Expanding MotoGP to the World

steeeeeve said:

Racing with the Stars. Put some B list celebs on last years 800's and see what happens. Certainly that would generate some interest.

Click to expand...

Steeeeve, I doubt any would be alive by the end of lap one. hahaha. But hey, if it generates interest, go for it.

Mental Anarchist said:

Quality post.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Btw, have you seen the "Inside the Outdoors"? Its good man, JohnK turned me on to it. Shows the real human side of these guys, partly talks about the struggles that they all go through and it makes you realize these guys are all just out there to get on with it, almost made me like Reed.

Someone mentioned Mexico - which I think would be a natural for MGP. There's plenty of motorcycle

enthusiasts there. In the big cities you see big Jap bikes everywhere and not cruisers either.

Someone needs to siphon off a portion of the crowds that go to watch those boring ...

soccer games. Plus it would give me an excuse to go to Mexico more often.

I could defo go for sitting in the stands eating tacos and beer and rooting

for Ben.

Tacos and beer can be had in Texas bro... Mexico is way too ...... up atm to be hanging around having beer and tacos

xx CURVE xx said:

Tacos and beer can be had in Texas bro... Mexico is way too ...... up atm to be hanging around having beer and tacos

Click to expand...

Naturally I wasn't suggesting Mexico to the exclusion of Texas. I was just telling the wife last night that I'd be booking

a ticket the next day if there's going to be a GP in Austin. Dibs on the couch Dude.

povol said:

With that being said, how could anyone want GP to go there. I just wish people would appreciate GP for what it is

Click to expand...

Do you know what motorsport is? As Francis Batta once said (paraphrase) racing is a microcosm for life.



You only appreciate MotoGP b/c you can't discern the FIM-controlled 500cc era from the MSMA-controlled 4-stroke era. They look the same on the outside (3 competitive manufacturers, processional racing at times), but they are not the same. The Soviet Union was once a powerful, wealthy country. Did you ever wish the US would go communist?



I wish people would appreciate the complexity of racing economics, and they would stop encouraging failure.

Jumkie said:

Thanks. Btw, have you seen the "Inside the Outdoors"? Its good man, JohnK turned me on to it. Shows the real human side of these guys, partly talks about the struggles that they all go through and it makes you realize these guys are all just out there to get on with it, almost made me like Reed.

Click to expand...

I'll check it out.

Kropotkin said:

Final year on fully-developed bikes, development focus switching to the 800s, crappy tires, primitive slipper clutches and a relatively shallow talent pool. On the 990s, you could afford to ride sloppy and make a mistake, you had oodles of power to straighten things out on corner exit. On the 800s, if you lost a tenth somewhere you never, ever got it back. Add that to outstanding corner entry electronics and astonishingly grippy tires and you breed a generation of riders who are absolutely perfect every lap. When you also have three young riders who have used the best rider of the 990 era as a benchmark, and are pushing each other to greater heights of riding perfection - dragging that 990's era legend with them - and you get boring racing.



If you want great racing, you have to replicate what WSBK has: second-rate riders, crappy tires, less complicated electronics.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the insightful input. I agree about some of the aspects that contributed to the close racing: "Final year on fully-developed bikes, development focus switching to the 800s, crappy tires, primitive slipper clutches and a relatively shallow talent pool", "On the 990s, you could afford to ride sloppy and make a mistake, you had oodles of power to straighten things out on corner exit." The only thing I disagree with is your assessment of having a "shallow talent pool" and "crappy tires". About the tires, they were developed for the formula to address its particulars, and Bstone seemed to be making a better all around tire that eventually seemed to outperform the specifically created tire for the specific race condition. About the riders, with all do respect, without getting to much into a debate, put Lorenzo, Pedro as co-teammates with Rossi and Nicky today, and you suddenly have one "alien" left, though I'm sure you'll just chalk it up to a 'quirky bike', which begs the question, how do you ..... "shallow talent".



Anyway Kropo, what is more interesting about your post is the implication that 'great racing' must somehow mean an 'inferior' product (of which a few others have latched on to). What makes us think that 800s were a better product? Because they had more advance electronics? Because the rider was forced to adapt a certain style or approach to a race by being a slave to these electronics? Is that what makes a better rider? Wouldn't by this logic make all the riders in less electronically advanced forms of racing "second-rate?" Is it a forgone conclusion that the new "breed" of riders who employ metronomic precision in lap per lap are superior to those that could manage the degradation of tire and ample power to race a lose bike? Also, while the riders are concentrating on perfect laps, this has now become the predominate prescribed race strategy, a perfect race simulation, with little actually 'racing'. And what dictates this? Seems to me the answer is dictated by the advanced electronics the current state of tire development (both products of arbitrary rules). Again, what made the last year of 990s an inferior product given that previous state in bike and tire, which developed the "breed" of riders to actually employ some race strategy other than a sustained qual session akin to the 800s (piggy backing on the reality that as electronics advanced, a loss of a tenth here and there, as you put it, was nearly impossible to make up)?

