Roberts Jr. on Electronics and motogp

[Ed Light]

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100824200wchampion.htm
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at
***@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.

[Julian Bond]

Post by Ed Light
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100824200wchampion.htm

Old guy remembers the past with rose coloured specs. Nothing to see
here, move along.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Now tell me that watching Casey Stoner riding isn't exciting when the
Ducati is pumping away like crazy.

[Bruce]

Post by Julian Bond

Post by Ed Light
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100824200wchampion.htm

Old guy remembers the past with rose coloured specs. Nothing to see
here, move along.

maybe yes, maybe no.

Post by Julian Bond
You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

sure you can - they have control tires, no reason they couldn't
limit electronic aids

Post by Julian Bond
Now tell me that watching Casey Stoner riding isn't exciting when the
Ducati is pumping away like crazy.

not really - occasionally an exciting moment her and there but in
general the 800 era has been a giant parade snoozfest.

for another take read a new guys take on Motogp bikes:

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100824m1r1.htm

where he spells it out pretty clearly that it is way more about the bike
and setup than about the rider.

Bruce

[Julian Bond]

Post by Bruce
sure you can - they have control tires, no reason they couldn't
limit electronic aids

Not if they keep the 21 litre limit and not without a spec engine. You
can go all round this but you end up in places like the AMA Suzukis
finding a way to do traction control without traction control sensors.
Even a spec ECU doesn't work given the different engine configurations.
Or the situation where the most advanced road bikes have more
electronics than MotoGP.

Post by Bruce
where he spells it out pretty clearly that it is way more about the bike
and setup than about the rider.

And yet the aliens invariably end up at the front.

[Mark N]

Post by Julian Bond
Bruce

Post by Bruce
sure you can - they have control tires, no reason they couldn't
limit electronic aids

Not if they keep the 21 litre limit and not without a spec engine. You
can go all round this but you end up in places like the AMA Suzukis
finding a way to do traction control without traction control sensors.
Even a spec ECU doesn't work given the different engine configurations.
Or the situation where the most advanced road bikes have more
electronics than MotoGP.

Agreed, they shouldn't even try to eliminate the electronic controls,
because it can't be done. What they should do is design the rules to
limit the effect of them - 1000cc (or more), 24 liters of fuel, etc.

Post by Julian Bond

Post by Bruce
where he spells it out pretty clearly that it is way more about the bike
and setup than about the rider.

And yet the aliens invariably end up at the front.

Or, another way to look at it, the top factory Yamahas, Hondas and
Ducatis end up at the front, no doubt with the best engineers,
technicians, programmers. But the problem as much as electronic controls
is bikes which are so reliant on them, and provide material advantage to
little guys with 125/250 skills.

I think it's kind of funny that Pedrosa might be considered to have
otherworldly riding skills, yet today, after five years as Honda's #1
rider, he actually won his third race in a single season; doesn't sound
that extraordinary to me. And Rossi's career has really fallen off on
the 800s, right when he should be in his prime and most-dominant. As,
you know, the Greatest Of All Time. So Spies comes about as close as a
satellite bike has come to winning in 800, and the immediate questions
have to be about what's under that fairing, now that he is factory-elect.

So give 'em an excess of power, don't strangle it with ridiculous fuel
limits, and let's see if the electronics are such a problem after all.
And throw in equalizing rider weight, just to dispose of The Subject
Which No One Will Touch*...

*Today's winners:
125: Terol, Spain - 58kg
Moto2: Elias, Spain - 57kg
MotoGP: Pedrosa, Spain - 51kg

[Ed Light]

"Rossi Echos Roberts Jr."

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100830anpos.htm
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at
***@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.

[Julian Bond]

Post by Ed Light
"Rossi Echos Roberts Jr."
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100830anpos.htm

But no suggestion of how to do this.

[sturd]

Post by Julian Bond

Post by Ed Light
"Rossi Echos Roberts Jr."
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100830anpos.htm

But no suggestion of how to do this.

What if the FIM required wheel sensors front and rear and a
throttle position sensor and put on their own d/a logger for those
and maybe other data streams? Then post race they could
look at it and see if there was any software (non-humanware)
control going on. Seems like that could be made to work.



Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

[Bruce]

Post by Julian Bond

Post by Ed Light
"Rossi Echos Roberts Jr."
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100830anpos.htm

But no suggestion of how to do this.

that's a different question, the initial step is to recognize the
problem, which you were in denial of (just and old loser griping)
but now that the GOAT has spoken you accept and/or ignore that issue
and move on to enforcement.

the rules will need to be carefully made as to not make things worse
but something needs to be done.

