James limited: Strategy vs Capability

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Mar 18 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It always amazes me that in GP racing there are many limits that seem to me a contradiction to the limitless "spirit" of prototype racing.

James Toesland in Qatar was able to just miss the pole to put himself second with a great qualifying session. However, it seems that a consideration to conserve fuel was partly responsible for him not to unscrew the full potential of his machine during the race.

Do you think having fuel limits is a good idea in what is suppose to be the pinnacle of technology that is grand prix racing?


My answer: NO. Because fuel becomes a racing strategy rather than racing potential, whereby results are affected by tactic rather than capability.

A good example of this was the result in Qatar, where I’m of the opinion, that Toesland (who may have considered conserving fuel) was denied a better possible result because of strategy rather than simply being underpowered to the factory Yamahas.

Your thoughts…

In the thread about my observations of the race,Toseland in the post race interview was adamant about getting the new engine.Like they said,the customer Yamaha was losing somewhere in the neighborhood of 4/10ths to the factory bikes because of detuning for the race.To answer your question,no they shouldnt have limits,or they shouldnt have limits that become a huge disadvantage to a team that has no say so as to when they get the new goodies.

His bike has the capability of doing better for short runs than long ones, relative to the field. The same could be said of michelin with their superior qualifiers. Tactics are and always have been about maximizing your capabilities. This doesn't change that.

2nd-string bikes don't get first-string parts and treatment. This isn't a new development. Would you rather they were still stuck on dunlops?

There has to be some kind of regulations in the sport to limit performance. And this one seems a good one to me, limiting the fuel forces manufacturers to research on efficient engines, something that can end up benefiting road bike engines and is a environmentally friendly policy.
I prefer this kind of limit than others like rev limits, air restrictors etc.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teomolca @ Mar 18 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There has to be some kind of regulations in the sport to limit performance. And this one seems a good one to me, limiting the fuel forces manufacturers to research on efficient engines, something that can end up benefiting road bike engines and is a environmentally friendly policy.
I prefer this kind of limit than others like rev limits, air restrictors etc.

I somewhat agree.The sattelite guys know how it works when it comes to factory goodies but they are put behind the 8 ball right of the bat as far as competing for the title when they have to wait while the factory guys build up point leads.Toseland's performance may have been a flash in the pan,or not.Id still would have been nice to know what it could have been had he had the same engine.Im not saying the technology is bad,im saying its bad that some have it and some dont.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teomolca @ Mar 18 2008, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There has to be some kind of regulations in the sport to limit performance. And this one seems a good one to me, limiting the fuel forces manufacturers to research on efficient engines, something that can end up benefiting road bike engines and is a environmentally friendly policy.
I prefer this kind of limit than others like rev limits, air restrictors etc.
teo gp racing is not the place for enviormentaly friendly green technologies imo. there should be no such restrictions of this type. if the factories need to explore for this type of tech then take it to sbk. thats were it's going to end up... on street bikes.

no fuel limit's
no tyre limits, use what ever type brand you like, buy on the day.
different types of engines encouraged,wankle turbine ect
for a prototype series, they are to bound to too many rules and to similar to road bikes imo.

i know im dreaming

As much as I am tempted to agree with the spirit of this discussion, fuel limits make sense. Here is why.

Fuel limit force m,anufacturers to use techonolgy to improve fuel economy of the bieks. Any technology that helps conserve fuel has great potential to be applied to road bikes. Bottom line, any rule that helps the manufacturers make better motorcycles/parts for the customer should be enforced.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (crvlvr @ Mar 18 2008, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As much as I am tempted to agree with the spirit of this discussion, fuel limits make sense. Here is why.

Fuel limit force m,anufacturers to use techonolgy to improve fuel economy of the bieks. Any technology that helps conserve fuel has great potential to be applied to road bikes. Bottom line, any rule that helps the manufacturers make better motorcycles/parts for the customer should be enforced.
thats what world superbikes are for imo.

if there are no rules, then its jsut bashing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pinky @ Mar 18 2008, 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>if there are no rules, then its jsut bashing
and ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Mar 18 2008, 07:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Do you think having fuel limits is a good idea in what is suppose to be the pinnacle of technology that is grand prix racing?
Nooooo. No fuel limits. It makes not one jot of difference to the environment given the huge amount of stuff and people that are transported around the world for a seasons Motogp whether the fuel for a race is limited to 21 litres or not at all.

