Why are Italian liter bikes generally not as fast/powerful?

[kabob983]

It doesn't have to be 45 degrees to be a V-Twin though. I mean, call it what you want, the "L" is just a wider "V." My friend has a Honda Hawk GT with a 58 degree V-Twin. A V shape is just an efficient way to align the pistons.

[Dichotomous]

the 90 deg Vtwins that are called L's are usually positioned in the manner as well, with one being vertical and one being horizontal, meaning it LOOKS like an L instead of a V, usually the V engines have each cyl equal distance from vertical. technically I will call the soon to be mine SV650s' engine an L engine, even though its called the sV not the sL. Then again its based on the tL1000....
If you write the "L" in undercase on your ducati then you loose one cyl, this is common fact and is why italians dont speak english, they want to keep both pistons...... un huh, thats right..... proven fact.
the is a current japanese cruiser with a 90deg Vtwin, and it is, each cyl is at a 45deg angle to vertical, its shaped like a V, the ducs and the SV are mounted L shaped and should be called that. its only basic grammar people! (yes it was hard to not write grammer in a fit of hypocricy<sp>)

[Mintbread]

I read that they actually had to change the AMA Superbike rules a few years ago because the V-Twins were winning waaaaaaaaaay too easily.

They are not exactly dominating MotoGP. I guess that is because all manufacturers have the same engine capacity requirements, unlike previous Superbike series.

[kabob983]

Well yeah, pretty much every bike in the MotoGP is a 4 or 5 (RC211V) cylinder bike (once you hit the GP class at least). I was referring to the AMA superbike class as of a few years ago. Ducati Austin's team is still doing pretty well with the V-Twins, although as most can tell Suzuki pretty much has the 1000cc class wrapped up.

Basically my point for this thread is that the Italian V-Twin's have advantages that you really can't see on paper. When's the last time you looked at a spec sheet and saw "corner exit time" as one of the measurements??

Speaking of the MotoGP though, I heard they're going to reduce the output to 750-800cc's or so for the GP bikes. Is this true or just some rumor?

[Kal]

Ducati are currently pestering the World Superbikes to allow them to run 1200cc twins against the 1000cc inline fours produced by the Japanese manufacturers.

And I don't care what Ducati says. A 90[sup]o[/sup] twin is a V twin just the same as a 45[sup]o[/sup] twin is a V twin. Everything else is just fluff and marketing.

[kabob983]

Ducati are currently pestering the World Superbikes to allow them to run 1200cc twins against the 1000cc inline fours produced by the Japanese manufacturers.

I certainly hope that doesn't fly...I read an article...yesterday about how an SBK Ducati rider beat the previous lap record of some track by over a second...adding an extra 200cc's isn't going to even that up!

[Kal]

Ducati claim the costs of making a competitive V twin is keeping other manufacturers from fielding them. If it does go ahead (and remember that WSB is owned by a pair of Italian brothers) it wouldn't be the first time. Ducati used to field overcapactiy Bikes against the 750 inline fours.

However in better WSB news Aprillia are saying they will be competing in 2008 on an all new inline 4 superbike and Team Suzuki are threatening to pull out of WSB altogether if Ducati get the capacity advantage they are angling for.

[High_Side]

Clearing things up for you all:
*Moto-Gp is going to 800cc next year
*Superbike was originally 1000cc 4 cylinder bikes.
*They lowered the displacement limit in early eighties to 750cc because the engines of the day were far too much for the chassis and tires.
*They allowed 1000cc V-Twins (Ducatis) to compete because "nobody could ever make a 2 cylinder 1000cc bike that would run with 750cc multis"......
*There was a weight penalty to go with that displacement as well.
*Weight penalties are a great way to even up the competition.
*There is more to making things fair then displacement. Four cylinder bikes should make more power than two cylinder bikes. That is obvious. So giving twins a displacement advantage seems like a reasonable idea.
*Ducati happened to be very good at making what they had go very fast.
*Ducati dominated world Superbike throughout the 90s and clearly the rules had to change.
*Both AMA and WSB decided to allow 1000cc fours thinking that tires and putting 4 cylinder power to the ground would be the limiting factor.
*WSB became a single-tire (Pirelli) spec class.
*Tires were THE limiting factor in WSB, the lap times got higher and outright power was less of a factor.
*Tires were not the limiting factor in AMA Superbike and the fours could make use of all of that power
*Love 'em or hate 'em Mladin is far and away the best rider in the AMA riding for the most organized team on the bike with the best development.
*Moto-GP has various formulas for weight and cylinder configuration
*Moto-GP didn't want twins in the class because it wanted to differentiate itself from world-superbike and showcase more exotic (3 and 5 cylinder) displacements.
*Teams that win championships work within and exploit the rules.
*As race series grow stale, changing the rules shake it up and rebuild interest...(usually; sometimes it backfires)
*I have two 90 degree V-twin sportbikes in the garage. One says "V-2" on the side, the other is a Ducati. It's marketing. Get over it.

[High_Side]

Clearing things up for you all:
*Moto-Gp is going to 800cc next year
*Superbike was originally 1000cc 4 cylinder bikes.
*They lowered the displacement limit in early eighties to 750cc because the engines of the day were far too much for the chassis and tires.
*They allowed 1000cc V-Twins (Ducatis) to compete because "nobody could ever make a 2 cylinder 1000cc bike that would run with 750cc multis"......
*There was a weight penalty to go with that displacement as well.
*Weight penalties are a great way to even up the competition.
*There is more to making things fair then displacement. Four cylinder bikes should make more power than two cylinder bikes. That is obvious. So giving twins a displacement advantage seems like a reasonable idea.
*Ducati happened to be very good at making what they had go very fast.
*Ducati dominated world Superbike throughout the 90s and clearly the rules had to change.(the exceptions are Kocinski in '97 on the RC-45, and Edwards in the 2000s on the 90deg v-twin SP1 Honda -2000-2002)
*Both AMA and WSB decided to allow 1000cc fours thinking that tires and putting 4 cylinder power to the ground would be the limiting factor.
*WSB became a single-tire (Pirelli) spec class.
*Tires were THE limiting factor in WSB, the lap times got higher and outright power was less of a factor.
*Tires were not the limiting factor in AMA Superbike and the fours could make use of all of that power
*Love 'em or hate 'em Mladin is far and away the best rider in the AMA riding for the most organized team on the bike with the best development.
*Moto-GP has various formulas for weight and cylinder configuration
*Moto-GP didn't want twins in the class because it wanted to differentiate itself from world-superbike and showcase more exotic (3 and 5 cylinder) displacements.
*Teams that win championships work within and exploit the rules.
*As race series grow stale, changing the rules shake it up and rebuild interest...(usually; sometimes it backfires)
*I have two 90 degree V-twin sportbikes in the garage. One says "V-2" on the side, the other is a Ducati. It's marketing. Get over it.

[kabob983]

Post it one more time plz

Good info, thanks! Although I'm not turribly fond of him, Mladin is a durn good racer. I kinda like the Bostrom's, although I wish Eric coulda stayed with Ducati.