Riders performace

On a given raceday and track, what factors influence riders performance and how much does each factor contribute.
An impossible question but still, can we find any common factors that contribute to the result?
Both this year and last year has been kind of strange. What made Stoner going from Crashy to years championship leader?
MRNG - Need I say more?
Rossi - Brilliant when things work, but way down the lists in other races.
Hayden - ...
I suggest keeping wet races out of it and major fuckups, like blown engines and unridable tires.

I came up with a list
1. General rider skill
2. Bike general performance (not including engine)
3. Bike engine performance
4. Riders track preferences
5. Bike/track compability
6. Form of the day for the rider
7. General trend of performance of the rider
8. Rider/bike compability
9. Rider/tire compability
10. Riders communication skills (to team)
11. The team
12. Tire track preferences

Add points if you want.
Anyone wants to put some percentage numbers behind them?
And last but not least, how much do these factors fluctuate?
Some are close to constant, others are changing all the time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 4 2007, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>On a given raceday and track, what factors influence riders performance and how much does each factor contribute.
10% all of the above
90% whats between the riders ears on the day.
You should know that

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skidmark @ Jun 5 2007, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>10% all of the above
90% whats between the riders ears on the day.
You should know that

Well, I don't know that, and thats why I ask. I suspect that the mental part is quite static, except for the points mentioned above.
It's not like Hayden forgot how to ride or have a mental breakdown, or Stoner suddenly learned how to ride.
It's all about a complex interaction between rider, bike, team, tires.
And that interaction and how well it works changes all the time.
My guess is the oposite: 90% the above, 10% whats betwen the riders ears.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 5 2007, 11:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>90% the above, 10% whats betwen the riders ears.I <u>strongly</u> disagree Fish but I'm busy right now. I'll be back later.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skidmark @ Jun 5 2007, 03:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>10% all of the above
90% whats between the riders ears on the day.
You should know that

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jun 4 2007, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>On a given raceday and track, what factors influence riders performance and how much does each factor contribute.
An impossible question but still, can we find any common factors that contribute to the result?
Both this year and last year has been kind of strange. What made Stoner going from Crashy to years championship leader?
MRNG - Need I say more?
Rossi - Brilliant when things work, but way down the lists in other races.
Hayden - ...
I suggest keeping wet races out of it and major fuckups, like blown engines and unridable tires.

I came up with a list
1. General rider skill
2. Bike general performance (not including engine)
3. Bike engine performance
4. Riders track preferences
5. Bike/track compability
6. Form of the day for the rider
7. General trend of performance of the rider
8. Rider/bike compability
9. Rider/tire compability
10. Riders communication skills (to team)
11. The team
12. Tire track preferences

Add points if you want.
Anyone wants to put some percentage numbers behind them?
And last but not least, how much do these factors fluctuate?
Some are close to constant, others are changing all the time.First of all, a quote from the master, Kevin Schwantz from the movie ‘Faster'....."I think 90% of motorcycle racing is between the ears”.....I have to say I fully agree with Kevin and I’m truly surprised that you only apportion 10% of a riders success on any given day to what’s between his ( or hers, sorry katja ) two ears, considering where you’re coming from and your experience fish.

To clarify, what I understand by ‘between the ears’ is where your head’s at, how you feel about the bike, your general ‘feeling’, In other words, how easily you analyse and process what you are experiencing, and how well you manage these processes at different parts of the circuit, without allowing yourself to be distracted. A state of mind.
I know this all sounds a bit transcendental ( use the force Luke ) but forget about technical specifics for a moment, I’m talking about something intangible, something that can't be bolted on, your mojo. You jump on the thing and straight away you’re fast. You’ve got your ‘head’ right. It just feels so good to you on that day, it's like everything is in slow motion. You can figure everything out so clearly as you ride around, like it's almost easy. Sure you’ve got to have other things working, you won’t win a 1000cc race on a 400, you won’t break any records in the wet on slick tyres, but over and above that, and this is the centre of my argument, what’s going on in the riders head, how he feels, how he processes what he sees and feels during a race, is what makes the difference between a good and bad day. The guys that can put themselves in that space, in that state of mind every weekend are the guys who become great racers. Keith Code has written a very successful book on the same subject. He even calls it 'The Soft Science of Road Racing', ‘soft’ as in it applies to your head, your brain, not tyres and forks and spanners, your head, or what’s between your two ears. I've read and studied the book for a couple of years, believe me it’s heavy going at first but it got me 2/3 seconds a lap AT LEAST, at every track I went to, just like he said it would in the book. You should read it. If someone had handed me a WSBK spec R1, I don’t think I’d have went that much quicker than I was already going, but when a rider sorts out what’s between his ears, is when he can ride the bike to it's capability.

