Rider X speaks out about the ills in Motogp

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jul 15 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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.

Interestingly i've heard Julian ryder say more than once that motogp engineers biggest challenge in the 800cc era has been the fuel limit. Without it the bikes would have power characteristics very similar to the 990's and there has in fact been no serious jump in the use of traction control, just the usual steady development.

I have also read interesting articles recently regarding both controlled or majorly conformed technology, and tyre advancement with respect to its impact on racing. They speculated that forcing vehicles to be as similar as possible (think spec parts, F1 type engine restrictions and the close Qualifying times we see these day) actually makes the racing worse by decreasing the areas where a difference is big enough to gain an advantage and critically, pass a competitor.

On the tyre thing there was a decent argument put forward to suggest that adavnced and very specific tyres are a major drawback in racing and perhaps a major step backwards in this department could solve a lot of the issues that fans commonly complain about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jul 15 2008, 12:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kngadrok @ Jul 15 2008, 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>
not for you big C, this is for the .......

im high, time for a nap

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kngadrok @ Jul 15 2008, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>not for you big C, this is for the .......

I know. I hated to do it..but he asked for it

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 15 2008, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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.
So how can a system be easily definable but then have "how its defined" be hard? I still think that based on this discussion, we should be able to agree that the overall purpose of TC is the same. Therefore if a "traction control" system is turned OFF....regardless of what we've said, that would mean...no matter how you slice it, that there is LESS aid to the rider in terms of limiting wheel slip? Correct?
This being said, when was the last time a rookie like Lorenzo jumped on a bike and won a GP in his first few attempts? Something's gotta give and it has nothing to do with more testing time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>C'mon man.....Isn't that a little like saying "he rode with NO exhaust"...and then responding "you will not be able to know exactly what he was referring to with the term 'exhaust'?".....TC is TC....it is what it is........

Gold.



Tommy is a guy who has successfully argued that Kevin Swchantz is "over-rated", the .... is, he's only convinced himself he is right. Welcome to the logic vacuum.






(I had you all wrong Doc, you're cool by me man.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So how can a system be easily definable but then have "how its defined" be hard? I still think that based on this discussion, we should be able to agree that the overall purpose of TC is the same. Therefore if a "traction control" system is turned OFF....regardless of what we've said, that would mean...no matter how you slice it, that there is LESS aid to the rider in terms of limiting wheel slip? Correct?
This being said, when was the last time a rookie like Lorenzo jumped on a bike and won a GP in his first few attempts? Something's gotta give and it has nothing to do with more testing time.

I don't think there is any doubt that Sylvain was riding with less to aid his traction, but to what extent that is true we cannot know.

As for a Rider winning in his first few races, this does happen from time to time. But if you look actually look at rookies results (and i have) then you'll see that there has been little change since the 2 - strokes died.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jul 15 2008, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tommy is a guy who has successfully argued that Kevin Swchantz is "over-rated"

the amusing thing you overlook in this subject is that the perception of someone being over-rated is fundamentally based on how i feel they are rated by others. It's quite possible i mis-understand exactly what others feel about him. Not that it's important right now, if you have any input into the discussion at hand then please dig in.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jul 15 2008, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Gold.



Tommy is a guy who has successfully argued that Kevin Swchantz is "over-rated", the .... is, he's only convinced himself he is right. Welcome to the logic vacuum.






(I had you all wrong Doc, you're cool by me man.)
lol....."logic vacuum"....love it!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 15 2008, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't think there is any doubt that Sylvain was riding with less to aid his traction, but to what extent that is true we cannot know.

