HP vs Rider Weight

machine
Posts
6404
Joined
1/5/2011
Location
Collettsville, NC, USA
Edited Date/Time 1/27/2012 7:54pm
I was just reading this interview http://www.racerxonline.com/2011/07/13/insight-ron-lechien-weighs-in with Ron the "machine" Lechien and he mentioned that Bagget might have an advantage over Wilson due to his being so small and light. He say's 10lbs rider weight = 1 hp. I think there is something to it, fer sure.


Thought's?...........Discuss......
|
Shawn142
Posts
2602
Joined
10/27/2008
Location
Burleson, TX, USA
7/13/2011 6:08pm
About the only place I know of to compare raw horsepower is from the start. And what bike and group of riders have gotten most of the holeshots this year? Hell, last week Wilbur had a 3 bike length lead heading down to the first real turn. So if it helps him, it's not showing off the start. Baggett always rides to the front.

The flip side of that is the kid is tiny. At what point does your small weight hinder your ability to dig the bike into the dirt for better traction? Is that why he doesn't get good starts or simply because his reaction time is bad? You see this is why I love motocross, none of it matters. The dude who goes the fastest wins, period. On any given day it can be someone different on a different kind of bike. It can be BB smoking the field, or it can be Durham riding out of the back of a box van.
machine
Posts
6404
Joined
1/5/2011
Location
Collettsville, NC, USA
7/13/2011 6:12pm
I agree to a certain extent, but you don't ever see football player build dudes racing professionally. I think there is a point at which it makes a difference.

An example would be Malcolm Stewart and also when Troy Adams was racing the 250f class. I think clearly they are at a disadvantage on the track.
Hank_Thrill
Posts
4659
Joined
9/22/2008
Location
Arlen, TX, USA
7/13/2011 6:39pm Edited Date/Time 7/13/2011 6:44pm
I made a post about this the other week and I got the feeling people around here don't like to acknowledge physics.
I would like to know how much of an advantage he really has (via somebody who knows how to do the proper math formula - whatever that is). I talked to a buddy of mine with a masters in physics and he said he would have a huge advantage. Not only does he have the greatest power to weight ratio of anybody, which is equivalent to extra horse power, but lighter weight means quicker acceleration and deceleration. It's safe to say he definitely has an "edge" over the competition, but he wouldn't be quick as he is without his dedication, fitness, raw speed, skill, etc. Blake is a great rider, and not just anybody would be running up front on a PC bike weighing 125lbs.
machine
Posts
6404
Joined
1/5/2011
Location
Collettsville, NC, USA
7/14/2011 3:52am
I made a post about this the other week and I got the feeling people around here don't like to acknowledge physics. I would like to...
I made a post about this the other week and I got the feeling people around here don't like to acknowledge physics.
I would like to know how much of an advantage he really has (via somebody who knows how to do the proper math formula - whatever that is). I talked to a buddy of mine with a masters in physics and he said he would have a huge advantage. Not only does he have the greatest power to weight ratio of anybody, which is equivalent to extra horse power, but lighter weight means quicker acceleration and deceleration. It's safe to say he definitely has an "edge" over the competition, but he wouldn't be quick as he is without his dedication, fitness, raw speed, skill, etc. Blake is a great rider, and not just anybody would be running up front on a PC bike weighing 125lbs.
yep and that's why horse jockeys can only weigh around 115 lbs. That is a raw "horsepower" equation.

The Shop

jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
7/14/2011 5:48am
MC and RC were relatively stout, as was Jeff Ward. All three had dominating careers, and there's little doubt that they were at a disadvantage compared to some others on the track during their time.

Running the numbers and speculating on them is great mental exercise, but personal desire and motivation far outweigh the physics. Hell, if RC chose to stay on a two stroke, the 4-strokes wouldn't have won the big bore titles until he retired. Not turning this into a 2-stroke thread, but only pointing out that it's the rider's drive/skill/toughness that is what gets it done.

Ok, for the numbers (you plug the actual ones in, 'cause I don't have the exact numbers): hp/weight = (bike's horsepower)/(weight of rider + weight of bike). So, assuming the bike's are equivalent at 40 hp, equivalent at 215 lbs., then throw the rider weight in with that ten pound difference:

40hp/(215 + 130) = 0.116hp/lb, or 8.6 lbs/hp

40hp/(215 + 140) = 0.113hp/lb, or 8.9 lbs/hp


So, a difference of 0.003hp/lb. Or, you could say that the bike with the rider that weighs 140 lbs needs to make 41.14 hp to have an equivalent hp/weight rating. So, yeah, by the very simple numbers, Lechien's correct that 10 lbs, in this case, is about a 1 hp difference.

