2023 Cota - Red Bull Grand Prix of The Americas

mylexicon said:

Well, we probably all agree that the 2022 Yamaha was better than 8 points in 4 races. That was the slump that cost Fabio the title in the home stretch last year. The 2023 Yamaha is probably better than 1 point in 3 sprints.

I rate Fabio highly, but if Bagnaia gets blamed for 25 points in 3 races on the Ducati, Fabio is surely deserving of review for some of his scoring slumps. That said, he did yeoman’s work today, and I was happy to see him take the points after Marini breezed by on the back straight. Fabio from yesterday would have crashed and then blamed Yamaha for building a bad bike. Sunday Fabio accepts that it’s okay to take points at COTA, and try to make points elsewhere. Huge progress in 24 hours.

Not to go too far OT, but I don’t think the pundits have it right with Marc. He was late and loose into corners. Marc’s style doesn’t jive with ride height devices that allow the rear tire to do efficient work in the braking area. You can’t hang the tail out, when the suspension is transferring weight to the rear. Both Espargaro and Fernandez scored DNF at COTA due to reported ride height device failure. Let’s hope these systems are put in the bin sooner rather than later.

Click to expand...

Like the control tire, the right height devices militate against riders who ride differently from the majority of the field. While some of the riders concerned would likely not be anywhere regardless, this also imo restricts riders like MM, and Stoner before him, from doing extraordinary things. Taking away the hard carcass tire on which Stoner had achieved most of his success was a fairly obvious way to nobble him, whether or not that was the intent . What the hell is the rationale if any for the necessity for ride height devices ?, as you imply.

Happy to see Rins get the win.
I thought Marini might chase him down when he got past Fab but Rins responded well.
He is strong here but did well in only his 3rd race meeting on the Honda.
Hopefully his input is listened to with regards to bike development.

Agree that the season would be a lot less interesting in terms of the championship if Pecco hadn't binned it again.

Did any others find it a tad funny the endo attempts as riders were coming to pitlane after the race. Marini looked like it was me, grab brake, ease it, grab it harder, up their, oh .... let it go. There were the other guys and compared to Jack, they looked a bit scared and normal.

MdubSTYLIE said:

Vinales is his own worst enemy as is Bagnia. I agree about Martin. I want to like him but he lacks conistancy.

Click to expand...

For sure this is true about Vinales. The trend has played out like this for far too long for him to be able to change it now. He is done as a top echelon championship contending rider, if he ever was one. Will not happen now.

As for Martin, I think his destiny has yet to be played out. He could regroup and make the best of his being on one of the best bikes on the grid, if not on the factory team. Or, he can do a Vinales, be pissed and squander his chances. I think the jury is still out and it is all up to him.

warthog1 said:

Happy to see Rins get the win.
I thought Marini might chase him down when he got past Fab but Rins responded well.
He is strong here but did well in only his 3rd race meeting on the Honda.
Hopefully his input is listened to with regards to bike development.

Agree that the season would be a lot less interesting in terms of the championship if Pecco hadn't binned it again.

Click to expand...

Not sure where Honda is at with respect to listening to riders. Any rider. I think in the Marquez era the engineers have seized the team, as Honda engineers are wont to do. In the absence of any strong convictions on development direction from their star rider, I can’t see that changing. Even if Rins wins a few races.

michaelm said:

Like the control tire, the right height devices militate against riders who ride differently from the majority of the field. While some of the riders concerned would likely not be anywhere regardless, this also imo restricts riders like MM, and Stoner before him, from doing extraordinary things. Taking away the hard carcass tire on which Stoner had achieved most of his success was a fairly obvious way to nobble him, whether or not that was the intent . What the hell is the rationale if any for the necessity for ride height devices ?, as you imply.

Click to expand...

I think this is where we get into this or that rider’s aptitude for particular machinery and various characteristics.

In every era, the riders/drivers who have been able to discover and exploit a bike’s or car’s character and turn that into a strength capable of winning races and championships have been the ones who flourished. Timing is everything in this sense.

Kenny Roberts showed how to drift the rear of the bike. Marquez showed how to ride the front harder than anybody else. Who is to say they would have been as successful if the bikes they rode didn’t have characteristics favorable to their style? Or did they develop that style in response to the bike? It is possible that these riders may not have been that successful if their bike had not played to their strengths. It is also possible that they would have adapted to the strengths of the bike. Or not.

