Can I make this simple conclusion?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Mar 17 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>thank you for prooving you're a tool that knows nothing bout bikes Tommy

If you are unconvinced by what i say thats fine, but it'd be nice if you could have some kind of input and who knows a discussion might break out (isn't that the whole point?). If you are (as i suspect) doing the usual tell people they are wrong and know nothing despite the fact that you don't actually know better yourself thats fine, just a little tedious.

Ok turd...what do the 800s have in common with the biggest badest street bikes then?...you tell me smarty pants.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Mar 17 2009, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ok turd...what do the 800s have in common with the biggest badest street bikes then?...you tell me smarty pants.

Quite a lot, besides the GPS traction control, pneumatic valves and a few other super trick bits GP bikes are fundamentally a conventional motorcyle, just better. 500's were like that for a while, but they were getting increasingly irrelevant for years before they were sacked.

Will F1 still be the pinnacle of motorsport racing when the driver's championship is decided based on race wins and points are only used as a tiebreaker and to determine further down the order? Because that starts in 2010. What a sham, Bernie.

Formula One chamionship to be decided by race wins instead of championship points - ESPN

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 17 2009, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Quite a lot, besides the GPS traction control, pneumatic valves and a few other super trick bits GP bikes are fundamentally a conventional motorcyle, just better. 500's were like that for a while, but they were getting increasingly irrelevant for years before they were sacked.

you've got nothing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Mar 17 2009, 05:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>you've got nothing

Sorry i gave you the benefit of assuming you know how a motorcycle works. If that was an optimistic assumption on my part i can start naming the components of a bike that i feel are likely to benefit from lessons learned in motogp for you. Don't be fooled into thinking that just because the factories don't all sell 'GP replicas' that none of the technology gets used. F1 technology gets used and i haven't seen many road cars that look like open wheeled racers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 17 2009, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sorry i gave you the benefit of assuming you know how a motorcycle works. If that was an optimistic assumption on my part i can start naming the components of a bike that i feel are likely to benefit from lessons learned in motogp for you. Don't be fooled into thinking that just because the factories don't all sell 'GP replicas' that none of the technology gets used. F1 technology gets used and i haven't seen many road cars that look like open wheeled racers.

scratch that...you're a complete tard

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 17 2009, 12:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Will F1 still be the pinnacle of motorsport racing when the driver's championship is decided based on race wins and points are only used as a tiebreaker and to determine further down the order? Because that starts in 2010. What a sham, Bernie.

Formula One chamionship to be decided by race wins instead of championship points - ESPN
You know, im not sure im 100% against that.The points will still be used for tie breakers and constructors cup. It will make drivers and teams go for wins which means off the wall strategies which can be fun to follow because lets face it,there isnt that much wheel to wheel action to follow on the track. I have always thought that wins should count for a hell of a lot more than 3-5 points over the second place finisher.Right now in WSBK,you have a rider that has dominated the first 2 events,winning 3 of 4 races but trails in points and will more than likely have to win the next 3 to take the points lead.That would be 6 wins compared to 1 and you finally lead in points.Your one bad finish was when a guy punted you off the track.That would be a hell of a strategy for a slower rider,just finish second and once every 4-5 races,punt your competitor of the track and win a title.

In AMA Supercross you have a rider that has won 8or 9 races and has totally dominated the season,yet he lays in 2nd place behind a guy that has won 2 races.He will have to win 3 more in a row to take the points lead. That means he will have 11 or 12 wins compared to 2 and will have a 1 point lead.Thats .........Im all for rewarding winning,i dont know if this is the answer,but the other way certainly isnt either.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 17 2009, 04:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Firstly, where any of the GP replica 2 stroke bikes even big bang? I don't think they were, but i'm not sure. Secondly, motogp has been 4 stroke for just 7 years, if you could give a few examples from the last 7 years of the two trokes of significant GP derrived technology that was used in production machines i'd love to hear about it and i'd doubt it'll be more than what has trickled down since. thirdly, it would be foolish to credit the big bang NSR as being the technology used in the the current GP bikes or cross plane R1, if it was actually the case the original R1 could easily have had it.

ok tom here goes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_motorcycle_racing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Chronology

1973: Deaths of Jarno Saarinen and Renzo Pasolini at the Italian round at Monza.

1982: The Yamaha OW61 YZR500 is the first V4 in the 500cc class.

1985: Michelin introduces radial tyres in GPs.

1987: Push starts are eliminated.

1988: Wayne Rainey wins the first 500cc race using carbon brakes, at the British GP.

1990: 500cc grid switches from 5 to 4 bikes per row.

1992: Honda introduces bike with big bang engine.

1993: Shinichi Itoh and fuel-injected NSR500 break the 200mph barrier at the German GP at Hockenheim.