Is it that important? Dunno. With all of the variables in MX, I'd say probably not as much as you might think. Heck, I'd rather give up that 1.14 hp and have RC's drive, conditioning, skills, and confidence, or at least parts of them.
DrSweden
Posts
6761
Joined
8/30/2008
Location
Stockholm, SE
7/14/2011 6:01am
Some percentage disadvantage part of the track, but in the end feels doesn't sounds like a deal breaker for me. We still remember when Stewart smoked a ALL on a 125. In the end riders technique and endurance is what 99%? We can add some ifs here as well, maybe Deano uses a diff mapping and have all power in the top and Bagget has more on bottom meaning Dean will actually have more power on the Dyno as in top power?
motodriller
Posts
158
Joined
2/13/2009
Location
Pasco, WA, USA
7/14/2011 6:07am
Its pretty simple. More lbs. More time. It takes longer to speed up and slow down. I wish someone could figure out how to equalize this.
ratonmacias
Posts
1193
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Guadalajara, MX
7/14/2011 6:44am
Its pretty simple. More lbs. More time. It takes longer to speed up and slow down. I wish someone could figure out how to equalize this.
use this two laws of physics and you will get an idea. of course its all theory and would have to have a 130 pound blake bagget and a 140 pound blake bagget to discount skill and conditioning from the equation.

f=ma force equals mass by acceleration. now remember acceleration is 3 dimensional not just when the rider gasses it. gravity is a form of acceleration and braking is accelerating with a negative magnitude too. in other words acceleration is a term for a rate in change of speed wheter you are going faster or slowing down.

w=fd work equals force by distance so if you have higher forces because the same acceleration is applied to a heavier mass over the course of a lap or moto or any fixed distance that all the riders must complete the heavier rider plus machine does more work.

as i said before this is only theory as there arent two equal riders of different weights to account for this.
Shawn142
Posts
2602
Joined
10/27/2008
Location
Burleson, TX, USA
7/14/2011 7:01am Edited Date/Time 7/14/2011 7:02am
I made a post about this the other week and I got the feeling people around here don't like to acknowledge physics. I would like to...
I made a post about this the other week and I got the feeling people around here don't like to acknowledge physics.
I would like to know how much of an advantage he really has (via somebody who knows how to do the proper math formula - whatever that is). I talked to a buddy of mine with a masters in physics and he said he would have a huge advantage. Not only does he have the greatest power to weight ratio of anybody, which is equivalent to extra horse power, but lighter weight means quicker acceleration and deceleration. It's safe to say he definitely has an "edge" over the competition, but he wouldn't be quick as he is without his dedication, fitness, raw speed, skill, etc. Blake is a great rider, and not just anybody would be running up front on a PC bike weighing 125lbs.
The thing that kinda negates that for me is that a MX bike tire is constantly spinning, it never has what you would call solid traction. On tarmac what you said is absolutely true and in road racing is proven, none of the kids at the world championship level are bigger than Baggett. But this sport is the biggest unknown of them all. If you watch any high speed video with MX the rear tire is always rotating faster than you're moving forward. So when you add dirt into the equation, say soft sand, does a lighter bike/rider stop and accelerate faster or does he spin/skid across the surface of it more? Blake I believe has one holeshot this year. Now with that comes all kinds of things like gate timing, shift points, ect. But heavier kids on Hondas consistently beat him and his teammates to turn 1. I don't think this is really a question anyone can answer definitely. If it was true tiny kids would be getting holeshots and winning most of the time. But big kids like Sipes, Ratty, Wilson, Mookie, ect pull good starts and finish up front still.
nytsmaC
Posts
5946
Joined
8/10/2009
Location
Frig Off, CA
7/14/2011 8:14am Edited Date/Time 7/14/2011 8:15am
Traction definitely plays a huge part. When I used to race more frequently I always got great starts and I was 6'7 and 265lbs on a 250 2-stroke. If it helps that much on the start straight you can imagine plenty of other parts of the track where it helps too, like in and out of turns. Of course there are lots of sections of the track where the lighter guy has the advantage, so which is more beneficial is really hard to say, but to make a blanket statement that being lighter = faster is not neccessarily true. And this is without getting into the extra ability to man-handle the bike when you really need to correct what it's doing on its own.
7/14/2011 9:14am
I made a post about this the other week and I got the feeling people around here don't like to acknowledge physics. I would like to...
I made a post about this the other week and I got the feeling people around here don't like to acknowledge physics.
I would like to know how much of an advantage he really has (via somebody who knows how to do the proper math formula - whatever that is). I talked to a buddy of mine with a masters in physics and he said he would have a huge advantage. Not only does he have the greatest power to weight ratio of anybody, which is equivalent to extra horse power, but lighter weight means quicker acceleration and deceleration. It's safe to say he definitely has an "edge" over the competition, but he wouldn't be quick as he is without his dedication, fitness, raw speed, skill, etc. Blake is a great rider, and not just anybody would be running up front on a PC bike weighing 125lbs.
Shawn142 wrote:
The thing that kinda negates that for me is that a MX bike tire is constantly spinning, it never has what you would call solid traction...
The thing that kinda negates that for me is that a MX bike tire is constantly spinning, it never has what you would call solid traction. On tarmac what you said is absolutely true and in road racing is proven, none of the kids at the world championship level are bigger than Baggett. But this sport is the biggest unknown of them all. If you watch any high speed video with MX the rear tire is always rotating faster than you're moving forward. So when you add dirt into the equation, say soft sand, does a lighter bike/rider stop and accelerate faster or does he spin/skid across the surface of it more? Blake I believe has one holeshot this year. Now with that comes all kinds of things like gate timing, shift points, ect. But heavier kids on Hondas consistently beat him and his teammates to turn 1. I don't think this is really a question anyone can answer definitely. If it was true tiny kids would be getting holeshots and winning most of the time. But big kids like Sipes, Ratty, Wilson, Mookie, ect pull good starts and finish up front still.
I think looking at pure HP and power to weight ratios in relation to starts is a dodgy thing because as you say, there are so many factors. MX is never really a pure drag race. I remember when I was racing a 250 2 stroke, off the line I actually used to get better jumps than my 450 but the 450 was a better bike round the rest of the track once the race got going.