“Restricting riders from doing extraordinary things” implies that the riders in question were/are not able to adapt to technical changes, which may be true. It’s possible that somebody can spend all their energy getting used to one kind of bike and style and find it impossible to change and adapt to another. Apparently you need to have to be able to deal with the ride height device to win today. (As well as pay attention to the fuel mapping and all the other gizmos..)

It seems that in previous eras, teams and crew chiefs had more leeway to change things to better suit the rider, whereas today everything is done and sealed at the factory with fewer mods done on the fly at the track.

I believe analytical and thinking riders like Lawson and Stoner could adapt to different machines more easily, as proved when they got off one bike and won on another. Multiple championships on more than one make of bike proves the point for both of them.

Bern1 said:

For sure this is true about Vinales. The trend has played out like this for far too long for him to be able to change it now. He is done as a top echelon championship contending rider, if he ever was one. Will not happen now.

As for Martin, I think his destiny has yet to be played out. He could regroup and make the best of his being on one of the best bikes on the grid, if not on the factory team. Or, he can do a Vinales, be pissed and squander his chances. I think the jury is still out and it is all up to him.

Click to expand...

I agree Martin still has plenty of time to change his approach. He seem to be faster when he was learning the gp bike. I think he is trying to push harder than he needs too. I think he needs a Jorge Lorenzo moment. JLo completely changed his approach after a couple huge crashes early in his gp career. He settlered down and chose to use his hammer approach less for butter. Was it hammer and butter? I can't remember for sure. I know it was hammer and something. Meaning hammer meant push hard and butter was be smooth. Martin needs to find his butter.

Hammer and butter, martillo y mantequilla. The hammer thing was actually about being consistent lap after lap, like the constant sound of hitting something with a hammer, and the butter thing you explained it well, it was all about style.

MdubSTYLIE said:

I agree Martin still has plenty of time to change his approach. He seem to be faster when he was learning the gp bike. I think he is trying to push harder than he needs too. I think he needs a Jorge Lorenzo moment. JLo completely changed his approach after a couple huge crashes early in his gp career. He settlered down and chose to use his hammer approach less for butter. Was it hammer and butter? I can't remember for sure. I know it was hammer and something. Meaning hammer meant push hard and butter was be smooth. Martin needs to find his butter.

Click to expand...

Yeah he had Mantaquilia engraved on his brake lever. I mean if it a choice between that or this:



or this



I know which I'm picking. Dude was frickin spiderman....

michaelm said:

Like the control tire, the right height devices militate against riders who ride differently from the majority of the field. While some of the riders concerned would likely not be anywhere regardless, this also imo restricts riders like MM, and Stoner before him, from doing extraordinary things. Taking away the hard carcass tire on which Stoner had achieved most of his success was a fairly obvious way to nobble him, whether or not that was the intent . What the hell is the rationale if any for the necessity for ride height devices ?, as you imply.

Click to expand...

I guess the engineers think that converting excess power and torque into shorter lap times (by a few tenths that can't be seen on TV) is worth sacrificing the sport/art of riding a motorcycle. Perhaps the cost of ride height devices is preferable, if your team does not employ Marc Marquez.

If Ducati made a good faith effort to explore the consequences of their actions, they'd probably realize that they've undermined their own quest. It's difficult for fans, even the most ardent fans, to watch a single rider dominate year after year, but the procession is made somewhat tolerable if fans know they are witnessing true genius on a motorcycle. Ducati have finally captured the riders championship, but not before impairing the value of the riders championship (imo).

The Quixotic nature of man. Intentional embrace of misattribution fallacy. Tribal desire to dominate scarce resources. Who knows what psychological malady was fueling the continued use of ride height devices.

Ducati would argue that RHD's are part of the technical innovation of the sport. But as others have said, what reasoning is there behind the continued use of them?

This is the issue when you restrict the regulations so heavily, that manufacturers go left field to gain time. Ducati have been the source of most of these 'gimmicks' over the years. The aero, the ride height devices. It seems to be (effective) bandaids to enable the motorcycle to turn.

Lex made a good point too. With Ducati having 1/3 of the grid, does it devalue their titles?

