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

rider? machine? which one is more important for the championship?

Bike : Rider

  • 9:1

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 8:2

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 7:3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 6:4

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 5:5 or rider affects more

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
J

Johnny46

Joined Nov 2010
2 Posts | 0+
Some F1 experts say there are 8:2(maybe 7:3) machine is more affect for the race winning and championship than driver.



What about MotoGP?



What if Rossi, Lorenzo, Stoner and Pedrosa takes Suzuki or private MotoGP team bike?



Maybe Rossi would be exception? hahaha



Cause he already made it with Yamaha's disadvantage in 2004.



But he strggled first 800cc in 2006 and 2007 and finally missed Championship.(2007 also had Michelin problem)



And as you guys know Rossi really struggled on the Ducati at Valencia even very first time though.



Anyway what do you guys think about this?



Maybe MotoGP rider's affection is bigger than F1 drivers for there race winning and championship?



Sorry for poor english hope you guys understand. : )
 
Johnny46 said:
Some F1 experts say there are 8:2(maybe 7:3) machine is more affect for the race winning and championship than driver.



What about MotoGP?



What if Rossi, Lorenzo, Stoner and Pedrosa takes Suzuki or private MotoGP team bike?



Maybe Rossi would be exception? hahaha



Cause he already made it with Yamaha's disadvantage in 2004.



But he strggled first 800cc in 2006 and 2007 and finally missed Championship.(2007 also had Michelin problem)



And as you guys know Rossi really struggled on the Ducati at Valencia even very first time though.



Anyway what do you guys think about this?



Maybe MotoGP rider's affection is bigger than F1 drivers for there race winning and championship?



Sorry for poor english hope you guys understand. : )
Click to expand...



In F1 the car is fundamental, i agree its probably like 7:3 or 8:2. Alonso allmost won this years drivers title in an inferior car but it's a stretch for anyone, so generally the best of the two drivers with the best car will win. In Motogp i think the rider is more important than the bike, but only to an extent.



I don't think any of the Aliens would win the title with a Suzuki, but with the best riders (rightfully) all the main front running bikes i think the rider can make the difference between winning the title and not. Like you said Rossi in 04, and Stoner in 07 are good examples of that.
 
I don't think it is possible to make a blanket statement about the ratio of machine to human required to win. You could stick an average Driver in the best F1 car and they won't win. The same applies to motorbike racing.



I think the ratio needs to be based on an individual rider and an individual machine. For example if you took the top 4 riders in MotoGP and stuck them all on a Ducati, it would appear that only 1 of them would have a chance of winning. On the next day you could stick all 4 on a Yamaha and it would probably be a lottery who would win.



This suggests on one hand that the machine has a big impact in MotoGP but it also indicates that in some situations the rider has the biggest impact.



You could look further and put them all on a Suzuki at the start of the season and if you took a poll on who would win the first race I think the overwhelming response would be one rider. But then if you asked who would be winning at the end of the season as a result of development you would overwhelmingly get a different rider.



I think that if a bike is crap then to win it is a huge percent the rider but in a loss the bike carries the bigger percentage. When the bike is very good the win swings the percentage in favour of the bike and the loss lies on the shoulders of the rider.



Jeez I think I just made a case for bike racing to not be a science!!! Hey lex!
 
Mental Anarchist said:
I don't think it is possible to make a blanket statement about the ratio of machine to human required to win. You could stick an average Driver in the best F1 car and they won't win. The same applies to motorbike racing.



I think the ratio needs to be based on an individual rider and an individual machine. For example if you took the top 4 riders in MotoGP and stuck them all on a Ducati, it would appear that only 1 of them would have a chance of winning. On the next day you could stick all 4 on a Yamaha and it would probably be a lottery who would win.



This suggests on one hand that the machine has a big impact in MotoGP but it also indicates that in some situations the rider has the biggest impact.



You could look further and put them all on a Suzuki at the start of the season and if you took a poll on who would win the first race I think the overwhelming response would be one rider. But then if you asked who would be winning at the end of the season as a result of development you would overwhelmingly get a different rider.



