I was watching alot of motogp, ama and wsb racing this week thanks to my DVR and thought to my self what are the rules when a person falls off the bike. How long do they have to get it started or is there a number of trys they are allowed? Also why does it seem to be so hard to start. I have seen plenty of low sides that didnt seem bad at all but for some reason they wouldnt be able to get the bike re started.
MotoGP bikes have no starter, WSBK run total loss systems and often times their battery does not have the juice to start the bike after some laps are ran. AMA I have not seen them not be able to restart them.
I don't think there are set number of attempts a fallen rider has to get the bike restarted. Nine times out of ten they will keep trying until they realize that it's hopeless.
Is it against the rules to have a starter? You've got to wonder if sacrificing the weight gain/power loss would be worth the chance to restart the bike and get back into a race and score points, especially now since the field is so small and it's likely to score good points just for finishing.
I doubt there's even room on the engine or around it to even put a small starter motor on a GP bike. Between the low traction, high compression, and slipper clutches that make one's we can get look like childrens toys, and now some special pins needed to lock the Honda slipper to make it start, it's not going to be easy to start them. They don't run tip-over sensors because of that because there's a good chance the motor will stay running, which is also why you see guys hauling ass back to the bike to flip switches and turn it off when they know it's not going back out on the track. You've also got the riders that are between 120lbs and 150lbs in full gear, most of them being closer to 120-130. Not much weight they'll be able to really force down through the rear to gain more traction to get that clutch spinning fast enough, especially when it's wet like this past race.
All the other things aside, they're prototype bikes, if they really wanted a starter, they could work one in there. I'm wondering if it would be against the rules or not.
Well worth not having them. On my FZR400 the starter gear, starter clutch and flywheel was at just 5lbs. removed from the crank. That was a huge difference in the way the bike spun up.:up:
It's probably worth it when you have 60 hp to play with, but I don't know about the big bikes. Being able to get back on it and salvage a few points could be the difference at the end of the season. They used to have starters on superbikes. I think it started with the RC51.
There's one or two bikes in WSBK that still have starters, though of course they're weekly back markers. In GP and at the revs those guys are getting to, the weight kept off the bike is a huge advantage, especially with the fuel restrictions.
They'd have been championship contenders the past two years of Loris could have started his bike back up!
I remember reading that Massimo Tamburini was thoroughly impressed that Honda managed to retain the starter while still being able to get the SP1 bang on the WSBK weight limit.
Weight & packaging. These bikes are so close in size & weight that putting a starter & battery on one that would actually work would decrease it's performance a marked amount, which is enough for the engineers to say no to it because the other bikes without that excess weight will be that much better. It's not like drilling a hole in a lever so you can pick it back up & go. It's an addition that would change the way the bike rode & slow it down. Not worth it in racing.
