King Kenny: "We've got to put the awe back in MotoGP"

LINK

Noyes articles aren't my favorite, but they are frequently chock full of little bits of information you can't get anywhere else.

Opinions about the sport are pages 1-3 and the juicy rules changes and inside rumors are 4-5.

Personally, I agree that the awe must be put back into the sport. At one time I believed that electronics and "awe" were mutually exclusive, but I think the awe can be put back into GP without regressive rules packages.

LOL
You forgot to mention that the first page show how a journalist can expose himself as a complete ..... in only a few lines of text.
This is about as stupid as it gets. Read it for a good laugh.
First he belittle mamola, then this idotic engine designer with 300bhp engines (look at yamaha for the complete oposite), finally drawing the exact picture mamola tries to with basic maping and limited sensorless traction control.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 13 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>LOL
You forgot to mention that the first page show how a journalist can expose himself as a complete ..... in only a few lines of text.
This is about as stupid as it gets. Read it for a good laugh.
First he belittle mamola, then this idotic engine designer with 300bhp engines (look at yamaha for the complete oposite), finally drawing the exact picture mamola tries to with basic maping and limited sensorless traction control.

I have no objection to your objections, but did you read the article?

He said bikes are putting out 300bhp PER LITER. 230hp/.800L is close to 300bhp per liter.

He didn't make fun of Mamola.

Furthermore, he said he fully anticipated that his ideas would be disliked by younger generations but he's been surprised by Europeans that are similar in age who seem to like approaching racing as a scientific endeavor. I too, believe that prototype racing should be largely scientific, but his observations seem to indicate that the golden age of MotoGP was less about science and more about willpower. He takes solace in the fact that riders, both European and non-European, seem to echo his sentiments.

For those of you who don't like to read, I'll give you the cliff's notes for pages 4 and 5.

1. The ban on launch control is unenforceable. MotoGP bikes likely still have proper launch control. Next year the rule will be repealed.

2. Minimum bike weight will be raised to 150kg for 2010.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 13 2009, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>LOL
You forgot to mention that the first page show how a journalist can expose himself as a complete ..... in only a few lines of text.
This is about as stupid as it gets. Read it for a good laugh.
First he belittle mamola, then this idotic engine designer with 300bhp engines (look at yamaha for the complete oposite), finally drawing the exact picture mamola tries to with basic maping and limited sensorless traction control.
Though I tend to disagree with you on a frequent basis Babel, I respect many of your opinions and your comprehensive knowledge of the sport, and so eagerly clicked on the Lex Link to have a good laugh at the expense of this '..... journalist'. First thing I see? the name Dennis Noyes. Do your homework Babel, Dennis Noyes is a legend - acquaint yourself immediately - I'm disappointed. Like Lex say's - love him or hate him, his writing is ALWAYS illuminating and informative, and he's generally a well respected venerable figure in the sport.

Regarding Kenny's opinion - who on here would disagree, (with the possible exception of GS fan), I read a recent interview with his partner in crime Chuck Acksland, who unsurprisingly echoed many of the sentiments recently expressed by the King.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Jun 13 2009, 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Though I tend to disagree with you on a frequent basis Babel, I respect many of your opinions and your comprehensive knowledge of the sport, and so eagerly clicked on the Lex Link to have a good laugh at the expense of this '..... journalist'. First thing I see? the name Dennis Noyes. Do your homework Babel, Dennis Noyes is a legend - acquaint yourself immediately - I'm disappointed. Like Lex say's - love him or hate him, his writing is ALWAYS illuminating and informative, and he's generally a well respected venerable figure in the sport.

Regarding Kenny's opinion - who on here would disagree, (with the possible exception of GS fan), I read a recent interview with his partner in crime Chuck Acksland, who unsurprisingly echoed many of the sentiments recently expressed by the King.

How can we not look more scientifically? The world is getting more technical and scientific everywhere. I have watched Gp racing since the early eighties and Kenny was the best. If indeed the best of the machine is hidden why not take the time to showcase the technology and bring the fans to it so they understand the fundamentals. Instead they mass market the series like it was a scooter riding contest with custom painted motorcycles with cool guy riders and leave alone the intrinsic difficulty with competition between factories operating at the highest level under strict limitations of money, time, fuel capacity and tires.

