Is it a question of Top Speed?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bikergirl @ Jul 6 2007, 02:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not being very scientific comparing 2006 data to this year's.
Perhaps you can take my "raw" statistics and clean them up for a more "scientific" analysis.

I'll be waiting for your more methodical and systematic presentation.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>... 2006 was the end of an era, and by then all the bikes were pretty much on par, even though the dukes were still the fastest machines on track, they were so by only a small margin, whereas this year they are so by a larger margin.
Good point, so then it is a question of magnitude perhaps. It might be interesting to look up, if this is really the case, and compare the magnitude of the difference from the top speeder and the race winner and see if in-fact there is a major difference from this year and last year. After-all each brand still had a displacement limit. However, has that magnitude made a difference in the pattern of relation between race winner and top speeder? Well so far this season, it doesn't look so.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>It wasn't a factor that was percieved as being able to swing things before, because the differences were smaller and other factors were percieved as outweighing that easily, making top speed difference negligible. Now it is percieved as significant simply because the difference (at least at the beginning of the season) was obvious to see (even without telemetry data) and completely stunning.

Yes, visually we have paid more attention to it. However, this "stunning" to "see" visual reality of straight line overtaking/pulling away did still exist before we all started to pay attention to it. As I recall, Hopkins noted this as a frustrating reality riding on the Suzuki and was visually evident at many races, most notably for me, at Laguna. But it wasn't "perceived" as important not because it didn't exist, but rather because the front-runners, especially in regards to Rossi, were not being visually affected, as they are visually this year. I think you are right in saying it was a matter of "perception" but I don't think that negates the actual existence of the phenomena. In other words, yes, we are more kingly aware of top speed/acceleration now, after all it’s happening at the front-runners, but the effect of fast acceleration did exist before. Now whether that made a real difference (not “perceived) in the results, is the question.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>In any case, riders have to think of the state of their tyres during a race. I clearly remember stoner saying after the first race, that he'd not been pushing the bike to its fullest potential because he was worried about the tyres not holding up, but then gave it all during the last couple of laps. Everyone was astounded not just at the ducati but also his bridgestones at that point.
Yes, I remember his comments. And so in regards to acceleration, the rider must manage tire wear as an element and a factor of race results. In other words, it could be argued, that having this greater acceleration capability could be a liability toward tire wear--another thing to think about while trying to optimize the entire machine package. Yet, the knee-jerk reaction has been to look at acceleration as the major "technical advantage" where as it could really be just another thing to worry about.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The truth is that to give a more realistic 'weighting' to the top speed factor, we'd need to work it out using mathematical modelling, rather than simple statistics, factoring in all of those variables that have already been mentioned, and even then, although we might approach the truth...,
Could a scientific model/experiment ever be perfect when trying to quantify and conclude this particular effect of top speed/acceleration? Sure a better model could be applied, but unless you are willing to construct one, then we have what we got to speculate from.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>there is always the variable concerning the human element in raceday performance, and for that reason, even the most advanced mathematical model would still be little more than a scientific attempt at speculation.
Well of course, no need to be a rocket scientist to arrive at this conclusion. So we are left with speculation--which this was the point of the exercise.

Bikergirl, I can appreciate your frame of thought; however, you've written a lot but have said little about your opinion of the matter. Why don’t you start by answering a few questions that I asked? We are only speculating here. Nothing more. We are not calculating the trajectory and landing of a Mars probe.

How important do you think top speed is in relation to race results? How high, among performance factors, would you rank top speed/acceleration? Do you think Casey having a faster bike than Rossi is the deciding factor for his success this year?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phleg @ Jul 6 2007, 02:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm split on this issue. But I do think you need to get off google and use yer 'ed!

I'm assuming "ed!" means education. Ouch, well I thought I was using my education and sounding fairly intelegent.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Some tracks, such as China and Turkey favour bikes with better acceleration and top speed, but as we've seen, others do not.

Well that's what was said about Mugello. And you saw what happened there. Rossi wins, Casey doesn't make the podium. Casey clocks the fastest speed in practice, Barros fastest in the race. So much for the "some tracks...favour" idea.

I had a lengthy discussion with Tom about the good points of the Ducati and the Yamaha and I came to the conclusion that the ducati happens to be better on corner entry, ..... mid corner, and phenomenal on corner exit. What this has to do with the topic? Nothing, but I'm stating where I think the Duke is better.

Well thats your problem right there, don't discuss anything with Tom, he doesn't know crap, just pretends to (JK)--that means Just Kidding. (Comic relief). I like Tom despite his lack of knowledge about the AMA and his misguided opinion that Kevin Schwantz is "overrated." Haha, no offense when you read this buddy.

Anyway, what you are saying then is top speed/acceleration is but one of many factors, but not the ultimate element influencing the race result.--since you mention corner speed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>In Assen on the exit of the never-ending left hander the Ducati and Yamaha both had good exits, but by the time they reached a corner the Ducati had pulled a 6 bike length lead or so, even on such a short straight.

Arguably Stoner is doing the job well and the bike is complementing him...
Err, this is where I run into problems. I think its the other way around, Stoner is "complementing" the bike.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Arguably Rossi is doing the job well and the bike is complementing him (for fanboy purpose only ( ))
Haha, ok, I'll let this one pass. I guess you don't want to get kicked out of the worship meetings, eh. Haha. But really, I do think Rossi's bike is just as good and he is riding great. Its just that Stoner is riding flawless so far this season.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Morgo @ Jul 6 2007, 03:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>(video of Stoner passing Rossi at Qatar)
Thanks for the visual. Now try and explain the meaning for the season so far in relation to top speed/acceleration. Is it the difference in the 9 races so far? Is this the major factor that has influenced the race winner? Sure it looks cool, but can you explain its significance?

Sure its visually stunning, but is it pure acceleration that accounts for this difference and does it account for the final race result?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Jul 6 2007, 04:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It shows that casey is a crap rider on a rocket and Vale is being cruelly outgunned by the red machine. Ban It.
I agree, lets all go home. (JK)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Sorry didnt mean to say that, it demonstrates the way the Duke delivers it's power very nicely, and it takes a rider of Stoners calibre to make it work.

Poetry.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Morgo @ Jul 6 2007, 05:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well the argument is strong but face it, makes for good racing!
Yup, I agree. Its a beautiful thing to see a bike hook up like that. It’s funny but I watch the races with a few friends, and when the straights come up, you can hear the separate cheers depending on who's in the lead at the moment. (Yeah, believe it or not, I have Rossi fan friends--but I don't like them very much) haha. (jk)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (frosty58 @ Jul 6 2007, 06:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>good topic. enjoyable read. rider absolutely the most important. the team

Good point, would you give up a fast bike, say in the top 10 to have Mr. Burgess on your side?

One funny (don't want to admit it really) thing that I discovered was Rossi does so much better when he's on a "slow" bike. The fukn animal (I say this in a good way) clocked 5 wins last year and almost all of them with a bike not even in the top ten in speed. Hows that for putting a kink in this idea of top speed? I may not be a fan, but damn the guy is good. (..., did I just say that?)