1998: 500cc switch to unleaded fuel.

2002: 990cc 4-strokes allowed in premier class.

2003: Daijiro Kato dies, leading to Suzuka's removal from the calendar.

2004: MotoGP grid switches from 4 to 3 bikes per row.

2004: Makoto Tamada earns Bridgestone their first MotoGP victory at the Brazilian GP.

2005: MotoGP adopts flag-to-flag rule, meaning races continue if rain begins.

2007: MotoGP restricted to 800cc 4-strokes.

2008: Dunlop drops out of MotoGP.

2009: Michelin drops out of MotoGP and Bridgestone become sole tyre providers.[5][6]

2009: Kawasaki Suspends MotoGP activities for 2009 and considers privateer team.

1. the first V4 in gps ....yes, it was a 2-stroke and it led to some tasty yam 500cc bikes for me and you...(if you were old enough)

2.radial tyres to cope with the increased horsepower/speed of a gp bike...now adorning a large selection of 2 wheelers. yes, the tech may have come from 4 wheels, but it was transferred to bikes because they needed it!

3. THE BIG BANG ENGINE.
the mechanicals might be different but the concept was born from a honda 2 stroke gp machine.
they didnt really know why it worked until recently but it does work and now your R1 has it too (in some form)

4.fuel injected 2 strokes! lessons learned from gps helped it find permanence on todays bikes.(the injection tech that is).

5. any idea whats required to get a bike that runs on leaded to run reliably on unleaded? think light weight bore coatings (nikasil) and piston coatings with a helping of improved cooling systems and much improved oil/lubrication tech..again, all an unseen part of the new bikes that run today.

so, is this because the gp bikes were 2strokes? no, i believe they would have come around anyway but racing has a funny way of making things go faster! so to sum it all up, 2strokes were a necessary part of the evolution of race bikes, all of it relevant at the time but now mostly surpassed by newer tech/ideas

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 17 2009, 09:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Will F1 still be the pinnacle of motorsport racing when the driver's championship is decided based on race wins and points are only used as a tiebreaker and to determine further down the order? Because that starts in 2010. What a sham, Bernie.

Formula One chamionship to be decided by race wins instead of championship points - ESPN

How stupid can one man be (Eccy)?

If two drivers go 1-2 through the first half of the season, the championship race is tight. One retirement by the driver who finishes first every race could mean he loses the championship.

If two drivers go 1-2 through the first half of the season the championship is effectively over. It is feasible to have a championship decided at 1 round past half season. To make matters worse, if you're ahead by 3 with 3 to go, it would be a good strategy for you to "accidentally" collide with the man in second place. Under a points system, the retirement would cause your lead to shrink relative to every driver in the points. Under the race wins system you can ram people with absolute impunity (or the sport courts will have to sort it out, yey!)

I'm not a fan of F0, but seriously, how stupid can one man be?

Just change the points strata and give extra points for race wins. Why are imbeciles like Ezy and Eccy re-engineering prototype racing (ruining it) when a few minor changes will do?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 18 2009, 07:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How stupid can one man be (Eccy)?

If two drivers go 1-2 through the first half of the season, the championship race is tight. One retirement by the driver who finishes first every race could mean he loses the championship.

If two drivers go 1-2 through the first half of the season the championship is effectively over. It is feasible to have a championship decided at 1 round past half season. To make matters worse, if you're ahead by 3 with 3 to go, it would be a good strategy for you to "accidentally" collide with the man in second place. Under a points system, the retirement would cause your lead to shrink relative to every driver in the points. Under the race wins system you can ram people with absolute impunity (or the sport courts will have to sort it out, yey!)

I'm not a fan of F0, but seriously, how stupid can one man be?

Just change the points strata and give extra points for race wins. Why are imbeciles like Ezy and Eccy re-engineering prototype racing (ruining it) when a few minor changes will do?


Austin/Lex

The point system change in F1 is not becos of Eccy, it is proposed by FOTA (conducting a survey from fans) and approved by FIA/WMSC. Correct me if i am wrong!!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (surendhar @ Mar 18 2009, 05:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Austin/Lex

The point system change in F1 is not becos of Eccy, it is proposed by FOTA (consucting a survey from fans) and approved by FIA/WMSC. Correct me if i am wrong!!!!
The adage that a camel is a horse designed by a commitee would appear applicable to this point scoring system then .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Mar 17 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No dude... Experimental bikes should be tested on test tracks with test riders...not in a racing series.. the bikes need to represent whats on the street AT least a bit...

gotta disagree - F1 & MotoGP have AlWAYS been hailed as prototype racing and so they should be.

do you rekon Ferrari sales go up when they win an F1 race ? I doubt it somehow.

dewvelopments from the prototype racing will always filter down to production racing sooner or later but there's going to come a point - and I think we're almost there - that there's little difference in oerformance between a tricked production bike & prototype racer

I am all out for Spies and he should be riding a factory Honda, Yamaha or Ducati to beat Rossi in MotoGp. His WSBK wins and 7 manufacturers supports does not mean WSBK is the pinnacle of two wheel racing. Last year MotoGp was suck and I love WSBK. But hey, MotoGp is a prototype racing and is here to stay.

