Is it a question of Top Speed?

Top Speed--what do you think? But first read below:

Every post-race thread is filled with analysis of the race results. Many explanations abound as to how certain factors have influenced the winners and losers. The topics this season seem to have focused around factors of: rider, engine power, tire performance, and <u>top speed</u>.

This racing season it seems that much has been made of the factor of Top Speed. It seems to be an issue of contention every post race thread. So I’ve decide to pose the question:

How important is Top Speed in <u>regards to the race result?</u> Do you think that this factor has impeded certain riders not to win or catapulted other riders to win?

Mathematically speaking, top speeds will be achieved by one rider every event, but the question becomes, what, if any, and how much does this factor, among a plethora of others, does this influence the final result?

In level of importance, where does this factor of top speed rank for you in relation to other factors such as: rider, team, set up, traction control and various electronics, tire performance, engine power, power delivery, chassis performance, balance, acceleration, braking, centralization of mass, unsprung weight, gyroscopic effect in relation to corner speed and maneuverability, etc, etc.

Now lets look at some interesting facts regarding Top Speed. The following are the race winners and those that achieved the top speed at the event. I will present some raw facts then I will make my analysis and conclusion and welcome others to do the same.

2006 Moto GP season:

<u>Race Event</u>.....<u>Race Winner</u> (rank of speed).....<u>Top Speeder</u>
1. Spain...........Capirossi (3rd).........................Pedrosa
2. Qatar..............Rossi (8th)..............................Pedrosa
3. Turkey............Melandri (4th)..........................Pedrosa
4. China..............Pedrosa (2nd).........................Tamada
5. France.............Melandri (13th).......................Stoner
6. Italy................Rossi (10th)...........................Stoner
7. C. Spain...........Rossi (12th)...........................Stoner
8. Holland.............Hayden (4th).........................Pedrosa
9. UK...................Pedrosa (1st).........................Pedrosa
10. Germany........Rossi (13th)...........................Stoner
11. USA...............Hayden (3rd).........................Pedrosa
12. Chek Rep.......Capirossi (3rd).......................Roberts
13. Malaysia.........Rossi (8th)............................Capirossi
14. Australia.........Melandri (5th).......................Gibernau
15. Japan.............Capirossi (2nd)......................Gibernau
16. Portugal..........Elias (9th).............................Hayden
17. V. Spain..........Bayliss (9th).........................Capirossi

(yes, I took the time to look it up)

Analysis:

A few interesting patterns show up. Only once was the race winner and top speeder the same rider (UK Pedrosa), other than that, the top speeder never won the race. If we were to place the rank of top speed for all the race winners (the number in parenthesis), the pattern would be scattered, that is to say chaotic not linear. In otherwords, it seems random. Sometimes the race winner was nowhere near the front in top speed, other times they were not even in the top 5 or 10; and from race to race it varied tremendously. It would be very difficult to make the case that top speed had translated into a race win. Its also interesting to note that Pedrosa clocked the top speed the most times (6) yet managed to win twice (one of them was not as the top speeder), so five times he had the top speed without a win. Another interesting fact is a pattern that most all Rossi's wins were from a very low ranking of speed ( most all over 10 except once where he was ranked 8th in speed) yet managed several wins; so perhaps this indicates that there is some other <u>"technical" strength</u> that the casual spectator is not aware of and he may have an "advantage"--food for thought (Burgess factor maybe). But rather the casual spectator sees this overt "techinical" factor of top speed as many have this year. Also, the winners of 8 of 17 races out of the season were not even in the top five for top speed (close to half).

Perhaps you are wondering what about 2007 so far. Well it is interesting to note that only once in the dry has Stoner clocked the top speed during race wins at the event and once in the wet! The other times, the top speeders were Barros in Spain (where Rossi won and <u>not Stoner</u>), Barros again had the top speed in Turkey (where Stoner won). In China, Hofmann had the top speed in the race (Stoner won), in France the top speed was Stoner but guess what, he did not win, it was Vermeulen as the winner, and in Italy, Barros again had the top speed, yet Rossi won. Capirossi had the top speed honors in C. Spain but was not the race winner, it was Stoner. Only in Qatar and the UK (wet race) did Stoner have the top speed and race win. But I think a wet race is a special circumstance and you can analyze it either way. But in dry conditions, only once has Stoner had the top speed and won the race (Qatar).

So what does that say about top speed?

Well for me it says it is one of many factors that influence the final results in a race win. It is not of paramount influence, otherwise, the pattern above in the top speed rankings for last years race winners would show a more linear pattern in regards to the winner. But the fact is, it doesn’t. So obviously, this factor of top speed is of minor importance because the 16 out of 17 races (virtually all of them) the top speeder was <u>not</u> the winner!

Much has been made about top speed this year (even in the press) however, the real question is how much did this contribute to the win--is something left for speculation. The press and fans put it out there, but I have yet to find an article that definitively attributes top speed to a win result. But plenty of fans have tried.

