This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Race 2 Gran Premio Motul de la República Argentina

Keshav

Keshav

Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
Next weekend.

Will Dovi continue to retain his race results and points? (Yes)

Will Dovi maintain his energy and focus and not begin his descent into mid-season blahs? Let's hope so.

Will Marquez adjust his riding style to effect fewer crashes and let that shoulder completely heal? Look for the race announcers to ask that question at least 4 times per race.

Will Quatararro blow minds? Fingers crossed.

Will Zarco be seen walking around the paddock muttering and kicking himself? Oh yeah.

Will Vinales look great in practice and then disappoint? You can take it to the bank gents.

Will Rins learn to save his tires and parley his talent into a podium? Yes please!

Will it be revealed that the race announcers who constantly gush every time Rossi is on camera are in fact getting a piece of his merchandising bonanza? Mmmm could be.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I'd like to see them all do well (well baring the t-shirt salesman).
However I don't want another slow, slow, quick, quick, slow race the last one was not good for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Theo said:
I'd like to see them all do well (well baring the t-shirt salesman). However I don't want another slow, slow, quick, quick, slow race the last one was not good for that.
Click to expand...

Copied from another site:

"Looking at race time over past several years, michlin vs bridgestones, shows that the overall race time is quicker under michlins and the closness of the field is much tighter as well.

In other words there is no such thing as a performance trade off for show. Total rubbish. We are treated to best of both worlds.

2019 = 42'36.9" -> 15 bikes within 15 seconds from winner
2018 = 42' 34.7" -> 11 bikes within 15 sec from winner
2017 = 39'0" -> 10 bikes within 15 sec from winner (20 laps not 22)
2016 = 42'28.5" -> 6 bikes within 15 sec from winner

2015 = 42'35.7" -> 9 bikes within 15 seconds from winner
2014 = 42'40.6 -> 5 bikes within 15 seconds from winner
2013 = 42'39.8" -> 4 bikes within 15 sec from winner
2012 = 42'44.2" -> 3 bikes within 15 sec from winner

Aprilia and KTM finished this years race +9.6 sec and +12.8 sec behind the winner respectively, compared to +34.7 sec and +31.7 sec the year before.

Comparison overall race time Aprilia finished 26 sec quicker than last year, and KTM 17 sec quicker, an improvement of 1.8 sec for Aprilia and 0.8 sec for KTM if averaged across the 22 laps."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Don't cry for me, Argentina. I be the Marc.

The Marc had quite the day, last year.

Let us not have a repeat of the amateur half-hour of officiating.


Jack was so cute. Like a good school boy.

motogp-argentina-marc-marquez-grid-start-fail-768x512.jpg


Clash-marc-marquez-vs-valentino-rossi-motogp-argentina-8-april-2018-marc-menyesal.jpg
 
Well things just got interesting. Honda went to Danny Aldrige yesterday morning with a winglet/scoop design exactly the same as Ducati's and asked for it to be homologated for their bikes this weekend. When they said it was for aero purposes it was rejected.

So, Ducati run a wing and 'say' it's for cooling.

Honda want to run a wing of exactly the same design but are refused. Where the hell is the consistency in that? They both have the sam TWO functions, cooling and aero yet Ducati's is allowed because of a word play?
 
#22 said:
Well things just got interesting. Honda went to Danny Aldrige yesterday morning with a winglet/scoop design exactly the same as Ducati's and asked for it to be homologated for their bikes this weekend. When they said it was for aero purposes it was rejected.

So, Ducati run a wing and 'say' it's for cooling.

Honda want to run a wing of exactly the same design but are refused. Where the hell is the consistency in that? They both have the sam TWO functions, cooling and aero yet Ducati's is allowed because of a word play?
Click to expand...

How do you know it's the same design? You're a assuming.
 
Here comes the Ducati defender again. Don't get so uptight.

I'm basing that that what the MotoGP technical director said:

Motorsport.com understands that a Honda representative approached Aldridge with a similar design for the team's bike on Thursday ahead of this weekend's Argentinian GP but homologation was refused when Aldridge was told the purpose of the device.
Click to expand...

Ok you can use semantics to disseminate between the words 'same' and 'similar' but the point is this:

Any wing, vane, deflector that is used to cool a rear tyre by passing air over said device, WILL ALSO PRODUCE DOWNFORCE. That is basic physics.

This issue here is Aprilia, and now Honda, have requested to run this deflector for aerodynamic purposes and were denied. Ducati, running the exact same deflector type device (in that the primary function is to deflect the flow of air), except they say it is for cooling the tyre, are allowed to run it. That is a hideous inconsistency in the interpretation of the rule.

Forced induction is outlawed in MotoGP, but for argument's sake lets say it wansn't. Turbocharging can increase power and fuel economy. So this is akin to Honda and Aprilia asking to run a turbocharger to increase power and being denied, but Ducati asking to run a turbocharger to increase fuel economy and it being allowed. A turbocharger increases power and increases fuel economy relative to displacement. A 'wing' can be used to deflect air but in doing so it will create downforce.
 
gui22a said:
How do you know it's the same design? You're a assuming.
Click to expand...

