Electronics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(povol @ Sep 6 2007, 06:20 AM) [snapback]89300[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
The high side is much more devastating than a low side and thats what TC has done for safety.



how is a highside much more dangerous than a lowside? in my post i gave examples of the worst accidents in GP history resulting in death and paralysis and they were not highsides.

would you rather have all the energy taken out of the equation by going up and over and then coming to a relatively quick stop or sliding forever not knowing if you're going to get tossed in the air and get all your limbs broken or hit something hard.

please provide support for your argument.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(yamaka46 @ Sep 6 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]89391[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
What gives people the idea that TC is safer then no TC? Surely it just means a bigger hole in the scenery when it fails.

By "fails" I don't mean when the software goes awry but when circumstances occur that cannot be predicted by the calibrators.

Take Melandri's FP highside where he was on full noise but touched the very wet astroturf and so highsided in impressive fashion. Without TC would he have been on full throttle at that point? Possibly, but TC made it no safer.


thats a good point,
mabe tc just give the riders a false sense of security, mabe he wouldn't have been on the gas so much without it.
would be really interesting to hear the riders point of view on this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Sep 6 2007, 10:01 PM) [snapback]89394[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
thats a good point,
mabe tc just give the riders a false sense of security, mabe he wouldn't have been on the gas so much without it.
would be really interesting to hear the riders point of view on this.


As far as I can tell, most of the riders who have experienced both pre- and post- (or should that be during) tc HATE tc as a concept.

Mostly I think this is due to the fact that the throttle control is no longer purely down to the rider, but determined by some geeky (I am a s/w engineer, so no need to defend us) back-room calibrator.

Not too sure what they think about it in terms of safety though - I think that's just because the journos are too stupid to ask the appropriate questions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(drumfu @ Sep 6 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]89393[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
how is a highside much more dangerous than a lowside? in my post i gave examples of the worst accidents in GP history resulting in death and paralysis and they were not highsides.

would you rather have all the energy taken out of the equation by going up and over and then coming to a relatively quick stop or sliding forever not knowing if you're going to get tossed in the air and get all your limbs broken or hit something hard.

please provide support for your argument.

Ask anyone who has ever raced if he would rather high side or low side,you will get your answer.To start with,most high sides happen under acceleration and you are spit in the air only to fall hard on pavement.A low side happens almost exclusively on decel under heavy braking and the front simply tucks and you slide,usually into a sand or gravel pit.Those you walk away from.Kato,if im not mistaken was still on his bike when it impacted the barrier head on.Like i said before,that is devastating.Any racers on here feel free to speak up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(povol @ Sep 6 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]89407[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Ask anyone who has ever raced if he would rather high side or low side,you will get your answer.To start with,most high sides happen under acceleration and you are spit in the air only to fall hard on pavement.A low side happens almost exclusively on decel under heavy braking and the front simply tucks and you slide,usually into a sand or gravel pit.Those you walk away from.Kato,if im not mistaken was still on his bike when it impacted the barrier head on.Like i said before,that is devastating.Any racers on here feel free to speak up.



i wonder if rainey would have rather highsided

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(drumfu @ Sep 6 2007, 06:36 PM) [snapback]89418[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
i wonder if rainey would have rather highsided

Thats a pretty weak argument there.You can break your back falling off a ....... pogo stick.All wrecks have the potential to be devastating but if you asked him which was worse he would tell you a high side.

"Safe Racing" is an oxymoron.. In the quest for safety racing is becoming more and mopre insipid. Heck even with all these safety standards, most injured riders get back on their bike long before its "safe" for them to get back on them. I say, let the riders decide what is safe enough for them. If its too dangerous, for them, there are enough idiots to do it for less.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(crvlvr @ Sep 8 2007, 12:03 AM) [snapback]89671[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
"Safe Racing" is an oxymoron.. In the quest for safety racing is becoming more and mopre insipid. Heck even with all these safety standards, most injured riders get back on their bike long before its "safe" for them to get back on them. I say, let the riders decide what is safe enough for them. If its too dangerous, for them, there are enough idiots to do it for less.

it sure is.
another poster said he heard most riders dont actually like tc, so that begs the question. how much say does the rider actually get. .... all if you ride for hrc but what about the rest ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Sep 8 2007, 12:14 AM) [snapback]89674[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
another poster said he heard most riders dont actually like tc, so that begs the question. how much say does the rider actually get. .... all if you ride for hrc but what about the rest ?


