Estoril Predictions

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 11 2008, 03:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's quite common among racers to asume that wet wether racing are more difficult. The edge is sharper and the riders with a refined technique are shining both due to their superior tehchnique and because power doesn't matter as much, but all the more about getting the power down.
I also think that a fast rain rider have a better potential than others in dry. How far they take it is a different matter. A fast rider i know once explained fast wet riding as being on lap record pace on evey lap an on evey inch of the lap. Small slides everywhere and being right there on the edge. Soft and fast in every control and movement are key abilities.

I find this to be true (I reallt stunk in rain myself) but there are other factors as well. As the bikes have become easier to ride there are those with less skill but more need for a spot in the lime light that are willing to take a 1/10 bet that they make it to the finish and race accordingly. Far behind in the championship they have little to loose and a lot to gain, but usually they bin it, we just have to pray they don't take to many with them.

The main challange of wet racing is the fact that it is outside of the norm. It removes riders from their comfort zone and casues them to adjust their parameters, thats the challange that some take to better than others (perhaps a question of adaptability?). The skills set required is obviously very different to dry riding so being good at one nowhere near guarantees being good at the other. I don't believe riders like CV and West necessarily have lots of unrealized potential in the dry just because they are exceptional in the wet, i think that they have advantages in areas that become more prominant in the wet. Or alternatively, wet racing reduces the significance placed on the areas where they fall short in normal conditions.

As far as equipment goes, i am not one who buys into the myth that rain is a leveller.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 11 2008, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The main challange of wet racing is the fact that it is outside of the norm. It removes riders from their comfort zone and casues them to adjust their parameters, thats the challange that some take to better than others (perhaps a question of adaptability?). The skills set required is obviously very different to dry riding so being good at one nowhere near guarantees being good at the other. I don't believe riders like CV and West necessarily have lots of unrealized potential in the dry just because they are exceptional in the wet, i think that they have advantages in areas that become more prominant in the wet. Or alternatively, wet racing reduces the significance placed on the areas where they fall short in normal conditions.

As far as equipment goes, i am not one who buys into the myth that rain is a leveller.
Rain has often been a "leveller" on four wheels. It tends to put high power and low power output engines on a more similar footing (more power then can be applied in the wet is a "waste") and hence brought teams with more cash onto a closer footing with those who had less cash

With 2 wheels, the current crappy (IMO) rules (come in and change your bike whilst the race carries on) and complex electronics, you are probably right - rain is not a leveller.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 11 2008, 05:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The main challange of wet racing is the fact that it is outside of the norm.
Sorry but the problem is that the "edge" is 10 times sharper. That has little to do with norm.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>It removes riders from their comfort zone and casues them to adjust their parameters, thats the challange that some take to better than others (perhaps a question of adaptability?). The skills set required is obviously very different to dry riding so being good at one nowhere near guarantees being good at the other.
No, the skills are not very different, but to a certain degree dry racing are much more forgiving. You can wrestle the bike, even regulary provoke small front slides throwing the bike into turns, but while doing so can be considered a "style" it's far from optimal handling, dry or wet.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I don't believe riders like CV and West necessarily have lots of unrealized potential in the dry just because they are exceptional in the wet, i think that they have advantages in areas that become more prominant in the wet. Or alternatively, wet racing reduces the significance placed on the areas where they fall short in normal conditions.
Well, first of all they both ride bikes that fall short on several areas more prominant in dry but except from that I agree they have advantages in areas that become more visible in wet: A soft and precise riding style and a good feel for the grip level. But that doesn't have to make them fast i dry, that takes more and I never said a good rain rider are a better rider allround, just that the potential are there.
Why focus on the few that raise up in wet. The likes of Stoner and Rossi are just as much a part of those mastering rain. In fact very few wc's hasn't matered rain. Hayden while improved are among the worst I guess, and that's probaly down to his riding style wrestling the bike to much.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>As far as equipment goes, i am not one who buys into the myth that rain is a leveller.
I guess that was this years #1 silly comment Tom. Why don't just declare that acceleration and top speed doesn't matter at all?
You can by what ever you want, but there is no myth there. It's proven again and again and ... You just have overwheliming numbers that prove this.
You may argue that with todays GP bikes they are very close in performance and the electronics levels things and to some degree I agreee, but rain levels equipment differences, that's a fact.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 11 2008, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No, the skills are not very different, but to a certain degree dry racing are much more forgiving. You can wrestle the bike, even regulary provoke small front slides throwing the bike into turns, but while doing so can be considered a "style" it's far from optimal handling, dry or wet.

