The Big Picture
in [Racing]
|
From: Julian Bond on 16 Sep 2009 13:50 pablo <pablo(a)simplyhombre.net> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:35:15 >There were two reasons why bikes smaller than the 1000cc macho man >bike were always so enjoyable for purists was because of (a) a more >manageable and realistic powerband of the engine and (b) lighter >weight and thus more agility. There's another one that old LC owners will understand. They're more fun! A ZX6R-B1 or a recent R6 is enormous fun precisely because it's got a powerband and it needs its neck wringing. You just have to resist that voice that keeps telling you it would be more fun if it just had a bit more power. -- 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 Things I Hate: "Volvos"
From: pablo on 16 Sep 2009 14:18 On Sep 16, 6:57 am, Mark N <menusbaumNYETS...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > In streetbike terms and over time you're right of course, but on the > margins, where racing operates, I don't believe that's true. In the end > the weight of the rotating parts inside a 1000cc motor weigh more than > those inside a 600cc or 800cc motor, and travel over a greater distance, > which creates the issue with turning that revealed itself when the 800 > motors were first tested. At least that's how I understand it. I think that's a remnant of the days were a certain engine capacipty would totally overwhelm existing tire and chassis technology. But now it seems that the 1000cc 4-stroke limit no longer is quite as uncivilized, just like 500cc 2-strokes at some point in time stopped being the nasty beasts they were. And as to engine weight, it all depends and I don't think it is quite a linear as one would assume. For one there is thermals, and supposedly some things are *easier* to lighten up with more displacement (whereas others weight more), but hey, I am no engine designer. But you end up with weird stuff like an engine with fewer moving parts of the same displacement (2 cyl anyone) weighing more than a 4 cyl design. > Okay, so your position is that the switch to 800s was purely a safety > move, it was meant to attack a specific serious safety issue It was driven by the riders to a large degree, right, claiming that several circuits on the calendar could no lomger be ridden if top speeds kept building up as dramatically? That is my recollection, and I think when riders worry it is time to listen and make changes. > Except real-world experience - the 800s simply went through corners > faster than the 990s, and that wasn't because of years of development, > that was using essentially the same technology, the same chassis, the > same tires. I think you underestimate the development that happens from year to year, and the fact the 1000cc's themselves would naturally get faster aorund corners, too. That is a development priority. So I think cornering speeds get faster no mater what. It was not because it was an 800. It was because of development that would benefit a 1000cc too. > ... because the danger in racing is mostly in > the corners, where grip is at issue, guys are running together very > closely, and runoff is more at issue. Sure, top speed was an issue with > 990s, but that's hardly gone with 800s. It isn't and motorcycle racing will always be dangerous. But I agree curbing in things was the right decision. Whether it had to be 800 is a different matter altogether. And I am not religiously defending the move to 800, I just don't know what the other laternatives were, and what their effect would have been. > Be fair, Pablo. I can just as easily say you defend the way things are > now because Spanish riders are dominant or at least more successful than > they ever have been ... I'd question that, there's been no champion since Criville. I will not go into this again - I am NOT Spanish, I've never waved a Spanish flag at any sports event, but you keep telling me that I do. Fine. Keep riding that pony if you like it. > ... your claim of today's MotoGP being > more highly evolved ... And you claim it isn't? That would be ludicrous. Whether it's evolved in the right direction with all the electronics, that is another question