注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

《SHIH Technology》

摩界二輪公社:業餘時間為國內進口車主提供保養維修與調教,順便做做中國摩迷的搬運工

 
 
 

日志

 
 

本田RC213V 90°V4引擎与杜卡迪Desmosedici是如何让我们重新思考的问题  

2013-02-25 10:06:28|  分类: 國際車壇動態 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

How the Honda RC213V 90° V4 Engine Makes Us Rethink the Problems with the Ducati Desmosedici ducati desmosedici rr naked 635x423


   How the Honda RC213V 90° V4 Engine Makes Us Rethink the Problems with the Ducati Desmosedici

02/19/2013 @ 3:59 pm, by David Emmett38 COMMENTS

Just over 18 months ago, I wrote a long analysis of what I believed at the time was the main problem with Ducati’s Desmosedici MotoGP machine. In that analysis, I attributed most of the problems with the Desmosedici to the chosen angle of the V, the angle between the front and rear cylinder banks.

By sticking with the 90° V, I argued, Ducati were creating problems with packaging and mass centralization, which made it almost impossible to get the balance of the Desmosedici right. The engine was taking up too much space, and limiting their ability to adjust the weight balance by moving the engine around.

Though there was a certain logic to my analysis, it appears that the engine angle was not the problem. Yesterday, in their biweekly print edition, the Spanish magazine Solo Moto published an article by Neil Spalding, who had finally obtained photographic evidence that the Honda RC213V uses a 90° V, the same engine angle employed by the Ducati Desmosedici. Given the clear success of the Honda RC213V, there can no longer be any doubt that using a 90° V is no impediment to building a competitive MotoGP machine.

The photographic proof comes as confirmation of rumors which had been doing the rounds in the MotoGP paddock throughout the second half of the 2012 season. Several people suggested that the Honda may use a 90° angle, including Ducati team manager Vitto Guareschi, speaking to GPOne.com back in November.

I had personally been lucky enough to catch a glimpse of a naked RC213V engine at one rain-soaked race track in September, but while the glimpse through the window may have been good enough to form the impression of an engine that looked like it may have been a 90°V, it was a very long way from being anything resembling conclusive, and nowhere near enough to base a news story on.

Spalding’s persistence has paid off, however. The British photographer and journalist is a common sight wandering among the garages, either first thing in the morning, as the bikes are being warmed up, or late at night, while the mechanics prepare the machines for the following day.

At some point, the Honda mechanics and engineers – protective to the point of prudishness of displaying any part of their machine to the outside world – would let their guard slip. When they did, Spalding pounced.

So why did Honda elect to use an engine layout which is blamed for causing Ducati so much trouble? And how does Honda make the layout work where Ducati have continued to fail? The first question is relatively simple to answer; the second is a good deal more tricky.

There are many reasons to use a 90°V for both four cylinder and two cylinder engines. First and foremost is that such an engine layout offers perfect primary and secondary balance – put crudely, the vibration caused by the mass of the piston moving, and the vibration caused by the difference in motion between the crankshaft and the piston (see animation here) – which means that no extra measures are required to balance the engine out.

Adding a balance shaft – as is needed for a 75°V, as the previous RC212V was, and as is needed for Yamaha’s big bang inline four – saps power, requiring around 1-2% of the engine output to drive the balance shaft at sufficient speed.

In addition to that, a 90°V also has perfect inertia torque: the torque created by the movement of the pistons all balance each other out — the same reason Yamaha chose to use the big bang firing order for the M1 inline-four. There are more reasons as well – more even cylinder firing means more manageable intake pulses in the inlet tract, from air intakes to airbox, among other reasons.

Rule changes also made a 90° V more attractive. When Spalding spoke to HRC boss Shuhei Nakamoto about the engine, Nakamoto explained that the maximum bore size of 81mm – primarily introduced to act as a rev limit – had allowed Honda to think of expanding the engine angle when they switched from 800cc to 1000cc.