As far as the evolution of electronics goes it is still an area the factories can exploit to their hearts content. So why wouldn't they? I have a ready solution that I have offered a few times. Rather than supply a generic CPU supply a unit that restricts bandwidth and possibly clock speed. That way the team can only run a limited system but they would be able to decide what things to control to suit their machine. It is far easier to test for compliance this way. Limit the bandwidth and the CPU clock speed. Make the penalty a year long ban...done. If they can show you real time video from any bike on the circuit then they can monitor the electronics in real time also. This is the same type of solution as a single tire supplier.

I find it funny to read that electronics are the only way to control such a powerful machine and we still have some that claim the 800's are underpowered. Why would a factory object to a more open architecture then? The motor development would stop in its tracks and massive cost savings would ensue. Simplify the electronics and make them harder to ride then. See above paragraph for my solution. Safety has never been a concern of mine.

Don't expect much to change though. No matter what they do the best guys, the guys at the front right now, will still be at the front. Just like King Kenny would be. And he would love it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Jun 13 2009, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Though I tend to disagree with you on a frequent basis Babel, I respect many of your opinions and your comprehensive knowledge of the sport, and so eagerly clicked on the Lex Link to have a good laugh at the expense of this '..... journalist'. First thing I see? the name Dennis Noyes. Do your homework Babel, Dennis Noyes is a legend - acquaint yourself immediately - I'm disappointed. Like Lex say's - love him or hate him, his writing is ALWAYS illuminating and informative, and he's generally a well respected venerable figure in the sport.
I am familiar with the name but usually find more opinions expressed than a cold analytical mind. I don't care if he's the president himself, in my book you earn respect not reciveing it. What ever DN has been saying before is irelevant to this article, even more so when he DOES behave like a total cluleless, because that's exactly what he does.
It doesn't matter what lex says, he had fun on Mamolas expence, wich is fine by me, but he can't sit there and expect to be taken serious when he come up with mamolas exact solution the next parqagraph. One good word for that is clueless.
Again Lex, it doesn't matter if it's 300bhp pr litre or pr 800cc, because my point wasn't about the difficulty to squeeze out 300bhp rather the oposite. It easy to make the engine do 300 bhp pr litre, they have F1 engines that surpass that, by a margine, what is difficult is to make a 240bhp engine with real usable power, and that's exactly what Yamaha and Honda pay their engineers to design.
He's and many others belief that any super-peaky powerfull engine can be computerized into a driver friendly engine is amusing and naive. They can reduce power at spesific points with maps and smoth things out but they can never take away the peakiness unless they also take the power down by a huge amount.

So, the page 1 of that article was some of the most confusing (to the writer that is) I've ever read.
Ledgend or not, that kind of writing deserve the respect of none.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Regarding Kenny's opinion - who on here would disagree, (with the possible exception of GS fan), I read a recent interview with his partner in crime Chuck Acksland, who unsurprisingly echoed many of the sentiments recently expressed by the King.

Absolutly

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Jun 13 2009, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As far as the evolution of electronics goes it is still an area the factories can exploit to their hearts content. So why wouldn't they? I have a ready solution that I have offered a few times. Rather than supply a generic CPU supply a unit that restricts bandwidth and possibly clock speed. That way the team can only run a limited system but they would be able to decide what things to control to suit their machine. It is far easier to test for compliance this way. Limit the bandwidth and the CPU clock speed. Make the penalty a year long ban...done. If they can show you real time video from any bike on the circuit then they can monitor the electronics in real time also. This is the same type of solution as a single tire supplier.

I don't think anyone believes the 800s are significantly underpowered in terms of peak power. The problem is that the 800s have a much narrower powerband and a much more aggressive power delivery.

I'm not sure electronics were really necessary on a bike until FUEL was reduced from 24L to 22L in 2005. Once fuel was reduced engineers realized that braking was unfavorable. If braking wastes fuel then tires need to carry more cornerspeed. More cornerspeed means softer compounds and more advanced TC to reduce wheelspin. This was the evolution during the 990 era from 2005-2006. It wasn't that bad.