Jumkie said:

Thanks for the insightful input. I agree about some of the aspects that contributed to the close racing: "Final year on fully-developed bikes, development focus switching to the 800s, crappy tires, primitive slipper clutches and a relatively shallow talent pool", "On the 990s, you could afford to ride sloppy and make a mistake, you had oodles of power to straighten things out on corner exit." The only thing I disagree with is your assessment of having a "shallow talent pool" and "crappy tires". About the tires, they were developed for the formula to address its particulars, and Bstone seemed to be making a better all around tire that eventually seemed to outperform the specifically created tire for the specific race condition. About the riders, with all do respect, without getting to much into a debate, put Lorenzo, Pedro as co-teammates with Rossi and Nicky today, and you suddenly have one "alien" left, though I'm sure you'll just chalk it up to a 'quirky bike', which begs the question, how do you ..... "shallow talent".



Anyway Kropo, what is more interesting about your post is the implication that 'great racing' must somehow mean an 'inferior' product (of which a few others have latched on to). What makes us think that 800s were a better product? Because they had more advance electronics? Because the rider was forced to adapt a certain style or approach to a race by being a slave to these electronics? Is that what makes a better rider? Wouldn't by this logic make all the riders in less electronically advanced forms of racing "second-rate?" Is it a forgone conclusion that the new "breed" of riders who employ metronomic precision in lap per lap are superior to those that could manage the degradation of tire and ample power to race a lose bike? Also, while the riders are concentrating on perfect laps, this has now become the predominate prescribed race strategy, a perfect race simulation, with little actually 'racing'. And what dictates this? Seems to me the answer is dictated by the advanced electronics the current state of tire development (both products of arbitrary rules). Again, what made the last year of 990s an inferior product given that previous state in bike and tire, which developed the "breed" of riders to actually employ some race strategy other than a sustained qual session akin to the 800s (piggy backing on the reality that as electronics advanced, a loss of a tenth here and there, as you put it, was nearly impossible to make up)?

Click to expand...

A very quick answer, to a complicated question....



The problem with the 800s was that everything was perfectly matched. The tires, fuel and electronics all meshed perfectly to allow the bike to get to the limit of the tires, while the engine capacity was large enough to generate a lot of power, but small enough to be missing crucial torque to correct for mistakes. The only way to ride these bikes was faultlessly, while you could afford to make a mistake (or risk making a mistake) on the 990s, and still correct it. The good news for this year is that the extra torque of the 1000s means you can .... up corner entry and sort it all out on the way out. The bad news is that with 21 l of fuel, you can't do that too often.



As for the Aliens: If the entire MotoGP field was on Yamaha M1s, there would be 4 riders constantly battling for victory, and one who would win slightly more often than the rest. The gap to 5th would be about the same as it is now. If the entire MotoGP field was on Ducatis, there would be 1 rider cleaning up, and a mess behind him. In fact, I think Hayden might do very well in that scenario. But Yamahas, Hondas or Ducati, the top rider would be the same.

Just say that during the 800 era there was a a crop of riders with an ability to go 96% of the maximum potential speed of the available equipment. Then there was 1 rider who was able to take it to 99% of the maximum potential at will and had the confidence to be able to use that extra 3% when ever required and therefore was happy to ride at the 96% maximum for most of the race and then pull out that 3% at the end to win.



Do you think that we would be blaming electronics for ruining the races?



It is my opinion that due to the fact that there were 4 guys all able to ride at 99% on a fair share of weekends that we had processional racing because non of them had the confidence that it was only them on that given weekend who had that extra 3% up their sleeve. If the 990 era had the same rides as the 800 era then we would be complaining about the processional racing that 990's created.

Mental Anarchist said:

Just say that during the 800 era there was a a crop of riders with an ability to go 96% of the maximum potential speed of the available equipment. Then there was 1 rider who was able to take it to 99% of the maximum potential at will and had the confidence to be able to use that extra 3% when ever required and therefore was happy to ride at the 96% maximum for most of the race and then pull out that 3% at the end to win.



Do you think that we would be blaming electronics for ruining the races?