Closest competition. -> That just means they're all about the same level, which in case of WSBK is quite low. 125cc regional championships are really close too and about as close to top racing series in the world as is WSBK.

Big names. -> Yeah bunch of famous MotoGP rejects and loosers, hasbeens, wannabees and neverhasbeens.

Manufacturer support from 7 different companies. -> Only valid point, though doesn't say much in favour of the manufacturers level if anyone can join and be inmediatly competitive.

Ben Spies. -> ... So what? If he turns to be out as good as he seemed in the first to races ... he'll end up in MotoGP where the best racers are.

Races in every market in the world. Even MotoGP has not returned to Africa. -> Races in less countries than MotoGP.

Ben Spies. -> Are you gonna set up a fan club or something?

F1 is a continuing cluster fk. -> last couple of years F1 has done good changes, and the result has been good in terms of entertainment. And before saying F1 is crap and WSBK rules you should notice WSBK is copying F1 characteristics (Qualifying) which kinda makes your statement nonsense.

MotoGP is on he verge of losing it's World Championship tag and called a Cup. -> MotoGP is and always has been the top bike racing series in the world, even if there were just 10 bikes it would still be the top because the best riders in the world would be in those 10.

Rally car has Loeb and Travis Pastrana right now. WRC has only two manufacturers competing, and Ford is no match for Loeb and his Citroen. S2000 needs to come quick for rally to start to come around again. ->
Loeb is the best driver in the history of WRC, if Ford stopped employing useless Finns they might have a chance to win. I think if the Citroën and Ford drivers swapped cars the results would be the same. What's Pastrana done (in a car) to be considered in the same league as Loeb? As far as I know he's a circus TV star.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Mar 17 2009, 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>F1 sucks .... and those who like F1 are .... suckers

Well I guess then you have something in common with F1 fans.

^^Learn to ride a motorcycle Teo then come talk to me...


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (baldylocks @ Mar 18 2009, 02:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>gotta disagree - F1 & MotoGP have AlWAYS been hailed as prototype racing and so they should be.

do you rekon Ferrari sales go up when they win an F1 race ? I doubt it somehow.

dewvelopments from the prototype racing will always filter down to production racing sooner or later but there's going to come a point - and I think we're almost there - that there's little difference in oerformance between a tricked production bike & prototype racer

You dont get what i mean..yes prototype, but there were similarities on the street...like the 1986 Suzuki GS GAMMA a 500 2 stroke street bike...i had a 1985 Yamaha RZ500... also a street legal stroker...... ( i was a big Lawson fan at the time ) .....those were top dog bikes at the time...like the 1000s were when we had 990s...the 800 are nothing more than hyper 600's/750's.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (surendhar @ Mar 17 2009, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Austin/Lex

The point system change in F1 is not becos of Eccy, it is proposed by FOTA (conducting a survey from fans) and approved by FIA/WMSC. Correct me if i am wrong!!!!

The article says the FOTA wanted to change the points system to give greater reward to the race winner. In their press release they said they were disappointed in the new rule and they thought that F1 decisions were being made "unilaterally".

The FOTA and FIA probably had nothing to do with this. Eccy may have polled the fans, but he's the one implementing this imbecilic maneuver.

Eccy is like a Roman emperor throwing bread to the mob. He's another baby boomer who couldn't care less about the long term stability of the sport, mainly because he won't be around to see it. All Eccy cares about is short term viewership.

Is everyone on the same page?

Consultants who monitor viewership for road racing discovered that racing dies when the results become predictable. Stability is the enemy of racing viewership.

Obviously, this data is only good when the sport has been relatively stable for the last 50+ years. Constant tumultuous change is going to be even worse than viewership declines caused by boring racing. Most people don't care because these viewership "studies" allow executives to dodge difficult decisions and cover their own ......

Spineless. 5 minutes of reasoning could have prevented this marketing sham.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teomolca @ Mar 18 2009, 06:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What's Pastrana done (in a car) to be considered in the same league as Loeb? As far as I know he's a circus TV star.
Good point. Although I think Pastrana is insanely talented in any motorsport platform. Additionally, Nitro Circus is the most entertaining show on television at the moment. God, I hate MTV.

Where have you been, Teo? It's been a while.

Id like to see what Loeb can do on 2 wheels