Well, first of all they both ride bikes that fall short on several areas more prominant in dry but except from that I agree they have advantages in areas that become more visible in wet: A soft and precise riding style and a good feel for the grip level. But that doesn't have to make them fast i dry, that takes more and I never said a good rain rider are a better rider allround, just that the potential are there.

If these statements were true, CV would be a front runner in the dry but last season he was beaten by his team mate and so far the same is true this year. Whats missing?

furthermore Dani Pedrosa is known as one of the most smooth, precise and gentle riders out there, and he has typically had a lot of trouble in the rain, which goes directly against your theory.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 11 2008, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I guess that was this years #1 silly comment Tom. Why don't just declare that acceleration and top speed doesn't matter at all?
You can by what ever you want, but there is no myth there. It's proven again and again and ... You just have overwheliming numbers that prove this.
You may argue that with todays GP bikes they are very close in performance and the electronics levels things and to some degree I agreee, but rain levels equipment differences, that's a fact.

It is nowhere near fact that rain levels equipment differences. The fact of the matter is that a different grip level doesn't suddenly make all the bikes equal at all, it just shifts the more significant demands to other areas. Power delivery, Tyre Feel and heat generation, Handling, power characteristics, engine breaking, front end stability and electronic setup will ALL distinguish bikes from each other in the wet. There is no way all of these factors could become equal just because it is raining. Eventually, even outright power will become an issue but maybe only at the end of a very long straight. It is very possible to have a good or bad rain bike.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 11 2008, 07:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It is nowhere near fact that rain levels equipment differences. The fact of the matter is that a different grip level doesn't suddenly make all the bikes equal at all, it just shifts the more significant demands to other areas. Power delivery, Tyre Feel and heat generation, Handling, power characteristics, engine breaking, front end stability and electronic setup will ALL distinguish bikes from each other in the wet. There is no way all of these factors could become equal just because it is raining. Eventually, even outright power will become an issue but maybe only at the end of a very long straight. It is very possible to have a good or bad rain bike.

Allthough this is a MotoGP forum you clearly stated this as a general term. No need to make things difficult, just look at series with less cash available, you don't need to go any further than 250. There are allways acknowledged tallented guys rising up through the field on wet races. Lacking 5-10hp or the resources/connections to get the best in suspension allways dump them far down the list in dry but they shine in wet and allways beat their team mate by a margine also in dry. Normally they get better equipment and are acknowledged by the occational bystander later in their career, but the paddoc know where to spot talent and a rainy day is allways one of them. This has happens every weekend all over the world Tom. Pleas stop now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 11 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Allthough this is a MotoGP forum you clearly stated this as a general term. No need to make things difficult, just look at series with less cash available, you don't need to go any further than 250. There are allways acknowledged tallented guys rising up through the field on wet races. Lacking 5-10hp or the resources/connections to get the best in suspension allways dump them far down the list in dry but they shine in wet and allways beat their team mate by a margine also in dry. Normally they get better equipment and are acknowledged by the occational bystander later in their career, but the paddoc know where to spot talent and a rainy day is allways one of them. This has happens every weekend all over the world Tom. Pleas stop now.

Well lets be fair now, 250 and 125 is very different because all the riders are on approximately the same chassis, meaning that engine power is the only thing that significantly differentiates the bikes. In a series with technical diversity things are not like this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 11 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well lets be fair now, 250 and 125 is very different because all the riders are on approximately the same chassis, meaning that engine power is the only thing that significantly differentiates the bikes. In a series with technical diversity things are not like this.