The fixed bore meant that the engines required a longer stroke, moving the exhaust ports further away from the crankshaft, and making the cylinder heads higher. This gave more room for locating the rear shock; with the 800cc, the exhausts had to be kept away from the shock to prevent the shock oil from absorbing too much heat and losing damping; on the long-stroke 1000, this is less of a problem, as the exhausts are routed further away from the shock anyway.

The taller cylinders also moved the center of mass significantly; with a narrow V, that weight would have been further up; having a wider V, 90°, the weight is distributed a little better, Nakamoto explained to Spalding.

So why does the Honda work, while the Ducati doesn’t? For a number of reasons, few of which have anything to do with the engine angle. Contributing a small amount is the fact that the Honda engine appears to be rotated slightly further rearward than the Ducati Desmosedici.

Ducati had abandoned its more L-based approach, with the front cylinder bank close to the horizontal, at the end of 2011, choosing to rotate the engine back to close to 45° from the horizontal. But far more important is the location of the engine in the frame, and the arrangement of the gearbox and output shaft.

On both the Yamaha and the Honda, the gearbox is more compact, and everything is packaged more tightly. The Ducati engine and gearbox takes up more physical space, leaving less room for maneuver in terms of frame and swingarm design.

Ducati’s biggest problem, though, remains the concept around which it was built. Ducati appear to have built the most powerful engine they could ensure would be reliable, and put it in a frame. What Ducati Corse did not take sufficiently into account is the fact that a motorcycle is just that: a motor- cycle.

There are two parts to the equation – both engine (motor) and chassis and running gear (cycle) – and getting them to work together is what turns a racing motorcycle into a winner. The synergy between power delivery and handling has always been the Ducati’s weak point, even during the 990cc period.

Then, however, custom-built tires and excessive horsepower allowed riders such as Loris Capirossi to exploit the strengths of the machine – horsepower and drive – to ride around its weakness, an unwillingness to turn. With the advent of the 800′s, the Ducatis lost much of their advantage, and once the spec-tire was introduced, only the combination of the riding genius of Casey Stoner and the set up genius of Cristian Gabarrini could make the bike work, and even then, it remained horribly finicky.

The spec-tire meant that the Ducati could no longer solve the lack of feel from the front end with a specially constructed front tire. The carbon fiber subframe had been a massive improvement in consistency over the steel trellis frame for the Desmosedici, but with the spec Bridgestones built around a standard chassis layout of an aluminium beam frame, Ducati’s frameless design, using the engine as a stressed member, was doomed to obscurity.

That design was scrapped at the end of 2011, and an all-new aluminium beam frame, similar in design to those of Yamaha and Honda, was introduced in 2012. But there is more to chassis design than just copying the layout: Ducati’s previous design, using the engine as a stressed member, had placed a very stiff and inflexible lump of engine in the middle of two more flexible chunks of subframe, connecting the steering head to the front cylinder and the rear swingarm to the gearbox.

Once the beam frame was introduced, the design appeared to follow the same pattern, maintaining a central, extremely stiff section, with two softer sections at front and rear. The chassis changes through the year have had less and less material around the swingarm pivot point, for example, as Ducati searched for more flex in their chassis. The problem, however, may have been in the beams connecting front and rear, rather than in the attachment points for the swingarm and steering head.

The engine, also, retained the solid construction which had previously been required by its use as a stressed member. It was a much heavier lump than the Honda and Yamaha units, as the history of the minimum weight increase for 2012 reveals.

At the end of 2011, Dorna proposed a weight increase from 153kg to 160kg. This proposal could only be rejected by unanimous agreement of the MSMA, the manufacturers. After the MSMA met, they reported to the Grand Prix Commission that the proposal had been rejected by a unanimous vote.

It transpired that the vote was far from unanimous: one manufacturer – though it was never confirmed, it is widely accepted that this was Ducati – had voted in favor of the weight increase, and after they informed the GPC that they had been misinformed, a compromise was reached where the weight was increased to 157kg in 2012, and 160kg for 2013. Ducati had the most to gain by a weight increase, as their bike was already the heaviest of the bunch.

