Aragon GP 2011: RACE

Jumkie · Sep 22, 2011

lil red rocket pilot said:
Jeez Wills racing really does flow through your veins.

Must have been 2 stroke back then. 2 stroke sniffing from crib!!!? Much respect!

Jumk's if only you could have been at WSBK silvo. Then you could have truly experienced what a green and pleasant land it can be

What's the weather looking like next year buddy? Never rule me out. It was the Wednesday before the event when I decided to take that flight.

Back on topic, MotoGP is boring...yawn. (why else would I spend all my lunch money on going to these dumb things?)

lil red rocket pilot · Sep 22, 2011

Jumkie said:
What's the weather looking like next year buddy? Never rule me out. It was the Wednesday before the event when I decided to take that flight.

Back on topic, MotoGP is boring...yawn. (why else would I spend all my lunch money on going to these dumb things?)

I don't know man.

But what I do know is that the UK round is back in its old slot, the 3rd weekend in june! IF it had been there this year 2 things would have happend.

1.We would have had much better weather for the GP and you wouldn't have frozen your balls of and it would have been a pleasure!!!

2. I would have made my 8th consecutive Isle of Wight festival, Their 30th aniversery and missed out on sailing my lil boat.

SO .... YOU VERY MUCH DORNA!!!!

Mr Squiggle · Sep 22, 2011

I think part of the issue some people are missing in this debate is the simple question - is MotoGP itself boring or is the racing boring?

Pesonally I watch MotoGP so that I can witness the bravest most skillful riders astride the fastest and most technologically advanced racing motorcycles on planet earth going full clip around a handful of the worlds best circuits - and for me this can never be boring....but some of the races certainly are "boring" when compared to the multi rider battles for the lead in other racing series. Would I prefer to see these battles in the premiere class?

Fucken A.

But I dont want to see the introducion of any rules to the premiere class designed to artificially manufacture close racing at the expense of endagering the very nature of the formula itself - which has always been about the development of cutting edge two wheel racing bikes that are simply the fastest in the world and the pinnacle of motorcycle racing technology.

One of the reasons I love this sport is because of the design and engineering skills employed in creating these land missiles. The convergence of art and science and the materials utilised in the genesis of these amazing machines along with the fabrication process involved in creating these exotic masterpieces is just as much a part of the "show" for me as is the racing aspect.

Of course it is better when you do have a close race at the front but seeing a racer at the top of their game thrashing the living crap out of one of these bikes and pushing the envelope further than anyone else will for me always suffice. If the battle at the front turns out to be a close hard fought race that is just the cherry on top.

michaelm · Sep 23, 2011

Tom said:
I'm not sure it was all that possible, there were 3 bikes worth having. One of them was always going to be Doohans, Repsol would insist the other was Crivilles and th 3rd Repsol Honda was likely to be reserved for the best Japanese rider at that time

Sure it did not necessarily occur, and not in the criville/repsol times, but in one of doohan's early championships, possibly the very first, there were supposedly 5 identical hondas, the other 4 with japanese riders if I recall correctly; mick was usually a second faster during most of practice, then they gave his settings to the others which did not please him greatly. McCoy also won 3 races in 2000 on a privateer yamaha, where the bike was "brought to the track in a car boot" as arrabbiata put it; I am not holding my breath waiting for a non-factory winner in the current era. Wayne rainey managed to cobble together a competitive bike for the factory yamaha team using a customer frame, and in mick doohan's first race win recently replayed on australian TV there were at least 3 competitive yamahas and hondas, and even competitive suzukis (!).

Tom · Sep 23, 2011

yamaka46 said:
I do however, question the changes that have been forced on the series in the name of safety and money saving. I doubt that either the engine rule, the testing rule or the fuel limit have saved anyone any money - more likely they have increased costs.

I seem to recall being told on some TV coverage at some point that when the engine restrictions came in Yamaha built and tested about 15 engines to destruction in preseason, just to get 6 that would last the year so it didn't really save costs at all.

Tom · Sep 23, 2011

michaelm said:
Sure it did not necessarily occur...

You are right, i was looking from a position of bikes seriously capable of winning the title, which of course is very team, rider, and factory support dependent. But you make a good point of reminding me of the fact that over a season there would often be bikes/riders outside of the top elite group that could win a race on a given day, much more so than there is now

michaelm · Sep 23, 2011

yamaka46 said:
Part of the problem of a spread out pack seems to be the rules - if building a better mousetrap wasn't limited by having to make the engine capable of lasting several races, having to manage on a limited amount of fuel, having to get the bike to work with spec tyres and having next to no testing with contracted riders, I think that the manufacturers could be closer. I agree that most years there has been one machine + rider combo that is outstanding, and often one bike that appears to be the best to be on. Also I realise that it's difficult in today's straitened times for the manufacturers to put the money into development needed if one manufacturer strides ahead.