#22 said:

Ducati would argue that RHD's are part of the technical innovation of the sport. But as others have said, what reasoning is there behind the continued use of them?

This is the issue when you restrict the regulations so heavily, that manufacturers go left field to gain time. Ducati have been the source of most of these 'gimmicks' over the years. The aero, the ride height devices. It seems to be (effective) bandaids to enable the motorcycle to turn.

Lex made a good point too. With Ducati having 1/3 of the grid, does it devalue their titles?

Click to expand...

Ride height might be part of technological innovation, but I'm not sure I'd put hydraulically actuated systems in that category. The current ride height systems are just a rules workaround.

But not all technological innovations are the same, and the fundamental issue is that many rider aids or automated systems are generally a key that opens the flood gates, and torrential spending follows with rules restrictions shortly thereafter. Take traction control and engine braking, for instance. They allow the manufacturers to build engines that literally cannot be ridden by a human, and without a raft of other restrictions, the manufacturers would be running V6 composite matrix metal internals, camless valve trains, 10-gear auto transmissions, etc at 20,000+ rpm.

Unfortunately, the manufacturers are always trying to find the keys that open various doors to new forms of development, and perhaps more unfortunately, the regulatory bodies seem to always subjugate themselves to the will of corporations, as if stemming the tide of dumb ideas and self-inflicted wounds isn't their purview.

Ride height is just the latest scourge, imo. It might be useful for consumers in emergency braking situations, but other than that, the public receives no benefit. It's just Ducati picking up where Cagiva left off 30 years ago, and using automated systems to fix the handling issues that Bridgestone had previously fixed in 2007. On one hand, I sort of sympathize because they were the biggest losers of the tire changes before and after the control tire was introduced. On the other hand, can't they just make a bike that handles and attract good rides, instead of sending them to a sports psychologist when they complain about the bike?

mylexicon said:

I guess the engineers think that converting excess power and torque into shorter lap times (by a few tenths that can't be seen on TV) is worth sacrificing the sport/art of riding a motorcycle. Perhaps the cost of ride height devices is preferable, if your team does not employ Marc Marquez.

If Ducati made a good faith effort to explore the consequences of their actions, they'd probably realize that they've undermined their own quest. It's difficult for fans, even the most ardent fans, to watch a single rider dominate year after year, but the procession is made somewhat tolerable if fans know they are witnessing true genius on a motorcycle. Ducati have finally captured the riders championship, but not before impairing the value of the riders championship (imo).

The Quixotic nature of man. Intentional embrace of misattribution fallacy. Tribal desire to dominate scarce resources. Who knows what psychological malady was fueling the continued use of ride height devices.

Click to expand...

Yes, at the moment pretty much any rider on a Ducati is competitive with any rider not on a Ducati, and we know some of the other riders are quality riders, while it stretches the limits of credulity that Ducati's talent identification ability is such that they have managed to have the 8 best riders in the sport on their bikes. Raul Fernandez looked better than some of those guys as a moto 2 rider and is currently nowhere, and Gardner was one and done, while AM who was looking fairly average is now immediately competitive on a Ducati, admittedly more in keeping with his form in moto 2.. Sure, Fernandez and Gardner may have benefited from the quality of their moto 2 bike and team.

The other thing as I have argued before is that Ducati was able to steal a march with concessions, and I believe had already been using an ECU of the same manufacture as the control ECU, and once you have an advantage under equalisation formulae such advantages can last a long time as happened in F1, particularly if there are engine freezes etc.

I don't think Dorna have much understanding of what traditionalists such as most on here see as the niceties of GP bike racing, and see bike NASCAR as the way to make the most money out of the sport. They may well be right, media is their area of expertise, although I still get the feeling that Carmelo mostly just follows what F1 does..

Bern1 said:

I think this is where we get into this or that rider’s aptitude for particular machinery and various characteristics.

In every era, the riders/drivers who have been able to discover and exploit a bike’s or car’s character and turn that into a strength capable of winning races and championships have been the ones who flourished. Timing is everything in this sense.

Kenny Roberts showed how to drift the rear of the bike. Marquez showed how to ride the front harder than anybody else. Who is to say they would have been as successful if the bikes they rode didn’t have characteristics favorable to their style? Or did they develop that style in response to the bike? It is possible that these riders may not have been that successful if their bike had not played to their strengths. It is also possible that they would have adapted to the strengths of the bike. Or not.