The heavier engine makes weight distribution even more critical. Getting the basic weight distribution right is key, and this is where Ducati have suffered most. How critical this is was demonstrated by Honda in 2012, as they struggled with the added weight and with the altered tire construction.

Both were causing huge chatter for the Hondas, a problem which it took the factory over half a season to get to grips with. Once they did get it under control – or at least, get it under control sufficiently to allow the Honda men to win 8 of the last 9 races – the Hondas were nigh-on unbeatable.

Weight distribution, chassis stiffness and flex, power delivery. These are the variables which a racing motorcycle designer is required to control to build a competitive machine. Ducati’s problems stem from the fact that they have not mastered these three sufficiently to produce a rideable machine.

That Honda should be able to do so, using the engine layout previously blamed for Ducati’s woes, speaks volumes about HRC’s resources, their engineering skill, and their experience. It is a foolish man who bets against Honda when they decide to go racing.

So I was wrong, 18 months ago, to lay the blame at the door of the engine angle selected by Ducati. I should have known better, given Honda’s long history of racing success with V4′s, in World Superbikes and Endurance racing with the RC30 and RC45.

Their 90° V engine will be the basis of their production racer (which writer Mark Gardiner has proposed be named the Honda PVT), as well as the design template for the World Superbike homologation special due to be launched in time for the 2014 WSBK season.

The layout itself is not important: it is not a matter of getting the right engine angle, it is a question of getting the engine angle right for the bike you are building. These remain motor-cycles. The two parts truly create a greater whole.

Photo: Ducati

This article was originally published on MotoMatters, and is republished here on Asphalt & Rubber with permission by the author.

Top 5 Related Posts:

  1. Does the 2013 Honda RC213V Have a 90° V4 Engine?
  2. LCR Honda RC213V Makes Its Debut
  3. Ducati Desmosedici GP12 Technical Specifications and Development Video
  4. 2012 Honda RC213V Debuts in Malaysia
  5. No, This is the “90%” New Ducati Desmosedici GP12




google 提供的翻译,很不专业,大家先凑合着与原文对比看一下:


           本田RC213V 90°V4引擎是如何让我们重新思考的问题与杜卡迪Desmosedici

2013年2月19日下午3:59,由大卫Emmett38

       仅仅过了18个月前??,我写了一封长长的分析,我相信在当时的主要问题,杜卡迪Desmosedici摩托车机。在这一分析中,我归因大部分问题与Desmosedici到的V,所选择的角度的角度之间的前部和后部气缸银行。

       我认为,坚持90°V,杜卡迪包装和大规模集中,这使得它几乎不可能得到的Desmosedici权利的平衡问题。引擎被占用了太多的空间,限制了他们的能力,调整移动引擎周围的重量平衡。

       虽然我的分析有一定的道理,它的发动机是没有问题的角度。昨日,在他们的双周印刷版,西班牙语个摩托,自行车杂志上发表了一篇文章,由尼尔·斯伯丁,终于获得摄影的证据,本田RC213V采用了90°V,同样的发动机采用由Ducati Desmosedici角度。由于本田RC213V明显的成功,不能再有任何疑问,采用90°V是没有障碍,建立一个有竞争力的摩托车机。

       照片为证证实的传言一直在做轮在MotoGP围场整个下半年的2012赛季。一些人认为,本田可能使用90°角,包括杜卡迪的球队经理Vitto Guareschi,说在11月GPOne.com的。

       我曾亲自在一个大雨倾盆的赛道上月幸运地瞥见一个赤身裸体的RC213V引擎,但同时看到通过这个窗口,可能已经足够好,形成的印象的发动机,看起来像它可能有一个90°V,从任何类似的定论,隔靴搔痒的新闻故事的基础上,这是一个很长的路要走。