To summarise, what we have below is only 10% of the picture
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>1. General rider skill
2. Bike general performance (not including engine)
3. Bike engine performance
4. Riders track preferences
5. Bike/track compability
6. Form of the day for the rider
7. General trend of performance of the rider
8. Rider/bike compability
9. Rider/tire compability
10. Riders communication skills (to team)
11. The team
12. Tire track preferencesexcept for point 6, which is all in your head.

I agree with Skidmark, its definitely a mental game. Its a physically demanding sport, but you dont need banned substances to gain an edge over any other competitor (unless its a 990cc Ducati in the 800 frame ). So that means the brain is all that separates the good from the great. Skill is mental, track preference is mental, form is mental.

I would place a substantial weight to team, If we look at Rossi he has maintained the same competitive team he started with on day one in 500's. This stability allows him to communicate more effectively with his team, the team are experienced as hell which makes the process of focusing on the bike and getting solutions easier. He knows by Sunday no matter what the bike will be good enough to get to the top. He has that confidence in his team. When you look at Stoner last year, he was riding with a team new to MotoGP on a bike that didnt get the good tyres or equipment. His inexperience coupled with the teams inexperience lead to poor performances, low confidence in his team, the bike and himself. Stoner knows Ducati are behind him 100% this year, knowing hes not riding a satellite bike 6th or 7th down the pecking order is a load off his mind. He has confidence in his team, they listen to him, he gets what he needs, they have many years experience, again it makes it easier to focus on the job of going fast.

Hayden won last year and is now ....., Melandri won races last year and is now ...... So the Hondas are crap? Both of their team mates are showing them how its done, Honda haven't won a race yet, but have been on the podium 5 out of 6 rounds. The bike isn't great, but the performances of Pedrosa and Elias highlight how poor Hayden and Melandri are mentally. Whatever is going on between the ears isn't working for these guys. With all the talk of Melandri leaving, I think he's made up his mind its the bike/team not me. Hayden, who knows, I dont even think he does.

I dont think anyone will doubt you need the best equipment to be competitive, but the it is the mental difference between Hayden and Pedrosa, Elias and Melandri, Stoner and Capirossi, Rossi and Edwards that separates the good from the great.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vale4607 @ Jun 5 2007, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Hayden won last year and is now ....., Melandri won races last year and is now ...... So the Hondas are crap? Both of their team mates are showing them how its done, Honda haven't won a race yet, but have been on the podium 5 out of 6 rounds. The bike isn't great, but the performances of Pedrosa and Elias highlight how poor Hayden and Melandri are mentally. Whatever is going on between the ears isn't working for these guys. With all the talk of Melandri leaving, I think he's made up his mind its the bike/team not me. Hayden, who knows, I dont even think he does.
I dont think anyone will doubt you need the best equipment to be competitive, but the it is the mental difference between Hayden and Pedrosa, Elias and Melandri, Stoner and Capirossi, Rossi and Edwards that separates the good from the great.Excellent comparisons.

even in the age of 4 strokes where technically, it's all down to EMS and tires, Burgess himself has said that it's still 80% rider

If the 90% / 10% or 80% / 20% ratio of rider vs. equipment, etc. holds true, does that mean Rossi could win on a Suzuki, a Kawasaki, a Tech 3 Yamaha, a Konica Minolta Honda, a Team KR, or an Ilmor?

The ratio might've been 80%/20% once, but I think it's been dropping since the 4-strokes came in and as the electronics, etc. start to take over. More like 60% / 40% now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rising Sun @ Jun 5 2007, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If the 90% / 10% or 80% / 20% ratio of rider vs. equipment, etc. holds true, does that mean Rossi could win on a Suzuki, a Kawasaki, a Tech 3 Yamaha, a Konica Minolta Honda, a Team KR, or an Ilmor?

The ratio might've been 80%/20% once, but I think it's been dropping since the 4-strokes came in and as the electronics, etc. start to take over. More like 60% / 40% now.


i'm curious as to where you get a 60/40 ratio from?

^ Well it's almost half half.

Do you think Stoner would be leading the championship if he was on a Suzuki or Yamaha Tech 3?