The fact that the rules allow TC mean that the teams have no choice but to run it otherwise they'd be so uncompetitive it'd be ridiculous. The reason that that riders who have experienced both pre- and post- TC have given for disliking TC is that it becomes more about the bike/electronics and less about rider skill.

It used to be reckoned in the 500/early 990 years that it was 20% bike and 80% rider. With TC that has changed and will continue to do so as the calibrators get to grips with controlling the electronics for more and more situations, thus overriding rider input.

QUOTE(crvlvr @ Sep 8 2007, 12:03 AM)

"Safe Racing" is an oxymoron.


How true

anyone who says they would rather highside then lowside obviously does not ride, I have done many circuit events, and crashed many times as well,

I will compare injuries sustained from highsides to low sides for you,

Low sides

bruises, a couple times road rash, being sore for a few days


High sides,

bruises, sore for days, broken wrist/titanium plate, broken collar bone plate there too.


please do not post your opinions if you have never felt them both.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(krazy91 @ Sep 8 2007, 06:07 AM) [snapback]89758[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
anyone who says they would rather highside then lowside obviously does not ride, I have done many circuit events, and crashed many times as well,

I will compare injuries sustained from highsides to low sides for you,

Low sides

bruises, a couple times road rash, being sore for a few days
High sides,

bruises, sore for days, broken wrist/titanium plate, broken collar bone plate there too.
please do not post your opinions if you have never felt them both.


Thank You krazy91,sometimes on forums you just have to bite your tongue.Any other racers out there like to chime in.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(krazy91 @ Sep 8 2007, 08:07 PM) [snapback]89758[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Low sides

bruises, a couple times road rash, being sore for a few days
High sides,

bruises, sore for days, broken wrist/titanium plate, broken collar bone plate there too.


Yep... pretty much the same for me!

Yep, been there, done that. The first time I ever raced in the rain. I low-sided four times in practice and just got up and kept racing. No problema. It was only vaguely embarrassing. I low-sided in turn one at Mid-Ohio at well over 100 mph. I had some sore ribs, but my guys put on a new brake lever, and my partner went out for 45 minutes (a 300 kilo endurance race) and I finished the last hour of the race, and we still came in 17th out of 68 entries on a dead stock 600 Ninja - a piece of crap bike if ever there was one..
.........High-sides on the other hand, cost me two broken collar bones, two wrecked shoulders, some really nasty concussions, and at my last ride in '88 four broken vertebrae and a week in the hospital up at Loudon while they put the steel plate and all them little shiny screws to put my hip back together. Funny but I guess I got distracted and lost touch with racing for a while, but (and I know I could be wrong) but it was my distinct impression that TC's original purpose, was to decrease wheel spin at the rear, to put more useful power the ground and lessen tire wear. If it was supposed be decreasing high-sides, it's failing miserably. I haven't seen a race weekend in two years that didn't feature at least one high-side.
BTW - I see there's some kind of feature here for a "Fantasy Team" Never gave it much thought - but considering the topic here, I'd say, Wayne Rainey and John Ulrich.

I don't know that TC is any safer or any less safe. The risk taker is in the seat, not in the software development office. If you can push harder with TC racers will do it. Eventually, they will push hard enough to crash no matter how many lovely gadgets you give them.

I don't like the equity of the TC situation tho. Look at Hopper and KRJR in 2003. They were all over the gravel traps mainly because the Suzuki software team weren't so great.

I'm aware 2007 electronics are still better but I don't like the fact TC can't take a variety of racing conditions into account. It doesn't know whether it's wet or dry. It doesn't know if you're on the pavement, paint, or grass. It doesn't know what kind of condition your tires are in.

I know TC isn't the fastest way around the track. However, it might be the fastest over race distance b/c the tires and the rider aren't as fatigued as in years gone by.

Who knows maybe riders will turn it off when they need to run hot laps, perhaps that will allow for more passing and more creative lines.

you guys are missing the flow of the thread completely. let me help you out...

1. thread starter says that TC is beneficial because it makes racing safer.

2. i reply by saying that in the grand scheme of things, TC does not make racing any safer than smaller displacement engines do. in fact, if you look at the really bad crashes that resulted in death or paralysis, none of them were highsides which is the type of crash that TC most affects.

3. someone posts that lowsiding is better than highsiding which has nothing to do with my point. my point, again, was in reply to the original poster who said that TC makes racing safer. see "2" for my reply.

