Last Lap Overtaking Stats

^I don't know about that theory... I think any rider will clear off if they just can do it within limts and see that they are clearly faster.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Parc Ferme @ Dec 21 2008, 06:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The presented statistics are irrelevant because they do not include Time as a factor.

The strokers ran for decades. They were at their development limit. Hence, close racing because everybody was pretty even after decades of development.

The 990s ran for a handful of years.

The 800s are only 2 years old.

Calculating a percentage against a backdrop of 20+years vs. 2 years is totally misleading.

As Burgess was quoted, you won't see parity until you stop changing the rules and let things settle down for a while; it doesn't matter if they're racing 800s, 1000s, or 1500s, you have to let everybody catch up to each other (development-wise) and then there will be close racing.

That maturity of a formula can bring about closer racing is something known and accepted, at least to an extent. But does it explain 2 years without any victory decided at the last lap? This is something unprecedented, which shows that this 800cc, so stingy with fuel and so
generous with electronics, is just ill-born.
The only amusing part of it remains that it was Honda's idea: Pedrobot's cut-to-size formula.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wander @ Dec 22 2008, 12:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>^I don't know about that theory... I think any rider will clear off if they just can do it within limts and see that they are clearly faster.

If so you couldn't possibly been watching MotoGP 2001-2005. We allways suspeced it but it became very clear in the later part of that period.
A big mistake 6 laps before finish > new lap record on every single lap after that
A 10 sec penalty > lap times down 1 sec for the next 12 laps
and so on. It's been many situations where Rossi for some reason felt he had to push it to the edge and in that period it was lightyears ahead of the competition.
Nowdays I agree. It's too close for Rossi to comfortably following the rest for 23 laps just to take a 1-2 lap sprint at the end.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Dec 21 2008, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The only amusing part of it remains that it was Honda's idea: Pedrobot's cut-to-size formula.
Hey Jarno, how would have Peeders done when bikes where made of steel and the men who rode them with the balls made of the same material?

LINK

(Bring back the push starts)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Dec 21 2008, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But does it explain 2 years without any victory decided at the last lap? This is something unprecedented, which shows that this 800cc, so stingy with fuel and so
generous with electronics, is just ill-born.

That the change to 800cc engines coincides with the fall in last lap overtaking does not necessarily mean that this rule is the cause. I'm not suggesting it isn't a factor by any means, but i think their are numerous other factors leading to the current state of the racing which existed before the reduction in capacity.

whats this "Overtaking" you speak of...i only started watching Moto GP 2 years ago...never heard of such a thing



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 26 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That the change to 800cc engines coincides with the fall in last lap overtaking does not necessarily mean that this rule is the cause. I'm not suggesting it isn't a factor by any means, but i think their are numerous other factors leading to the current state of the racing which existed before the reduction in capacity.

Seriously TOm?...You're so full of .... or blind

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 26 2008, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That the change to 800cc engines coincides with the fall in last lap overtaking does not necessarily mean that this rule is the cause. I'm not suggesting it isn't a factor by any means, but i think their are numerous other factors leading to the current state of the racing which existed before the reduction in capacity.

I would like to hear you mention a few of those other factors that was particular for these years compared to the previous years.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Dec 27 2008, 01:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I would like to hear you mention a few of those other factors that was particular for these years compared to the previous years.

The advances is technology, most obviously for the chassis, tyres and electronics. The general trend towards precision, data aquisition and advanced set-ups. These things were all happening before the rule changes and i believe all have contributed to the motogp we watch now. I think the capacity reduction has accelerated or accentuated the affect of some of these things, but not created it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 27 2008, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The advances is technology, most obviously for the chassis, tyres and electronics. The general trend towards precision, data aquisition and advanced set-ups. These things were all happening before the rule changes and i believe all have contributed to the motogp we watch now. I think the capacity reduction has accelerated or accentuated the affect of some of these things, but not created it.

So when we go from the most exciting few years ever, in terms of close racing, to the most boring most of us can remember to have ever seen we are not to blame the rule changes?

You have a point when you say the rule changes may have accelerated the the effect but in my simple word that's jist a different way of saying the rule changes are to be blamed.
990's and SBK close to proves that TC as we know it now has its limits if we through enough power at it. All the rest you mention are old technologies that develops relativly slow and changes must be observed over many years. A critical level of refinement might have arrived simultaniously and just as the rule changes arrived but I strongly doubt it and you got nothing that suggest it either.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Dec 28 2008, 12:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So when we go from the most exciting few years ever, in terms of close racing, to the most boring most of us can remember to have ever seen we are not to blame the rule changes?

You have a point when you say the rule changes may have accelerated the the effect but in my simple word that's jist a different way of saying the rule changes are to be blamed.
990's and SBK close to proves that TC as we know it now has its limits if we through enough power at it. All the rest you mention are old technologies that develops relativly slow and changes must be observed over many years. A critical level of refinement might have arrived simultaniously and just as the rule changes arrived but I strongly doubt it and you got nothing that suggest it either.