I think that if a bike is crap then to win it is a huge percent the rider but in a loss the bike carries the bigger percentage. When the bike is very good the win swings the percentage in favour of the bike and the loss lies on the shoulders of the rider.



Jeez I think I just made a case for bike racing to not be a science!!! Hey lex!
Click to expand...



What he said. Bottomline, if you are not on the best all around bike, you're not gonna win, even if you are the best racer in the world.
 
Jumkie said:
What he said. Bottomline, if you are not on the best all around bike, you're not gonna win, even if you are the best racer in the world.
Click to expand...



How do you come to that conclusion? I'm not starting, i just think this is another good topic for discussion. In 2007 it was a popular opinion that Stoner had the best bike, yet in 2004 it was common to believe Rossi did not have the best bike. However if you look at both of those seasons they are very similar. Speaking of 2007, you could even try to construct an argument that the Suzuki was a potentially title winning machine had the riders been right. But as you know and often remind us, there is often more to it than meets the eye
 
I totally agree with Tom said "all the main front running bikes i think the rider can make the difference "



Maybe that's the point.



Cause M1, RC212V and GP10 fatory machines are almost same level of perfomance.



In that case absolutely rider makes difference.



But what if Rossi on the Tech3(maybe strong enough?haha) or Suzuki(2010) bike or Interwetten and other competitors are on the factory bike?



I reckon even Rossi or Lorenzo couldn't make Championship winning.(maybe 1-2 race win? cause they are Alien?)



That's why I think bike is more important between those extremely high ability "The Alien" riders competition.



No more tire difference at this moment but in the past tire choice is also a part of bike and as you know it makes huge difference so it also means bike is more affect for the result, isn't it?
 
Johnny46 said:
Cause M1, RC212V and GP10 fatory machines are almost same level of perfomance.
Click to expand...



Gee we have just seen, rather dramatically
<
, that this is not the case.



For what reason do you "fly in the face of reason" on this one?



After all if it is the case then Rossi must be one hell of a bad rider ?
<
.... or at least very inconsistent.
<
<
 
I never was a advocate of generic comments such as JB made with the 80/20 thingo.



I think its a much more comlex equation that that, based mostly around the rider still though, not so much the machine.



Not sure I would ever venture to put a figure on it though
<
 
I think in motogp rider is much more important than the drivers in f1.

I dont know how much percent goes to which one, but i believe that top rider's will shine even if they have the worst bike, they will make it look better.
 
Biaggi says its all about the machine





Max Biaggi: Yeah. It's no problem to admit that, for sure. I'm much more me now than seven, eight years ago. Because I proved that I can fight even with the big, strong people, but seven years ago, sometimes it was impossible to fight with the giants. When you have a giant against you, not just because he's better than you, but because he has much more than you, and it's difficult to control this. Maybe it's the same reason why Milandri moved to Superbikes. Who knows? Ask him. But MotoGP is more up to the package than to the rider's ability, that's for sure.
 
povol said:
Biaggi says its all about the machine





Max Biaggi: Yeah. It's no problem to admit that, for sure. I'm much more me now than seven, eight years ago. Because I proved that I can fight even with the big, strong people, but seven years ago, sometimes it was impossible to fight with the giants. When you have a giant against you, not just because he's better than you, but because he has much more than you, and it's difficult to control this. Maybe it's the same reason why Milandri moved to Superbikes. Who knows? Ask him. But MotoGP is more up to the package than to the rider's ability, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


Expect an onslaught of peeps telling us just how wrong he is. Bannished from GP, who did he piss off??
 
xx CURVE xx said:
80% rider 20% bike...end of thread, move along, nothing to see here.
Click to expand...





Even though I never subscribed to JB's estimate there, and knowing he made the comment about Mick Doohan specifically
<
...



I'd like to point out to you Curve that that equation then puts 80% of blame of all losses ( or failures to win
<
<
) on the rider too
<
<
<
 
Marco Melandri



"In MotoGP there is no chance of being a protagonist if you don't have the right bike or you're not in the right team, in Superbike things are different. There it's the rider that makes all the difference and that's exactly what I'm looking for after a few disappointing seasons."





