The Big Picture
in [Racing]
|
From: Mark N on 15 Sep 2009 16:08 pablo wrote: > Mark N wrote: > > If you recall, when the first Yamaha and Suzuki 800s were tested in the > > fall of 2006 they were running them in the latest 990 chassis, and the > > tire manufacturers hadn't yet built any tires specifically for the 800s. > > Honda obviously had an all-new bike, and I don't recall what Ducati and > > Kawasaki ran - seem to recall Kawi's 800 motor wasn't ready for testing > > right after Valencia, but I may be wrong about that. But the word from > > the regulars right away was that the new bikes were faster in the > > corners, and they would have to be ridden more like 250s because of that > > advantage and the lack of jump off the corners, plus the shorter braking > > zone because of the lower top speeds and higher cornering speeds. And > > the lap times had hardly slowed at all. So it was immediately a > > different world and just based on the basic nature of the motors, > > nothing else had appreciably changed. > > That was then, this is now. There has been progress in both tire and > chassis technology to better cope with the higher *overal* speed. But the basic physics hasn't changed. When you boil it down, given the same level of development, an 800 with change direction more quickly and a 990 will have more torque and peak power. And the way to get them around the track most quickly will be somewhat different. > From a safety perspective, it was necessary to curb top speed, at > least for a little while (they are faster now, of course). Plus I > think racing benefits far more from faster corner speed than top speed > on the straights. It also hapens to be where riding skills matter the > most, braking and cornering. At least they haven't come up with > computer assisted ABS... > > What I am saying simply is that we are witnessing the result of a > highly evolved sport, which means that at the very top every single > little detail matters. And yes, rider size has ALWAYS been a factor in > motorcycle racing, only with the current evolvement of the sport it > does so even more - that's one of the side effects of it. > > I *do* agree that a less highly evolved version of the sport is more > entertaining to watch. It may not be the absolutely fastest way around > a track, but then again, it is more fun to watch guys sliding and > fighting less capable machinery. And I think the fallacy in your theorem is this: The selection of displacement, minimum weight, etc. in the rules is arbitrary or largely so, so the move from 990s to 800s was arbitrary and has nothing to do with evolving the sport to a higher level. The claim was that this was done for safety reasons, but the general opinion since then has been that these bikes are actually less safe, because of the nature of the change in cornering. These machines can corner at higher speeds (which is subtly different than getting through corners more quickly or effectively, and of course only applies while cornering), but that's a machine characteristic and not at all a qualitative advance in riding. In fact there is reason to believe that the actual riding hasn't evolved, rather it has devolved - instead of more complex decisions being made in cornering lines, braking points, etc., today we see single-line racing, the riders forced to do what is clearly optimal for the machine, and we usually see the same passing process over and over, stab it up the inside, take the line, hope to get it slowed and turned enough to hold that line, but more often than not drifting too wide and losing the position again. That three of the top four riders today are age 23 or younger speaks to this same thing, they simply don't have the experience to develop complex racing skills to the same extent as someone in the traditional racing prime around age 30, someone like Rossi. But they know how to ride like this, they did it in 125 and 250, the advanced electronics help smooth over their errors, and they're small enough that the machine operates more optimally with them in the saddle. So if this is a more evolved sport, it is so only in selected aspects. What is highly evolved are the machines themselves, especially the elctronics (which also allow for a dumbing down of the human element), and the tires. But once these things take over the racing itself becomes boring, which is what we've seen since 2007. And they would be equally evolved at 1000cc, they would just be ridden somewhat differently, and probably more interestingly. > So I don't have the answers, and it is obvious MotoGP and WSB haven't > got them either yet. Because we people watching are hard to lease: > give us guys fighting very hard on very equal machines (all entry > classes tend to be like that) and we'll still be looking at our > watches waiting for the less entertaining top class with the big names > and big budgets to truly thrill us because that's where the stars > race... we're a contradiction in our expectations.... we want > prototypes and the most sublime engineering and the highest possile > pace, and yet we want the racing to be very close and entertaining. Agreed. It seems the issue of the day mostly revolves around electronics, just as it has in F1 prior to this. The problem is that it is a worthwhile pursuit from a production streetbike standpoint, so a legitimate R&D pursuit, and it's almost almost impossible to regulate. That's where the GP2 class is going to be interesting, running with no traction control and no question about it. But racing is getting to a point where part of its old notion, the development and display of technology and the fastest-possible machines, is separating from its latest one, a form of for-profit spectator sports mass entertainment. It's the battle that is getting fought everywhere today, just in different ways.
From: Mark N on 15 Sep 2009 16:35 pablo wrote: > it's like saying one would like fewer ethiopians and kenyans > dominating the long run events. <snip> > and they aren't easy, so in the end it's the sponsors' and paying > public's money that speaks. A direct contradition there, it seems - first you imply that there is somehow an innate, absolute superiority in the 125/250-bred EurroMed midget (and one assumes you mean other than size), and then you imply is actually driven by the ultimate costomer base. Me, I'd lean pretty heavily toward the latter...
From: Julian Bond on 15 Sep 2009 17:46 Mark N <menusbaum(a)earthlink.net> Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:44:45 >That may be the case in BSB, but I don't buy your usual "only in >America is it different" position. My guess is if you looked at all >the world championships worldwide, you wouldn't find every 600 class >everywhere using the WSB rulebook. Consensus so far seems to be - UK, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany WSS or very close to it - France and Australia much closer to European Superstock - Japan, China, Malaysia, Indonesia unknown. >And the claim about factory >involvement seems even more dubious, for instance I would be shocked >if in Japan they run WSS rules and there is no factory involvement at >all. The old AMA is probably at the end of the bell curve, the OEMs >had more to do with the winning 600s than in most places and the >privateers probably have had less resources upon which to build more >heavily-modified motors. This is a persistent theme. That there are limited US tuning shops capable of building WSS level 600 motors. Or that they can't do so at a price that privateers can afford. Really? I mean. Really? -- 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 More Y2K Action Urged
From: Dirt on 15 Sep 2009 20:59 On Sep 15, 4:46 pm, Julian Bond <julian_b...(a)voidstar.com> wrote: > This is a persistent theme. That there are limited US tuning shops > capable of building WSS level 600 motors. Or that they can't do so at a > price that privateers can afford. Really? I mean. Really? <tongue in cheek> Really. Any capable shop, instead of trying something new with motorcycles, will just do the same old thing and build an old 350 Chevy motor, drop it into a beaten down jalopy and go circle jerking. <ahem> Excuse me, circle track racing. </tongue in cheek> -Dirt-
From: pablo on 15 Sep 2009 23:06
On Sep 15, 1:35 pm, Mark N <menusb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > pablo wrote: > > it's like saying one would like fewer ethiopians and kenyans > > dominating the long run events. > <snip> > > and they aren't easy, so in the end it's the sponsors' and paying > > public's money that speaks. > > A direct contradition there, it seems - first you imply that there is > somehow an innate, absolute superiority in the 125/250-bred EurroMed > midget (and one assumes you mean other than size), and then you imply > is actually driven by the ultimate costomer base. Me, I'd lean pretty > heavily toward the latter... i never implied the former. ethiopians and kenyans are not superior, they are socially conditioned, as is the sport in italy and spain. miost of the world's top soccer players are of latin origin. no genetic "superiority" there. it's momentary social factors that can swing back and forth within just a few years. |