Unfortunately the advent of the 800s meant less displacement, less fuel, and higher min weight. Further fuel restrictions and a raised min weight placed even more importance on electronics and tires. The change to 800cc is probably NOT a major contributor to the introduction of electronics.

WSS is very exciting and WSS bikes have very pretty relaxed electronics. WSS bikes also have more than enough fuel (at most venues) and control tires that can take plenty of abuse from a 600cc lump.

Though I want revolutionary change in GP, there is probably a very simple fix to it's current woes---eliminate fuel restrictions or at least relax them significantly. No fuel restrictions means that computer adaptive fuel mapping isn't a GP prerequisite. Furthermore, GPS controlled TC isn't necessary because wheel spin wastes nothing and the powerband will be more manageable. A wider powerband means more passing and more possible racing lines. If the governing body want to further diminish the importance of TC they can make the control tire a bit harder.

I suppose unlimited fuel could start a "rev war" but that's a relatively uncomplicated problem to solve------but it does require some extra electronics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 13 2009, 10:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It doesn't matter what lex says, he had fun on Mamolas expence, wich is fine by me, but he can't sit there and expect to be taken serious when he come up with mamolas exact solution the next parqagraph.

Maybe it's just a minor language barrier. Noyes is not trying to have fun at Mamola's expense. Noyes dislikes the electronic gismos as does Mamola. Noyes and Mamola are allies in this article. Dennis reveals that Mamola agrees with him by telling the readers that Mamola's dream is to go through the paddock and cut all of the electronics off of the bikes.

Noyes has no objection to Mamola's "dream". If anything, Noyes indulges himself in Mamola's fantasy and has a laugh at the possible consequences.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Again Lex, it doesn't matter if it's 300bhp pr liter or pr gallon. In fact it make it even more stupid because my point wasn't about the difficulty to squeeze out 300bhp rather the oposite. It easy to make the engine do 300 bhp, they have F1 engines that surpass that, what is difficult is to make a 240bhp engine with real usable power, and that's exactly what Yamaha and Honda pay their engineers to design.

Honda definitely pay their engineers to make usable power. Noyes says MotoGP bikes with 300bhp per liter can really only be controlled with electronics. The manufacturers' lust for electronics proves his point (according to the author).

No one is debating that power must be usable, but Noyes and others are disappointed that teams are using electronics to make the bikes rideable.

The question up for debate is: How do we get the awe back into MotoGP?

Noyes isn't wrong that the sport has lost much of its luster after the changes in 2007.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jun 14 2009, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure electronics were really necessary on a bike until FUEL was reduced from 24L to 22L in 2005. Once fuel was reduced engineers realized that braking was unfavorable. If braking wastes fuel then tires need to carry more cornerspeed. More cornerspeed means softer compounds and more advanced TC to reduce wheelspin. This was the evolution during the 990 era from 2005-2006. It wasn't that bad.
That's an amusing theory, unfortunatly any team would take any increased corner speed any day. It's not something that come from the 800s. More or less power, more or less fuel, more corner speed is allways a good thing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Though I want revolutionary change in GP, there is probably a very simple fix to it's current woes---eliminate fuel restrictions or at least relax them significantly. No fuel restrictions means that computer adaptive fuel mapping isn't a GP prerequisite. Furthermore, GPS controlled TC isn't necessary because wheel spin wastes nothing and the powerband will be more manageable. A wider powerband means more passing and more possible racing lines. If the governing body want to further diminish the importance of TC they can make the control tire a bit harder.
Allthough I agree that relaxed fuel limit could be a small part of a solution you are dreaming.
- Position controlled TC isn't a nesessity it's only the next logical step. It would come totally independent on fuel limit, simply becuase excessive wheel is inefficient.
- Adaptive fuel mapping will continue, if not adapting to remaining fuel it adapts to other parameters
- We allready have that "wider powerband" when there is plenty fuel. Qualification and the end of fuel efficient races as examples and still there are no significant difference in style. That's becuase the computers are better at calculating the most efficent way around a track that we are and that does not include wheel spin outside their narrow parameters.
- A harder control tire would put higher demands on TC. Look at the old q-tires: most riders didn't use TC with those tires. Either it was off or never kicked in.