Look at this weekends race - even though aspects are cool - spieas
getting pole and a podium, rossi doing well even after numerous practice
creashes etc. the race it self was BORING with a capital "B"

a nice spaced out parade, only passing was the opening few laps as
the ones with a faster pace made passes and then zoomed of - no real
dicing or great moves, just motoring on by.

Bruce

[Julian Bond]

Post by Bruce

Post by Julian Bond

Post by Ed Light
"Rossi Echos Roberts Jr."
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100830anpos.htm

But no suggestion of how to do this.

that's a different question, the initial step is to recognize the
problem, which you were in denial of (just and old loser griping)
but now that the GOAT has spoken you accept and/or ignore that issue
and move on to enforcement.
the rules will need to be carefully made as to not make things worse
but something needs to be done.
Look at this weekends race - even though aspects are cool - spieas
getting pole and a podium, rossi doing well even after numerous practice
creashes etc. the race it self was BORING with a capital "B"

Yes, the race was boring. Yes, *something needs to be done*. And even
the GOAT is turning into an old loser griping[1]!

But until somebody comes up with a viable alternative it's still just
wishful thinking.

Increasing the capacity while retaining the same fuel limit is going to
make electronics even more important and the problems of getting a
smooth and rideable power curve even harder. With the proposed rules, I
can't see any reason why 1000s will be any slower in the corner or the
racing any better. There's still going to be one perfect line and 4-6
riders who can ride that perfect line for 45 minutes.

[1]Here's a question for you. Will Rossi ever win another race?

[Champ]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:28:03 +0100, Julian Bond

Post by Julian Bond
[1]Here's a question for you. Will Rossi ever win another race?

You know what - I think there's a real possibility that he won't

[Nick Knowles]

Post by Champ
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:28:03 +0100, Julian Bond

[1]Here's a question for you. Will Rossi ever winanother race?

You know what - I think there's a real possibility that he won't

Thankyou, Nostradamus.

[Champ]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:20:36 -0700 (PDT), Nick Knowles

Post by Nick Knowles

Post by Champ
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:28:03 +0100, Julian Bond

[1]Here's a question for you. Will Rossi ever winanother race?

You know what - I think there's a real possibility that he won't

Thankyou, Nostradamus.

ha!

I'm happy to have been proved wrong :-)

[Switters]

Post by Champ
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:20:36 -0700 (PDT), Nick Knowles

Post by Nick Knowles

Post by Champ
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:28:03 +0100, Julian Bond

[1]Here's a question for you. Will Rossi ever winanother race?

You know what - I think there's a real possibility that he won't

Thankyou, Nostradamus.

ha!
I'm happy to have been proved wrong :-)

And what a race that was!

[Bruce]

Post by Julian Bond

Post by Bruce

Post by Julian Bond

Post by Ed Light
"Rossi Echos Roberts Jr."
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2010/Aug/100830anpos.htm

But no suggestion of how to do this.

that's a different question, the initial step is to recognize the
problem, which you were in denial of (just and old loser griping)
but now that the GOAT has spoken you accept and/or ignore that issue
and move on to enforcement.
the rules will need to be carefully made as to not make things worse
but something needs to be done.
Look at this weekends race - even though aspects are cool - spieas
getting pole and a podium, rossi doing well even after numerous practice
creashes etc. the race it self was BORING with a capital "B"

Yes, the race was boring. Yes, *something needs to be done*. And even
the GOAT is turning into an old loser griping[1]!
But until somebody comes up with a viable alternative it's still just
wishful thinking.

true, but thinking and discussions can be fun

Post by Julian Bond
Increasing the capacity while retaining the same fuel limit is going to
make electronics even more important and the problems of getting a
smooth and rideable power curve even harder. With the proposed rules, I
can't see any reason why 1000s will be any slower in the corner or the
racing any better. There's still going to be one perfect line and 4-6
riders who can ride that perfect line for 45 minutes.

i think the fuel limits are nonsense

as for other things, I like the idea mike had about having standard
sensors/ data loggers that can detect shenanigans.

Post by Julian Bond
[1]Here's a question for you. Will Rossi ever win another race?

I think so, but not as much as a would have a few weeks ago.