Well, take any series, it's still true. Proton in MotoGP, 2 cyl in MotoGP, KR in MotoGP, Superbike , SS
..............

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 11 2008, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well, take any series, it's still true. Proton in MotoGP, 2 cyl in MotoGP, KR in MotoGP, Superbike , SS
..............

So you don't think that rain performance has anything to do with having a more wet friendly chassis, better tyres, a more suitable power delivery or someone having nothing to lose (willing to take more risks). Nice

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 11 2008, 08:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So you don't think that rain performance has anything to do with having a more wet friendly chassis, better tyres, a more suitable power delivery or someone having nothing to lose (willing to take more risks). Nice

Sorry Tom, don't behave like an .... These bikes mentioned have one single thing in common: they are down on power.
And NO i dont think the proton chassi were better than Hondas, neither do I think the 2 cyl. have a better chassi than the fours, and NO i don't think the power delivery differ that much on budget bike compared to a factory bike, if any it's usually the budget bike that has power delivery problem. Aprilia Cube ring any bells? And NO this is not about those having nothing to loose but about those that consistently outperform their competition when power is leveled out. Again, this is something that has been shown as a clear trend for decades to a degree that you are the first I ever heard of remotely sugesting anything else. Go debate that the world is flat or somthing else less obvious will you, please?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 11 2008, 10:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sorry Tom, don't behave like an .... These bikes mentioned have one single thing in common: they are down on power.
And NO i dont think the proton chassi were better than Hondas, neither do I think the 2 cyl. have a better chassi than the fours, and NO i don't think the power delivery differ that much on budget bike compared to a factory bike, if any it's usually the budget bike that has power delivery problem. Aprilia Cube ring any bells? And NO this is not about those having nothing to loose but about those that consistently outperform their competition when power is leveled out. Again, this is something that has been shown as a clear trend for decades to a degree that you are the first I ever heard of remotely sugesting anything else. Go debate that the world is flat or somthing else less obvious will you, please?

So basically you are willing to ignore all the factors that affect motorcycle performance and consider them equal just because there is less grip and you expect it to be considered realistic. I know the rain being a leveler is a popular opinion but that doesn't make it a fact. Remember people used to actually believe the earth was flat.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 12 2008, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So basically you are willing to ignore all the factors that affect motorcycle performance and consider them equal just because there is less grip and you expect it to be considered realistic. I know the rain being a leveler is a popular opinion but that doesn't make it a fact. Remember people used to actually believe the earth was flat.
I'm not ignoring them, quite the oposite, I did accnowledge this in the first reply to you, especially in MotoGP so you might say that the myth/fact that rain is an equlizer doesn't play that big a role right now in motoGp, and I agree to that. But to call it a myth is rediclous, nothing less.
Besides, as I pointed out, it's often the budget teams that strugle with power delivery, drivability and suspension these days, not the top teams. So even if the top teams have more power their bikes are easier to go fast with, even in rain. Despite that there are allways some that come through in rain. And don't go blind on Westy and CV, I also find their dry wether performance on the weak side so I don't consider them to be of the same range of typical up and comming riders on lesser equipment that shine in rain and are quickly picked up by better teams to prove their talent on faster equipment.
So to me it looks like you are the one who are ignoring most of the factors here. You simply say that the all the budget racers comming throught the fields in rain just happen to have a better "rain" bike/rider, despite the fact that it is the resourceful teams that have the abilty to adjust the bike to the conditions?
Well, fortunatly I'm not old enough to remember the time when people belived that the earth was flat, but are you sure you doun't belive it?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 11 2008, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So basically you are willing to ignore all the factors that affect motorcycle performance and consider them equal just because there is less grip and you expect it to be considered realistic. I know the rain being a leveler is a popular opinion but that doesn't make it a fact. Remember people used to actually believe the earth was flat.