It's the same reason a 350 can sometimes out jump a 450. It's not so much necessarily always about HP - as it is how well you can put what you've got to the ground.

I would guess, and it just a guess, but my instincts say that off the line a lack of weight and traction would probably work against Baggett but once the race gets going, his lack of weight must surely be an advantage. Obviously the exact conditions of a standing still start are never repeated again throughout the rest of the race. From that point onwards he'll always be carrying momentum.
munsch121
Posts
830
Joined
2/7/2009
Location
Middletown, NY, USA
7/14/2011 9:40am
I think the horsepower to weight "debate" is fine ballet of give and take. I dont think it is an advantage unless both riders ride the same way and have the exact same set up. One part of the track a bigger guy has an advantage, on another part of the track the smurf.....I dont think either had an overall "advantage" over the other.
GODMODE
Posts
338
Joined
8/5/2010
Location
Cedar Hills, UT, USA
7/14/2011 10:16am
AND THIS IS HOW MOTO ANNOREXIA STARTED
7/14/2011 10:57am
OK so my math is probably wrong but I gave it a shot. Let me know if I made a mistake somewhere.


You have to use the torque instead of the hp to really quantify it, so here's my assumptions:

Max Torque = 25 ft/lb
Final Gear Reduction = 27.69 for 1st gear (assuming constant throughout start for max effect)
1 ft distance between application of torque and final point of contact
Blake Bagget + bike = 345 lb
Dean Wilson + bike = 375 lb

I have also assumed that they are able to maintain maximum torque to the ground, 0 mechanical or frictional losses, and perfect traction! This is the best way to see the absolute maximum advantage that Dean Wilson would have.



Over the length of a 50 meter start (I use metric when I do these, so bear with me):


Final Velocity for BB = 44.35 m/s or 99.2 mph!!
Final Velocity for DW = 42.56 m/s or 95.2 mph

The difference in time that it would take them to get to the 50 meter breaking point mark is


Time BB = 2.25 s
Time DW = 2.35 s



Sooooo, what's my point here? BB sure has a huge advantage on paper and should be able to get to the first turn a full second faster than Dean, but we don't see that. We also don't see them doing 95 mph down the start straight because of all the different factors involved with putting the power down to the ground. Once you start estimating for mechanical and frictional losses in power, loss of traction to the dirt, different rider techniques and weight distribution on the bike, etc. that second is quickly eaten up by everything else.
ccoady454
Posts
151
Joined
8/24/2010
Location
Taylorville, IL, USA
7/14/2011 11:45am
Its pretty simple. More lbs. More time. It takes longer to speed up and slow down. I wish someone could figure out how to equalize this.
EASY.