Bruce

[Mark N]

Post by Julian Bond

Post by Bruce
Look at this weekends race - even though aspects are cool - spieas
getting pole and a podium, rossi doing well even after numerous practice
creashes etc. the race it self was BORING with a capital "B"

Yes, the race was boring. Yes, *something needs to be done*. And even
the GOAT is turning into an old loser griping[1]!
But until somebody comes up with a viable alternative it's still just
wishful thinking.
Increasing the capacity while retaining the same fuel limit is going to
make electronics even more important and the problems of getting a
smooth and rideable power curve even harder. With the proposed rules, I
can't see any reason why 1000s will be any slower in the corner or the
racing any better. There's still going to be one perfect line and 4-6
riders who can ride that perfect line for 45 minutes.

Yes, the same fuel limitation is a bad thing, but almost certainly the
result of this flawed intent to let 1000s race against 800s in some sort
of transition period. And if someone like Ducati decides to built a 900
or whatever, then we'll never be rid of that, because that would mean
one or more manufacturers would have to transition the equipment once
again, to full 1000s.

I don't agree with your conclusion at all, though. 1000s will roll
differently than 8000s on the track, just as the 800s were immediately
different that 990s when they showed up in 06-07. That's the impact of
motor physics. And those changes can mean the bikes can be raced
differently in battle, especially with more fuel - I don't think a 1000
with 24 liters will just race around on the perfect 250 line as the 800s
do, the excess of power will allow for differences and more creativity,
and it may even be best to allow the riders more control of the machine
to apply that.

And I think alienism is one of the great fallacies of this age, just as
Michael Scott's constant harping on today being a new Golden Age in GP
is; these things are only possible if one is predisposed, and almost
desperately so, to embrace and believe them...

[Julian Bond]

Post by Mark N
I don't agree with your conclusion at all, though. 1000s will roll
differently than 8000s on the track, just as the 800s were immediately
different that 990s when they showed up in 06-07. That's the impact of
motor physics.

And I think you're ignoring 5-6 years of development in tyres,
electronics, engines. The fastest way round the track in 2012 will be
2011, 800cc style cornering speed with 1000 style top end. Unless
something changes in the rules, I just can't see anyone giving up
cornering speed and corner entry speed when they can't get the extra
power down on the exit. It's not about physics, its about development.

Post by Mark N
And those changes can mean the bikes can be raced differently in
battle, especially with more fuel - I don't think a 1000 with 24 liters
will just race around on the perfect 250 line as the 800s do, the
excess of power will allow for differences and more creativity, and it
may even be best to allow the riders more control of the machine to
apply that.

Well the proposed rules as they are today it's 21 Litres for 1000cc
prototypes. The CRTs will be allowed 24 litres, but nobody yet knows
what a CRT team is or even if there will be any.

[Mark N]

Mark N

Post by Mark N
I don't agree with your conclusion at all, though. 1000s will roll
differently than 8000s on the track, just as the 800s were immediately
different that 990s when they showed up in 06-07. That's the impact of
motor physics.

And I think you're ignoring 5-6 years of development in tyres,
electronics, engines. The fastest way round the track in 2012 will be
2011, 800cc style cornering speed with 1000 style top end. Unless
something changes in the rules, I just can't see anyone giving up
cornering speed and corner entry speed when they can't get the extra
power down on the exit. It's not about physics, its about development.

And I think you're ignoring the dramatic change that took place in
riding approach the moment these guys climbed off the 990s and onto the
800s. The riders were immediately talking about having to ride them like
250s, the bikes quickly were lapping as fast as 990s even though they
had considerably lower terminal speeds and less acceleration. That
happened because of the physics of the motors allowed for faster corner
speeds, it wasn't because of some random leap in tire and engine
technology that just happened to hit at the same time.

Sure, there has been huge advancement since 2006, and the 1000s won't be
like the 990s. But they won't be like the 800s either. In particular the
bore limitation will make for torquier 1000s that won't have the kind of
top speed advantage that an unlimited 1000s would have, but a bigger one
down low. Which will change the way they attack the racetrack.

Post by Mark N
And those changes can mean the bikes can be raced differently in
battle, especially with more fuel - I don't think a 1000 with 24
liters will just race around on the perfect 250 line as the 800s do,
the excess of power will allow for differences and more creativity,
and it may even be best to allow the riders more control of the
machine to apply that.