Either this is another bad idea from the lex files or:
You really do hate MotoGP and this is your idea to make it fail ASAP?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 13 2009, 10:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That's an amusing theory, unfortunatly any team would take any increased corner speed any day. It's not something that come from the 800s. More or less power, more or less fuel, more corner speed is allways a good thing.

Cornerspeed is not always a good thing. Limiting the amount of time a bike spends on its side is a good thing. Unfortunately, late-braking is part of keeping a bike off of its side. If fuel restrictions remove the option of late-braking, corner entry speed is extremely desirable.

Back in the 990 days with 24L of fuel, point and shoot was faster than cornerspeed would have been b/c a bike isn't putting down power or scrubbing it off when its leaned over. Soft-carcass tires with huge contact patches and lots of feel were preferable in those days.

The 800s don't have the same low-end as the 990s had so there is a possibility that late-braking won't be an option. However, more fuel should reduce reliance (not prevalence) on TC by providing a more usable power band and by allowing riders to spin the rear wheel without worrying about fuel.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jun 14 2009, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Cornerspeed is not always a good thing. Limiting the amount of time a bike spends on its side is a good thing. Unfortunately, late-braking is part of keeping a bike off of its side. If fuel restrictions remove the option of late-braking, corner entry speed is extremely desirable.
If you check the early impressions of the 800's you will find that they brake later and harder than ever with these bikes. That's part of the overtaking problem. The lighter rotating mass make them possible to handle into the turns with hard braking. This in turn make the line into the turn all the more important and difficult to change. Better brakes and slipper clutches make braking a lot easier as well. Less mistakes, less options -> less overtaking.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Back in the 990 days with 24L of fuel, point and shoot was faster than cornerspeed would have been b/c a bike isn't putting down power or scrubbing it off when its leaned over. Soft-carcass tires with huge contact patches and lots of feel were preferable in those days.
Sorry lex, that was the 80's and the 90's and the tires have gone in one direction ever since: larger contact patch and softer rubber. Whether that's through "hard" carcass tires with very low pressure or softer carcass and higher pressure they all aim at more flex resulting in a larger contact patch. The tires nowdays does put a lot of power down when leaned over. Despite less power the 800's where imediatly faster than the 990's around the track proving the power of corner speed. If you want to blame someone/something for the importance of cornerspeed blame it on tires and TC. This is of course not a on-off thing, the progress has come over years as tires, suspension and TC has developed. And while the introduction of the powerfull 990 somewhat prolonged the style of point and shoot for a few years the into of the 800's put it to a sudden death, but it would have been gone by now even with the 990's.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The 800s don't have the same low-end as the 990s had so there is a possibility that late-braking won't be an option. However, more fuel should reduce reliance (not prevalence) on TC by providing a more usable power band and by allowing riders to spin the rear wheel without worrying about fuel.
If that is so advantageous why don't we see it now when fuel is not an issue?

Btw, look out for great slides today, especially in turn 3 and this on a fast, fuel hungry track. The slides arn't gone just the point and shoot, and that's NOT due to the fuel limit.

Did you know that rear race tires today seldom use more than 25psi? (Pirelli and Metzler with "soft" carcass)
That the michelin Power One slicks use as low as 18 psi? (hard carcass)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 14 2009, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you check the early impressions of the 800's you will find that they brake later and harder than ever with these bikes. That's part of the overtaking problem. The lighter rotating mass make them possible to handle into the turns with hard braking. This in turn make the line into the turn all the more important and difficult to change. Better brakes and slipper clutches make braking a lot easier as well. Less mistakes, less options -> less overtaking.

Sorry lex, that was the 80's and the 90's and the tires have gone in one direction ever since: larger contact patch and softer rubber. Whether that's through "hard" carcass tires with very low pressure or softer carcass and higher pressure they all aim at more flex resulting in a larger contact patch.