You make a fine point Skid, but the thing is, I don't disagree, but I find the ability to put you in that competition state of mind is one of the most important parts of a riders general skill. I did not mean that this is purly technical, (what would that be anyway?) there's some timing, some coordination, and the rest is what you talk about. The most important part of the general skill.
We see these riders usually performing on a quite consistent level and I'm pretty sure most of them are good at preparing themselves. Exceptions exist like MRNG, and his form of the day obviously play a larger role, than for most of the other top riders. Even Stoner last year were consistently fast, he just didn't finnish may of the races.
What I say is that I don't underestimate the importance of the mental part but assume the 15 best riders in the world (give or take a few) master this game pretty well. Hence little variation from race to race, extra boosters like rain or home ground not included. Thats why I think there must be other variables in it, deciding the result.
Talking persentages is quite meaningless but a 10/90 between mental and all other factors seems way above to me. The way I translate that is that anyone with right state of mind could take a GP victory on Honda Cub or at least a Fire Blade. Another thing is that there must be surrondings influencing the riders state of mind, and many of those factors are among the points mentioned.
Interaction with the staff, bike performance (speed and cornering), Tire performance and selection and so on. They all influence the rider, and of course the strongest guys are the ones that can ignore most of the negative feedback, but if those factors are bad enough no mental stregth can get you to a top position. Don't you also think that Stoner and Hayden are the two oposites in this senario? Stoner is in the flow, everyting works for him and this again builds his mental stregth. Hayden have problems adatpting, have a real problem with the front, but this also influences his mental stregth. So, I guess we will never know to what degree these elements influence each others, but I truly think they do.

What I doubt is that the best out there are greatly different state of mind from race to race and that was what I asked about, what causes changes in performance. But the best are just too good, even so their results change quite a lot. Me think that has more to do with equipment than mind.

I'll tell you what dose not work. What ever music Nicky, Hopper, and Marco are listening to in those big ... head phones!

All GP riders have a fantastic level of skilll and if given a perfect bike and perfect weather would be unbeatable. Since weather is unpredictable, lets leave out that factor.

bike depends on the rider and the crew chief and the communcation bvetween them. At the end of the day, its the crew chief's responsibilirt to make the bike "confortable" for the rider so that he can go fast. Let us not underestimate the importance of this skill. Its no coincidence that Jeremy Burgess had alreadyhelped 2 riders win 6 chmpionships before helping Rossi win another 7. But, bike setup from track to track is rarely perfect on race day -- which is why many riders are usualy much faster on practice sessions following the race day -- so, this is where the rider's adaptability comes into play.

How well can a given rider ride a bike when it is not perfect? I think Rossi is damn good in this department -- riding imperfect bikes. But even Rossi on a "imperfect" bike would be no match for another (any of say the top 10) rider on a "perfect" bike.

However, whether or not a bike is perfect is all in a rider's head. And I think that's where Babel's points #4 - #9 come into play.

Hopper listens to house/techno music.
I believe it revolves around the possibility of the rider having a decent crap before the race.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (crvlvr @ Jun 5 2007, 09:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>However, whether or not a bike is perfect is all in a rider's head. And I think that's where Babel's points #4 - #9 come into play.

I agree with a lot of what you say.
Problem with #4 - #9 is that no rider is complete. Some riders ride around some problems with ease, others just can't get to terms with those problems, but easily handle others. It's not all in the head, years of experience force riders into a certain riding style and preferences. Last year it seemed like Edwards could better cope with the chatter in qualifying than Rossi could, but very few suggest Edwards is the better rider or are stronger mentaly than Rossi.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rgvneil @ Jun 5 2007, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Hopper listens to house/techno music.
I believe it revolves around the possibility of the rider having a decent crap before the race.

For Hayden, Rap dose equal Crap

I think the mental state is a huge part of it too. i know the comparison has been drawn before but look at Casey & Loris.

what is it that has turned Loris from hero to dare I say it....... Zero

we all discussed/debated this before his 'little-un' was born and wondered if his mind was just elsewhere while Ingrid was pregnant or if he had perhaps lost his mojo.

now that jnr is here....... is his mind still elsewhere ? is he struggling with the new bike ? is it his riding style ? has he forgotten how to ride.......

I doubt Loris even knows but he's publicly said - "it's not the bike, it's me"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rising Sun @ Jun 6 2007, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If the 90% / 10% or 80% / 20% ratio of rider vs. equipment, etc. holds true, does that mean Rossi could win on a Suzuki, a Kawasaki, a Tech 3 Yamaha, a Konica Minolta Honda, a Team KR, or an Ilmor?

The ratio might've been 80%/20% once, but I think it's been dropping since the 4-strokes came in and as the electronics, etc. start to take over. More like 60% / 40% now.

I completely agree that equipment and the right electronics will make or break a season. For me the best example of the 80/20 is team mates. Across different manufacturers there are examples of crap rider, good rider. If the equipment is essentially the same for each team mate, then what is the separating factor?