Phillip Island RACE

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigAl @ Oct 22 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>nice pics barry, awesome spectacle...

But.

you post pics of 800s cranked over at extreme angles and then say that "these guys who come into MGP from other series don't seem to have that angle yet:" and back this up by showing a pic of Spies leant over, knee and elbow out, on a GSX-R1000! show him riding an 800 and then see just if hes got the angle yet or not. never mind the difference in tyre performance between proto b'stones and control dunlops....


Bingo - The tyres are a massive part of the equation on how far you can lean the bike over.

Ill join the bandwagon to and say they were great pictures berry and i enjoyed that post of yours greatly but to compare the lean angle of a big heavy gsxr1000 superbike to an 800 mgp bike that cost like a million times more is a bit off base imo. to back up your point see if you can find a wild card mgp pic of spies banked right over. And as others have said, tyres play a big part, make and size. am i right in saying that wsb bikes use 17" and mgp are using 16.5" ??

Yeah I know thats why I said this:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Oct 21 2009, 12:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah see there you go ..... thats mid pack at best MGP type lean. Kinda why I cannot understand the cries of "wait till Spies gets here!" ...... he hasn't exhibited the body language of speed in MGP to me yet. But who knows ........ he now has the opportunity .

I see Spies as near Edwards in style hence I think he'll place around him there somewhere, to start with.

Riders like the top four came up through the ranks in the MGP circus, and have ridden bikes where lean is the thing ( and it seems pretty essential these days, though as Stoner demonstrated at PI both lean and pick up style adaptability may be the thing ). So I kinda wonder about the chance of riders coming from say AMA or WSBK or BSS etc. and competing in MGP.

and

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Oct 22 2009, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>but, its just that modern MGP bikes lean ( and stick ) these days ( could be tyres could be 800's could be they just are amazing machines). You don't see it in many other formulas where the lea angle is so great ( insane as it is often described these days ). So is it getting more difficult for riders from other series to come in and dominate?

To Spies' credit he himself seems to have a grip on reality, in an interview I saw with him he said he sees it as the pinnacle and that he has much to adapt to.

Its hard to see these days that it will be almost a hopeless task, what with starting on a satellite bike. I kinda feel for JT in that respect.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Oct 21 2009, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Obviously there will be some differences. My opinion is that it will breed a similar style to what is necessary for 250 success. That 250 style has proven successful in MotoGP, it's not the same, but is similar and successful. Do I make sense? It will be similar in the sense that corner speed will be the key, just like MotoGP. I don't think I'm making sense, let me try again.

In my opinion, what Dorna are trying to achieve is make the direct feeder class follow the lines of MotoGP more closely. Although the style used in 250 has proven to be quite successful in transitioning to 800cc MotoGP machines, there are still some major differences in moving from a 250 two stroke to an 800 four stroke. My belief is that the new 600s will behave in a manner that will allow its riders to transition to MotoGP with more ease. So to attempt to summarize, the style won't be identical to that used with a 250, but it will be similar as that 250 style has been successful in breeding 800cc riders and I can't believe Dorna would want to go away from that.

Sorry I'm going in circles here and probably not making sense.

There's a first time for everything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Oct 22 2009, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ill join the bandwagon to and say they were great pictures berry and i enjoyed that post of yours greatly but to compare the lean angle of a big heavy gsxr1000 superbike to an 800 mgp bike that cost like a million times more is a bit off base imo. to back up your point see if you can find a wild card mgp pic of spies banked right over. And as others have said, tyres play a big part, make and size. am i right in saying that wsb bikes use 17" and mgp are using 16.5" ??

No, in that you are wrong, in the rest you are right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Oct 21 2009, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>In the first posted pics of Stoner and Rossi both were in fairly banked corners. You have to subtract the angle of the corner to get the true lean angle which is less than it looks...which is obvious and like Rog stated the opposite is true with off camber corners. Think barrel racing and you'll get it. They may be horizontal to the ground but they are perpendicular to the surface which means they aren't leaning at all.

Even with all the banking the lean angle can only be described as startling. Then to drift on top of that is just superhuman no matter who does it.
I understand what you are trying to say but you are missing one key factor to this formula. Gravity. Gravity doesnt care that the corner is banked or not. What I am saying is after 90 degrees from upright to the ground, gravity will drop you or leave you unable to pick the bike back up regardless of the amount of banking. Anyone understand what I am trying to say? I am having a hard time wording it. So lean angle should always be consider from the ground not the bank. The banking makes them corner sharper with less angle but they still can only get the same amount of lean as the would on flat ground, which are the corners they stay in more of a tuck in.