Why do WSS bikes ride cornerspeed, but WSBK bikes ride an electronically refined point-and-shoot with a lot of late apexing and a lot of passing?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jun 14 2009, 05:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why do WSS bikes ride cornerspeed, but WSBK bikes ride an electronically refined point-and-shoot with a lot of late apexing and a lot of passing?
What does two entierly different clases have to do with anything? But sice we're allready there:
SS and 130rw bhp is not comparable to motoGP, not even moto2. Besides SS makes for the best racing of all of them AND they slide those bikes around quite a bit as well.
SBK is, as DN said, at a TC level where motoGP were 3-4 years ago. Entertaining right now, but in danger of getting into a lot more trouble then MotoGP ever was, because of TC.
This is not about fuel and torque tied to fuel but TC and tires (and weight).

And don't get me wrong, except from making a fool out of himself on page one, I absolutly agree with DN for the rest. The key here is limiting the electronics. Not solvable by changing capacity, fuel, rpm...
Other factors may help but the key is the electonics.

They have far more electronics in WSBK than they do in WSS.

Yet WSS rides cornerspeed and WSBK rides modernized point and shoot.

Why?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jun 14 2009, 08:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>They have far more electronics in WSBK than they do in WSS.

Yet WSS rides cornerspeed and WSBK rides modernized point and shoot.

Why?

Are you serious?
If so why don't you go all they way and ask why the 125 don't do point and shoot?

You compare motoGP (+220bhp engines), SBK (+220bhp engines) and SS (+120 bhp engines)
and you ask why SS ned cornerspeed? Get real.
Honestly, I don't see that much point and shoot from the SBK, I do however see sub-optimal TC's alowing the bikes to slide out of the corners like a 990 used to do at around 2005, in other words TC WAY behind today's 800s. This probably alter the lines towards something that might resemble point and shoot, but it's more out of nesessety rather than effectivness and it's mostly due to lack of sophistcated TC. I see an egine powerfull enough to do the powerslides when TC is not an option. I see heavy engines with lot's of rotational mass. Mass they can't throw out as they did with the motoGP. I see SSs that slide into the corners like the GP bikes did 4 to 8 years ago, but without the power to do the big slides out the corners.

The point and shoot we mostly see in SBK is, dispite the high level it's reached, due to heavy upresice machinery that has to be muceled around the tight corners and where they arrive side by side. I'm sure the extra torque help them get away with cuting in front and squaring off, but the torque is not the reason for the choosen line. They have 30 bikes on the grid, and it will be crowded in some corners, it's unavoidable. It's not like it never happens in MotoGP either, because it does, just not as often and to me it's not by far the worst part of the 800's of today. As you perfectly well know, the SS600s make for excellent racing, without much TC but with high corner speed same goes for 125 and 250. Corner speed or not is not a decisive factor for race excitement. Sophisticated electronic driver aids are and very much so.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 14 2009, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Are you serious?
If so why don't you go all they way and ask why the 125 don't do point and shoot?

I thought you'd never ask.

125s and 250s have little to no electronics, yet they ride cornerspeed. WSS have less electronic sophistication than WSBK, yet WSS rides cornerspeed and WSBK rides a modified point and shoot.

Just taking that very small sampling, anyone can see that electronics are NOT the key determinant of the lines ridden in motorcycle sports.

The lines that riders choose vary based upon a bike's ability to accelerate (controlled by displacement, fuel, revs, rear tires, suspension, weight, mass centralization, road surface, gearing, aerodynamics, TC), a bike's ability to decelerate (brakes, front tire, front suspension, weight, center of mass, road surface, aero, engine braking), and a bike's ability to corner (tires, suspension, weight, road surface, center of mass, center of rotation, weight distribution, aero, TC). Of course, let us not forget a rider's skill level and personal preferences.

I suppose you could say that electronics are the key factor assuming some extremely intricate mixture of the factors above, but if you make a contingency statement, then electronics are obviously not the most important.

It might still be appropriate to say that electronics are key factor if the extremely intricate list of contingencies was not variable, but that is NOT the case. The teams and the governing body can change everything on the list whenever they want.

Wheelie control was developed when engineers wanted to keep the front wheel on the deck. Engine braking was developed when the rear started sliding. TC was developed when the engineers wanted to stop the rear from spinning. Electronics weren't even a major part of the sport until the 4-strokes came along. Why did 4 strokes bring electronics? Because engineers needed electronic injection to replace the expensive and unreliable mechanical injection units.

Electronics are not the key determinant in anything let alone racing lines. Electronics are a response to the problems engineers and riders face while racing. In very recent times engineers have programmed the electronics to find problems.