       斯伯丁的坚持得到了回报,但是。英国摄影师和记者是很常见的车库中徘徊,无论是在早晨的第一件事,的自行车热身,或在深夜,而力学准备次日的机器。

       在某些时候,本田力学工程师 - 保护点prudishness向外界显示他们的机器的任何部分 - 将让他们的后卫滑倒。当他们,斯伯丁扑上。

       那么,为什么本田选择使用的发动机布局,被指责为造成杜卡迪这么大的麻烦?如何本田的布局工作,其中杜卡迪继续失败?第一个问题是相对简单的回答,第二个是一个很好的协议更加棘手。

       有很多原因,使用90°V型四缸和两缸发动机。首先,最重要的是,这种发动机的布局提供了完美的小学和中学的平衡 - 把粗糙的,由质量引起的振动的活塞移动,并在运动中的曲轴和活塞之间的差异引起的振动(在这里看动画) - 这意味着没有额外的刺激措施需要平衡的发动机。

       添加平衡轴 - 75°V是必要的,因为以前的RC212V,需要雅马哈的大爆炸直列四缸 - 汁液功率,需要大约1-2%的发动机输出驱动平衡轴足够的速度。

       此外,90°V还拥有完善的惯性扭矩:扭矩相互平衡了 - 同样的原因,雅马哈选择使用大爆炸的点火顺序为M1的直列四缸活塞的运动。有更多的理由,以及 - 更均匀的的气缸点火装置更易于管理的摄入量,从进气口进气箱脉冲进气道,除其他原因。

       规则的变化也做了一个90°V更具吸引力。斯伯丁说话HRC老板修平中本中本解释的发动机,最大孔径大小的81毫米 - 主要介绍了作为一个转速限制 - 本田想扩大引擎的角度时,他们交换的800cc到1000cc的。

       所述固定孔意味着发动机需要更长的冲程,进一步移动的排气口远离曲柄轴,并使缸盖更高。这给了更多的空间定位避震器与800CC,排气管必须远离的冲击吸收过多的热量和失去阻尼来防止触电油的长冲程1000,这是少了一个的问题,因为排出的废气是从震惊中路由渐行渐远了。

       高缸的质心也动了显著;,窄V,重量会被进一步上升;具有更宽的V,90°,重量分布好一点,中本解释斯伯丁。

       那么,为什么本田的工作,而杜卡迪不呢?对于有许多原因,其中很少有任何做与发动机角。特约少量的是,本田发动机出现旋转,再稍微向后比杜卡迪Desmosedici。

       杜卡迪已经放弃了其L-为基础的方法,与前气缸接近的水平,在2011年年底前,选择的发动机旋转到接近45°的水平。但更为重要的是在帧中,齿轮箱输出轴的布置的发动机的位置。

       雅马哈和本田的变速箱更加紧凑,更紧密的一切都被打包。杜卡迪发动机和变速箱需要更多的物理空间,少留回旋余地,的框架和swingarm设计的。

       杜卡迪的最大的问题,不过,仍然是围绕它始建概念。杜卡迪似乎已经建立了最强大的引擎,他们将可以确保可靠的,并把它在一个框架。杜卡迪科西嘉没有充分考虑到的是一辆摩托车就是:一个电机周期。

       有两部分组成的方程 - (马达)和两个发动机底盘和传动装置(循环) - 和他们一起工作是把一个赛车摩托车成赢家。电力传输和处理之间的协同作用一直以来的杜卡迪的薄弱点,甚至在990cc。

       但是,定制的轮胎和过度马力允许车手卡皮罗西洛里斯利用机的优势 - 马力和驱动器 - 骑在它的弱点,不愿意把。随着800的,Ducatis失去了自己的优势,一旦规格的轮胎,只有结合凯西·斯托纳骑天才成立的克里斯蒂安·加巴里尼的天才,可以使自行车的工作,即使如此,它仍然可怕的娇气。