altogether, and I don't think I've ever posted anything stating I am a fan of fly-by-wire racing stuff with smart software becoming a differentiator. We all want the sport to be safer, and electronics do some of that... but they also do much more. Perhaps engine power ought to be severely reduced for 10 seconds every time an electronic help prevents disaster, I don't know. I do not ever want to question whether someone wins because they are a better pilot or because they are subcontracting to a smarter software wizkid in Lithuania. :) > ... style and skills > developed on the "purebred racing machines" in 125 and 250 that you > love, that Spain loves. And I'd probably be more right than wrong... Swami Mark tries to read my brainwaves again, and tell me the truth of what I think. Buzz - wrong. Actually I think the top class has always been the top class, and no one's called 125 and 250 any other thing than the other classes. Mind you, they do make for fun racing, as support classes always do. But I watch the top class, and the other stuff only time permitting, sadly. > Anyway, I do think the Ducati matter is one of the most intriguing > things I've seen in racing. This year it became obvious that it's > largely a machine problem, and even Ducati doesn't seem to have much > idea what it is, or why Stoner is immune, which amazes me. So no one > wants to ride that bike except Stoner ... I seem to recall Hayden wanted to ride it very badly. :-) So sure, Ducati has utterly lost the dominance they had. It wass bound to happen. But in my opinion it is no way more curious than the fact Honda can't get their sh*t going. Or that Suzuki and Kawa could never even get anywhere close to the others. Maybe Ducati got lucky at a time when things were getting disruptive, and now the others caught up, and now things are as they ought to naturally be - they are one more factory team, and not from a huge factory, either. I am overstating my point here, but the whole Ducati issue is no more fascinating than the Suzuki issue at the end of the day. Why ought Ducati be so naturally superior? They hit *one* out of the ballpark. It's not like they won 10 years in a row... > ... And somehow I have to believe > all this is connected to the 800 switch, this could never have happened > with a 990... That is speculation, pure. I am not sure why you think that. Again, I don't think Ducati is *that* otherworldly. > ... But 800s were a mistake, and I > think if you took a pole of MotoGP fans everywhere the vast majority > would vote for 1000s without electronic rider aids. I am for the no electronic aids bit. I don't overly care about engine displacement, and don't want riders to get hurt because top speeds are unsafe in several circuits. You mention is is cornering that is unsafe. It seems to me it's braking into turns and acceleration that causes the most damage. Especially braking when they still carry all that speed. So I am for a way of limiting that if the riders feel that's what needs to be done. Whatever it is, the riders need to fully support it. > I think in the longer run a better, more successful MotoGP requires the > broadest possible fan base, which requires the broadest possible rider > pool, riders with different styles and backgrounds and machines that > allow them that individuality. I entirely agree. ....pablo
From: sturd on 16 Sep 2009 18:21 pablo asks the class: > (raise your hand all those who regulalry exploit the > bike's limit!). Well, sure I do. But my primary ride these days is a TTr125 in the backyard. The only street bike I've ever owned (that was used as a street bike) has160k miles and gets ridden 4-500 miles a year now that I don't comute. '78 GS750E Even my YZ250 (2 stroke) is hard to ride at the limit. Go fast. Take chances. Mike S.
From: sturd on 16 Sep 2009 18:23 Julian Bond notes: > There's another one that old LC owners will understand. They're more > fun! A ZX6R-B1 or a recent R6 is enormous fun precisely because it's got > a powerband and it needs its neck wringing. Riding on the limit is where it's at. I'm hestitant to believe that even a decent club racer can ride an R6 at the limit. Go fast. Take chances. Mike S.