It is my opinion that due to the fact that there were 4 guys all able to ride at 99% on a fair share of weekends that we had processional racing because non of them had the confidence that it was only them on that given weekend who had that extra 3% up their sleeve. If the 990 era had the same rides as the 800 era then we would be complaining about the processional racing that 990's created.

Click to expand...

The best example of this is Phillip Island, 2003. Go look at Rossi's laptimes before and after the 15 second penalty, and you can see how much he was holding in reserve. About three quarters of a second, as it happens. With Lorenzo, Stoner, Pedrosa, nobody can hold anything in reserve.

There is no way to get around that the riders aim is to do the perfect race with no mistakes. A race plan from a rider along the lines of lets leave it to the last lap and hope to make the pass on the last corner is obviously a less successful strategy than go to front, get a gap then maintain it. In the process of maintaining it they still have to manage tire wear as well as fuel so if anything it should be more complicated but the strategy makes it boring. For example look at how Nicky rode Laguna in 06. Straight to the lead and stay there. Ask him if you could would you like to replicate that strategy every race and I bet he would yell from the rooftops HELL YES!!!!!!

Kropotkin said:

The best example of this is Phillip Island, 2003. Go look at Rossi's laptimes before and after the 15 second penalty, and you can see how much he was holding in reserve. About three quarters of a second, as it happens. With Lorenzo, Stoner, Pedrosa, nobody can hold anything in reserve.

Click to expand...

Plus if you went and replaced Rossi with Doohan on a 990 I bet he would have really buggered it all up. Whats that famous quote from Doohan, when asked why do you have to win the race by 10 seconds, he replied "what, you want me to slow down?"

birdman said:

There is no way to get around that the riders aim is to do the perfect race with no mistakes. A race plan from a rider along the lines of lets leave it to the last lap and hope to make the pass on the last corner is obviously a less successful strategy than go to front, get a gap then maintain it. In the process of maintaining it they still have to manage tire wear as well as fuel so if anything it should be more complicated but the strategy makes it boring. For example look at how Nicky rode Laguna in 06. Straight to the lead and stay there. Ask him if you could would you like to replicate that strategy every race and I bet he would yell from the rooftops HELL YES!!!!!!

Click to expand...

I believe that Rossi knew he could do that in his early years, and the PI 2003 is the smoking gun. His genius was to recognize that the crowds wanted him to win on the last lap, not the first, and he knew that he was so much better than the competition that he could do that. That changed when Pedrosa and Stoner came into the class, and Lorenzo made it even worse.

Kropotkin said:

I believe that Rossi knew he could do that in his early years, and the PI 2003 is the smoking gun. His genius was to recognize that the crowds wanted him to win on the last lap, not the first, and he knew that he was so much better than the competition that he could do that. That changed when Pedrosa and Stoner came into the class, and Lorenzo made it even worse.

Click to expand...

As you say above, Surely though the machines and aids available altered this quite dramatically as well, judging by the regs that have been introduced since 2003......?



Cross threading here but



I'm would definately not say that the current crop would dominate on anything, anywhere against anyone, as their era of success has all been tech governed 800

Talpa said:

As you say above, Surely though the machines and aids available altered this quite dramatically as well, judging by the regs that have been introduced since 2003......?



Cross threading here but



I'm would definately not say that the current crop would dominate on anything, anywhere against anyone, as their era of success has all been tech governed 800

Click to expand...

I believe that Lorenzo, Stoner and Rossi are three of the best riders who have ever ridden a motorcycle. Given the fact that Stoner uses significantly less electronics than anyone else - including Rossi - I think he'd do just fine on a 500.

Talpa said:

As you say above, Surely though the machines and aids available altered this quite dramatically as well, judging by the regs that have been introduced since 2003......?



Cross threading here but



I'm would definately not say that the current crop would dominate on anything, anywhere against anyone, as their era of success has all been tech governed 800

Click to expand...

The electronics and regs have truly buggered it up for the non-factory riders. Between Spies and Lorenzo the difference is due to Lorenzo, nothing else imo. Change whatever you like, take off the electronics, give them 500, whatever, its still Lorenzo. Actually go watch the guy ride, I did and it blew my mind. Between Stoner, Pedrosa and Dovi the difference is Stoner.

I read recently Honda has issued Showa forks for Bautista and Bradl. If Showa were good enough they would be used on the Repsol bikes, but there not. Giving Showas to these teams which pay big money for the privilege is an absolute farce, theres your problem with motogp in a nutshell. If CRT can get around this rort then I'm all for it. Take that money away from the factory which is abusing the system and put it somewhere usefull.

birdman said:

The electronics and regs have truly buggered it up for the non-factory riders. Between Spies and Lorenzo the difference is due to Lorenzo, nothing else imo. Change whatever you like, take off the electronics, give them 500, whatever, its still Lorenzo. Actually go watch the guy ride, I did and it blew my mind. Between Stoner, Pedrosa and Dovi the difference is Stoner.

