sturd wrote:
> Mark N responds to Julian,
> > 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.
Isn't it? Look at the numbers - in the 07-09 800 era Rossi has won 36%
of the races; in the 02-06 990 era he won 55% of the races. In his
last two championship years in 800 he's won 43% of the races; in his
previous 5 championship seasons he won 64% of the races. There's no
question that there has been a drop in his success/dominance in 800
compared to what it was previous to that. And every other rider who
has won a race in 800 is notably smaller than Rossi, other than
Vermeulen's one wet win in '07. But the other guys winning in 500/990
weren't even close to being so uniformly smaller than him, some were
even larger. I don't think you can be nearly so dismissive of the size
issue, it pretty clearly plays some role, how much is the only serious
question.
> > 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.
Oh, bullshit. The so-called aliens win all of the races for a number
of reasons - they all come from 125/250 (who was the last rider not
from 125/250 to win a dry race? Bayliss, in the last 990 race) which
breeds the riding style that works on the 800s (in part because 800s
have been developed by and for riders from 125/250), with the
exception of Rossi (the GOAT, let's recall) they are all very small
(probably smaller than any truly successful premier class rider
previously), and of course they have the factory seats at the top
factories. Even if you put all these guys in the seats they have now
on the last 990 machines from 3 years ago they still win pretty much
all the races, the differences would be that Rossi wins more often,
and parts of the rest of the field are much closer. But you put them
on those machines in 2003 and maybe it's not quite like that, because
contemporary electronics and tires are a big part of the reason these
little weaklings can run at the front, there were material changes
from '03 to '06.
The big issue with the aliens is that they are running at such a big
margin over everyone else, they are running at a second a lap faster
than anyone else or close to that. Based on everything I've seen over
the years I simply don't think at that level a group of guys have the
superior talent to do that, especially on spec tires, the differences
in ability simply aren't that great. So that brings it back to
equipment (including the team's ability to set it up optimally) or
size or a very particular set of riding skills, there basically has to
be something beyond skill that makes them this dominant.
> > 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.
It definitely is a tire issue, but the capabilities of the machines
factor in as well. If the grip is sufficent and the electronic rider
aids advanced enough that they can run through corners in a classic
manner at sufficently high speed and without crashing, that's one
thing. But if that's the only option because the braking zone is so
compressed and the acceleration out of the corner is so limited and
easy to optimize, then there is another issue involved, and that's
coming from the machine. That's what the riders were saying as soon as
they got on these things and continue to say today, the machines
basically only give you one choice, ride it like a 250, maximize
corner speed, and good luck with passing anyone.
> > 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.
Increasing the fuel allotment counters the impact and cost of
electronics used to manage fuel use, and the rev cap counters the cost
of developing and maintaining high-rev motors, as well as possibly
limiting top speed some. For the most part these are cost-cutting
measures, but also might make the racing more interesting and closer
as well.
> > 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.
I think the only effective way to limit the electronics is spec/
control electronics, starting a cat-and-mouse game over legalities is
not the way to go. Given that the factories seem reluctant to accept
that, I think they have to try to improve things without getting into
this, but doing what they do in a manner that might allow the
imposition of a control ECU more readily down the road. For instance,
requiring four cylinder machines with a particulat stroke limitation
might help.
> 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.
And I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking racing at this
level is in accordance with Burgess' famous "80% rider, 20% bike"
statement. That requires you (and others) to credit the aliens too
much, you have no choice in the matter. Just as a few years ago you
were claiming the optimal size for a MotoGP rider was about 160
pounds, sort of a historical norm, because you wouldn't acknowledge
that small size had become an advantage. And yet the average weight of
the grid has gotten to something close to 25 pounds lighter than that.
So now we have the aliens applying superior racing intellegence,
"figuring it out", and one wonders what corner that will paint you
into eventually...
>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. Switching to 1000s would at least test that theory,
>and if they do it correctly it would leave further options to deal with
>the problem if the racing remains uncompelling.
Except it won't because the new electronic tech won't go away. A 2011
1000cc will be a 2010 800cc just with a bigger bore and stroke. Tyres,
electronics, suspension, brakes all stay the same and they've all come a
long way since 2006. It's not obvious to me that things like mid corner
speed will change at all. Even WSB with slightly lower electronics are
way ahead of where they were in 2005 and ridden much more like MotoGP
bikes now than they were then.
>Anything you add to the grid is basically destined for the back, right?
>Someone's got to be back there, and if you add something that's
>instantly at the front, then everyone quickly switches over to that and
>you're back where you started.
Exactly, and that's the catch. It's still going to be extremely
expensive to compete, the money has to come from somewhere. And how do
you get a rich sponsor if the best you can manage is 16th?
>So what do you think about what Infront threatens / is expected to do
>here? I can understand that they'd want to defend their turf, but is it
>for the good of racing overall, for race fans? Pull the front end off a
>superike and look for production parts - wheels, brakes, fork, all
>"protoype" by any definition. So what are the Flamminis contributing
>here? They are not elevating their series, they're just trying to
>cripple the other one.
It's called business. And I can't see that the Flamminis are doing a bad
job of it. They're protecting their turf. What do you expect them to do?
>So what is your solution?
I'm not going to offer one because I think it may be impossible. I'm
happy to argue about why all the proposals won't work. But that makes me
even more hesitant to say what should be done.
One option that I haven't seen suggested is something like the WSB
transition period. 800cc free prototype engines, 1000cc engines (from
any source, including production) with no air valves or desmo. Take that
Ducati! The aim being to force down rev limits via bore, stroke, piston
speed and valve speed. In other words use an artificial restriction to
get some equivalence between 800 and 1000; between pure prototypes and
some lower spec that can be supported long term.
On the whole production thing, somebody is going to have to formally
recognise that what WCM did should have been allowed. And it should have
been allowed even if they kept production cases and heads. I don't think
anyone should be forced to do this. But I don't think it should be
illegal either.
>You don't seem to think they should get rid of the 800s that got us to
>this point, and you don't seem to think they should allow in
>production-based motors.
I haven't fallen one way or the other so don't put words in my mouth.
Like I said before it's extremely hard to keep everyone happy. But
restricting practice and testing and restricting numbers of engines
looks like a potential disaster. And changing the rules every couple of
years just forces everyone into pointless expense.
--
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
XML Sitemap
>>
>> Lances? Surely a mace would be better.
>Don't call me Shirley.