Well the proposed rules as they are today it's 21 Litres for 1000cc
prototypes. The CRTs will be allowed 24 litres, but nobody yet knows
what a CRT team is or even if there will be any.

That has to be a rule intended to keep 800s competitive with the 1000
prototypes, and perhaps to make the CRTs potentially competitive. What I
am talking about is what they can do with the rules to make for better
racing even with no limitations put on electronics. I think part of the
reason racing basically sucks these days is the 800cc capacity and the
21-liter fuel limitation, and not just the advancement in electronics.

Of course I also think it has to do with the riders who provide the
primary developmental input, guys who for the most part are very young,
small, have never raced anything but 125 and 250 two strokes, and whose
racing career includes maybe 25 racetracks in total. Are these really
the guys we should look to for answers, guys who have popped out of
Alberto Puig's butt like so many turds? I don't think so.

[Julian Bond]

Post by Mark N
That has to be a rule intended to keep 800s competitive with the 1000
prototypes, and perhaps to make the CRTs potentially competitive. What
I am talking about is what they can do with the rules to make for
better racing even with no limitations put on electronics. I think part
of the reason racing basically sucks these days is the 800cc capacity
and the 21-liter fuel limitation, and not just the advancement in
electronics.

I have suggested this to people who know about these things. The reply
was that if the limit was 24L, they'd find ways of using the extra and
still pushing the boundaries to the point where electronics were needed
to manage the fuel consumption. We'd be right back where we were, just
with more powerful engines. It wouldn't make the racing any better, just
faster.

It does seem that whatever gets suggested has unintended consequences.
Rules designed to cut costs actually increase costs. Rules designed to
improve the racing make the racing worse. It's enough to make you think
they should stop trying, throw most of the rules away and go back to the
sort of rulebook we had 30 years ago. 1000cc, 6 gears, 150Kg, the end,
(Honda Wins). The alternative seems to be a spec championship based on
production engines with nothing that actually works in between.

As we get closer to the CRT scheme, the ugly spectre of WCM keeps
appearing. It's interesting to speculate about how fast a Yamaha M1
style bike with it's carbon brakes and prototype Ohlins but with an
unlimited tune and unlimited electronics BMW engine would be. There are
rumours that this is being built. There also rumours that WSB won't let
it race unless the engine is entirely re-made using the same reasoning
as when they stopped the WCM.

[Mark N]

Post by Julian Bond
I have suggested this to people who know about these things. The reply
was that if the limit was 24L, they'd find ways of using the extra and
still pushing the boundaries to the point where electronics were needed
to manage the fuel consumption. We'd be right back where we were, just
with more powerful engines. It wouldn't make the racing any better, just
faster.

And I don't buy it. First off, it pretty much denies what happened in
05-06-07, when 990s dropped from 424 liter to 22 liters and not much
changed, but when the bikes dropped from 990cc to 800cc and from 22
liters to 21 liters, everything seemed to change. Since the bikes had
lower terminal speeds and higher corner speed capability (apparently due
to dynamic engine internals' effect on the bike's physics), the braking
zones were dramatically reduced, the "ideal corner line" allowing
maximum corner speed emphasized, and the ability to accelerate hard out
of corners was reduced, leaving really only one way to get through the
corners, one line, one approach.

But up displacement to 1000cc and that changes, especially if fuel load
is increased. There is a point where fuel becomes the absolute limiting
factor in producing power, and a point where one can't really use any
additional fuel, those boundaries created by the nature of the motors -
four cylinders of some set capacity, maximum rev limitations, etc. I
suspect 21 liters presses the lower boundary because the manufacturers
want it to, it gives them a research and technology boundary to work on,
and because of the elevated revs of the 800s. Increase fuel, reduce
revs, and they no longer are pressing up against a boundary in the same way.

1000s will also allow for a greater variety of cornering approaches, and
riding approaches in general. There was a huge change in the racing
going from '06 to '07, and it wasn't just because of some random
technology leap, it was because of rule changes.

Post by Julian Bond
It does seem that whatever gets suggested has unintended consequences.
Rules designed to cut costs actually increase costs. Rules designed to
improve the racing make the racing worse. It's enough to make you think
they should stop trying, throw most of the rules away and go back to the
sort of rulebook we had 30 years ago. 1000cc, 6 gears, 150Kg, the end,
(Honda Wins). The alternative seems to be a spec championship based on
production engines with nothing that actually works in between.

