Rider X speaks out about the ills in Motogp

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jul 16 2008, 04:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The 990s represented just that, too much power for most, and only top riders can put them through the paces.....the 800s are more of a 600 type machine....in the end, you are wrong...i'm just shocked you being older than dirt that you have not learned this

ah you dumbassed little ....! ...... you don't equate cc's to speed! ..... what are you on curve! ...... so a 1,000 is going to be the bike you would chose out of a showroom to do all circuits on ? If a showroom bike can be called fast. Don't forget since the first R1 all R1's have been electronically spped limitted .... well they are here in Aust ...... so its a pretty stupid choice for a showroom bike!



Edit: Get off the dope and read "ALL" of my posts! ...... I said I have been riding for 39 years ..... and I wasn't born riding! ..... read that bit again ......

someone hasnt had their morning bowl of grape nuts

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 15 2008, 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>ah you dumbassed little ....! ...... you don't equate cc's to speed! ..... what are you on curve! ...... so a 1,000 is going to be the bike you would chose out of a showroom to do all circuits on ? If a showroom bike can be called fast. Don't forget since the first R1 all R1's have been electronically spped limitted .... well they are here in Aust ...... so its a pretty stupid choice for a showroom bike!

What a ....... moron you are....."cc's don't equate to speed"
you completely lost the point...lay off the meth.

The 990s in Moto GP were like 1000cc sport bikes...big boy bikes....the most difficult bikes race (4 stroke era)

The new 800s are like 600s...small and gay such as yourself.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Edit: Get off the dope and read "ALL" of my posts! ...... I said I have been riding for 39 years ..... and I wasn't born riding! ..... read that bit again ......

edit: YOU riding .... for 39 years doesn't count style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/.....gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (djm @ Jul 15 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>you're missing his point is all.
no. I'm not missing his point. I understand it perfectly. He's trying to say that traction control is not definable, and therefore not explainable. Which is rubbish.

AFAIK, not many people have been on a MotoGP bike. The Duc Desmo 990 is the only one to reach consumer production, right? If there is a bike with GP level traction control, please point me to it. I'd love to ride it and get this dispute sorted.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jul 15 2008, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The 990s in Moto GP were like 1000cc sport bikes...big boy bikes....the most difficult bikes race (4 stroke era)
The new 800s are like 600s...small and gay such as yourself.
can't disagree with that

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Dude, just because you may not have a firm grasp of what TC means doesn't mean that others don't. I feel like deep down you are just unwilling to admit that TC is a lousy rider aid that is hurting the sport, but that its also a system that is easily defined.
Whether on two wheels or four, its the same thing.....check it out.

Firstly I understand traction control systems fairly well, so you aren't teaching me anything here. Secondly the usefullness of TC and its effect on the sport are matters of opinion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>no. I'm not missing his point. I understand it perfectly. He's trying to say that traction control is not definable, and therefore not explainable. Which is rubbish.

My point is that not everyone uses the term "traction control" in the same sense. For example i read something written by Leon Haslams cheif engineer recently who insisted that the 2006 BSB fireblade did not have any traction control, just anti-spin. Now some people, msyself included would believe that an anti-spin mechanism is included under the term traction control, yet a proffessional race engineer uses the term differently. You do not KNOW how Suppo feels about this, so you do not KNOW exactly what rider aids Sylvain was and wasn't using in the GP.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 15 2008, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Firstly I understand traction control systems fairly well, so you aren't teaching me anything here. Secondly the usefullness of TC and its effect on the sport are matters of opinion.
Tom, I consider you one of the more informed people on this forum, because I find a lot of your posts very informative. But if you understand these systmes how can you seriously expect me to believe that you think the usefullness of TC in motorcycle racing isn't easily quantifiable. Of course these guys are going to be faster with a TC setup that fits them. How could they not be? Who's faster, a Rossi or Dani or Casey that spins up out of every corner because he loses his concentration, or a Rossi, Dani or Casey that have a TC system to back them up?
I agree that the 'effect' on the sport may be a matter of opinion. Personally, I think its subtracting from the sport, its making it far to easy too ride at this level of machine these days, which goes a long way toward explaining instant top class success of a lot of new rookies.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>no. I'm not missing his point. I understand it perfectly. He's trying to say that traction control is not definable, and therefore not explainable. Which is rubbish.

not my take on what he is saying.

we've been dealign with the TC issue for awhile in the states. mladin / suzuki have been border- line "cheating" for some time before ama opened up the rules to allow it.

