Is TC ruining MotoGP?

Am I wrong or are the Ducati, Yamaha and Honda machines not fairly even now. If so then the only thing making the difference in the standings are the riders. Rossi is ahead!!! Be calm! If Stoner wasn't back on track the season would be over right now.

WSBK racing is closer but there is a ton of TC in that series also. Bayliss is walking away with it yet in Motogp 3 riders are within 20 points. The finishes are closer in WSBK but the point spread will be probably 5 times as much at the end of the year compared to motogp.

Nothing is perfect. I'm fine with TC at it's current level.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Jul 17 2008, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Am I wrong or are the Ducati, Yamaha and Honda machines not fairly even now. If so then the only thing making the difference in the standings are the riders. Rossi is ahead!!! Be calm! If Stoner wasn't back on track the season would be over right now.

WSBK racing is closer but there is a ton of TC in that series also. Bayliss is walking away with it yet in Motogp 3 riders are within 20 points. The finishes are closer in WSBK but the point spread will be probably 5 times as much at the end of the year compared to motogp.

Nothing is perfect. I'm fine with TC at it's current level.

I don't care about points really, that is just a side game that they play to see who had the best season. I wanna see good races, I don't give a damn if the same person wins everytime or not. Close = Exciting = Me/Fans Watching = Money

On Topic - Yes, to answer the question.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (clarkjw @ Jul 16 2008, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's prototype racing. If you want to live in the stone age with no electronics, watch Tour de France. There is plenty of action in the mid-pack. PLENTY! Sometimes, even the championship leaders with have to make their way through the field. There's always WSBK if you want battles for first. MotoGP isn't just about the best rider on a given track, but the whole package.

I do agree with it being prototype racing, however if there isn't "racing" going on (passing, close battles) then it just becomes a time trial. If that's the case they should just go back and race Isle of Man and forget about the spectacle of stadium style racing on a track.

Racing is becoming more computerized, more electronics based, the human part is being removed. This begs the question: Would you watch racing if one day there were no riders/drivers?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bootsakah @ Jul 17 2008, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I do agree with it being prototype racing, however if there isn't "racing" going on (passing, close battles) then it just becomes a time trial. If that's the case they should just go back and race Isle of Man and forget about the spectacle of stadium style racing on a track.

Racing is becoming more computerized, more electronics based, the human part is being removed. This begs the question: Would you watch racing if one day there were no riders/drivers?
I see your point. I probably wouldn't watch without riders. But then again isn't Danny a robot? I feel like if there are always people pushing to the limit of the bikes capability, even if tech enhanced, the sport will be exciting. Stoner seems like a prime example.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 17 2008, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well this is a topic about the effect of TC on the excitement of motogp. There are 3 pages of people who mostly feel it is to blame for the lack of close racing at the moment. Now i think its a fairly safe assumption that nobody feels the closeness of racing and excitement was a problem in 2006, just 2 years ago. Now we all know that this sport moves quickly, the rate of development is impressive but it is also continouous. The TC systems in use now are fundamentaly similar to the ones being used in 06 with progress coming from the usual evolution, rather than leaps, jumps and revelations (like we were seeing in 2003/4). I think it is not entireley logical to look first to something which has remained relatively consistent to identify the problem which has recently arisen, when you could look to elements of the sport which have changed significantly, like the tyre of fuel regulations.

Come on, you are more advanced than that? THE thing develooping fastest is the electronics. In 2001 they had a Rain maping that was it, now it's attached to all sorts of input and taking full adavantage of all those input into a better system is what has been and still are going on. The rate of development here must be in magnitudes above tire development.

That said, I agree that all these changes play a role, and so does the displacement change. I suspect that less power also made TC work better at the same time as less rotational mass and less power grately limitied line options for the riders. That's something you also should consider: Isn't possible that even a slower developing part can get a much more central place as other parts are changed?
In other words, why should we assume that TC play a modest role just because it did in 2006? Other limits change everything and even without huge improvements I suspect TC would play a central role today, not despite the other changes but because of them.

I'm not saying that removal of TC is the solution to all the problems in the world. That would be to easy, but I do think it is the sentral unit connecting to all the other factors.
It's just like F1 where your statistics tell you how much worse it is compared to last year.
Bullsit. I'm not following F1 closely but isn't it next year they are doing serious changes to the rear wing? That wil generate a huge change, but that change depend on the removal of TC as well.
Same thing in motoGP. It's entierly possible that more changes are needed but TC is the central part for limiting close racing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jul 17 2008, 11:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That said, I agree that all these changes play a role, and so does the displacement change. I suspect that less power also made TC work better at the same time as less rotational mass and less power grately limitied line options for the riders. That's something you also should consider: Isn't possible that even a slower developing part can get a much more central place as other parts are changed?
In other words, why should we assume that TC play a modest role just because it did in 2006? Other limits change everything and even without huge improvements I suspect TC would play a central role today, not despite the other changes but because of them.

Good post, i like this bit particularly as it has crossed my mind that the alterations to rules outside of TC can have an impact on the overall relevance of TC, the extent of which we can only speculate of course. I would disagree with your comment that TC played a "modest role" in 2006, I think TC has been very significant since its introduction in the earliest 4 stroke days.

I was reading only yesterday that Ducati used the 06 gearbox in their GP7, because the power they could use was still limited by the vehicle dynamics, rather than the engine. Depsite the difference in enginer characteristic, the power is still there to spin the wheels pretty much all the time, making the role of TC nearly identical. The article also said that the electronic hardware from GP6 to GP7 was also the same.

I think we agree that a combination of all the changes to motogp from 06 to 07 have contributed to the situation we see now, but although i agree that TC could have become more significant as a result of these changes i do not agree that it is the most significant factor in the racing we are seeing.