I think the problem is the rules are made by two parties, manufacturers
who want to promote their products and derive some sort of R&D benefit,
but who are in fact competitors and not actually allies, and a
commercial operation (Dorna) which perhaps doesn't actually know that
much about the technical side of racing. It seems like it's the teams
who might be better at making these decisions, since they have to pay
for this stuff, to run it, and to attract sponsorship through doing
that. The 800s were a bad decision which initially got masked some by
the tire fiasco, then by the promotion to the front of the riders who
the series wanted out front, and it was only after a couple years that
people admitted to the fact that the racing sucked. Meanwhile, lots of
rule changes messed things up further.

The rule on engine limitations is a good idea which was overdone, six
motors is simply too few, especially when crashes can take out motors.
The spec tire thing was a bad idea driven by the need to somehow make
sure the most-popular riders didn't end up on anything but the best
tires. The fuel limitation thing kind of snuck up on everyone, I think,
and was driven by the manufacturers and the notion that is was a "green"
concept which might protect racing. Electronics are an evolving problem,
but not quite a revolutionary one, I don't think. The move back to 1000s
is a good idea, but limiting them to allow 800s to remain competitive is
a bad one. And the economic collapse has made it all worse. But at the
core of it all are the crappy-racing 800s; had MotoGP stayed at 990cc, I
really doubt the last 3 1/2 years would look nearly as bad as they have
been.

[Julian Bond]

Post by Mark N
1000s will also allow for a greater variety of cornering approaches,
and riding approaches in general. There was a huge change in the racing
going from '06 to '07, and it wasn't just because of some random
technology leap, it was because of rule changes.

Another take on this.
http://pbmagforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=21235&st=60

-----
The Bridgestone front tire. Unbelievable amounts of grip and predictable
all the way until it lets go. It turned MotoGP into a corner speed
sport.

I would also add that the TC everyone complains about (the banging and
popping off the corners) is the least significant element in the change
of styles that we have seen. Slipper clutches and the complex
electronics which keep the wheels in line on corner entry has been far,
far more important. Put the extremely complex slipper clutches and the
Bridgestone front tire together and you get a single recipe for speed:
Fast entry, fast mid-corner, carrying speed into the exit.
-----

If that's true, then it's still going to be true with 2012 1000s.

[Mark N]

Mark N

Post by Mark N
1000s will also allow for a greater variety of cornering approaches,
and riding approaches in general. There was a huge change in the
racing going from '06 to '07, and it wasn't just because of some
random technology leap, it was because of rule changes.

The Bridgestone front tire. Unbelievable amounts of grip and predictable
all the way until it lets go. It turned MotoGP into a corner speed sport.

Revisionist history, I think. In '07 and '08 Michelin was still winning
races, and much of their problem was arriving at the track with a
broad-range tire which could work under varying or unpredicted
conditions. The Bridgestone front may have been superior overall, but
that still marginally. And the style of racing hasn't changed in some
marked way since '08.

I would also add that the TC everyone complains about (the banging and
popping off the corners) is the least significant element in the change
of styles that we have seen. Slipper clutches and the complex
electronics which keep the wheels in line on corner entry has been far,
far more important. Put the extremely complex slipper clutches and the
Fast entry, fast mid-corner, carrying speed into the exit.
If that's true, then it's still going to be true with 2012 1000s.

KRJR said a number of years ago, in '06 I think, that traction control
was less important than tire technology in the ability of 250 riders to
jump on MotoGP bikes and just go, unlike in prior years. There's no
question tire technology has changed the way the bikes can be ridden,
and we were already seeing that in '06. But that was still multi-line
racing, and the racing was much more interesting than it is today, even
with the 22-liter fuel limitation that year.

Today the machines are wedded to a single line, and how fast they can go
on that line and for how long is determined by the quality of the
electronics and the people programming them and making those decisions.
The 800s are more reliant on the tires and the electronics, because they
don't make the excess of power, and manageable excess power, which
allows for alternatives. That applies to fuel management as much as the
rider-aids.

It's been interesting to watch Ducati this year, who can't win a race
and instead seem to be racking up more front-end crashes than anyone. It
seems there's something wrong with their chassis and/or its ability to
work with the forks. In 800 MotoGP there is only one way to get through
the corners, and that bike can't seem to do it. In the 990 era one feels
the riders could simply find another way to attack the racetrack, and we
certainly saw that process with Capirossi and Bayliss, successfully and
otherwise. But Hayden and the great Stoner can't seem to manage that,
and on a bike which hasn't suddenly turned into an underpowered Suzuki
or something.