Lose weight, lol.

Or give min. and max. weight for bike & rider combined..
honda907
Posts
366
Joined
2/7/2009
Location
Chesterfield, SC, USA
7/14/2011 1:29pm Edited Date/Time 7/14/2011 1:30pm
More important than the power to weight ratio would be just his body itself. Think of it like this. Two big heavyweight contenders slugging it out for the world championship. Compare them with the flyweights. Which fighters tire out first.? I think Baggett's biggest advantage is that he has the stamina.

Big football players, like lineman, exert tremendous amounts of energy in the 10 minutes of playing time during a game. Yet they are exhausted. It takes a lot more energy to keep Wilson going than Baggettt. At the 20 minute mark, Baggett just turns it up. Small guys always have this advantage, no matter the sport.

Another aspect is maybe Baggett lets the bike do more work, hence he doesn't tire. Both are just my two cents are just thoughts. In a 4 lap race, it doesn't mean anything, or maybe a big guy has a slight advantage, but in longer motos, smaller guys have an advantage for sure.
Adam43
Posts
3311
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WF
7/14/2011 2:31pm
10 pounds or so isn't going to make much of a difference.

But there is probably a 30 or 40 pound difference between Baggett and a guy like Wilson or Tomac. At the pro level, where these guys are all in shape and can ride a 250F WFO almost the whole time, it adds up. Hauling that much extra mass out of every tight corner is not an advantage in most conditions.

It's also why you don't see many 200lb pro riders, even on fire-breathing 450s. It's a cliche saying in MX, that rider ability makes all the difference. This is true, but all else being equal, big guys are at a disadvantage.
smeg
Posts
1096
Joined
2/13/2011
Location
Washington, DC, USA
7/14/2011 4:20pm
TriRacer27 wrote:
OK so my math is probably wrong but I gave it a shot. Let me know if I made a mistake somewhere. You have to use...
OK so my math is probably wrong but I gave it a shot. Let me know if I made a mistake somewhere.


You have to use the torque instead of the hp to really quantify it, so here's my assumptions:

Max Torque = 25 ft/lb
Final Gear Reduction = 27.69 for 1st gear (assuming constant throughout start for max effect)
1 ft distance between application of torque and final point of contact
Blake Bagget + bike = 345 lb
Dean Wilson + bike = 375 lb

I have also assumed that they are able to maintain maximum torque to the ground, 0 mechanical or frictional losses, and perfect traction! This is the best way to see the absolute maximum advantage that Dean Wilson would have.



Over the length of a 50 meter start (I use metric when I do these, so bear with me):


Final Velocity for BB = 44.35 m/s or 99.2 mph!!
Final Velocity for DW = 42.56 m/s or 95.2 mph

The difference in time that it would take them to get to the 50 meter breaking point mark is


Time BB = 2.25 s
Time DW = 2.35 s



Sooooo, what's my point here? BB sure has a huge advantage on paper and should be able to get to the first turn a full second faster than Dean, but we don't see that. We also don't see them doing 95 mph down the start straight because of all the different factors involved with putting the power down to the ground. Once you start estimating for mechanical and frictional losses in power, loss of traction to the dirt, different rider techniques and weight distribution on the bike, etc. that second is quickly eaten up by everything else.
You are leaving out a bunch of physics when you say

Time BB = 2.25 s
Time DW = 2.35 s

Sooooo, what's my point here? BB sure has a huge advantage on paper and should be able to get to the first turn a full second faster than Dean,


You are correct BB would get to a fixed mark more quickly then Dean but fail to account for kinetic energy once that point is reached. kineticEnergy = 1/2mass(velocity squared)......BB's increased top speed would require a greater breaking distance thereby nullifying, to a certain extent BB's advantage.
CamP
Posts
6826
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
7/14/2011 4:55pm
Lighter is faster, but traction is the variable.
machine
Posts
6404
Joined
1/5/2011
Location
Collettsville, NC, USA
7/14/2011 6:08pm
wow, there are some pretty good mathematicians on here.

It looks like most of you are coming up with what we see on the track. That is BB slowly pulling away tenth of a second by tenth of a second until he has a decent gap.

