fausto sez we must cut costs

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Anders GUZZI @ Jan 5 2009, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I agree on Stoner beeing fast on anything.Isn't that how important people in the business found out about him in the first place.Or any fast rider for that matter,almost anyway.

For me this was not a really a question wether Stoner would be fast without TC but proving there is no proof of that. Secondly, riding 250/600 fast is not at all proof of throttle control. Look at Sofouglo. Undoubtably fast and SS WC but where nowhere in WSBK. Last race last season he was back on the SS for the first time in a year and won the race. With and without TC is not exactly the same but non the less a fair comparison.
We can assume or hope but we have no way of knowing Stoner would be as good wothout TC as he is with. I tend to agree with michealem here. He would most likely be fast. The question is how often he would crash.

Some of you apparently need a lesson in subjective vs. objective... allow me!

sub·jec·tive (from Merriam-Webster)
Pronunciation: səb-ˈjek-tiv
Function: adjective
1a (1): peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> — compare objective 1c
2: lacking in reality or substance : illusory

ob·jec·tive (from Merriam-Webster)
Pronunciation: əb-ˈjek-tiv
Function: adjective
1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Now what some of you consider as evidence/fact is clearly a subjective postulate (or "claim") and, being the definition of subjective, is impossible to prove or disprove without objective data to support either side of the debate. No scientific review, court of law, or debate jury would ever accept this subjective statement as "evidence" without objective fact to support it.

BTW I have no particular investment in either side of the debate but believe that Casey is naturally/inherently fast but also benefits from a synergy between himself, the Duc,and its particular flavour of TC.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Jan 6 2009, 04:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Some of you apparently need a lesson in subjective vs. objective... allow me!

sub·jec·tive (from Merriam-Webster)
Pronunciation: səb-ˈjek-tiv
Function: adjective
1a (1): peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> — compare objective 1c
2: lacking in reality or substance : illusory

ob·jec·tive (from Merriam-Webster)
Pronunciation: əb-ˈjek-tiv
Function: adjective
1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Now what some of you consider as evidence/fact is clearly a subjective postulate (or "claim") and, being the definition of subjective, is impossible to prove or disprove without objective data to support either side of the debate. No scientific review, court of law, or debate jury would ever accept this subjective statement as "evidence" without objective fact to support it.

BTW I have no particular investment in either side of the debate but believe that Casey is naturally/inherently fast but also benefits from a synergy between himself, the Duc,and its particular flavour of TC.

And then there is always the one to destroy an entertaining "debate" with facts



Anyway, you are of course perfectly right, and I agree with your last pargraph too.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 5 2009, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Secondly, riding 250/600 fast is not at all proof of throttle control. Look at Sofouglo. Undoubtably fast and SS WC but where nowhere in WSBK.

Are you suggesting that Kenan's throttle control let him down in superbike? Or that having good throttle control is not necessarily a ticket to success?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 8 2009, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Are you suggesting that Kenan's throttle control let him down in superbike? Or that having good throttle control is not necessarily a ticket to success?

First of all i know for a fact that SS600 require a minimum of throttle control.
Secondly, I suggest that riding a much more powerfull and heavier bike require different skills. These days the smaller classes are considered recruiting clases but in the old days there were guys that specialized in those. The step up from SS to SBK is big and Kenan couldn't handle it (this time)
That doesn't have to be related only to throttle control but but several aspects about such a different bike. But the essens is that a different bike require a different skill and it's not often you can know that a rider will be able to handle the transition.

I would consider MotoGP bikes with and without TC two different bikes, just as MotoGp bikes with or without q-tires are two different bikes. Not everyone master the transtion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 8 2009, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>First of all i know for a fact that SS600 require a minimum of throttle control and neither do 250.
Secondly, I suggest that riding a much more powerfull and heavier bike require different skills. These days the smaller classes are considered recruiting clases but in the old days there were guys that specialized in those. The step up from SS to SBK is big and Kenan couldn't handle it (this time)
That doesn't have to be related only to throttle control but but several aspects about such a different bike. But the essens is that a different bike require a different skill and it's not often you can know that a rider will be able to handle the transition.

I would consider MotoGP bikes with and without TC two different bikes, just as MotoGp bikes with or without q-tires are two different bikes. Not everyone master the transtion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 5 2009, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>3. He never says it's without TC, just that the electronics isn't dialed in yet. True too any new bike.

Let's not forget that Stoner weren't particulary fast in the first test sessions. It was only after new year that he and the bike clicked together after major change to the electronics.

There is no evidence to consider, as the guy never says it's without TC.
Traction control is a subset of 'electronics'. If TC cannot be classified as part of the electronic package, I would like to know what is!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RCV600RR @ Jan 15 2009, 08:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Traction control is a subset of 'electronics'. If TC cannot be classified as part of the electronic package, I would like to know what is!

Eh, what's your point? If there is one thing we can be sure of is that it had electonics on board, without it the bike doesn't run at all.

Back (loosely) on topic make it a true prototype series run whatever you want as long as it complies with the rules that are there to make sure its safe but not prohibitively expensive or using completly dangerous technology (stuff like dustbin fairings from the 1950's probably not a good idea in crosswinds at 200+mph..).

