warmers?
Or is it that the Tyres available have reached the edge of "Safe Operating" range?
Pete
The confusing thing is that some Bike/tyre combinations get Chunking or some De-lamination and some don't.
Like rgn said there might be some suspension/tyre to ground contact thing happening with the rear tyres.
Also, all Hi Performance/Race Tyres, as far as I know, have an optimum operating Temp and just don't do what they are meant to do if they are not at that Temp.
Could the cold tyres + the extreme centrifugal forces be having unexpected consequences.
Is it worth experimenting with Suspension settings as well as Tyre warmers?
Or is it that the Tyres available have reached the edge of "Safe Operating" range?
Pete
Still trying to decide if I am a procrastinator
Pete
DLRA #866
Pete
DLRA #866
Re: M/C Safety reqs
I saw your tyre as well! Not something you would want to see at all (from a safety and cost point of view)Stayt`ie wrote:.my gearing at that time was at a "much" lower ratio than what Greg was running,, you notice that my blisters a closser together, .
I would have thought that lower gearing would have the combustion pulses occurring closer together as shown with your tyre. Greg's longer legs put them further apart (strides are larger)... (if this is what is causing the blistering)
Just say the tyres that are blistering are geared on a on a even pulse cycle, meaning the combustion pulse occurs at the same point of the tyre on every revolution... and the tyres that are not coming apart, are inadvertently geared odd, meaning the pulse occurs at a different point on the tyre each time the wheel goes around, and thus sharing the hot spots around the tyre, and as a result not experiencing the extreme localised stress?
It's only a thought, and I also agree it may be chatter or wheel spin occurring also, or a combination (or not related at all...lol). I clearly don't have a clue, but the occurrence of this type of tyre damage is quite interesting.... and concerning.
Are you allowed to run 'for race use only' slicks on your bikes for over 200mph runs, or do they have to be a treaded tyre? I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting the tyre section of the the rules. Have a safe Christmas break. Cheers
Re: M/C Safety reqs
rgn, to try and avoid the lower gear/higher gear confusion (people do inturept different), i said "lower ratio", ie 2.0 : 1, say over a higher at 2.98 : 1,,, with the lower ratios the bang at motor per rear wheel revolution is lessened, or, also described as less power strokes between telegraph poles,, or longer strides,,
First Australian to ride a motorcycle over 200mph at Bonneville,,,
Re: M/C Safety reqs
Stayt'ie
2.0:1 is a `high' gear ratio compared to 3.0:1 which is a `lower' ratio. The reasoning being that at 3,000rpm your back wheel is turning 1,500 times at 2.0:1, where'as a 3.0:1 ratio would require the motor to spin at 4,500 rpm to achieve the same 1,500 rpm wheel rotation. So lets say you bike run at 50 mph at 3,000 rpm with a 2.0:1 ratio. At 3.0:1 your bike would require 4,500 rpm to do the same 50mph. This makes 3.0:1 a lower gear than 2.0:1
Cheers Mossy
PS, I've had a few wines so I hope this makes sense
2.0:1 is a `high' gear ratio compared to 3.0:1 which is a `lower' ratio. The reasoning being that at 3,000rpm your back wheel is turning 1,500 times at 2.0:1, where'as a 3.0:1 ratio would require the motor to spin at 4,500 rpm to achieve the same 1,500 rpm wheel rotation. So lets say you bike run at 50 mph at 3,000 rpm with a 2.0:1 ratio. At 3.0:1 your bike would require 4,500 rpm to do the same 50mph. This makes 3.0:1 a lower gear than 2.0:1
Cheers Mossy
PS, I've had a few wines so I hope this makes sense
DLRA # 959
Re: M/C Safety reqs
Sorry Mossy,
I agree with own Northern Brother.
2.00:1 is a lower numerical ratio than 3.00:1
Lower means smaller number final drive ratio.
Chris
I agree with own Northern Brother.
2.00:1 is a lower numerical ratio than 3.00:1
Lower means smaller number final drive ratio.
Chris
Chris
- Greg Watters
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:57 pm
Re: M/C Safety reqs
guess i'm ass about too
to me low has always been slow and hi fast
to me low has always been slow and hi fast
Re: M/C Safety reqs
Sorry Momec but your wrong as well My 4wd goes a lot faster in high range top (transfer box ratio of 1.22:1) than it does in low range top (3.32:1 transfer box ratio).
Cheers Mossy
Cheers Mossy
DLRA # 959
Re: M/C Safety reqs
Well Mossy, looks like I'm outvoted, very hard to reprogram my old brain so I'll just agree to disagee.
Chris
Chris
Chris