Shoot, I experience it at the local tracks with my friends. I have to ride a bike with more HP just to be competitive with guys who weigh 140-165 lbs. I'm pushing 210 and can feel it when trying to exit corners and making a jump that
is right out of a corner. There is no proof of this, but I know it exists, i can feel it.
Hank_Thrill
Posts
4659
Joined
9/22/2008
Location
Arlen, TX, USA
7/14/2011 8:49pm
I've read half of the replies so far and this thread is kick ass! I thought the altitude + horsepower loss thing Jeff Emig did at Colorado was super badass/fascinating, and this is also equally just as interesting. I'm glad we have some math gurus on here!
7/14/2011 8:53pm Edited Date/Time 7/14/2011 10:24pm
Remember this example?

K-Dub in the lites class a season or two ago (or more?). Top 3 times in practice (which is saying something since he's normally not one of the quickest in practice). I think he barely made the top 20 in the race? He was about 200lbs at the time.
JOHN CHOATE
Posts
2024
Joined
9/18/2008
Location
Dallas, NC, USA
7/14/2011 10:10pm
Just like drag racing. All the horsepower in the world will not do you any good if it isn't getting to the ground(ie traction). That's one thing I think makes MX such an awesome sport, the fastest person, not bike, usually wins.
SLAPAHO
Posts
1934
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Newport Beach, CA, USA
Fantasy
7/14/2011 10:42pm
i love how this board is so full of 2stroke "light weight" bike lovers, yet the guys complaining the most about heavy 4strokes have 20lbs of muffin-top rolling over their riding pants haha. good stuff...
andymoto
Posts
4771
Joined
11/28/2007
Location
Carmichael, CA, USA
7/14/2011 10:57pm
Just like drag racing. All the horsepower in the world will not do you any good if it isn't getting to the ground(ie traction). That's one...
Just like drag racing. All the horsepower in the world will not do you any good if it isn't getting to the ground(ie traction). That's one thing I think makes MX such an awesome sport, the fastest person, not bike, usually wins.
X2.

Now that will be the excuse for Ricky Ryan winning '87 Daytona SX......
machine
Posts
6404
Joined
1/5/2011
Location
Collettsville, NC, USA
7/15/2011 4:39am
TheWeapon wrote:
Remember this example? K-Dub in the lites class a season or two ago (or more?). Top 3 times in practice (which is saying something since he's...
Remember this example?

K-Dub in the lites class a season or two ago (or more?). Top 3 times in practice (which is saying something since he's normally not one of the quickest in practice). I think he barely made the top 20 in the race? He was about 200lbs at the time.
good point
machine
Posts
6404
Joined
1/5/2011
Location
Collettsville, NC, USA
7/15/2011 4:40am
SLAPAHO wrote:
i love how this board is so full of 2stroke "light weight" bike lovers, yet the guys complaining the most about heavy 4strokes have 20lbs of...
i love how this board is so full of 2stroke "light weight" bike lovers, yet the guys complaining the most about heavy 4strokes have 20lbs of muffin-top rolling over their riding pants haha. good stuff...
hey you bastard, stop talking about me......Grinning
7/15/2011 7:43am Edited Date/Time 7/15/2011 7:48am
smeg wrote:
You are leaving out a bunch of physics when you say [b]Time BB = 2.25 s Time DW = 2.35 s Sooooo, what's my point here...
You are leaving out a bunch of physics when you say

Time BB = 2.25 s
Time DW = 2.35 s

Sooooo, what's my point here? BB sure has a huge advantage on paper and should be able to get to the first turn a full second faster than Dean,


You are correct BB would get to a fixed mark more quickly then Dean but fail to account for kinetic energy once that point is reached. kineticEnergy = 1/2mass(velocity squared)......BB's increased top speed would require a greater breaking distance thereby nullifying, to a certain extent BB's advantage.
Where did I leave out physics?


I made some assumptions in order to calculate the absolute largest gap and difference it could make. The fact that BB would have to hit the binders first would obviously decrease the advantage, as would all the other factors I mentioned and didn't include in the calculations.


The point wasn't calculating what it is in the real world but showing that it would take completely unreasonable circumstances to make a significant difference.

The key thing here is the traction which is a function of the force applied to the ground, where Dean has an advantage.




At the end of the day I think they are even. Dean has more muscle and a longer body to maneuver the bike around better and BB has to be more precise because he can't muscle the bike back in shape like Dean could. But Blake may last longer. It's pretty even if you ask me.

Post a reply to: HP vs Rider Weight

The Latest