Cornerspeed was reintroduced as the sole de facto riding style when the electronics said, "Mr. Preziosi, we don't have enough fuel to run at optimal performance over the entire race distance." Mr Preziosi contacted Blidgestone and the rest is history.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jun 15 2009, 12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I thought you'd never ask.

125s and 250s have little to no electronics, yet they ride cornerspeed. WSS have less electronic sophistication than WSBK, yet WSS rides cornerspeed and WSBK rides a modified point and shoot.

Just taking that very small sampling, anyone can see that electronics are NOT the key determinant of the lines ridden in motorcycle sports.
If you can't see any other similarites than little electronic aids (BTW, something you actually know very little about when it comes to SS) I can't help you. Why would anyone want traction control on a bike without the power to spin it up, or slipper clutch on an engine without resitance?
But, again, what does it matter, the racing is fantastic, even the sliding the 600's does is amazing to watch so why should high corner speed be of any concern what so ever? Little to no electonics AND high corner speed is THE proven template for exciting racing.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The lines that riders choose vary based upon a bike's ability to accelerate (controlled by displacement, fuel, revs, rear tires, suspension, weight, mass centralization, road surface, gearing, aerodynamics, TC), a bike's ability to decelerate (brakes, front tire, front suspension, weight, center of mass, road surface, aero, engine braking), and a bike's ability to corner (tires, suspension, weight, road surface, center of mass, center of rotation, weight distribution, aero, TC). Of course, let us not forget a rider's skill level and personal preferences. You forgot rotation mass.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I suppose you could say that electronics are the key factor assuming some extremely intricate mixture of the factors above, but if you make a contingency statement, then electronics are obviously not the most important.

I say electonics are the key, you say fuel. Why don't you go argue your case instead of going into philosophical discussion?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>It might still be appropriate to say that electronics are key factor if the extremely intricate list of contingencies was not variable, but that is NOT the case. The teams and the governing body can change everything on the list whenever they want.
You may argue as much as you like but all articles I've ever seen agree with me on this and to me it's nothing put straight forward logic. Electronics influence just about everything. It mask or fix set up inperfections, it mask tire wear and so on.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Wheelie control was developed when engineers wanted to keep the front wheel on the deck. Engine braking was developed when the rear started sliding. TC was developed when the engineers wanted to stop the rear from spinning. Electronics weren't even a major part of the sport until the 4-strokes came along. Why did 4 strokes bring electronics? Because engineers needed electronic injection to replace the expensive and unreliable mechanical injection units.

Electronics are not the key determinant in anything let alone racing lines. Electronics are a response to the problems engineers and riders face while racing. In very recent times engineers have programmed the electronics to find problems.
As you are in the philosphical corner, electronics (in racing) came about as a way to go faster as most things are in racing.
But the important part is this: Wheel spin, wheelies and rear slides are not problems that just suddenly happen like a blown up engine, it's something that come as a direct result of the rider inputs or lack of input. Avoiding those "problems" and going fast are what some call it skill, you should try it. Electronics helping out are electonic aids (pun inteded)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Cornerspeed was reintroduced as the sole de facto riding style when the electronics said, "Mr. Preziosi, we don't have enough fuel to run at optimal performance over the entire race distance." Mr Preziosi contacted Blidgestone and the rest is history.

Extreemly unlikely but quite funny.

I think allowing any amount of fuel is a terrible idea. I say we should have 1200's in motogp, but let them use even less fuel. even better, no capacity limits if you can ride a 2litre moto gp bike you deserve to be world champion!

My dream is to do my rididng on a road bike that pumps out 300hp and sips fuel. Even though im no fan of bmw corporate snobbery im constantly amazed how they make their big bikes get 10-15mpg better than thier competitors. Before i get any 'die hippy tree-hugger scum' comments, keep in mind, when you ride every day, like to GO places when you ride, and dont have much cash this stuff matters, alot.

ps. look up Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems, some electrickery that actually encourages late braking for fuel savings. They are using a limited version of the system in 125's (i think). The bikes of some teams were under the min. weight so it cost them nothing to add the system (they were carrying ballast).

I think two of you need to get a room