Don't go away TP. Your questions are well in place and instead of being black and white as it so often are here they have som balance to them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Mar 28 2008, 03:30 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Is TC really that different in 800cc than it was in 990cc? Or is it more to do with the best way to ride each bike fast? Both, or at least that's the theory. Less power to handle for the fast evolving TC. Higher corner speeds doesn't allow for much variation in the line picked. This are amplified by the TC that allow any rider to go near maximum acceleration out of the corner.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The 990's were riden more point to point, squaring off the corners and powersliding out of the corner blasting down the next straight section to the next corner, back it in slide it through and blast off down the next straight bit.
The 800cc bike reward high corner speed which gives you a head start on to the straight sections.
If it was faster to power slide 800cc out of corners on to the straights then I am sure that is what you would see.
As there was TC in both bikes I am sure in each it was set up to get the fastest lap time. Would removing it from either make the style of sliding a 990 change or would it make the style of high corner speed of an 800 change? If not then does TC really have that much effect on racing other then to allow all the riders to finish a race rubber side down?
Styles change with riders, this and to what degree of perfection they do their special thing decide the general opinion of whats the faster one. 800 power increase and without TC we would have seen more variation in styles. Unfortunatly a quicly developing TC leads to less variation. Besides, who knows what would have been the most efficient style of the 990s today.
But that's not really the important point. I don't care much about the different riding styles but things have changed so much the recent years. In Doohans time it was about consistency and preserving your luck by going 100% only as much as you had to. From there we met the 990, a much friendlier power curve and som rudimentary TC gave us the closest racing in the top series that we've ever seen and right from the start the guys were puching harder than ever. TC gradually evolved but disguised by the huge power pontential in the 990 it didn't show much and it didn't have much of an impact.
This seemed to change with the 800. Less rotational mass made the bike faster in the corners, much faster. Less torque made it slower out of the corners, TC only enhanced the weakness of the 800 formula and made the first season the "worst" in many years. The reason was not that Stoner flew away but that with the exception of a few races we could see two, tree riders in F1 like line one after the other without anything happening. No one made a misstake and the "exitement" were around if one of them would end their tires.
Rubber side down is overrated. Good security measures are better. Going down are part of the sport and I see no reason why MotoGP should be the sole class among all that are free of high sides. But for each highside you have at least 20 narrow escapes and those are the ones I really miss. 4 - 5 bikes orderly in line could never happen a few years ago. Not because the got thrown off but becouase the made mistakes that made the racing so much more eventfull and exciting.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Also if the bikes are so easy to ride then why aren't the legends doing well? Can they only ride a hard to ride bike, fast? This would not make sense. Perhaps in reality the bar has just been lifted higher and the style to get to those heights has changed. Life changes constantly, those that can adapt continue to succeed andthose that can't don't. Doesn't mean that the change is wrong.
A good question but then again, what legends are we talking about? I can only see one, Rossi and he doesn't look slow to me. He had a slow bike last year but hardly held back in the corners. Except from that, of course the bar has been raised, anything else would be tragic. Who want's to see the same guy winning every year for a decade. That said, why should the foremost feature of the top series, the power, be the easiest aspect to handle on the bike? Isn't riding and racing a bike about mainly three things, getting the braking, turn in, and powering out of the curve. Why effectivly remove one of them?
To me the TC in it's current flavour is just as wrong as GPS controlled ABS and why not throw in some weights and control the moevement of those so the rider won't have to move? I'm sure pedrosa would love those. The possibilty of todays control sytems are endless, allthough they have little or no use outside the track. That's why it's as important to regulate that as it is to have som basic regulations around engine and weight. No one here seems to argue that evolution is blocked becouse they can't use compressors, rotary engines or rocket fuel. Evolution is often better served with a frame of rules around. That's when certain parts are truly refined, otherwise it often become a technology race not unlike what we saw in F1 in the 70's. 4 front wheels, fans underneath, trubo charged engines....