From: Mark N on 17 Sep 2009 10:33
pablo wrote: > Mark N wrote: >> Except real-world experience - the 800s simply went through corners >> faster than the 990s, and that wasn't because of years of development, >> that was using essentially the same technology, the same chassis, the >> same tires. > > I think you underestimate the development that happens from year to > year, and the fact the 1000cc's themselves would naturally get faster > aorund corners, too. That is a development priority. So I think > cornering speeds get faster no mater what. It was not because it was > an 800. It was because of development that would benefit a 1000cc too. Just so I'm clear on this, here is what I'm talking about: http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2006/Nov/tb/061101e.htm Now I don't think we're talking about year to year here, we're really talking about day to day, as in a test right after the final race of 2006. And using the same chassis, and tires. Me, I don't think you post the same laps times with a bike that has lost 15-20% of its power, weighs the same, runs the same tires and brakes, etc., without doing something better, and that something has to be turning/cornering. Which is what the riders were saying at the time. >> ... because the danger in racing is mostly in >> the corners, where grip is at issue, guys are running together very >> closely, and runoff is more at issue. Sure, top speed was an issue with >> 990s, but that's hardly gone with 800s. > > It isn't and motorcycle racing will always be dangerous. But I agree > curbing in things was the right decision. Whether it had to be 800 is > a different matter altogether. And I am not religiously defending the > move to 800, I just don't know what the other laternatives were, and > what their effect would have been. I think one of the things to have considered, maybe on the 800s more than the 990s, is a rev cap, which not only would reduce top speed but would also have made pointless a development like the switch to pneumatic valves, which was a big waste. >> Anyway, I do think the Ducati matter is one of the most intriguing >> things I've seen in racing. This year it became obvious that it's >> largely a machine problem, and even Ducati doesn't seem to have much >> idea what it is, or why Stoner is immune, which amazes me. So no one >> wants to ride that bike except Stoner ... > > I seem to recall Hayden wanted to ride it very badly. :-) So sure, > Ducati has utterly lost the dominance they had. It wass bound to > happen. But in my opinion it is no way more curious than the fact > Honda can't get their sh*t going. Or that Suzuki and Kawa could never > even get anywhere close to the others. Maybe Ducati got lucky at a > time when things were getting disruptive, and now the others caught > up, and now things are as they ought to naturally be - they are one > more factory team, and not from a huge factory, either. I am > overstating my point here, but the whole Ducati issue is no more > fascinating than the Suzuki issue at the end of the day. Why ought > Ducati be so naturally superior? They hit *one* out of the ballpark. > It's not like they won 10 years in a row... That's not curious, but what is curious is the massive difference in performance of Stoner compared to basically everyone else on that bike. When guys like Hayden and Melandri are consistently two seconds or more off of Stoner, which is a HUGE gap in contemporary GP racing, there is something very peculiar at play. And this has been going on for a long time, since Stoner immediately got on with the bike at the start of 2007 and Capirossi didn't. And then there is the huge amount of speculation as to why, and Ducati seems entirely clueless as to what the problem is, mostly seeming to just blame the riders. The fact is that if Stoner hadn't landed on that bike it might well be viewed today as the worst of the 800s, even lower than the Suzukis. Or having the development of the bike based on a rider other than Stoner might have made it better than it is today for everyone else. No rider today is a second or more better than almost everyone else at this level, so it has to be a machine issue, but one that doesn't impact everyone, based on Stoner's performances and his comments. It's just very strange, one assumes fundamentally a chassis problem but tied in with how the bike makes power and how the electronics manage it. Here is a comment by Stoner way back in November of '06 after a test at Jerez: "Today we focussed on the engine to help smooth out the harsh power delivery under acceleration at the rear." That sounds eerily like the pumping problem that Hayden has complained of this year, I think the most specific he's been. In any case, it will be interesting to see if Hayden can managed to help them find and fix the problem, until Ducati can rid themselves of that reputation it will be very hard for them to hire a top rider again. They can't afford to continue on with their bike having the reputation as a career killer. But even if they find the problem and fix it (or maybe just fix it - they may know what the issue is but haven't done anything much because it doesn't hurt Stoner), it may just be that their time, based on advanced electronics, higher horsepower via desmodromics and higher revs, and better tires thanks to Bridgestone, has passed, and they're back to where they were in '04, not able to quite compete with Honda and Yamaha, perhaps fighting some basic design inferiorities of their machine. It sounds like your thinking is along those lines, as is mine. What will be interesting in that regard is the possibility of a very serious run at Rossi next year, given the situations with Lorenzo and Spies at Yamaha and Stoner at Ducati. If Lorenzo continues to maintain and improve his performance and Spies continues to hold great promise, Yamaha may just be willing to let Rossi go at last, not willing to continue to pay him 20M or whatever and to bend to his other demands if they're going to do most of the winning anyway. Rossi will be attracted by someone who is willing to do what he wants, build their entire effort around him, just as Yamaha did back in '04, and Ducati is really the only one who fit that bill. In some sense Hayden may hold the key to that, if he leads Rossi to believe the bike can win with someone other than Stoner then he might go for it, and if he doesn't he might not. As I said, the current situation with the big four riders means its a perpetual silly season now... |