       规格轮胎意味着杜卡迪不再能解决缺乏的感觉从前端与一个特殊构造的前轮胎。的碳纤维子帧已经被一个巨大的改善以上的钢网格框架的Desmosedici的一致性,但用的规格普利司通围绕一个标准的底盘布局的铝梁框架,杜卡迪的无框设计,使用的发动机作为一个强调成员,是注定要默默无闻。

       这种设计被废弃了在2011年年底,一个全新的铝梁框架,类似的设计,以雅马哈和本田,在2012年推出。但有底盘设计比刚才复制的布局:杜卡迪的以前的设计,作为一个强调成员使用的发动机,已经放在一个很僵硬和不灵活的疙瘩,发动机2更灵活的块子帧中,连接转向头的前部缸和后部旋转臂的齿轮箱。

       据介绍,一旦梁框架的设计遵循相同的模式,维持中央,非常僵硬的部分,前部和后部有两个柔软的部分。通过一年的底盘变化有越来越少的材料周围的旋转臂的枢轴点,例如,为杜卡迪搜索,以获得更多的弯曲,在他们的底盘。问题,但是,可能已经在横梁连接前部和后部,??而不是swingarm和转向头中的连接点。

       发动机,也保留以前需要的,它利用作为一个强调会员固体结构。这是一个更重的一块比本田,雅马哈单位,2012年揭示了历史的最低重量增加。

       在2011年年底前,Dorna的建议的重量增加从153千克到160千克的。这个建议被拒绝的MSMA,各厂家的一致同意。后MSMA遇到了,他们向格兰披治大赛车委员会的一致表决,该提案已被否决。

       原来,远离投票的结果是一致的:一个制造商 - 尽管它从未被证实,它已被广泛接受,这是杜卡迪 - 投了票赞成重量的增加,后他们告诉GPC,他们一直误导,达成妥协的重量增加,2013年到2012年,160千克157千克。杜卡迪获得的重量增加,因为他们的自行车已经是最重的一群。

       较重的发动机重量分布更重要。获得基本的重量分配权是关键,这是杜卡迪遭受最。有多重要,这是被证明了本田在2012年,他们奋斗的重量,并改变轮胎结构。

       两人都造成了巨大的喋喋不休的本田,出了问题了半个赛季的工厂去掌握的。一旦他们没有得到控制它 - 或者至少,它控制之下,足以让本田的男子在过去的9场比赛中赢得8 - 本田几乎匹敌的。

       重量分配的底盘刚度和弯曲,电力输送。这些变量是一个赛车摩托车设计师需要控制建立具有竞争力的机器。杜卡迪的问题源于事实,他们还没有掌握这三个足以产生一个骑乘机。

       本田应该是能够做到这一点,使用的发动机布局先前指责为杜卡迪的困境,说了HRC的资源,他们的工程技能,他们的经验。这是一个愚蠢的人,对本田的投注时,他们决定去比赛。

       所以我是错的,18个月前??,在门口把责任推到发动机的角度选择杜卡迪。我早就应该知道,本田赛车V4的成功,在世界超级摩托车耐力赛的RC30和RC45的悠久历史。

       90°V型发动机的基础上将其生产的赛车手(作家马克·加德纳提出了被命名为本田PVT),以及特别由于推出的时间为2014年WSBK赛季世界超级摩托车亿安科技的设计模板

       布局本身并不重要:它是不是得到正确的引擎角度的问题,这是一个问题,发动机的角度为正在建设的自行车。这些仍然是电单车。两部分,真正形成一个更大的整体。

图片:杜卡迪

这篇文章最初上MotoMatters发布,是转载作者许可,这里的沥青和橡胶。

前5个相关文章:

    
2013年的本田RC213V有一个90°的V4发动机?
    
LCR本田RC213V闪亮登场
    
杜卡迪Desmosedici GP12技术规格和开发视频
    
2012年本田RC213V亮相马来西亚
    
不,这是“90%”新的杜卡迪Desmosedici GP12

  评论这张
 
阅读(1066)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017