What limiting fuel does do in the modern electronic era is mean that the electronics need to take over to ensure that the fuel lasts the race. Hence the comments by the British Eurosport team at Qatar regarding changing/leaning off fuel maps as the race progressed. This negates any "saving" of the tyre a rider may make if that does not also save fuel - although he could go faster due to the fact that his tyres are still fine, the electronics will have to limit the revs due to the fuel limits.

There are much better ways to limit power than keeping reducing the fuel allowed, especially bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a racing series.

If you've ever watched Le Mans then you'll have seen what happens when the cars are trying to maximise the fuel on a stint - there is only one racing line for them (partially due to the lap being so long) which will eek the fuel out so that the best number of laps possible is completed during each stint. With Le Mans having a mixture of car types, and therefore speeds, on the same circuit this actually adds to the dangers - the prototype cars need to take there lines and woe betide any of the lower formulae entrants who get in their way.

As far as Motogp is concerned I don't think that the discrepancy between the teams would cause this kind of issue, but the fact remains that as you minimise the fuel available you limit the lines that can be taken in order to eek the fuel out at maximum speed. This eventually leads to processional "races" where riders need to take more risks in passing in order to minimise the time spent off the optimal line.

('cos I'm lazy I cut and pasted my opinions on this from the "motogp class" thread)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (frosty58 @ Mar 18 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>teo gp racing is not the place for enviormentaly friendly green technologies imo. there should be no such restrictions of this type. if the factories need to explore for this type of tech then take it to sbk. thats were it's going to end up... on street bikes.
Totally agree.

Since when are fuel restrictions more onerous than displacement? The manufacturer makes the engine they don't make the fuel.

Either fuel or displacement will be restricted because performance is beyond reasonable in unlimited classes (I'm not talking about 990cc I'm talking about 2000cc V-6s hitting 300mph down the straight at Mugello) .

Personally I think the venues should control performance--they always have in the past. Sorry to all the imbeciles who emptied their country's treasury to build a Tilke but long straights into low speed hairpins isn't for moto.

If they use venue to control speed they don't need any displacement or fuel limitations.

Sadly, venue changing is the most expensive option and good circuits are scarce. Obviously, it isn't hard to get it right though, Jerez is getting older and their are few signs of unsafe speeds on track. Sachsenring has one trouble turn the rest is epic moto.

Oh yeah, if they raise minimum width, riders can wear more gear without hanging out in the breeze, so I'm for that change too.

Who cares if you fly off, you're wearing molded Kevlar.

Well everyone has the same fuel limit ..... "im sure they would all love to turn up the power the whole race long.
And even when he gets the new engine, which will rev more, it will very likely suck more juice ..... its a sad fact that the more power you want the more fuel you will loose. But who knows the pneumatic engine may just be more fuel efficient.

Its all the same equation Energy in ( fuel ) = Energy out ( power) + Energy lost

Its a rule that just simply asks the manufacturers to make a better engine .... to cut down on the "Energy Lost" bit ..... I reckon as simple as it is ..... it is one of the most useful rules ever introduced into Motogp. Sure everyone and his dogs rider "would be going better if they had more fuel". But hey why not go jet turbine engines if we just wanted the fastest engines out there..

They are running piston engines and are running it as a development formula .... efficiency is a double edged sword ..... yes it can slow the bikes in the early stages but in reality they will get quicker as they make better engines ....... "win win" in the end .... more fuel is just a whimps way out .... and even worse in some cases, it may be being used as an excuse why "Rider X" is not able to be up front ...... and yet all the other riders are.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Mar 19 2008, 08:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>thats what world superbikes are for imo.


except that WSBK is not a devlopment formula

So really its Motogp or nowhere

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Mar 18 2008, 09:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You almost sounded like you said something understandable.

Yeah I typed that over the course of the morning and obviously it didn't come out so well.

I'm trying to say that the tracks are giving rise to the restrictions. Old circuits and F1 circuits cause bikes to hit riskier speeds.

I don't so much mind the higher speeds, but the riders need to be wearing more than 1mm of sparsely armored kangaroo if they are going to fly off at speeds of 200kph+

Widen the chassis. It will increase drag and decrease the marginal benefit of hp. It will also give a roomier cockpit which will allow a few additional mm for increased armor.

Then go back to the 990s

No Fuel limit & no rev limit please.
Fair for everyone.