Newton told me all of this in my sleep last night. Its just to bad I was high and don't remember what he said. Was he lying to me? Or does someone who maybe can word what I am trying to say better agree with me?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MdubSTYLIE @ Oct 22 2009, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I understand what you are trying to say but you are missing one key factor to this formula. Gravity. Gravity doesnt care that the corner is banked or not. What I am saying is after 90 degrees from upright to the ground, gravity will drop you or leave you unable to pick the bike back up regardless of the amount of banking. Anyone understand what I am trying to say? I am having a hard time wording it. So lean angle should always be consider from the ground not the bank. The banking makes them corner sharper with less angle but they still can only get the same amount of lean as the would on flat ground, which are the corners they stay in more of a tuck in.

Newton told me all of this in my sleep last night. Its just to bad I was high and don't remember what he said. Was he lying to me? Or does someone who maybe can word what I am trying to say better agree with me?
yeah i understand, you would be beyond the point of return. besides i think you would run out of tyre well before that

Casey is fast. Rossi is fast. Spies is fast. Each one of them has different body shapes and sizes.
Even if they all attempted to ride using the same style, it would look different.

Casey is 60kg at 171cm
Rossi is 67kg at 182cm
Spies is 73kg at 181cm

Yates is a whale.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Oct 22 2009, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not according to FerryMerry, they must all look like Stoner or they are wrong.

Ignorance is bliss. Morons are the happiest. FerryMachine is one happy mothafucka.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nghiemlong @ Oct 21 2009, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Everything from Jumkie is to defend riders from USA. As Hayden is languishing from 2006, Jumkie attacks everyone to defend Hayden: Rossi, Stoner, Pedro, Lorenzo... and the Jumkie's latest hope is Spies. Then he now state that WSBK guys is as talented as MotoGP guys.

MotoGP is the miracle of 2 wheels motosport so it's clear that most people consider that MotoGP guys are considered better by than guys from any other series. In the last 10 years there are many evidence: MotoGP aged and jobless riders go to WSBK and doing well. In contrast every WSBK world champ want to race in MotoGP. That's the fact.
And examples of these uber-successful GP refugees are? Biaggi has had a few wins, but has proven to be no more successful than he was in Grand Prix. Barros couldn't even secure a top ride in WSBK. Checa has been about as successful as he was when he rode a Marlboro Yamaha, and he's had two seasons with a Ten Kate Honda. The MotoGP refugees are getting paychecks riding in WSBK because of their pedigree. Having former MotoGP riders raises the profile of WSBK and the teams that employ them. Sponsorship money. That's why there is such a demand for former MotoGP riders. It has nothing to do with talent. That's why many of these refugees get their factory WSBK ride for a season or two and then ultimately get relegated to satellite teams.

MotoGP is home to the top handful of riders, the top engineers, top techs, the fastest and most advanced motorcycles in the world. No argument about that. However, after that top handful of riders, I think you'll find that there isn't a massive chasm between rider talent as you infer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Oct 23 2009, 01:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It really doesn't matter FerryMachine, because you would need to know a thing or two about physics to understand. You posted a picture of Casey with elbows down yet your previous argument was this is not the "body language of speed". You don't even realize how contradictory you are. This is why I don't normally debate you, because I get as far as debating a brick wall. In your case, a bit more dense.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Oct 23 2009, 01:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Are you 12 years old or just stupid? (Surely its one or the other, because your conclusion are about as noteworthy as the top scorer in a ........ class).


Great, we now have a Pinky, Tom, Supershit and BarryMerry, all rolled up into one=Nghiemoron.



You need to stop what you are doing JUm. take a few months off ..... go fishing ....... then come back






Being a tad churlish there lately Jum ........ The "namey calley" stuff is pretty "special"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Oct 22 2009, 10:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>yeah i understand, you would be beyond the point of return. besides i think you would run out of tyre well before that



That's mean lean beyond the point of no return

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MdubSTYLIE @ Oct 22 2009, 08:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Gravity

Inertia?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VHMP01 @ Oct 22 2009, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>

That's mean lean beyond the point of no return

That is totally ill. It staggers the mind to think that this is not a picture
of a rider falling. Really looks like he's defying physics. Somebody alert
Tom.

Can't remember anyone leaning to overcome gravity...

Geez, all this discussion of apples and gravity, sticky tyres and elbow down and not one mention of this - astounds me

Colin Edwards - elbow down video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wsg70jTYvI






Gaz