Thats fine but i don't believe a simple understanding of motogp will be enough to identify or correct the perceived problems. Also as you pointed out that some of what i have mentioned is "old technologies that develops relatively slow" but i feel i should add that the rate of development in motogp is not a constant. Development tends to accelerate when rule changes are brought in before diminishing returns kicks in and improvements get more incremental. The 990cc era saw developmant move faster than it had done for more than 15 years in almost every area, and the 800cc rule change has seen the cycle start over.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 28 2008, 02:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Thats fine but i don't believe a simple understanding of motogp will be enough to identify or correct the perceived problems.
That's right, you have a simple understanding, this is why you should leave this kind of debate and discussions to big boys. Have you noticed more and more people calling you out on ......... I see your labored sentences and clutching at straws for some intelligent response, but you just can't do it.

We are not reinventing the wheel here. The biggest effect in development was the change in capacity coupled with fuel restriction. We are not reinventing the wheel of electronics, tires, chassis, suspension, etc. The major element that has changed has been capacity, hence why people say it has been this that has made the biggest difference! Now you want to convince us that this alone is not to be perceived as the greatest effect on the racing itself? Jesus H Christ, as I said, you just can't understand higher order thinking can you, but it also seems you can't understand the most basic either.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 26 2008, 10:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That the change to 800cc engines coincides with the fall in last lap overtaking does not necessarily mean that this rule is the cause. I'm not suggesting it isn't a factor by any means, but i think their are numerous other factors leading to the current state of the racing which existed before the reduction in capacity.

So you say there were "other factors which existed" BEFORE the reduction, so then what changed? Oh yeah, the capacity! In other words Tom, its this major rule change that most effected the racing aspect of the show. The "numerous other factors" you speak of are minimal compared to the major change hence the major change in close racing. I know you don't understand Tom, but I'm just writing this to further expose the person you are (not that its obvious to most regular intelligent people here already).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 26 2008, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That the change to 800cc engines coincides with the fall in last lap overtaking does not necessarily mean that this rule is the cause. I'm not suggesting it isn't a factor by any means, but i think their are numerous other factors leading to the current state of the racing which existed before the reduction in capacity.


Well, call it a coincidence then, if you wish...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Dec 28 2008, 07:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well, call it a coincidence then, if you wish...

Could do, but i wont! I'm not suggesting that the rule changes have had no effect on the racing, i'm just suggesting that linking the two doesn't actually explain what is going on. Evidently not everyone is interested or able to look into things in any significant detail but apparently ignorance is bliss so good for them.

I've often wondered if a ...... has the capacity to know their handicap. Its clear I know the answer now.

Hey Curvy, can you post one of those ...... pics here. (Poor little guy, even as he smiles and crosses the finish line, that big stupid smile tells the story doesn't it).

5748:.......jpg]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 28 2008, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Thats fine but i don't believe a simple understanding of motogp will be enough to identify or correct the perceived problems.
I think you missunderstood. You twist words too make it look better designed to your personal opnion. I didn't mean that the solution are simpler (or more complicated) just that in my simplifyed english I would have used those words instad of your complicated words as it has the same meaning.

As to how complicated or simple it is to understand MotoGP consider this:
- Sometimes things are exactly what they look like. No need to complicate them
- Come back here after a dacade of actual track racing experience and we can talk again as I have no doubt that you don't have a clue about neither the complexity nor the simplicity of racing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Also as you pointed out that some of what i have mentioned is "old technologies that develops relatively slow" but i feel i should add that the rate of development in motogp is not a constant. Development tends to accelerate when rule changes are brought in before diminishing returns kicks in and improvements get more incremental.
Old technologies are old regardless of rule changes and may change more rapidly during rule changes but that's more by coincdences rather than by the rule change it self. They do not accelerate because of rule changes, they may change IF the factories feel they have to put much more efforts into those areas but rule change it self does little or nothing. That's because these areas are known and more constant factors where most options are allready tried and tested and the parameters available well known and axploited.
Fundamental frame and suspension technology change as slowly as they've did in the 2-stroke area in the 90's. It did probably adopt some to the four stroke (but teh M1 engine was first seen in a stroker frame), but the fundamentals are the same and no exceptional gains were made. It's not like we've seen anything like the deltabox appearance in this decade, just slow improvements and adoption to rules.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The 990cc era saw developmant move faster than it had done for more than 15 years in almost every area, and the 800cc rule change has seen the cycle start over.
.......... Or more to the point, what has developed hugely are tires and electronics with the 990 and that's just continued with the 800s. That rule change did very little to technology development allthough the importance if better TC quickly became obvious. Despite the fact that the 190cc change did much more to the bikes than they expected, that was stil a minor change similar to the removing of leaded gas in the strokers area. I belive that Yamha did only very minor adjustments to their frame from '06 to '07 and the bike behaved wonderfull, it just didn't have an engine worth mentioning. What kind of new cycle is that?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Dec 29 2008, 09:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>..........

God knows its not everyday I agree with you.

Two thumbs up Babel! I think you've covered that (pointless?) argument well.