Posted by sturd on December 8, 2009, 11:37 am
Mark N responds to Julian,
> > - I don't think the 800s directly that have resulted in shitty racing. I
> > think it's the advance of technology, and that 800s have accelerated that.
> That's partially true, but the general consensus now is that 800s are
> more dependent on the electronic rider aids than what 1000s would be,
> and that cuts down on the options riders have in terms of how they go
> about the racing.
The electronics are certainly a huge part of the machine side of the
problem.
> Again, here are the
> average margins from 1st to 5th over the last four seasons:
> 2006 - 13.16 seconds
> 2007 - 21.22 seconds
> 2008 - 23.17 seconds
> 2009 - 25.75 seconds
> That's pretty compelling evidence that there is an 800 problem in
> MotoGP. Maybe the problem is rider weight,
The biggest guy (Rossi) won a large percentage of those races.
That ain't it.
> maybe it's bikes that demand
> to be ridden in a very particular way,
And a bunch of the riders haven't figured that out yet. Only
the aliens.
> It's only a problem if bikes have to be ridden leaned waaaay over, in
> the manner of a 250 or an 800.
That's as much a tire capability "problem" as anything to do with
the bike motor size. Racers will use all of the tire that they can,
no matter what the bike. Going from 990 to 800 didn't increase
the lean angle, it may have increased the time spent at max
lean.
> So what is your solution?
> I'd start with increasing the fuel allotment and imposing a rev cap, for
> instance.
Increasing the fuel allotment??? That goes counter to imposing a rev
cap as one allows more power, the other doesn't. The engine limit
rule
will have the same sort of effect but with teams allowed to decide
how to extend life (by extension lower power). Perhaps by limiting
revs, more likely by developing new parts in the longer term.
> Again, what is your solution?
A possibility is to remove the sensors. Wheel speed sensors
are easy to detect. Ditto tire temp. GPS could be jammed
with a little box the size of a butt cam. Lean angle might be
tough, you can hide that in the potted electronics.
There are probably tricks to figure out loss of traction from
rpm and such but at least everybody would be starting from
scratch.
In any case, I'd bet on the result being the same four
guys/teams figuring it out first and driving off into the distance.
Maybe Spies will be the fifth guy.
Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.
Posted by Julian Bond on December 8, 2009, 12:04 pm
>A possibility is to remove the sensors. Wheel speed sensors
>are easy to detect. Ditto tire temp. GPS could be jammed
>with a little box the size of a butt cam. Lean angle might be
>tough, you can hide that in the potted electronics.
>There are probably tricks to figure out loss of traction from
>rpm and such but at least everybody would be starting from
>scratch.
I don't see how the electronics can be partially limited without a spec
ECU. It just encourages creative workarounds. Anyway, electonics are the
future (see the BMW 4) so why limit them?
What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
- Overall cost of a season's racing
- Grid size
Next?
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Continues After News
Posted by sturd on December 8, 2009, 2:14 pm
Julian Bond questions:
> I don't see how the electronics can be partially limited without a spec
> ECU.
That's what I was getting at - eliminating the sensors limits
the electronics without a spec ECU which seems
unworkable to me.
>It just encourages creative workarounds.
Indeed. Racers will still be racers.
Limiting the electronics, while a temporary thing as the teams
figure out the workarounds, will make the racing more
exciting, maybe, by getting away from the procession
where each rider gets to his time and rides there the whole
race. Maybe.
Maybe.
> What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
> - Overall cost of a season's racing
Motor life rule will help that, not sure why you think it will
be a disaster. Sure it might hurt some teams but the best
teams will figure it out and go racing. Same as most any
other rule.
A big cost is the cost of team travel. Maybe you could
somehow limit the number of people per team, their hotel
and restaurant bills. Don't ask me how.
> - Grid size
I don't much care to have more backmarkers.
You didn't say
> - Dull, processional racing
Give them all lances.
Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.
Posted by Julian Bond on December 8, 2009, 3:33 pm
>> What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
>> - Overall cost of a season's racing
>Motor life rule will help that, not sure why you think it will
>be a disaster. Sure it might hurt some teams but the best
>teams will figure it out and go racing. Same as most any
>other rule.
We've already seen Capirossi start from the back of the grid. And then
both Suzukis go backwards as their last engines were so "tired". People
will start sitting out the free practice sessions to avoid putting miles
on the engines. One of the aliens (or near aliens) is going to have a
high profile engine blow up. Remember Hayden in Philip Island? What
happens when Rossi's engine blows up? What happens when one of the
rookies has 3 engine used up and 3 lunched by going through the gravel
trap?
>A big cost is the cost of team travel. Maybe you could
>somehow limit the number of people per team, their hotel
>and restaurant bills. Don't ask me how.
Well you could certainly organise the schedule to be more sensible and
stop switching continents on successive weekends.
>> - Grid size
>I don't much care to have more backmarkers.
Tricky that. Hidden away in the argument is not 25 on the grid, but
rather 10 within 15 seconds of the leader. Or perhaps a privateers cup
so there's a reason to try and follow the fight for 11th.
>You didn't say
>> - Dull, processional racing
>Give them all lances.
Lances? Surely a mace would be better.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Continues After News
Posted by sturd on December 8, 2009, 4:12 pm
Julian Bond says:
> We've already seen Capirossi start from the back of the grid. And then
> both Suzukis go backwards as their last engines were so "tired".
Both added some entertainment value. What if Rossi has to start
from the back with a new motor? I bet that would make for some
pyrotechnics.
>People
> will start sitting out the free practice sessions to avoid putting miles
> on the engines.
Yes, I suppose that will happen and I won't like it either.
>One of the aliens (or near aliens) is going to have a
> high profile engine blow up.
More good stuff. This is a technology game too. If the
team can't figure out how to keep that from happening, they
are going to blow up, yep. Or have a dog slow used up motor.
Betcha they're running durability tests as we type.
>What
> happens when Rossi's engine blows up? What happens when one of the
> rookies has 3 engine used up and 3 lunched by going through the gravel
> trap?
What if they require air filters with a specific pressure drop?
Easy to check, keeps the kitty litter out, and lowers max
HP all at once.
> Well you could certainly organise the schedule to be more sensible and
> stop switching continents on successive weekends.
There you go.
> >Give them all lances.
> Lances? Surely a mace would be better.
Don't call me Shirley.
Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.
XML Sitemap
> > think it's the advance of technology, and that 800s have accelerated that.
> That's partially true, but the general consensus now is that 800s are
> more dependent on the electronic rider aids than what 1000s would be,
> and that cuts down on the options riders have in terms of how they go
> about the racing.