4. someone decides to press the point about lowsiding versus highsiding. i bring up Rainey. when dissecting the physics of a crash, you have to have the energy go somewhere. in a highside, energy is first dissipated through the sliding of the rear tire, then a little more when it swings back, then a little more as the bike flips and the rider enters the air, then more as the rider hits the ground. in a lowside, all the energy is transfered to the rider sliding on the ground. you all know this.

therefore, my point was that if Rainey could go back and trade his lowside-that-turned-into-a-tumble-that-broke-his-back for a highside that knocked the wind out of him or maybe broke a rib but that he still got up and walked away from, he would choose the highside.

5. finally, because you're all distracted now; i'll go back to the original point... TC does not make racing any safer in the grand scheme of things. TC protects mostly against highsiding. However, when you look at the history of the sport, highsiding is not the type of accident that results in death or paralysis. None of the bad accidents that resulted in death or paralysis in GPs were from highsides; they were other types of crashes. (see my original post for caveat regarding Doohan).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(drumfu @ Sep 6 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]89393[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
how is a highside much more dangerous than a lowside? in my post i gave examples of the worst accidents in GP history resulting in death and paralysis and they were not highsides.

would you rather have all the energy taken out of the equation by going up and over and then coming to a relatively quick stop or sliding forever not knowing if you're going to get tossed in the air and get all your limbs broken or hit something hard.

please provide support for your argument.


In your quote above,you seem to favor the consequences of a high side over a a low side.You asked,would i rather,and i, and others told you our rathers.Like i said,any bike wreck is potentially devastating and i see where your coming from,but im guessing 100 out of 100 racers would tell you they would rather lowside.The sliding forever and slamming into something is a concern but one that is low percentage.A highside has a much higher percentage of causing you to miss the next race.Plus,a highside usually tears the bike up worse and a lot of the time,the bike comes in behind you,which can be scary.There is an old saying,If you love your bike,set it free.If it comes back to you,you just highsided.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(povol @ Sep 10 2007, 07:19 PM) [snapback]89966[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
In your quote above,you seem to favor the consequences of a high side over a a low side.You asked,would i rather,and i, and others told you our rathers.Like i said,any bike wreck is potentially devastating and i see where your coming from,but im guessing 100 out of 100 racers would tell you they would rather lowside.The sliding forever and slamming into something is a concern but one that is low percentage.A highside has a much higher percentage of causing you to miss the next race.Plus,a highside usually tears the bike up worse and a lot of the time,the bike comes in behind you,which can be scary.There is an old saying,If you love your bike,set it free.If it comes back to you,you just highsided.

personally i would rather low side than high side but i would rather high side than stay on the bike and crash head on into something,but thats pretty much what most have already said.
but having said that i cant remember any serious injury's caused by a high side or low side. i guess that because of the fantastic gear the riders now have, like leathers boots gloves back protectors ect.

i dont think tc is needed for safety, but i do think tracks need to be of the highest safety standard's.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(drumfu @ Sep 10 2007, 06:32 PM) [snapback]89962[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
1. thread starter says that TC is beneficial because it makes racing safer.

i reply by saying that in the grand scheme of things, TC does not make racing any safer than smaller displacement engines do. in fact, if you look at the really bad crashes that resulted in death or paralysis, none of them were highsides which is the type of crash that TC most affects.


3. someone decides to press the point about lowsiding versus highsiding. i bring up Rainey. when dissecting the physics of a crash, you have to have the energy go somewhere. in a highside, energy is first dissipated through the sliding of the rear tire, then a little more when it swings back, then a little more as the bike flips and the rider enters the air, then more as the rider hits the ground. in a lowside, all the energy is transfered to the rider sliding on the ground. you all know this.



1. Racing with TC is dafer than racing without TC, but the main reason it is used is because its faster.

2. People will be injured in accidents when too much force is exerted on their body, since f=ma and mass is a constant, the force of an accident is dependant on the deceleration the rider experiences. Sliding to a stop or hitting the ground from height? no competition.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Sep 10 2007, 10:16 PM) [snapback]90000[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
1. Racing with TC is dafer than racing without TC, but the main reason it is used is because its faster.


i didn't think of it like that, but you are probably right

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Sep 10 2007, 10:52 PM) [snapback]90013[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
i didn't think of it like that, but you are probably right


I think if it wasn't going to help their results over a season the riders would be prepared to risk riding without it, the safetey difference isn't "that" big.