Meanwhile Honda has upgraded their electronics and the guys who work
with them, and has gotten their chassis to work with the Bridgestones,
and is now perhaps the best bike out there. Pedrosa wins more than three
races in a season for the first time, and two in a row for the first
time - has Dani gotten any better, or is he the metronome which measures
the quality of that bike? Are his victories the signal that Honda has
finally matched the others (or Yamaha, anyway), and his weight advantage
finally becoming the inevitable margin? Will Stoner take that bike and
suddenly turn into the "genius" of 2007 again?

Or is this something of a mirage, created by their fresher engines, a
play-it-safe Lorenzo, a suddenly-human Rossi, a handicapped Spies, etc.?
Do the riders really even matter that much anymore, beyond their light
weight, star power and ability to draw sponsorship? If so, the proof is
in the current Spanish winning streak...

[Julian Bond]

Post by Mark N
Revisionist history, I think. In '07 and '08 Michelin was still winning
races, and much of their problem was arriving at the track with a
broad-range tire which could work under varying or unpredicted
conditions. The Bridgestone front may have been superior overall, but
that still marginally. And the style of racing hasn't changed in some
marked way since '08.

It kind of goes like this. The Ducati engine configuration means it's
naturally rear weight biased. They can't move the engine any further
forwards because the lower cylinders hit the front tyre. Bridgestone
develop a set of tyres to work with this. The front is super sticky to
work with the lower load. The rear needs the rearwards weight transfer
to get heat into it and work properly. Yamaha and Rossi switch to these
tyres. They have to mirror the Ducati frame setup to make them work. So
they progressively move the forks forwards takeing weight off the front
and raise and shorten the bike to get the rearwards weight transfer.
Because the Ducati worked the tyres best with quite a high CoG and lots
of weight transfer to get heat into the tyres, Yamaha mirrors this.
Stoner is off for a while and Rossi pushes development. Bridgestone then
start to develop a compromise tyre that is somewhere between what Ducati
and Yamaha want. This forms the basis for the control tyre. For whatever
reason, Honda don't get quite so radical with chassis setup as
Yamaha/Ducati and Pedrosa's lighter weight makes it harder to get the
weight transfer the tyres are designed to work with.

Then we switch to control tyres and Bridgestone base it on this
compromise modified to be a little less radical so it more or less works
for everyone at most tracks. It's actually Ducati who suffer most from
this because the tyre design has moved away from what they need to what
everybody else needs. The front tyre no longer works so well with their
more rearwards CoG. Stoner can't just chuck the front in and rely on the
front tyre to just stick. IMHO, he hasn't been able to alter his style
by the fractions needed to work with the current tyre so what he gets is
a series of front end crashes.

Post by Mark N
Or is this something of a mirage, created by their fresher engines, a
play-it-safe Lorenzo, a suddenly-human Rossi, a handicapped Spies, etc.?

I think something has changed at Honda. It seems it was them who pushed
for the engine rule because it gave them an edge as a motor company.
That fresh impetus and hope has also made them a bit more open to
actually trying to get the chassis right. Put all that together with
Dani's temperament which is to be stunningly fast when everything is
exactly right and it all finally comes together. For the reasons you
give along with some others, everybody else is suddenly racing for
second. You can add in Dovi who's a 10th slower than Pedrosa, Stoner
who's lost his way and the other 10 non-aliens who either don't have the
last 10th or are manipulated into not having the machinery.

It's entirely possible that Dani now wins every race left but it won't
actually be enough. If they'd just hit form 2 or 3 races earlier or he
hadn't fallen off at Laguna this might have been his year. I know the
racing has been god awful boring this year, but I'm really looking
forwards to the last 3-4 races. It's all more of a technical chess game
than a proper man's sport but it's going to be fascinating seeing if
Yamaha-Lorenzo or Honda-Pedrosa can keep it together long enough. The
big fly in the ointment is if Lorenzo's pit lane start comes at exactly
the wrong time, or if Pedrosa's 5th and 6th engine are one race wonders.

[Mark N]

Mark N

Post by Mark N
Revisionist history, I think. In '07 and '08 Michelin was still
winning races, and much of their problem was arriving at the track
with a broad-range tire which could work under varying or unpredicted
conditions. The Bridgestone front may have been superior overall, but
that still marginally. And the style of racing hasn't changed in some
marked way since '08.