Every time you comment on technical issues you come off as a fool. So your brand use the word cooler to circumvent the rules and only present evidence of cooling. HRC & Aprilia who have already had a similar or same design got theirs rejected because they stated what the part actually does. If both HRC & Aprilia had stated the secondary function is the primary which is the less of the two functions, their aero would have been approve. Bottom line, Danny Aldridge is an .....! https://motomatters.com/analysis/2019/03/29/aero_wars_ignited_in_argentina_ducati.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
evo9 said:
Every time you comment on technical issues you come off as a fool. So your brand use the word cooler to circumvent the rules and only present evidence of cooling. HRC & Aprilia who have already had a similar or same design got theirs rejected because they stated what the part actually does. If both HRC & Aprilia had stated the secondary function is the primary which is the less of the two functions, their aero would have been approve. Bottom line, Danny Aldridge is an .....! https://motomatters.com/analysis/2019/03/29/aero_wars_ignited_in_argentina_ducati.html
Click to expand...

Aldridge is an ....., but so are all the people who work for Dorna, they are only interested in money and I expect they think that if Ducati win this year it will bring in more money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Aldridge is the loser here. His stubbornness has allowed Honda to paint him in a corner with nowhere to go. He looks more the fool every time he opens his mouth.
 
Gaz said:
So seems like HRC tried to homologate the aero a second time but stated a different purpose and guess what ........... Aldridge say OK, passed.

https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/honda-winglet-ducati-approved-aldridge/4361006/

HRC exposing the stupidity of the rule.

Sure some may whinge about HRC but for me, I am going to say outright ...... well played.
Click to expand...

povol said:
Aldridge is the loser here. His stubbornness has allowed Honda to paint him in a corner with nowhere to go. He looks more the fool every time he opens his mouth.
Click to expand...



It is absolutely hilarious! HRC told them Thursday the part is to generate down force, it got rejected. HRC brought back the same part Friday and said its to help stiffen the swing arm, it got approved!!!! SHOCKING

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/spor...otogp-teams-pushing-limits-on-spoiler-ruling/
 
"It matters more what we say about the spoiler than what it does" - Brivio

That's is for sure my friend. I don't know of any 5 minutes validating system of aerobodies, maybe they think it should exist a magical box / scanner where you put your object and in 5 minutes then "voila", it tells if it's ok or not.

Now that I have a clearer picture of the situation, it's feels really bizarre but there is no simple way to make aerodynamics rules. How Aldrige would know the exact effect of a piece? Since he has no tools to measure or analyse a part he has to believe what is said it does. There is no way to allege with absolutely sure what a piece of plastic can do solely looking at its shape because it's not mounted on the bike, there is no wind tunnels available and he won't draw the part in Recurdyn/ParticleWorks in five minutes to gather some simulation data. So he has to give faith to what is said from the manufacturer, the data they bring to show, whatever.

Even if he had refused Honda piece the 2nd time, Honda could bring an adulterated report "proving" the piece has been changed and "voilá". What difference it makes?

That's the nature of the thing, it's pretty complex physics to make a perfect ruling of everything in the sight of an eye.
 
gui22a said:
"It matters more what we say about the spoiler than what it does" - Brivio

That's is for sure my friend. I don't know of any 5 minutes validating system of aerobodies, maybe they think it should exist a magical box / scanner where you put your object and in 5 minutes then "voila", it tells if it's ok or not.

Now that I have a clearer picture of the situation, it's feels really bizarre but there is no simple way to make aerodynamics rules. How Aldrige would know the exact effect of a piece? Since he has no tools to measure or analyse a part he has to believe what is said it does. There is no way to allege with absolutely sure what a piece of plastic can do solely looking at its shape because it's not mounted on the bike, there is no wind tunnels available and he won't draw the part in Recurdyn/ParticleWorks in five minutes to gather some simulation data. So he has to give faith to what is said from the manufacturer, the data they bring to show, whatever.

Even if he had refused Honda piece the 2nd time, Honda could bring an adulterated report "proving" the piece has been changed and "voilá". What difference it makes?

That's the nature of the thing, it's pretty complex physics to make a perfect ruling of everything in the sight of an eye.
Click to expand...

As I've said all along just ban all aero devices fitted to a bike, problem solved.
 
Theo said:
As I've said all along just ban all aero devices fitted to a bike, problem solved.
Click to expand...

This or simply make it free for fly. I'm prone to it being free, manufacturers should do whatever they want with aero. There is no such way it will end up like F1, absolutely zero chance.

Imagine if aero had been banned 2 years ago. Ducati could not fight with MM, and the kid would have won everything.

This is a prototype racing, a rider + his bike racing, not a rider alone nor bike alone. If you constraint the rules too much, you'll end up with some kind of Marc Marquez winning the entire season (actually we are almost there). But if you get rid of some rules and make it free for development, other less skilled/talented (or older) riders can have a chance making up for the difference through their equipment.

MotoGP isn't WSBK. MotoGP isn't Moto 2. This constraints madness have to stop. Let the thing evole and the engineers fight each other for better ideas.
 

Similar threads

MdubSTYLIE
Gran Premio Motul de la República Argentina 2017
Replies
695
Views
74K
Gaz
G

Recent Discussions