I probably should let this go, and say that we agree to disagree. But what the hell, it's off-season!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Nov 15 2006, 05:27 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I was more thinking about the corner entry slides rather than the slides out of the corner. Not much two wheel slides there. When you don't have to worry about the engine control, crappy frame or tires you worry about a hole sett of new things instead. You narrow the margines, a lot, and have a much higher corner entry speed.
BTW, I'm not trying to argue like a lawyer here, and trap you on a turn of phrase, or twist your words. Picking through your statements and then reading your responses helps me to learn more, and disagree with you at the same time!
So engine (throttle?): no problem, frame: no problem, tyres: no problem. What is there left to worry about exactly? From what you've said I can't see much beyond being accurate on corner entry, because the speed is much higher. And I'm assuming that means you have to pick your lines a lot more carefully. (This would also suggest that corners only have one possible or optimal line--and I have heard riders this year talk about it sometimes being hard to overtake bikes that are evenly matched... sounds a bit too much like F1
).
Since riders can brake so much later now because the brakes will pull them up in a much shorter distance, they arrive at the corner with a higher terminal speed and today's tyres--offering so much grip even at extreme lean angles--allow the riders to turn it in to the corners at the speeds they do. Trusting your brakes and tyres that much would take some getting used to, but obviously it's a learnable skill.
The same goes for corner entry slides. I first noticed two wheel slides on corner entry in WSBK in the late 90s. Actually, the guy in my avatar, Aaron Slight, did it a lot, especially when he was riding for Honda. I don't know if he was the first, or even the most effective at the time, but commentators often expressed amazement at the way he was consistently sliding the front. So it's not exactly a new idea (although, to be fair, you weren't necessarily arguing that it was).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Nov 15 2006, 05:27 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Maybe [the old guys could do it]. I'm not so sure or at least I'm quite sure the pre Roberts Sr. period wouldn't.
Maybe we're just looking at it from different parameters. Why couldn't a Sheene, a Hailwood, a Surtees, etc. adapt and be able to do what Pedrosa, Melandri, Rossi, etc. do now?
To put it another way, there's a been a lot of talk about how the switch to the 800s will advantage or disadvantage certain riders, how they'll all go about adapting and so on. It won't be a factor in the championship. The same speculation happened in 2002 with the switch to 4-strokes, but, as it turned out, the same guys who were fast in 2001 on 500s were fast in 2002 on the 990s. Here's the top ten from both years (the numbers in brackets show where they finished outside of the top ten in opposite years):
2001
1. Rossi
2. Biaggi
3. Capirossi
4. Barros
5. Nakano (11)
6. Checa
7. Abe
8. Criville (retired)
9. Gibernau (16)
10. Ukawa
2002
1. Rossi
2. Biaggi
3. Ukawa
4. Barros
5. Checa
6. Abe
7. Kato (250s)
8. Capirossi
9. Roberts (11)
10. Jacque (15)
Sure there were some other factors at play (different stages of career for riders, not everyone had the 4-stokes for a lot of 2002, etc.) but overall it shows that the more things change the more they stay the same. Cream always rises to the top, and 100 other cliches that I could quote until the cows come home.
To sum up this long-winded post (as I've stated before): if you're a champion in one era you'd likely be a champion in another era. The best of the best have the determination, the focus, the talent and are quite capable of adapting and would find a way to go fast whatever class and/or characteristics the bike has.