Thats Biaggi and Melandri saying virtually the exact same thing.
 
povol said:
Marco Melandri



"In MotoGP there is no chance of being a protagonist if you don't have the right bike or you're not in the right team, in Superbike things are different. There it's the rider that makes all the difference and that's exactly what I'm looking for after a few disappointing seasons."





Thats Biaggi and Melandri saying virtually the exact same thing.
Click to expand...



The script is written in GP. Thats why i think that ranking is ......... Peeps look at raw standings and make conclusions. Put everybody on a Ducati, and u would get a better picture of who the "aliens" are, and i seriously doubt the other 3 supposed "aliens" would be in top 5. KRJR basically said what Biaggi & Melandri said, that is, its all like a reality show, the ignorant spectators think theyre seeing real drama while the producers write the script. Hav u ever sat with a casual spectator to watch a race? That how alot of peeps act here. Melandi also said, there are no "aliens" alluding to package. But i disagree, if anybody is an "alien" it Stoner only. I also doubt Pedro & Lorenzo would fair any better than Rossi did. But im convinced, u put Stoner on Yamaha and he'd make them look as silly as he did Pedro & Dovi. I know u disagree, but if Spies & Nicky traded bikes, i'd bet a year's paycheck u would see what Nicky is made of. Hes biggest crime was to honestly compete in a dishonest series. The dumb ....... tries so hard because he honestly thinks he has a chance.
 
Jumkie said:
The script is written in GP. Thats why i think that ranking is ......... Peeps look at raw standings and make conclusions. Put everybody on a Ducati, and u would get a better picture of who the "aliens" are, and i seriously doubt the other 3 supposed "aliens" would be in top 5. KRJR basically said what Biaggi & Melandri said, that is, its all like a reality show, the ignorant spectators think theyre seeing real drama while the producers write the script. Hav u ever sat with a casual spectator to watch a race? That how alot of peeps act here. Melandi also said, there are no "aliens" alluding to package. But i disagree, if anybody is an "alien" it Stoner only. I also doubt Pedro & Lorenzo would fair any better than Rossi did. But im convinced, u put Stoner on Yamaha and he'd make them look as silly as he did Pedro & Dovi. I know u disagree, but if Spies & Nicky traded bikes, i'd bet a year's paycheck u would see what Nicky is made of. Hes biggest crime was to honestly compete in a dishonest series. The dumb ....... tries so hard because he honestly thinks he has a chance.
Click to expand...



Careful there Jumkie, old son, you,re even out-boppering the Stoner-boppers there! I,d like to think Casey is a class above, but there is not enough evidence there yet( and Lorenzo is pretty bloody good) . The testing times give a clue, but still not enough . I think you,re half right- Rossi, although the best rider of all time, is not quite as good as his record suggests, and is not as good as he used to be. Lorenzo , on the same bike, was beating him, even before Rossi was injured. I see the next decade as Stoner-Lorenzo battle-royale. Spies is brilliant, but is he brilliant enough to challenge those two. Pedrosa is close , but not close enough, and Rossi has started his decline. 2011 will be ugly for him. Hayden will outpoint him in the first half of the season. What is interesing about you Jumkie, is that as a Hayden fan ( and an independent arbiter on Stoner) , you have become Caseys strongest advocate on this forum. That is quite an achievement! ( A cynic might say that to build up Haydens profile, you must paint Stoner as an alien amongst aliens, but I would never say that !)
<
 
The original contemporary usage of the term "alien" stemmed from Rossi saying that Stoner was "from another world", during a winning streak he had in 07 or 08.
 

Similar threads

#22
Top 10 MotoGP rider moves of the MotoGP era.
Replies
23
Views
1K
#22
#22
J
There Can Be Only One docuseries pretty underwhelming
Replies
12
Views
721
PRS717
P
#22
David Emmet: A peek into the soul of Marc Marquez
Replies
20
Views
2K
#22
#22
M
Repsol Fires Warning Shot At MSMA
Replies
22
Views
3K
Barbedwirebikerr
Barbedwirebikerr
M
Motorcycle Racing Industry: Reading the Tea Leaves
Replies
44
Views
3K
Hollywood
Hollywood

Recent Discussions