I read recently Honda has issued Showa forks for Bautista and Bradl. If Showa were good enough they would be used on the Repsol bikes, but there not. Giving Showas to these teams which pay big money for the privilege is an absolute farce, theres your problem with motogp in a nutshell. If CRT can get around this rort then I'm all for it. Take that money away from the factory which is abusing the system and put it somewhere usefull.

Click to expand...

The reason they are using Showa is that it's cheaper than the Ohlins. Showa carrying some of the load.

Kropotkin said:

The reason they are using Showa is that it's cheaper than the Ohlins. Showa carrying some of the load.

Click to expand...

Oh, it sounded like the team paid up and Honda gave them Showa. You saying the teams themselves made the decision to go Showa. That changes everthing ignore that rant.

Hows about electronics? Post Crutchlow complaint do they pay big bucks and end up with inferior electronics on the Tech 3 or is the team themselves responsible same as above?

Mental Anarchist said:

Just say that during the 800 era there was a a crop of riders with an ability to go 96% of the maximum potential speed of the available equipment. Then there was 1 rider who was able to take it to 99% of the maximum potential at will and had the confidence to be able to use that extra 3% when ever required and therefore was happy to ride at the 96% maximum for most of the race and then pull out that 3% at the end to win.



Do you think that we would be blaming electronics for ruining the races?



It is my opinion that due to the fact that there were 4 guys all able to ride at 99% on a fair share of weekends that we had processional racing because non of them had the confidence that it was only them on that given weekend who had that extra 3% up their sleeve. If the 990 era had the same rides as the 800 era then we would be complaining about the processional racing that 990's created.

Click to expand...

No we wouldn't be complaining about the talent. During the 990cc era MotoGP had 1. A tire war 2. 990cc engines with enough power to overwhelm the prototype tires 3. enough fuel to light the rear wheel up from beginning to end.



Aliens would hold back b/c burning up the tires was the only possible way to lose. Nicky Fade'en? Anyone remember that? The kid who rode his equipment much too hard. How bout Stoner at Qatar in 2006? Built up a monumental lead, only to have his tires disintegrate. Even Lorenzo in 2008 got a little taste of the tire war.



Rossi at PI illustrates the point. Rossi was riding around, taking care of his tires. He got a 10 second penalty that forced him to up the pace. The tires held. The great challenge for the manufacturers was finding the sweet spot between carcass and compound. You might remember that Stoner's trick new tires had several malfunctions during the 2007 season. I specifically remember his tires going off at Mugello (the Barros podium on D'Antin) and Sachsenring (Loris beat Stoner for the first time in 2007). The softness of the tires probably contributed to passing b/c the tires had far more performance than the riders would actually use.



The Bridgestone control tire has been really bad for the sport. Not sure if control tires are absolutely bad b/c the Pirelli gig works pretty well in WSBK, but the specific construction and compounds used by Bridgestone in MotoGP have been quite detrimental.

mylexicon said:

No we wouldn't be complaining about the talent. During the 990cc era MotoGP had 1. A tire war 2. 990cc engines with enough power to overwhelm the prototype tires 3. enough fuel to light the rear wheel up from beginning to end.



Aliens would hold back b/c burning up the tires was the only possible way to lose. Nicky Fade'en? Anyone remember that? The kid who rode his equipment much too hard. How bout Stoner at Qatar in 2006? Built up a monumental lead, only to have his tires disintegrate. Even Lorenzo in 2008 got a little taste of the tire war.



Rossi at PI illustrates the point. Rossi was riding around, taking care of his tires. He got a 10 second penalty that forced him to up the pace. The tires held. The great challenge for the manufacturers was finding the sweet spot between carcass and compound. You might remember that Stoner's trick new tires had several malfunctions during the 2007 season. I specifically remember his tires going off at Mugello (the Barros podium on D'Antin) and Sachsenring (Loris beat Stoner for the first time in 2007). The softness of the tires probably contributed to passing b/c the tires had far more performance than the riders would actually use.



The Bridgestone control tire has been really bad for the sport. Not sure if control tires are absolutely bad b/c the Pirelli gig works pretty well in WSBK, but the specific construction and compounds used by Bridgestone in MotoGP have been quite detrimental.

Click to expand...

+1