“Restricting riders from doing extraordinary things” implies that the riders in question were/are not able to adapt to technical changes, which may be true. It’s possible that somebody can spend all their energy getting used to one kind of bike and style and find it impossible to change and adapt to another. Apparently you need to have to be able to deal with the ride height device to win today. (As well as pay attention to the fuel mapping and all the other gizmos..)

It seems that in previous eras, teams and crew chiefs had more leeway to change things to better suit the rider, whereas today everything is done and sealed at the factory with fewer mods done on the fly at the track.

I believe analytical and thinking riders like Lawson and Stoner could adapt to different machines more easily, as proved when they got off one bike and won on another. Multiple championships on more than one make of bike proves the point for both of them.

Click to expand...

I am a much bigger fan of both Lawson and Gardner than I am of MM. I remember Eddie Lawson jumping off a Yamaha and onto a Honda and sorting the bike to win a title immediately, after Wayne Gardner had somehow won by clinging on to the thing doing straight long tank slappers etc, and Mick Doohan early in his career asking Eddie for advice on how to ride the Honda. Stoner is my all time favourite rider, even ahead of Mick Doohan, and it was remarkable how he could find the fastest way around almost any circuit in 2 or 3 laps. I do think his preferred tire was partly taken away to lessen his domination of the field on the Honda 1000 in pre-season testing, and was fine with another tire being brought in, just not with the tire being taken away when the bike had been developed around it.

I share your reservations about MM's early career and the Willairot incident in particular, and begin to wonder about his analytical ability, but did like seeing him make impossible saves no one else could manage, and Stoner sliding that Ducati through corners which couldn't otherwise be navigated by human beings, and for me ride height devices take away from the rider contribution to GP bike racing, and may restrict the extraordinary which I don't regard as a good thing. I doubt they have much application off track either.

With MM he has been able to be extraordinarily fast on bikes other than Honda motogp bikes such as when he rode 125 and moto 2 bikes, to the extent that a respected former member of this forum, one Jumkie, was suspicous he and his team were cheating with a more powerful engine in moto 2. I still think most of the rest of the field including Bagnaia would only see his tail pipe in the distance if he was on a Ducati or an Aprilia, although l am less certain those bikes would have reached their current standard with him leading development. FQ is one guy who might have his kind of pace, which MM seems to have thought as well, hence the incident which started all his injury woes of recent years which was a result of trying to prove something to FQ in my view.

Bern1 said:

Not sure where Honda is at with respect to listening to riders. Any rider. I think in the Marquez era the engineers have seized the team, as Honda engineers are wont to do. In the absence of any strong convictions on development direction from their star rider, I can’t see that changing. Even if Rins wins a few races.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, they have a history of not listening if you read the input from some previous riders.
It has also been postulated on here that MM perhaps lacks development skills and may not be that clear with his direction. That would make it hard for engineers even if they did listen, if that is the case.
In any case Honda is going through an extended period of not scoring many points, at least as bad as anytime I recall.
There is certainly reason, given the lack of results, for engineers to listen.
Given how much running a motoGP team and providing motorcycles would be costing, it makes no sense not to listen to the input of those who are paid to ride them fast.
You would expect if it is suggested there is a weakness and the results, or lack thereof, back that up, they would take account of those suggestions and attempt to address them.
Not listening makes no sense and you could argue, amounts to flushing money down the toilet.

MichaelBolton said:

Hammer and butter, martillo y mantequilla. The hammer thing was actually about being consistent lap after lap, like the constant sound of hitting something with a hammer, and the butter thing you explained it well, it was all about style.

Click to expand...

I thought the hammer/butter Lorenzo style was, hammer the brakes, butter smooth on the throttle

I am looking forward to Rins at the next couple of races, if he runs near the top or even wins again then he's the real deal on the Honda.

I am also curious as to how MM fares when he gets back, will he regain his form or continue to flounder, are his glory days over for now ?

Others I am interested in their outcomes include Miller (he seems to have really adapted to the KTM quickly), Vinales (will he put it all together), Mir (is he salvageable).

I still think Bagnaia will win it all again if he stays healthy, but not as sure as I was.