TC can be used differently to acheive similar results. I.E wheel sensor to match front / rear wheel speed. engine management (think KIMS), to limit rear wheel slip. then it sounds like we are getting pretty damn funky in GP with the bike knowing exactly where it is on the track by use of GPS possibly, and having the bike change per turn. (just wow btw). i'm sure there is more...

anyway, i don't take Tom as saying TC is not definable. i believe his original post to be that by suppo saying TC was "off", it could have been any one of many things on the bike. that is ALL.

i took suppo saying TC was off to mean just that. TC was ....... OFF! nothing. zero. zip.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jul 15 2008, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>ah you dumbassed little ....! ...... you don't equate cc's to speed! ..... what are you on curve! ...... so a 1,000 is going to be the bike you would chose out of a showroom to do all circuits on ? If a showroom bike can be called fast. Don't forget since the first R1 all R1's have been electronically spped limitted .... well they are here in Aust ...... so its a pretty stupid choice for a showroom bike!



Edit: Get off the dope and read "ALL" of my posts! ...... I said I have been riding for 39 years ..... and I wasn't born riding! ..... read that bit again ......
just because someone says the 990's were better than the 800's doesn't mean they equate cc to speed.. your a bullshitter bm, i sust you out on that ages ago. you talk .... and hide behind an internet false persona. when i said you and pinky were one of the same it was an insult you thick .... ! now .... off and .... over some more stoner pictures

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 15 2008, 02:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>My point is that not everyone uses the term "traction control" in the same sense. For example i read something written by Leon Haslams cheif engineer recently who insisted that the 2006 BSB fireblade did not have any traction control, just anti-spin. Now some people, msyself included would believe that an anti-spin mechanism is included under the term traction control, yet a proffessional race engineer uses the term differently. You do not KNOW how Suppo feels about this, so you do not KNOW exactly what rider aids Sylvain was and wasn't using in the GP.
That comment could be taken out of context. If you have that article, I'd love to read it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jul 15 2008, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Because THATS what is used in competition world wide. 600s and 1000s, and now 1200 Ducati.

how many ....... ZX1400 and Busa's do you see in WSBK, or AMA, or BSB, Isle of man etc etc...are you sure you're 39, ride, AND follow motorcycle road racing?
Your ....... deficient little brain is confusing cause and effect.

Even if we went back to the 990s, the electronics have moved farther ahead now.. it may just be the same as the 800s.

I think we should ditch the electronics, a controlled ECU is not the answer either it would just make the bikes even more similar and no overtaking.

The tyres however i think this is one area thats always been advancing well before electronics came into play and this is the only thing i think we should leave well alone.

As electronics can be so integrated and hidden into the bikes, i think a Parc Ferme like F1 would be a good solution.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (djm @ Jul 15 2008, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>not my take on what he is saying.

we've been dealign with the TC issue for awhile in the states. mladin / suzuki have been border- line "cheating" for some time before ama opened up the rules to allow it.

TC can be used differently to acheive similar results. I.E wheel sensor to match front / rear wheel speed. engine management (think KIMS), to limit rear wheel slip. then it sounds like we are getting pretty damn funky in GP with the bike knowing exactly where it is on the track by use of GPS possibly, and having the bike change per turn. (just wow btw). i'm sure there is more...

anyway, i don't take Tom as saying TC is not definable. i believe his original post to be that by suppo saying TC was "off", it could have been any one of many things on the bike. that is ALL.

i took suppo saying TC was off to mean just that. TC was ....... OFF! nothing. zero. zip.
I hear you man. I take issue on this because some people seem unwilling to acknowledge that TC is a system. Regardless of how it works, its sole purpose is to aid the rider through whatever means it can to stop the rear wheel from spinning. Period. To me, Tom was saying that because we can't define what a TC system is comprised of, then we can't define what it does....which is not something I agree with.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That comment could be taken out of context. If you have that article, I'd love to read it.

It was written on another forum in no uncertain terms i can assure you. I only visited it by chance and i unfortunately doub't i'd be able to find the forum now, let alone the topic, sorry. The point which i have been trying to make for a while now is that not everyone uses the term "traction control" to describe the same systems. Personaly i feel, like you do that TC is very easily definable but how a term is defined and how it is commonly used often differ.

As for your previous reply regarding my comment about the usefulness of TC, I wrote that because you reffered to it as a "lousy" rider aid whereas i would consider it a formidable tool in modern racing. I'd also like to add that the "instant top class success" of a lot of the rookies is very much a myth. Riders may get to grips with the bikes marginally faster than in the past (if at all) but considering the huge increase in testing undertaken that is hardly surprising. Furthermore rookies achievements in the 4 stroke era have been insignificantly different from those of rookies over the last 15-20 years of the two stroke era.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mattsteg @ Jul 15 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Your ....... deficient little brain is confusing cause and effect.

Hey .........if i wanted .... from you i'd scrape it off my boot. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/.....gif And go learn the definition of cause and effect from a book, not from The Matrix ....shitdip.