It kind of goes like this.<snip>

Maybe, but you must admit that line is built around some traditional
popular MotoGP themes - Rossi/Burgess technical superiority, Honda
corporate inflexibility and determinedly stumbling errors, pro-Pedrosa
size counter-intuitiveness, a left-handed take on Stoner. As a story,
fits very nicely into the Spanish-Italian gross bias in MotoGP, but I
just don't buy it.

Post by Mark N
Or is this something of a mirage, created by their fresher engines, a
play-it-safe Lorenzo, a suddenly-human Rossi, a handicapped Spies, etc.?

I think something has changed at Honda. It seems it was them who pushed
for the engine rule because it gave them an edge as a motor company.
That fresh impetus and hope has also made them a bit more open to
actually trying to get the chassis right. Put all that together with
Dani's temperament which is to be stunningly fast when everything is
exactly right and it all finally comes together. For the reasons you
give along with some others, everybody else is suddenly racing for
second. You can add in Dovi who's a 10th slower than Pedrosa, Stoner
who's lost his way and the other 10 non-aliens who either don't have the
last 10th or are manipulated into not having the machinery.

It seems like it fits very nicely into what I've been saying all along
about Pedrosa - he can win when Honda builds a superior motorcycle or
even an equal bike which works for him and exploits his size advantage,
and bikes which somehow aren't quite as good for his Honda mates.

What I think will be exceedingly interesting is Stoner on that bike next
year - if it works for him we'll get to see what their comparative
talents are, and how they both react to a direct teammate challenge.
That and Rossi-to-Ducati and Spies-to-factory are the bright spots in
yet another fatally-dull-800 year.

It's entirely possible that Dani now wins every race left but it won't
actually be enough. If they'd just hit form 2 or 3 races earlier or he
hadn't fallen off at Laguna this might have been his year. I know the
racing has been god awful boring this year, but I'm really looking
forwards to the last 3-4 races. It's all more of a technical chess game
than a proper man's sport but it's going to be fascinating seeing if
Yamaha-Lorenzo or Honda-Pedrosa can keep it together long enough. The
big fly in the ointment is if Lorenzo's pit lane start comes at exactly
the wrong time, or if Pedrosa's 5th and 6th engine are one race wonders.

Yes, the end promises the possibility of some totally artificial drama,
and I wouldn't quite crown Lorenzo champ yet. After his injury I figured
Rossi would be the hot man at the end (fresher engines), but with his
lingering shoulder injury, his Yamaha departure and some general doubt,
it seems unlikely. More likely than Pedrosa winning every race is
Lorenzo not winning any, if he's playing the points game, is plagued by
tired motors, and perhaps has to take a pit lane start or two. I also
still would be a bit surprised if Stoner goes winless this year, maybe
Philip Island is his savior. And I think someone else might surprise
somewhere, almost certainly Dovi, Hayden or Spies.

And another question now has to be raised - given his satellite
team/bike, his GP experience level, his size, is Ben Spies showing
himself to be possibly the best rider in the world (which does not
necessarily equate to the best 800cc MotoGP rider, btw)? And if so,
where does that leave the Mat Mladin of six, eight, ten years ago? Will
the series find a way to contain him, as they so effectively have done
with Hayden and Edwards and others? And who are those silly gits who are
favorably comparing Crutchlow to Spies?

[Julian Bond]

Post by Mark N
Of course I also think it has to do with the riders who provide the
primary developmental input, guys who for the most part are very young,
small, have never raced anything but 125 and 250 two strokes, and whose
racing career includes maybe 25 racetracks in total. Are these really
the guys we should look to for answers, guys who have popped out of
Alberto Puig's butt like so many turds? I don't think so.

Whatever, we've been having that argument for 10 years at least.

But now the career progression is changing. 250 4s, Moto2. And Moto2 is
not necessarily the last step before MotoGP. Spies, Crutchlow are not
Puig protoges.

Then you look at Moto2 and it's Elias, Iannone, Luthi, Simon, Corsi at
the front. Go over to WSB and it's Biaggi, Haslam at the front and
Laverty a contender in WSS. Out of every name there, Spies is the single
exception. All the others are short, lightweight guys.

So what is it you hate about Captain Darling[1]?

[1]Google image search. Puig is the spitting image of Captain Darling
from Blackadder.