give me your tired......

it maybe a bit long to post so here is the link:

http://moto-racing.speedtv.com/article/mot...your-tired//P1/

regretting the change?

Thanks for the link. Really, really interesting read. Can't say I disagree with too much that was said. Thanks again.

I quote from the article "Should these devices become part of racing? That depends on what you think racing is about. If, on one extreme, it is public R&D then the satisfaction of seeing precise bikes that rarely twitch and turn ever faster lap times at higher and higher corner speeds, the current formula is the way to go. If, on the other extreme, you regard racing as entertainment, any technology that hurts the show is bad. Obviously there must be a compromise."

Whilst I must be the only person who is pro TC to some degree I frame my argument as follows.

At given racetracks and I use Phillip Island as my example the super bikes are lapping 1.1 seconds slower than 990's and about 2 seconds slower than 800's.

SBK is a competitor both for the prestige of the sport and the funding of fans and most importantly sponsors. Super bikes are exponentially cheaper than gp bikes and, sponsors get more bang for their buck from that platform.

If, for the spectacle of racing we slow gp down and super bike is able to replicate or close the speed gap to the point of being negligible motogp will lose not only its “awe” as enunciated by Roberts snr in the article but likely its sponsors and therefore funding.

The epic battle this weekend between Stoner and Rossi is evidence this class can produce racing, limitations or standardizing traction control systems may have a purpose but to remove them whilst super bikes are using them is foolish.

The F1 paradigm does not apply to motogp, there isn’t a snowflakes chance in hell that a touring car or any other car-racing category is going to lap within a second of them, giving the class room to manoeuvre the rules to promote the racing.

Motogp is not afforded this luxury because the independently controlled and TC fitted super bikes will take the money and the riders and relegate the class to the trash heap of motor racing history, along with 350 and now 250 gp classes as well.

History is full of events that became redundant and any move to slow the sport down moves it closer to redundancy. This is a choice I would make very carefully.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy Roo @ Jul 21 2008, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If, for the spectacle of racing we slow gp down and super bike is able to replicate or close the speed gap to the point of being negligible motogp will lose not only its “awe” as enunciated by Roberts snr in the article but likely its sponsors and therefore funding.

I think the answer lies in the fact that Superbikes are too heavily modified. Why are they allowed to put new ECU's and TC systems on that the road bike didn't come with? Why are they allowed new forks and swinging arms and stuff like that? I think superbike racing neads to be brought closer or identical to supersport or superstock regulations.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 21 2008, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think the answer lies in the fact that Superbikes are too heavily modified. Why are they allowed to put new ECU's and TC systems on that the road bike didn't come with? Why are they allowed new forks and swinging arms and stuff like that? I think superbike racing neads to be brought closer or identical to supersport or superstock regulations.

You have a very good point there Tom and maybe, just maybe Dorna realize this in time to use their faulty 600 proposal as a negotiation card (by scarping it all together) to dumb down SBK bikes and therby enable GP bikes to slow down as well.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 21 2008, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think the answer lies in the fact that Superbikes are too heavily modified. Why are they allowed to put new ECU's and TC systems on that the road bike didn't come with? Why are they allowed new forks and swinging arms and stuff like that? I think superbike racing neads to be brought closer or identical to supersport or superstock regulations.

The 1098 used for homogolation has the identical ECU as the GP8, standard. This is like airbags or ABS, pretty soon everyone will have them (not just top of the line Euro bikes).

A super bike has more standard than non standard parts.

We can't put forward an argument that we should slow down because they should if "they" don't. We can only create an untenable position for motogp this way.

If I ran SBK and someone put that to me I would laugh all the way to the media and announce it.

It should be a condition sine qua non of any changes proposed that we stay ahead of a competitor that will not acquiesce and slow down for us.

Some of this is good stuff and some of it is complete garbage.

The nonsense about DORNA not having control of the sport is complete hogwash. CEV owns a controlling interest in DORNA and in F1. They don't buy in if they don't have complete control.

The only way DORNA/Ezy lost any control at all is because the manufacturers exploited the death of a rider to impose the rules they wanted. Ezy temporarily lost control b/c he couldn't offend his own vanity by declaring that displacement-reduction/safety should not be attempted with knee-jerk legislation.

That is entirely his fault. Furthermore, his rabid defense of the changes shows that he was instrumental in their implementation. Only now that his solution has been proven the problem and the old problem has been proven as the solution, is he willing to shirk all responsibility and cow-tow to the fans.

Placating the fans is what he's best at. It's why he's running tests for a spec tire. It's why Vale has Bridgestones. It's why he polled the fans before he made tire legislation at the end of last year. It's why he talks about spec-ECU's when he has no desire to implement them.

He is completely spineless. The FIM need to get someone who has a clear vision for what the sport should be--someone who is capable of stopping a death-induced insurrection by the manufacturers and capable of sending CEV packing.

great article

It`ll all come good,this sport has been swings `n`roundabouts for decades.

Really great article by Noyes. But Roo has a major point that isn't addressed, the dangerously close SBKs. There needs to be differentiation. SBKs continue to up their formula to satisfy manufacturers and produce lap times closer to GP bikes. The regulations in that series appear to be as wishy-washy as those in GP, with changes occurring in 2003 and again in 2008 as compared to GPs changes in 2002 and 2007.

There is no way that SBK will slow down, especially if they realize they could potentially lap faster than a GP bike. It would be a laughing stock. Anyone remember when Dean Adams of 'Soup offered Ben Bostrom some cash to throw on a Q during a test in 2001 when everyone discovered that it was possible that a Superbike could go faster than the no longer developed 500s? He never actually did it, as he was baulked in his final sector after lapping his first two sectors under the 500 times. But regardless, it was a disgrace.

What needs to happen is forget Dorna or the Flamini brothers and get FIM directly involved. Stricter regulations in both series need to be implemented if we want to see tight racing again.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I equate TC to spell-check. It is very handy for anyone writing, but it should not be allowed as an aid to participants in a spelling bee.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Jul 22 2008, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What needs to happen is forget Dorna or the Flamini brothers and get FIM directly involved. Stricter regulations in both series need to be implemented if we want to see tight racing again.

I agree on that one. FG sport must be loving that their product can be considered competition to GP racing, but I think the FIM needs to draw the line and define the classes more clearly.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Jul 22 2008, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Really great article by Noyes. But Roo has a major point that isn't addressed, the dangerously close SBKs. There needs to be differentiation. SBKs continue to up their formula to satisfy manufacturers and produce lap times closer to GP bikes. The regulations in that series appear to be as wishy-washy as those in GP, with changes occurring in 2003 and again in 2008 as compared to GPs changes in 2002 and 2007.

There is no way that SBK will slow down, especially if they realize they could potentially lap faster than a GP bike. It would be a laughing stock. Anyone remember when Dean Adams of 'Soup offered Ben Bostrom some cash to throw on a Q during a test in 2001 when everyone discovered that it was possible that a Superbike could go faster than the no longer developed 500s? He never actually did it, as he was baulked in his final sector after lapping his first two sectors under the 500 times. But regardless, it was a disgrace.

What needs to happen is forget Dorna or the Flamini brothers and get FIM directly involved. Stricter regulations in both series need to be implemented if we want to see tight racing again.
I just wish Dorna hadn't dug this hole to begin with.