As for a Rider winning in his first few races, this does happen from time to time. But if you look actually look at rookies results (and i have) then you'll see that there has been little change since the 2 - strokes died.
I think the term 'OFF', 'WITHOUT', and 'NONE' are pretty definitive is all. If Suppo had said that Sylvain was riding with 'a little less' or 'not much' then we'd have room for debate on that point for sure.
Admittedly, I don't look at those stats, I just look at the each season on the whole, and in the past couple years, riders moving up are now instantly front runners in the grand scale. Is this a sign that newer riders are 'better' and adapt quicker....maybe....but you could easily argue that the constant evolution in technology ie TC is making the adjustment period null and therefore new riders are able to achieve more NOTABLE performances quicker. Take Stoner for example, I think the kids got the heart of a lion, he doesn't fear anyone, but is he benefiting from the new age of electronics......... yeah he is.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 08:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think the term 'OFF', 'WITHOUT', and 'NONE' are pretty definitive is all. If Suppo had said that Sylvain was riding with 'a little less' or 'not much' then we'd have room for debate on that point for sure.
Admittedly, I don't look at those stats, I just look at the each season on the whole, and in the past couple years, riders moving up are now instantly front runners in the grand scale. Is this a sign that newer riders are 'better' and adapt quicker....maybe....but you could easily argue that the constant evolution in technology ie TC is making the adjustment period null and therefore new riders are able to achieve more NOTABLE performances quicker. Take Stoner for example, I think the kids got the heart of a lion, he doesn't fear anyone, but is he benefiting from the new age of electronics......... yeah he is.

Having explained it more than twice i'm beggining to feel like you aren't going to understand that i'm not suggesting that we cannot deffine words like "off" or "without". What i have explained, given examples and shown to you is that the term "traction control" is often used outside of its definition.

Stoner is benediting from the fact that he is dealing with the current circumstances in the motorcycling world better than anyone else (or was last year). New riders have been making an impact for years, Roberts was champion in his rookie season, Spencer was 3rd overall in his first season, as was Sarron, Daryl Beatie and Nobu Aoki. Biaggi won his very first race and was 2nd overall, Puig was 4th and Nakano was 5th. Recent times have seen Pedrosa and Stoner get 5th and 8th while Lorenzo is having a relatively huge impact, currently sitting 4th. Its not new though.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 15 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Having explained it more than twice i'm beggining to feel like you aren't going to understand that i'm not suggesting that we cannot deffine words like "off" or "without". What i have explained, given examples and shown to you is that the term "traction control" is often used outside of its definition.

Stoner is benediting from the fact that he is dealing with the current circumstances in the motorcycling world better than anyone else (or was last year).
DUDE! You're running in circles. You haven't explained the same thing once, nevermind twice. I understand that you are trying to say that people use the term TC interchangeably to describe different aspects of motorcycle control systems. But they all have the SAME end result...and that is to provide TRACTION instead of SLIPPING. Why the hell would I ask you to define the words; "off" or "without", that makes no sense. So, if you can define TC "easily" (your words), and we agree that in the end a traction control system, whatever the .... it means and regardless of confusion is something that limits wheel slipping, then saying that 'THAT' system is OFF would simply mean that the rider is performing more manual inputs to prevent wheel slip. PERIOD. So when Suppo said it was 'without TC'....its pretty clear that we don't need a concise definition to spell out the obvious......SYLVAIN HAD LESS HELP FROM THE BIKE!
With regards to Stoner, we need to define what the "current circumstances" are to say that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>DUDE! You're running in circles. You haven't explained the same thing once, nevermind twice. I understand that you are trying to say that people use the term TC interchangeably to describe different aspects of motorcycle control systems. But they all have the SAME end result...and that is to provide TRACTION instead of SLIPPING. Why the hell would I ask you to define the words; "off" or "without", that makes no sense. So, if you can define TC "easily" (your words), and we agree that in the end a traction control system, whatever the .... it means and regardless of confusion is something that limits wheel slipping, then saying that 'THAT' system is OFF would simply mean that the rider is performing more manual inputs to prevent wheel slip. PERIOD. So when Suppo said it was 'without TC'....its pretty clear that we don't need a concise definition to spell out the obvious......SYLVAIN HAD LESS HELP FROM THE BIKE!

With regards to Stoner, we need to define what the "current circumstances" are to say that.

Exactly!! LESS help, exactly how little help we cannot be sure. Although you and I seem to agree about the use of the various phrases, it is very possible that Suppo does not.

And the current circumstances do not need to be defined because these circumstances exist for all the riders, giving stoner no benefit over his rivals.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Doc 79 @ Jul 15 2008, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>DUDE! You're running in circles.
HAHAHAHAHA. Doc, do you remember when Bill ....... was being asked about his relationship with Monica? They asked him, 'Is your relationship with Monica sexual?' Do you remember his reply? Here it is: "It depends what your definition of is, is." Hahahahahaha, ....!

