http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/sport/sp...mp;R=EPI-101876
I'm happy with Rossi's switch decision...
I'm happy with Rossi's switch decision...
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2007
- Messages
- 7,965
- Location
- Texas
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 22 2008, 12:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think you are a assuming that something restricted or controlled cannot be prototype racing. If that is the case motogp was never prototype racing.
That's what you are assuming. That's why you are vehemently outspoken against spec regulations. I've gone to great lengths to show that the sport is already heavily regulated in ways that you do not acknowledge b/c they aren't explicitly stated in the rule book. My solution to the problem is to replace the secret regulations with transparent rules that maximize participation so the sport can progress by improving the competitive landscape.
Prototyping was largely unrestricted in the past b/c manufacturers/fans/riders all wanted to see what was possible with motorcycle design. The pacts that run MotoGP have already limited/eliminated much of the progression of the sport. Participation is so limited by expense and a narrow interpretation of the rules, that even major motorcycle manufacturers are having trouble competing.
I'm sure you remember at the end of the 990 era when the marginal costs of horsepower were extrememly low? At that time there were 3 or 4 new teams that were about to enter the sport. Now, all of them are bankrupt. Many of them had new ideas for chassis design, suspension design, aerodynamics, etc. All of them have been driven away by the expense of building a conventional 4 stroke engine.
If that's what you're arguing to preserve, you're making yourself look foolish.
That's what you are assuming. That's why you are vehemently outspoken against spec regulations. I've gone to great lengths to show that the sport is already heavily regulated in ways that you do not acknowledge b/c they aren't explicitly stated in the rule book. My solution to the problem is to replace the secret regulations with transparent rules that maximize participation so the sport can progress by improving the competitive landscape.
Prototyping was largely unrestricted in the past b/c manufacturers/fans/riders all wanted to see what was possible with motorcycle design. The pacts that run MotoGP have already limited/eliminated much of the progression of the sport. Participation is so limited by expense and a narrow interpretation of the rules, that even major motorcycle manufacturers are having trouble competing.
I'm sure you remember at the end of the 990 era when the marginal costs of horsepower were extrememly low? At that time there were 3 or 4 new teams that were about to enter the sport. Now, all of them are bankrupt. Many of them had new ideas for chassis design, suspension design, aerodynamics, etc. All of them have been driven away by the expense of building a conventional 4 stroke engine.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jul 22 2008, 03:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That's what you are assuming. That's why you are vehemently outspoken against spec regulations. I've gone to great lengths to show that the sport is already heavily regulated in ways that you do not acknowledge b/c they aren't explicitly stated in the rule book.
The pacts that run MotoGP have already limited/eliminated much of the progression of the sport.
I know the sport is controlled/regulated in ways beyond the rule book, most notably by the comercial priorities which are ever-growing. However some of the restrictions you speak of are completely undetectable, and only speculation rather than information brings them to life.
You say that progression of the sport is limited and eliminated, yet the last 8 years the sport has seen progression significantly greater than the previous 16 years could manage. That acceleration may need to be limited for financial reasons as well as irrelavency of the technology being developed, but there isn't a problem unless the sport stagnates like it did in the late 90's, or becomes strangled into conformity like F1 (more serious threat).
The pacts that run MotoGP have already limited/eliminated much of the progression of the sport.
I know the sport is controlled/regulated in ways beyond the rule book, most notably by the comercial priorities which are ever-growing. However some of the restrictions you speak of are completely undetectable, and only speculation rather than information brings them to life.
You say that progression of the sport is limited and eliminated, yet the last 8 years the sport has seen progression significantly greater than the previous 16 years could manage. That acceleration may need to be limited for financial reasons as well as irrelavency of the technology being developed, but there isn't a problem unless the sport stagnates like it did in the late 90's, or becomes strangled into conformity like F1 (more serious threat).
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2007
- Messages
- 7,965
- Location
- Texas
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 22 2008, 07:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I know the sport is controlled/regulated in ways beyond the rule book, most notably by the comercial priorities which are ever-growing. However some of the restrictions you speak of are completely undetectable, and only speculation rather than information brings them to life.