Eh?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 12 2008, 12:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm not ignoring them, quite the oposite, I did accnowledge this in the first reply to you, especially in MotoGP so you might say that the myth/fact that rain is an equlizer doesn't play that big a role right now in motoGp, and I agree to that. But to call it a myth is rediclous, nothing less.
Besides, as I pointed out, it's often the budget teams that strugle with power delivery, drivability and suspension these days, not the top teams. So even if the top teams have more power their bikes are easier to go fast with, even in rain. Despite that there are allways some that come through in rain. And don't go blind on Westy and CV, I also find their dry wether performance on the weak side so I don't consider them to be of the same range of typical up and comming riders on lesser equipment that shine in rain and are quickly picked up by better teams to prove their talent on faster equipment.
So to me it looks like you are the one who are ignoring most of the factors here. You simply say that the all the budget racers comming throught the fields in rain just happen to have a better "rain" bike/rider, despite the fact that it is the resourceful teams that have the abilty to adjust the bike to the conditions?
Well, fortunatly I'm not old enough to remember the time when people belived that the earth was flat, but are you sure you doun't belive it?

I think i understand the confusion between us here. You say the rain levels out equipment difficulties and i say it deosn't. In the rain the bikes merrits wont suddenly become meaningless, the differences between them still have as much affect on the bikes performance (relative to each other) as they ever did, but these differences become less significant to the result because the differences in the riders skills are commonly bigger when it is wet (the difference between a good and bad rain rider is larger).

The rain doesn't make the bikes equal to each other, but a bike which is 2 tenths faster a lap wont win the race when the rider is 6 thenths a lap slower.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 12 2008, 12:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think i understand the confusion between us here. You say the rain levels out equipment difficulties and i say it deosn't. In the rain the bikes merrits wont suddenly become meaningless, the differences between them still have as much affect on the bikes performance (relative to each other) as they ever did, but these differences become less significant to the result because the differences in the riders skills are commonly bigger when it is wet (the difference between a good and bad rain rider is larger).

The rain doesn't make the bikes equal to each other, but a bike which is 2 tenths faster a lap wont win the race when the rider is 6 thenths a lap slower.

Eh?

more management speak going on here.

Rain is often a "leveller". It tends to put high power and low power output engines on a more similar footing (more power then can be applied in the wet is a "waste") and hence brings teams with more performance onto a closer footing with those who have less.

Adding the concept of whether the riders of the high/low end bikes are better in the wet is just obfuscation of the issue. The difference between rider skills are not "commonly bigger when it is wet". Rider skills are just that, and include whether a rider has wet weather skills or not.

For a perfect example of rain being a leveller, take a look at Donington 2005 and KRJR's ride.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 12 2008, 01:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Rain is often a "leveller". It tends to put high power and low power output engines on a more similar footing (more power then can be applied in the wet is a "waste") and hence brings teams with more performance onto a closer footing with those who have less.

Having an excess of power simply shifts more importance onto the chassis setup.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 12 2008, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Having an excess of power simply shifts more importance onto the chassis setup.
And so?

What about KRJR in the wet at Donington 2005? No reply for that?

Pfft, managers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 12 2008, 01:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And so?

What about KRJR in the wet at Donington 2005? No reply for that?

Pfft, managers.

Well the alternative demands of wet racing obviously avoided some of the suzukis more significant shortfalls. And Obviously Kenny deserves some credit too, he rode very well.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 12 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well the alternative demands of wet racing obviously avoided some of the suzukis more significant shortfalls. And Obviously Kenny deserves some credit too, he rode very well.


Tom, can I just say on behalf of Yamaha, Ducati, Suzuki, Honda and Kawasaki, please hurry up and graduate, your knowledge will lift GP racing to new levels.

Pete

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Apr 12 2008, 01:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tom, can I just say on behalf of Yamaha, Ducati, Suzuki, Honda and Kawasaki, please hurry up and graduate, your knowledge will lift GP racing to new levels.

Pete

I cant help them all