The press, as most of us know, attempt to create talking points, controversy, and drama, sometimes where there is none and persuade many of us into certain perspectives. This season is no different, and so I think Casey Stoner has not been given the overwhelming credit for his own influence in the matter to win. If I were to rank top speed as a factor in the overall outcome of the results, based on the facts and patterns above, I would rank it very low. I would rank rider performance as the number one factor. In the spectrum between rider and top speed, I would rank team, set up, chassis performance, tire performance, power delivery, etc (of course they are important), but only as contributing factors, certainly not as foremost influence that the rider himself has over these elements.

What say you?

Did you find the statistics between race winners and who achieved top speed interesting? I would like to know what you think on this topic?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VHMP01 @ Jul 5 2007, 07:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not that I’m rude (haven’t read it all) but not like ‘plain’ top speed… Acceleration too!


PS. now let me read on again!

2007 top speed (relied on jumkie’s data)… All Ducati’s plus long straights, rest my case!
Ok, so what is your case? You said you rested it after pointing to the Ducatis, but only one of them (the one riden by Stoner) has actually scored a victory. So what is your point in resting your case?

Please explain.

(top speed/acceleration does not equal wins, as the data indicates)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>"now let me read on again!"

Yes, please do and then elaborate on your take buddy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (krazy91 @ Jul 5 2007, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>note that ducati wether it be stoner or a different one has claimed the top speed of the race most of the time this season,

Yes, true, the Ducatis have claimed the top speed. However, only one has claimed a victory (the one ridden by Stoner). So what do you think this reveals about top speed (or acceleration)? If all the Ducatis are achieving top speed (different riders) but only one is claiming victories, does this say more about top speed/acceleration or does this say more about the rider?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I think its more about the acceleration rather than top speed.

I agree, but here again as you can see, more than one rider on the same basic machine has achieved top speed through acceleration. So the question becomes, who is managing that acceleration potential? Is it down to the electronic package (traction control)? Or perhaps, the rider managing the potential to maximize performance? It may be interesting to note that Capirossi (a former 250 champion and third in the points last year) has achieved the top speed in an event but has not managed a win. Assuming all things are equal with the electronics package, then what do you think might be the difference to his teammate's results (I’m speaking strictly about machine potential, not that he may have a brain freeze due to recent family commitments).

If all these guys on Ducatis are trading top speed but only one guy is winning, what does that say about top speed/acceleration?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I mean if yamaha didnt believe the speed difference to be important they wouldnt be making a new engine?

That's interesting that you bring this up. I recall that one of Rossi's wins they concentrated on other elements of performance rather than trying to compete with this factor of top speed, and the result was him scoring a win. So perhaps there is a bit of "group think" going on. (Group think is when a group of people are so focused on solving a problem that they all go in the wrong direction because of a lack of independent (outside the box) thinking. Maybe they have a good enough engine but can improve on other technical aspects.

One of the most interesting statistics I discovered was that Rossi's bike was usually pretty low on the top speed scale last year when he won his victories. So perhaps this top speed factor is not that big a deal and there is another technical factor that is more important.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Noodlerizer @ Jul 6 2007, 12:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Everyone shut up its not about total top speed but high speed acceleration and thats what the Ducati has, nuff said.
Yes, but only one rider has won on the Ducati, so is this really the difference?

If this is as you say "nuff said" then this would be the end of the story and we might see three Ducatis on the podium every race. Hasn't happened. So it seems to me not "nuff said". Cause something else seems to be happening.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (krazy91 @ Jul 6 2007, 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>the race you are talking about rossi/the team was saying there wasnt 1 or 2 long straights but a lot of short "sprints" so they geared the bike and mapped the engine to try and match the acceleration of the ducati as best they could
Do you remember what were the predominate predictions for Mugello and why? Reminder: most predicted Stoner would win because of the long straight. Remind me who won?



(By the way, Barros had the top speed in that race.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Jul 6 2007, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>it's just not that simple to answer.
it depends on all sorts of other factors, you have to look at each race individually,

mugello for instance, rider A gets past rider B through the twistys and builds a 2/10ths lead,then comes the monster straight where rider B then blasts past rider A building a 3/10th lead, conclusion, top speed was a factor.

but take the same scenario but rider B only gets a 2/10 lead down the straight it could be said that the bikes were equal ,just better in different parts of the track.

a team could tune a bike to be fast in parts of the track where the rider is good like the long straight to counter where he is not so good like the corners, that called team strategy and thats racing.

another point is, some riders may get a fastest lap or fasted top speed during a race because they were in a lonely position so were able to ride on a qualifying line unlike riders battling for position.
Well Roger, you sound very sober (at the moment). You make some great points.

It’s interesting that you brought up Mugello--a race where the top speed was not achieved by Stoner (though he did have the top speed in practice). The overtaking was not exactly as you describe because this "monster straight" passing/overtaking was not done on every lap. As a matter of fact, you may be interested to know that Rossi had ten laps where he dipped into the 1:50s where as Stone only managed to do this once! Amazing, and he did this only on the second lap. The rest of his lap times where in the 1:51+. Yes, believe it. Even though Casey had the "faster" bike, Rossi managed to click off 10 times faster lap times than Stoner. You say "top speed was a factor" well was it a significant factor? So what does that say about <u>"straight line speed"? </u> Well <u>not much</u> considering Stoner didn't make the podium.