You say that progression of the sport is limited and eliminated, yet the last 8 years the sport has seen progression significantly greater than the previous 16 years could manage. That acceleration may need to be limited for financial reasons as well as irrelavency of the technology being developed, but there isn't a problem unless the sport stagnates like it did in the late 90's, or becomes strangled into conformity like F1 (more serious threat).
The new bikes have progressed because they have managed to make similar power to a 2 stroke but less efficiently? Or maybe they have progressed by borrowing existing technologies from other sports in order to further increase the costs of performance? Or perhaps they have progressed by adding hundreds of superfluous moving parts to the engines? Or maybe they have progressed b/c they inherited new parts from tire suppliers?
There is no progression of the sport. Everything that has happened in the four-stroke era has been centered around exponential complication of a relatively simple formula for the sole purpose of developing retail technologies (the commercial pressures you speak of). The silver lining was that 4 strokes were more fun and entertaining to ride--the 800s have jeopardized the silver lining.
When "they" (who knows who actually made the decision) made the change to MotoGP all participants had a choice: Innovation vs. Refinement. Obviously, all parties involved chose refinement b/c it is sellable, it creates high barriers to entry, and it prohibits monopoly (but preserves oligopoly) thus maintaining the spectacle. They put the sport on unstable ground they made this decision. Now, with the introduction of the 800s, some of the refinement is leading to the development of race-only technologies that are actually INJURING the spectacle.
New complications include pneumatic valves and GPS controlled engine-mapping/traction control. None of these are of any use to the retail sector, they are injuring the credibility of the sport, and they are extremely expensive. Yet technologies that may have use in the retail market, i.e. oval pistons and new suspension arrangements, are explicitly or implicitly banned.
There is great confusion in the sports rules and operating agreements. The move to 800s was unnecessary, hasty, and poorly thought out. How much easier would it have been to add $5 to every ticket, 5$ to every motogp.com subscription, and 5% to every vendor lease contract to create the proper circuit runoff or to install better airfences?
There is no progress, Tom--only the unnecessary complication of the sport; repackaged and branded to deceive the untrained eye. We are witnessing the re-engineering of the wheel.
You say that progression of the sport is limited and eliminated, yet the last 8 years the sport has seen progression significantly greater than the previous 16 years could manage. That acceleration may need to be limited for financial reasons as well as irrelavency of the technology being developed, but there isn't a problem unless the sport stagnates like it did in the late 90's, or becomes strangled into conformity like F1 (more serious threat).
The new bikes have progressed because they have managed to make similar power to a 2 stroke but less efficiently? Or maybe they have progressed by borrowing existing technologies from other sports in order to further increase the costs of performance? Or perhaps they have progressed by adding hundreds of superfluous moving parts to the engines? Or maybe they have progressed b/c they inherited new parts from tire suppliers?
There is no progression of the sport. Everything that has happened in the four-stroke era has been centered around exponential complication of a relatively simple formula for the sole purpose of developing retail technologies (the commercial pressures you speak of). The silver lining was that 4 strokes were more fun and entertaining to ride--the 800s have jeopardized the silver lining.
When "they" (who knows who actually made the decision) made the change to MotoGP all participants had a choice: Innovation vs. Refinement. Obviously, all parties involved chose refinement b/c it is sellable, it creates high barriers to entry, and it prohibits monopoly (but preserves oligopoly) thus maintaining the spectacle. They put the sport on unstable ground they made this decision. Now, with the introduction of the 800s, some of the refinement is leading to the development of race-only technologies that are actually INJURING the spectacle.
New complications include pneumatic valves and GPS controlled engine-mapping/traction control. None of these are of any use to the retail sector, they are injuring the credibility of the sport, and they are extremely expensive. Yet technologies that may have use in the retail market, i.e. oval pistons and new suspension arrangements, are explicitly or implicitly banned.
There is great confusion in the sports rules and operating agreements. The move to 800s was unnecessary, hasty, and poorly thought out. How much easier would it have been to add $5 to every ticket, 5$ to every motogp.com subscription, and 5% to every vendor lease contract to create the proper circuit runoff or to install better airfences?
There is no progress, Tom--only the unnecessary complication of the sport; repackaged and branded to deceive the untrained eye. We are witnessing the re-engineering of the wheel.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jul 22 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The new bikes have progressed because they have managed to make similar power to a 2 stroke but less efficiently?