4 stroke,2 stroke any capacity as long as its Naturally Aspirated,no fuel limit or TC.Minimum weight (including rider and fuel) increases with capacity and is different for 4/2 strokes because of two strokes considerable power per cc advantage.You make a choice hugely powerful but kinda numb round the bends or relatively slow but a demon on the brakes and thru the twisties

Make it so comparatively small outifts like WCM KR Ilmor etc can use ingenuity to be competitive rather than needing so much cash to squeeze huge bhp out of small ccs.(The Premier Motorcycle prototype class has a maximum capacity of 800cc's i mean WTF especially when twins in SBK are 1200!?)
Infact screw Dorna they'd never do something this good anyone wanna try?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thom @ Jan 19 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Back (loosely) on topic make it a true prototype series run whatever you want as long as it complies with the rules that are there to make sure its safe but not prohibitively expensive or using completly dangerous technology (stuff like dustbin fairings from the 1950's probably not a good idea in crosswinds at 200+mph..).

4 stroke,2 stroke any capacity as long as its Naturally Aspirated,no fuel limit or TC.Minimum weight (including rider and fuel) increases with capacity and is different for 4/2 strokes because of two strokes considerable power per cc advantage.You make a choice hugely powerful but kinda numb round the bends or relatively slow but a demon on the brakes and thru the twisties

Make it so comparatively small outifts like WCM KR Ilmor etc can use ingenuity to be competitive rather than needing so much cash to squeeze huge bhp out of small ccs.(The Premier Motorcycle prototype class has a maximum capacity of 800cc's i mean WTF especially when twins in SBK are 1200!?)
Infact screw Dorna they'd never do something this good anyone wanna try?
This is so completly naive that I can hardly belive it.
What stop those with the most resourses to create an imensly expencive and fancy low capacity, high power, low weight engine that crush any big bore "cheap" engine. What ever limitis they figure out it's allways those than can create the most hp from the smallest capacity and lightest engine that leads the race. It doesn't matter if this is a 500cc 2-stroke og 946.5cc four cyl. four stroke or a 1199 5 cyl four stroke. Those with the money will figure out the better combinations and build the best engine possible with millons of funding and beat the rest and totally destroy any garage workshop setup.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 19 2009, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This is so completly naive that I can hardly belive it.
What stop those with the most resourses to create an imensly expencive and fancy low capacity, high power, low weight engine that crush any big bore "cheap" engine. What ever limitis they figure out it's allways those than can create the most hp from the smallest capacity and lightest engine that leads the race. It doesn't matter if this is a 500cc 2-stroke og 946.5cc four cyl. four stroke or a 1199 5 cyl four stroke. Those with the money will figure out the better combinations and build the best engine possible with millons of funding and beat the rest and totally destroy any garage workshop setup.

Well this has always been the case and their'll never be anyway to solve it!Factory backed teams have the upper hand but but relatively small outifts like KR used to be able to put up half a fight with a 500 triple whe the rules were 500 two strokes WCM showed some promise with their 4 stroke before their bike was declared illegal etc .But with the 800's theres no chance for the small guy even some full factories really struggle.And youre telling me what i proposed wouldnt provide more exciting racing?Of course it'd never happen but w/e

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thom @ Jan 20 2009, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'> Well this has always been the case and their'll never be anyway to solve it!Factory backed teams have the upper hand but but relatively small outifts like KR used to be able to put up half a fight with a 500 triple whe the rules were 500 two strokes WCM showed some promise with their 4 stroke before their bike was declared illegal etc .But with the 800's theres no chance for the small guy even some full factories really struggle.And youre telling me what i proposed wouldnt provide more exciting racing?Of course it'd never happen but w/e

But it's not about the 800. It's about an economy boom, rising interest and most of all, an ever increasing spiral in cost. Manufacturing is cheaper then ever but the effort everyone are willing to put in are increasing even as margines get smaller. That is the real cost. The level of refinement are at a level where any improvment are extreemly costly. Want to improve 1/10 a lap? Sure, just throw in 10 mill and consider it done. Even in as litlle as 10 years ago that cost was a tiny fraction of what it's now.

I think that performance at the elite level of motorsports has always been an extremely expensive endeavour for the builders/manufacturers, BUT in the past, prior to ultra high speed and high capacity on-board computers, an exceptionally talented/gifted human being was able to overcome mechanical/design deficiencies.

That variable has been reduced, if not eliminated, in motorsports by the coming of elaborately sophisticated electronic aids.

I'm not saying that this is not a natural progression of technology, BUT - it has greatly reduced the importance of the human factor in the entire racing equation.

I've always been a fan of racing because of the interaction between man and machine... I'm finding that I am less of a fan of the interaction between machine, computer, and (to a much lesser extent) man.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Jan 23 2009, 11:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think that performance at the elite level of motorsports has always been an extremely expensive endeavour for the builders/manufacturers, BUT in the past, prior to ultra high speed and high capacity on-board computers, an exceptionally talented/gifted human being was able to overcome mechanical/design deficiencies.

That variable has been reduced, if not eliminated, in motorsports by the coming of elaborately sophisticated electronic aids.

I'm not saying that this is not a natural progression of technology, BUT - it has greatly reduced the importance of the human factor in the entire racing equation.

I've always been a fan of racing because of the interaction between man and machine... I'm finding that I am less of a fan of the interaction between machine, computer, and (to a much lesser extent) man.

I agree that the computers has a lot to do with it, but I "blame" them also for cost and improvements. I suspect that this has accelerated improvments as it started with telemetry and continued with electronic aids. Some here talk about gyro, accelerometers, lean angle sensors and GPS as something new, but the truth is that this has been a part of telemetry data for more then a decade. Now they just extend it to be part of the realtime aids. Telemtry has probably just as much to do with cost increase as the new aids as it enable faster development. They don't have to rely on vague and inconsistent rider input becuase the data is there, proving what the engine and suspension does and tell them where to improve.