I still think (and have bleated on here about it often enough) that removing the fuel limit and the testing limits (as someone pointed out recently, the team still test so no money saved, it's just that they are not allowed to use their most valuable asset to do so. An equivalent would be only allowing tests with production engines - not cheaper, but ultimately not helpful in improving the bike.

I have been watching since 1987 and do not want the prototype class dumbed down any more than it has, IMO, already been by stuff listed above and more. I don't find the racing boring, nor do I need the top class to produce races like the stunning Moto2 from Aragon (I'd not complain if it did though). Whilst I'd love a return to the 2-strokes, 990's produced some of the closest racing before these rules were dreamed up.

As many have said, being the top class and the best riders provides its own fascination. I do however, question the changes that have been forced on the series in the name of safety and money saving. I doubt that either the engine rule, the testing rule or the fuel limit have saved anyone any money - more likely they have increased costs.

I know that Rossi and Ducati are struggling at the moment, but that is not my reason for disliking those rules - I was bitching about them in 2009, so no muppeteering here

I agree with you, not surprisingly since your previously expressed views formed mine.

They are in something of a bind with development though, since if you are actually really going to use racing to develop anything fuel economy and engine longevity are not bad things to develop for; they can't really develop for more straight-line speed since the current circuits can't deal with it , and making the bikes more fail-safe particularly handling-wise detracts further from rider involvement. Jerry burgess perhaps has a point that the formula should be for 600cc bikes; this was previously out because of the need to surpass the performance of the wsbks, but dorna may be in the process of increasing their options with regard to that.

The testing restrictions are really stupid, particularly if there is no cost saving as you say and which seems very likely; these restrictions look a fair chance of significantly contributing to ducati's possible demise and the blighting of dorna's major drawcard.

BarryMachine · Sep 23, 2011

As you may know I have an engineering background. As such I have for the last two days been researching an engineering solution for why some folk find racing boring.

I now admit the solution is not as easy as I first believed and am willing to accept that it involves concepts that many would find difficult ....... nonetheless I shall endeavor to provide a guide to rectify your problem with the races:

Step 1. Find the switch which disables power supply to the instrument which is torturing you: ( in the past I assumed this was enough information to supply folk to fix their problem, but there is so much diversity i such devices that I should spell it out better )

Make the switch look like the one on the right. ( in the UK thats the one on the Driver's side, US .... passengers side )

119709197585381818TzeenieWheenie_Power_On_Off_Switch_red_2.svg.med.png

Push it in, if its still showing the "bad things" push it again.

For the oldies here.......... get out and old school reader and match the shapes of the letters to the one you want then push the little lever that way.

Stop playing with it and it will look like this again!

For those who like to chose which round is boring before hand ...... DIPswitch!

For those who think its just not entertaining enough "these days":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aYUPMqraKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daO2LddlSBs

Oh and all those solutions should be accompanied by liberal application of a big box of tissues:

xx CURVE xx · Sep 23, 2011

yamaka46 · Sep 23, 2011

michaelm said:
I agree with you, not surprisingly since your previously expressed views formed mine.

They are in something of a bind with development though, since if you are actually really going to use racing to develop anything fuel economy and engine longevity are not bad things to develop for; they can't really develop for more straight-line speed since the current circuits can't deal with it , and making the bikes more fail-safe particularly handling-wise detracts further from rider involvement. Jerry burgess perhaps has a point that the formula should be for 600cc bikes; this was previously out because of the need to surpass the performance of the wsbks, but dorna may be in the process of increasing their options with regard to that.

The testing restrictions are really stupid, particularly if there is no cost saving as you say and which seems very likely; these restrictions look a fair chance of significantly contributing to ducati's possible demise and the blighting of dorna's major drawcard.

I appreciate that in order to justify the outlay of running a race team, they must get the bean counters on their side, hence the comments that they use the development for improving road bikes, however I'm not sure that the bean counters would be as conviced if they had an engineering background.

Whilst the manufacturers are adding TC to road bikes, the level of technology needed for road bikes was available and used in Motogp a while ago. The additional, none racing development (read cost) that needed to be done to get it to market was all the safety case stuff. If a rider in motogp highsides because of a sensor failure or a software glitch, .... happens. If the TC equivalent of the flawed Suzuki TL1000 had hit the streets.... Also, as you say, attempting to make the handling of the bikes more failsafe means more mere mortals (the racing type, not me - though having said that I can go .... loads faster on a 2005 R1 than I could on a 1986 1000RX) can be up there and we've now had to coin the word "alien".