Actually they make more power, significantly more efficiently. I agree that the increase in non-retailable technologies needs to be watched carefully, but it still remains signifcantly less redundant than the completely useless technology it replaced. Explicit bans on things like Oval pistons may seem harmful to progress and it is, but with technology such as that being so new and un-proven the development costs would effectively price people out of the sport. Other technologies could be introduced but not until someone creates an innovation which can compete with the existing solutions.
I'd also like to ask how you believe there is no progress, when the laptimes we are seeing are getting faster and areas like electronics, tyres, fuels, lubrication and aerodynamics we are seeing new developments all the time.
Actually they make more power, significantly more efficiently. I agree that the increase in non-retailable technologies needs to be watched carefully, but it still remains signifcantly less redundant than the completely useless technology it replaced. Explicit bans on things like Oval pistons may seem harmful to progress and it is, but with technology such as that being so new and un-proven the development costs would effectively price people out of the sport. Other technologies could be introduced but not until someone creates an innovation which can compete with the existing solutions.
I'd also like to ask how you believe there is no progress, when the laptimes we are seeing are getting faster and areas like electronics, tyres, fuels, lubrication and aerodynamics we are seeing new developments all the time.
Austin
Dr. Gonzo
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,706
- Location
- Woody Creek
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jul 22 2008, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The new bikes have progressed because they have managed to make similar power to a 2 stroke but less efficiently? Or maybe they have progressed by borrowing existing technologies from other sports in order to further increase the costs of performance? Or perhaps they have progressed by adding hundreds of superfluous moving parts to the engines? Or maybe they have progressed b/c they inherited new parts from tire suppliers?
There is no progression of the sport. Everything that has happened in the four-stroke era has been centered around exponential complication of a relatively simple formula for the sole purpose of developing retail technologies (the commercial pressures you speak of). The silver lining was that 4 strokes were more fun and entertaining to ride--the 800s have jeopardized the silver lining.
When "they" (who knows who actually made the decision) made the change to MotoGP all participants had a choice: Innovation vs. Refinement. Obviously, all parties involved chose refinement b/c it is sellable, it creates high barriers to entry, and it prohibits monopoly (but preserves oligopoly) thus maintaining the spectacle. They put the sport on unstable ground they made this decision. Now, with the introduction of the 800s, some of the refinement is leading to the development of race-only technologies that are actually INJURING the spectacle.
New complications include pneumatic valves and GPS controlled engine-mapping/traction control. None of these are of any use to the retail sector, they are injuring the credibility of the sport, and they are extremely expensive. Yet technologies that may have use in the retail market, i.e. oval pistons and new suspension arrangements, are explicitly or implicitly banned.
There is great confusion in the sports rules and operating agreements. The move to 800s was unnecessary, hasty, and poorly thought out. How much easier would it have been to add $5 to every ticket, 5$ to every motogp.com subscription, and 5% to every vendor lease contract to create the proper circuit runoff or to install better airfences?
There is no progress, Tom--only the unnecessary complication of the sport; repackaged and branded to deceive the untrained eye. We are witnessing the re-engineering of the wheel.
Although I find some of your points to revolve around conspiracy theories, in general you make some very interesting arguments. A very thoughtful and logical piece on the possible reasons for and the costs of the switch to 800s. From someone who has vocally made his case against the formula with less diplomatic language. Hats off Lex.
There is no progression of the sport. Everything that has happened in the four-stroke era has been centered around exponential complication of a relatively simple formula for the sole purpose of developing retail technologies (the commercial pressures you speak of). The silver lining was that 4 strokes were more fun and entertaining to ride--the 800s have jeopardized the silver lining.
When "they" (who knows who actually made the decision) made the change to MotoGP all participants had a choice: Innovation vs. Refinement. Obviously, all parties involved chose refinement b/c it is sellable, it creates high barriers to entry, and it prohibits monopoly (but preserves oligopoly) thus maintaining the spectacle. They put the sport on unstable ground they made this decision. Now, with the introduction of the 800s, some of the refinement is leading to the development of race-only technologies that are actually INJURING the spectacle.