So I agree with you that there are many other factors. Yet much has been made about "top speed/acceleration". And though I do think it certainly is a factor, the evidence indicates that it is not an overwhelming factor. And Mugello is a great example of this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jul 6 2007, 01:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Now I'm of for the weekend.
It looks like you learned alittle something here. Don't go yet, I'm formulating a response. I have so much more to teach you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jul 6 2007, 01:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Here's the deal RJ: As many others have pointed out the pure and raw accelleration is the issue.

Well I say it isn't. I say its part of the issue, and a minor one at that. I'm glad to see you are giving props to Stoner for his managing of his bike's potential, however, you and I have debated this issue because it seems you had an affinity toward scrutinizing his wins against the technical performance of his bike, one of which was to point to straight line speed as an "advantage." to explain his success over Rossi.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I have never seen top factory guys not being able to stay in the draft when they have a perfect exit, until this year.

What is this perfect exit? Is it a perfect exit only when they can stay in the slip stream of the other rider? I have seen this several time, perhaps you may need to pay alittle more attention. Even if the second rider gets a great drive out and manages to get into the slip stream, one little over throttle and spin the tire whereby losing traction (remember these bikes still make over 200+ ponies, and puff, just like that you are out of the slip stream. This anomaly that you have not noticed in the past can indicate several things, only one of which we can attribute to lack of acceleration. Other factors might include: aerodynamics, traction control (over spinning), rider mistake, etc.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>As for top speed, it's a lousy measurement.

What? Am I reading this correctly? Uhm didn't you say this was one undisputable un-refutable measure of performance? (or something like that...)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Never tell the real top speed and mor important in this tread: It doesn't account for slip streaming.

Is this code? I think I just addressed this above.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Stoner has a "bad" record of top speed positions because he was on the top or competing with a bike that was too slow to really create a slip stream over time. Hence, few top speed records.

Wait a minute, now you are saying that Casey has a "bad" top speed positions? (and the rest of your sentence is just confusing). Did you not pay attention to the evidence? First of all, what does "creating a slip stream have to do with his top speed? Second, he has few top speed records? Well guess what, apart from Pedrosa, Stoner had the second most top speed records last year. And this year hes had the most--just not when he won.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The way you lay it out it seems that you want to disconnect top speed and results, and of cource you are right, a good top speed doesn't secure anything unless you use it. Not only that, even Hoffman and Capirossi are able to get the top speed in a race and they show for nothing in the result lists.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm making the case about, that is to expose this misguided idea that because Stoner's bike is "fast" doesn't mean its what wins the race. And to prove that, I lay out the evidence that certainly indicates a "disconnect" between top speed and race wins.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I guess it just proves you must ride the dammned thing as well, and so far stoner is doing a fantastic job at that.

Well, this is what I've been saying all along.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>On Mugello a lot of predictions went wron
See what I responded to Roger above about Mugello, I think you will find it interesting.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>My point is, there is a lot to gain on that massive speed and accelleration difference if you have the right guy to take care of it.
Totally disagree, and the evidence indicates it so. No, massive speed and acceleration are not the difference; had it been true, then we would see this influence race winners more often. As it stands, it is the exception--and a rare one at that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Stoner does so brilliantly and deserves his CS leadership.
To point out lesser riders not taking advantage just goes to show how bad they ride and puts especially Capirossi in a bad light.

Off topic: Well, lets leave Capirossi alone for the moment. I love the guy, but really, I can't find an excuse for him. He was third in points and may have had a championship had it not been for that terrible crash last year.

On topic: Top speed/acceleration is an overrated parameter and the evidence shows that it almost never translates into a race winner. That's a fact.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Jul 6 2007, 02:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ive said it before, a great rider will flatter a not so great bike,... but in bike racing, it's harder for a great bike to flatter a not so great rider.
Ah, the voice of reason. Great post Pete. I think the tide is turning. Babel is off to his trip and it looks like Roger has come around. I wonder who is left to point to Stoner's bike and say, he's winning because his Ducati is faster?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Jul 6 2007, 02:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And just to throw a bit of contoversy into the mix, is the Honda really that bad, or do they have a combination of 2 riders who couldnt develop a cold...
Oh crap I almost forgot. I think this quote deserves honorable mention for its wit and humor. Haha, very good.

But to answer your question, it sure seems like the Honda's are (hopefully "were") really that bad. But I concede, Perobot/Haystack have disapointed. Well Pedrosa/Melandri aren't exactly happy about their Honda. But you wouldn't know it if you asked Haystack--make of this what you will buddy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phleg @ Jul 6 2007, 02:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sorry RJ to possibly hijack your thread.

i couldn't possibly agree with you more Pete.

Pedrosa has been hyped to high heaven but he's not delivering, ever since Hayden got the same parts as him he's been showing Pedrosa to look very average.
Its ok Phleg, and I agree with your point here.

But tell me, what do you think of the thread topic and interesting statistics?