I'm not sure that there is any gain for road bikes from developing fuel economy whilst racing. Most 1000cc bikes do at least 30 mpg (80 l/km) which is sufficient for the average rider not to care (you can always by a 600 if you use it to commute and most petrol cars get no better mileage). Most riders of 1000cc bikes are not riding flat chat much of the time and cannot program in distance-to-go (unless on a track where fuel costs are irrelevant!) and so the electrickery developed to lean the engine/restrict the revs to ensure reaching race distance is not revelant to the road IMO.

Engine longevity has a parallel argument - on the road, modern 1000 4T bike engines last for ever, pretty much. The tolerances they have to manufacture to for the 6 engines allocated to a rider in Motogp, where almost all riding is flat chat, in order to ensure they last, are far higher than they could ever afford for production. Plus, as Tom says, they had to do a lot of testing in order to determine how fine the tolerances needed to be.

As far as the testing rules, I cannot see why the manufacturers agreed to it in the first place unless it was to keep out undesirables. Also, how is a CRT team supposed to develop next year? Are the rules due to be different for them or change for everyone?

michaelm · Sep 23, 2011

yamaka46 said:
I appreciate that in order to justify the outlay of running a race team, they must get the bean counters on their side, hence the comments that they use the development for improving road bikes, however I'm not sure that the bean counters would be as conviced if they had an engineering background.

Whilst the manufacturers are adding TC to road bikes, the level of technology needed for road bikes was available and used in Motogp a while ago. The additional, none racing development (read cost) that needed to be done to get it to market was all the safety case stuff. If a rider in motogp highsides because of a sensor failure or a software glitch, .... happens. If the TC equivalent of the flawed Suzuki TL1000 had hit the streets.... Also, as you say, attempting to make the handling of the bikes more failsafe means more mere mortals (the racing type, not me - though having said that I can go .... loads faster on a 2005 R1 than I could on a 1986 1000RX) can be up there and we've now had to coin the word "alien".

I'm not sure that there is any gain for road bikes from developing fuel economy whilst racing. Most 1000cc bikes do at least 30 mpg (80 l/km) which is sufficient for the average rider not to care (you can always by a 600 if you use it to commute and most petrol cars get no better mileage). Most riders of 1000cc bikes are not riding flat chat much of the time and cannot program in distance-to-go (unless on a track where fuel costs are irrelevant!) and so the electrickery developed to lean the engine/restrict the revs to ensure reaching race distance is not revelant to the road IMO.

Engine longevity has a parallel argument - on the road, modern 1000 4T bike engines last for ever, pretty much. The tolerances they have to manufacture to for the 6 engines allocated to a rider in Motogp, where almost all riding is flat chat, in order to ensure they last, are far higher than they could ever afford for production. Plus, as Tom says, they had to do a lot of testing in order to determine how fine the tolerances needed to be.

As far as the testing rules, I cannot see why the manufacturers agreed to it in the first place unless it was to keep out undesirables. Also, how is a CRT team supposed to develop next year? Are the rules due to be different for them or change for everyone?

I don't disagree with this either; my point mainly was that despite my liking the notion of a development series philosophically that all current development in motogp is largely a fiction since the bikes already have too much speed for the tracks, which is the reason dorna etc went with the fuel restrictions whatever reasons the msma are using to justify involvement in sport to their parent companies. I don't think they are going to find a major breakthrough in the efficiency of the internal combustion engine racing motor bikes either. The engine longevity thing has just favoured honda, as was probably honda's intent with the whole 800cc formula.

birdman · Sep 23, 2011

Jumkie said:
It bothers me that u can not follow the points being discussed in this thread and respond with irrelevant replies. Hehehe

Dude, I'm "bored" with Stoner winning. You know, because I've only been defending him from the naysayers since 2007. Hahaha

Ah i see you got my boy Stoner covered Hahaha no worries.

My 159th irrelevent reply which fails to follow the points being discussed in this thread is dedicated to you and curve. Hehehe

Adios amigos!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkIj1DapjQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkIj1DapjQ[/media]

Search

Search

Aragon GP 2011: RACE

Jumkie

lil red rocket pilot

Mr Squiggle

michaelm

Tom

Tom

michaelm

BarryMachine

xx CURVE xx

yamaka46

michaelm

birdman

Similar threads

Recent Discussions