If it turns out to be a Ducati domination year again I think something will need to be done to keep things interesting. I am wondering if Honda and/or Yamaha may not see the value of running in MotoGP in the future if things continue as they are, perhaps I am wrong and they will surprise us with a new engine combo at some point.

warthog1 said:

Perhaps, they have a history of not listening if you read the input from some previous riders.
It has also been postulated on here that MM perhaps lacks development skills and may not be that clear with his direction. That would make it hard for engineers even if they did listen, if that is the case.
In any case Honda is going through an extended period of not scoring many points, at least as bad as anytime I recall.
There is certainly reason, given the lack of results, for engineers to listen.
Given how much running a motoGP team and providing motorcycles would be costing, it makes no sense not to listen to the input of those who are paid to ride them fast.
You would expect if it is suggested there is a weakness and the results, or lack thereof, back that up, they would take account of those suggestions and attempt to address them.
Not listening makes no sense and you could argue, amounts to flushing money down the toilet.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is more a question of MM not needing to give much direction previously, and for the last few years not being in a position to give direction due to his travails with injury. The bike on which he was most dominant was arguably more a product of Pedrosa's +/- Stoner's input though. After that his input seemed to be to make the bike as fast as possible and he would ride it, regardless of whether anyone else could. This was a very successful strategy which there was no reason to change for several years, but things are different now, Honda can no longer tame their engine somewhat with bespoke software, change in technology may have lessened his ability to do what he did previously, and Ducati as I understand it may have an intrinsic horsepower advantage with desmo valve gear in a fuel economy formula.

michaelm said:

Perhaps it is more a question of MM not needing to give much direction previously, and for the last few years not being in a position to give direction due to his travails with injury. The bike on which he was most dominant was arguably more a product of Pedrosa's +/- Stoner's input though. After that his input seemed to be to make the bike as fast as possible and he would ride it, regardless of whether anyone else could. This was a very successful strategy which there was no reason to change for several years, but things are different now, Honda can no longer tame their engine somewhat with bespoke software, change in technology may have lessened his ability to do what he did previously, and Ducati as I understand it may have an intrinsic horsepower advantage with desmo valve gear in a fuel economy formula.

Click to expand...

I have read elsewhere also that the desmodronic valve control gives a power advantage. I can see it's advantage in stopping valve float at high revs.
I am no engineer.
Yes the loss of their own ECM hasn't helped Honda.
I am also guessing that it is harder to save and hold the front end with the aero wings and downforce.
A loss of a clear advantage MM once had if so.
He probably didn't need to be great at setting up and developing a smooth fast machine.
That was not his riding style anyway.
Ducati has such an advantage and it appears the aero may have negated MM's advantage.
Honda is in trouble as is MM it appears anyway.
I don't see Honda engineering it's way to the lead without listening to rider input anyway.

michaelm said:

I don't think Dorna have much understanding of what traditionalists such as most on here see as the niceties of GP bike racing, and see bike NASCAR as the way to make the most money out of the sport. They may well be right, media is their area of expertise, although I still get the feeling that Carmelo mostly just follows what F1 does..

Click to expand...

Cue left field ...........................................

IMo only, but DORNA are NOT interested in growing or developing the sport as the sport has been in the past or as it sits today. They do not care for the history of years past and care less about the current but what they do care about is the kaching factor that manipulation allows and affords by producing a product for entertainment purposes as teh primary aim or intent

They are about producing entertainment that attracts people who want to spend money. They want to sell advertising space and time slots to businesses who may be sucked in by the previous history but who now crave and attempt to manipulate the short attention spans of so many people so that the people buy their product. Essentially, they make a bright fluffy motorbike helmet and advertise on MotoGP related sites, even get a mention somewhere and voila, dollars to the advertiser as suddenly the sheeple believe.

Now, going very far out here but DORNA are only continuing on from the brilliance of Valentino rossi who built himself a brand. His brand was and remains recognised worldwide and was assisted greatly by the fawning of DORNA who needed his style of charisma and pull but now he is gone and DORNA are moving with the times to shorter format, faster action with short attention spans as the targets.

The sport we knew is in many way gone and it is about the mighty dollar such as many sports today.

Now, to place the soapbox back in the cupboard