Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Mar 19 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not all roads lead to some conspiracy against your beloved Stoner, so there is no need to make some thinly veiled defense of him here.
Its a matter of prototype racing and the “spirit” of limitless innovation and capability to win a race. It would follow naturally from this concept that limiting one factor is counter to the premise for which Formula One prototype for the sole purpose of grand prix racing was developed. Let me dumb it down; the sole purpose of grand prix racing is to have teams design a machine within the least restrictive parameters and see who wins. But what has happened in my estimation is that a whole host of restrictions and rules have impeded the concept of pure racing. At one time, Formula One, as the pinnacle of racing, had the aim of building the best machine, only restricted by the least of parameter for a race. MotoGP is the Formula One of motorcycle racing, yet it has turned into a plethora of restriction and rules, one of which is fuel. That is what is being discussed here.
No reference to Stoner was made ..... indeed in this case I would just say it is a generic "Rider X" .... meaning that sometimes things are bandied around in the name of a rider saying it, for alterior motives. I could see this one as being tied to Toseland however I still choose to say its a generic rider comment. Its more of a beef as an attempt to publicly guarantee he gets a updated engine, which after his performance I say more power too him, he should be on a top line Yam. But the actual reference to having more power if fuel limitation was removed I disagree with as it is a strong criteria for design improvements that are valid for the future of Motogp. Its a bit like yes we could satiate our current desire however if we do so then an area of engine development will be ignored.
I actually have more objection to there being rules on it being an internal combustion engine frankly, however not many do. But I do feel that every attempt to get the best design is a thing worth working for. And fuel efficiency being so apt is a good criteria, especially when one realises it usually ends up in engine design that gives more power.
The very fact that Toseland is asking for the newer Yam engine shows that the matter of designing to such a criteria as fuel efficiency does work. So yes he could be satiated temporarily with say an allocated 2 litres extra fuel ...... but really Yam. should just get the better engine out there as it is the future.
Its a matter of prototype racing and the “spirit” of limitless innovation and capability to win a race. It would follow naturally from this concept that limiting one factor is counter to the premise for which Formula One prototype for the sole purpose of grand prix racing was developed. Let me dumb it down; the sole purpose of grand prix racing is to have teams design a machine within the least restrictive parameters and see who wins. But what has happened in my estimation is that a whole host of restrictions and rules have impeded the concept of pure racing. At one time, Formula One, as the pinnacle of racing, had the aim of building the best machine, only restricted by the least of parameter for a race. MotoGP is the Formula One of motorcycle racing, yet it has turned into a plethora of restriction and rules, one of which is fuel. That is what is being discussed here.
No reference to Stoner was made ..... indeed in this case I would just say it is a generic "Rider X" .... meaning that sometimes things are bandied around in the name of a rider saying it, for alterior motives. I could see this one as being tied to Toseland however I still choose to say its a generic rider comment. Its more of a beef as an attempt to publicly guarantee he gets a updated engine, which after his performance I say more power too him, he should be on a top line Yam. But the actual reference to having more power if fuel limitation was removed I disagree with as it is a strong criteria for design improvements that are valid for the future of Motogp. Its a bit like yes we could satiate our current desire however if we do so then an area of engine development will be ignored.
I actually have more objection to there being rules on it being an internal combustion engine frankly, however not many do. But I do feel that every attempt to get the best design is a thing worth working for. And fuel efficiency being so apt is a good criteria, especially when one realises it usually ends up in engine design that gives more power.
The very fact that Toseland is asking for the newer Yam engine shows that the matter of designing to such a criteria as fuel efficiency does work. So yes he could be satiated temporarily with say an allocated 2 litres extra fuel ...... but really Yam. should just get the better engine out there as it is the future.