New complications include pneumatic valves and GPS controlled engine-mapping/traction control. None of these are of any use to the retail sector, they are injuring the credibility of the sport, and they are extremely expensive. Yet technologies that may have use in the retail market, i.e. oval pistons and new suspension arrangements, are explicitly or implicitly banned.
There is great confusion in the sports rules and operating agreements. The move to 800s was unnecessary, hasty, and poorly thought out. How much easier would it have been to add $5 to every ticket, 5$ to every motogp.com subscription, and 5% to every vendor lease contract to create the proper circuit runoff or to install better airfences?
There is no progress, Tom--only the unnecessary complication of the sport; repackaged and branded to deceive the untrained eye. We are witnessing the re-engineering of the wheel.
Although I find some of your points to revolve around conspiracy theories, in general you make some very interesting arguments. A very thoughtful and logical piece on the possible reasons for and the costs of the switch to 800s. From someone who has vocally made his case against the formula with less diplomatic language. Hats off Lex.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2007
- Messages
- 7,965
- Location
- Texas
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 22 2008, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Actually they make more power, significantly more efficiently. I agree that the increase in non-retailable technologies needs to be watched carefully, but it still remains signifcantly less redundant than the completely useless technology it replaced. Explicit bans on things like Oval pistons may seem harmful to progress and it is, but with technology such as that being so new and un-proven the development costs would effectively price people out of the sport. Other technologies could be introduced but not until someone creates an innovation which can compete with the existing solutions.
I'd also like to ask how you believe there is no progress, when the laptimes we are seeing are getting faster and areas like electronics, tyres, fuels, lubrication and aerodynamics we are seeing new developments all the time.
I meant less efficiency from a cost/benefit standpoint. MotoGP machines cost 10x what the strokers cost, but they are not 10x faster or even 10x more powerful.
I'm also aware that oval pistons are extremely expensive and probably not good for the formula. I was simply pointing out that such technologies are more relevant to the retail sector than pneumatics or GPS engine-mapping, yet oval pistons are banned.
There hasn't been any real progress to speak of. Most of the electronics are certainly not progressive, the bikes have always been capable of performing the way they do now, but riders were not capable of duplicating the inputs of electronic equipment so 800-esque racing was never achieved until recently (thankfully).
The electronics abhorrence is only TEMPORARILY acceptable b/c of its importance to improving safety in the production market. However, I believe that it has been refined enough to keep me upright on a slippery day at 20 mph.
Other progressive technologies are just new electronic variations on the same theme. Tires that are softer and work better with TC. Air-valves that rev higher b/c they work with the ECU. More slippery aerodynamics that subject the rider to excessive wind blast--but it doesn't matter b/c wheely control, brake control, etc. make up for any sloppy grip inputs.
Electronics rule the roost now. A lot of design elements that used to serve the rider have been discontinued or modified to serve the bike. How do manufacturers plan on marketing technologies that make the rider less comfortable and less confident?
I'd be better off if they slapped their name on a cheap 500 and tried to sell me their brand.
I'd also like to ask how you believe there is no progress, when the laptimes we are seeing are getting faster and areas like electronics, tyres, fuels, lubrication and aerodynamics we are seeing new developments all the time.
I meant less efficiency from a cost/benefit standpoint. MotoGP machines cost 10x what the strokers cost, but they are not 10x faster or even 10x more powerful.
I'm also aware that oval pistons are extremely expensive and probably not good for the formula. I was simply pointing out that such technologies are more relevant to the retail sector than pneumatics or GPS engine-mapping, yet oval pistons are banned.
There hasn't been any real progress to speak of. Most of the electronics are certainly not progressive, the bikes have always been capable of performing the way they do now, but riders were not capable of duplicating the inputs of electronic equipment so 800-esque racing was never achieved until recently (thankfully).
Other progressive technologies are just new electronic variations on the same theme. Tires that are softer and work better with TC. Air-valves that rev higher b/c they work with the ECU. More slippery aerodynamics that subject the rider to excessive wind blast--but it doesn't matter b/c wheely control, brake control, etc. make up for any sloppy grip inputs.
Electronics rule the roost now. A lot of design elements that used to serve the rider have been discontinued or modified to serve the bike. How do manufacturers plan on marketing technologies that make the rider less comfortable and less confident?
Similar threads