Tommy, this is why I don't bother to debate you. You stick your foot in mouth, then when you're called on it, you try to weasel your way out trying to split hair with a butter knife. Why don't you just say, yeah Doc, I think I might have screwed up instead of spending time trying to extricate your foot.

Here is what the article said on crash.net: LINK

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Sylvain Guintoli put the influence of electronics into perspective by claiming sixth in Sunday's soaking wet German Grand Prix - despite turning his traction control system off!

when a warning light alerted him to a problem with the traction control on his Desmosedici, prompting the Frenchman to switch it off for the remaining 28 laps.

Tom: ‘Well that’s just the report saying it was "OFF". Maybe the reporter was confused, eh. Maybe the rider said something else.’

Ok, hey Sylvain, what’s up, tell us what happened with that thing we call ‘traction control’.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>“But the race has gone much better, a pity only for the problem with the traction control: I preferred to switch it off”

Oh ....! It sounds like he said he “switched it off”.

Tom: ‘Well that depends what he meant by “OFF”.

I wonder why the reporter didn't put the mic back in Sylvain's face and ask him, hey, I don't think I understand you correctly, what do you mean by "traction control" and why use such an illusive word like "OFF"?

Hahahaha. I could see how you might be confused what the article was about since the title was sooo confusing: "Guintoli sixth without traction control!" ...., I’ve read some pretty silly .... on this form, but I’d say this is top notch stupidity. Again, why would anybody take what you got to say seriously Tom? You make yourself out to be an ...... Well there it is, how you gonna weasel you're way out now?

====

I don't really care about 990 or 800, and abstract principles of prototype racing and unfettered technological development leave me sceptic, since there is not going to be any unrestricted formula anyway....

But I love racing bikes. I always loved the sound they make when they come out of the corners, so I'm pretty sick now of hearing those wonderful engines coming out of corners screaming out of tune in evident delivery pains, sounding like something's wrong with the ignition while the rear tyre draws a sagged line as the TC delivers power / cuts it / delivers it / cuts it / delivers it / cuts it -- and so on...

Since no riders seem to really care about TC, but they apparently are all obliged to use it to avoid giving others the advantage, well - after all, it is probably better to ban it. Let's hope for next year.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Jul 15 2008, 07:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>My guess is that Rider X is actually Rossi.

^^^The English is too good to be Rossi.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 15 2008, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yea but its all relative. Obviously there is a massive amount of technical regulations for all sorts of reasons but the design freedom given is amongst the highest in motorsport today and that is great for the sport. A limit has to be drawn somewhere and it is, the difference is that the rules allow engineers to take different approaches to that limit rather than being forced to conform to the same thing like in so many other series' i can think of.

Why even bother answering when you have absolutly nothing to add?
I'll try again:
Why should the electronics not be regulated when almost every thing else is?
Add to that: This is new stuff, freedom that wasn't there for as little as 6 years ago.
From then on it went from a modest role in wet wether to a system that influence almost all aspects of the bike. Now it's suddenly imparative to keep that freedom that has expanded the last years to maintain the series as a "true" prototype series?
This does not make any sense at all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 15 2008, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Exactly!! LESS help, exactly how little help we cannot be sure. Although you and I seem to agree about the use of the various phrases, it is very possible that Suppo does not.

And the current circumstances do not need to be defined because these circumstances exist for all the riders, giving stoner no benefit over his rivals.

Sonds to me as if you are beating a dead horse Tom. TC is now tightly integrated with the traditional ECU but they still need both an off switch and an emergency short circuit of the TC as it can't be trusted with broken sensors. Edwards had an extrodinary experience this winter when the bike simply spat him off at the start of a braking down on a straight. That's exactly what failing TC kan do.
Sure, you could argue and it is possible to maintain parts of TC operation but I'm not convinced they have those programs tested thoroughly enough to trust a TC system with faulty input yet. But with a main input like wheel speed broken basically all the other TC parameters are usless.