What amazes me is people keep stating that grand prix motorcycle racing has only NOW become processional in the 800cc era when in fact the opposite is true....in the time I have been following the sport there was a small window at the end of the 80's / start of the 90's where there were basically 5 or 6 guys who could win a race and the race / result was never predictable. The so called golden era. But it wasnt the formula that created the spectacle...it was a combination of the riders being evenly matched on bikes that werent close to pushing the laws of physics at that stage of technological development.
It’s not just the processional racing, though this is a big part of it. The bikes ride around on rails. You want to piggyback on Coupe33's point that because the points were so far apart in the championship, that therefore the racing must have been dull. ........, look at WSBK this year, the leader is 100 points above the next guy, but there have been very interesting battles and races. Nobody is saying that eras past the racing were battles race after race, but certainly the racing that did exist was much more eventful. The bikes were all twisted because the human element was more pronounced, today, a computer's precision is more pronounced. the racing may not have produced battles every race, but I'd say more so then now. The damn thing is usually decided by lap one. Even the riders say this, the start is so important because after lap one, people pretty much run their pace prescribed by the computers, whether it be fuel maps or the like.
Would I like to see a return to this type of racing? Of course I would!!!!!!! But not at the expense of dumbing down the formula and INCREASING the number of rules governing the sport to manufacture close results because some fans have ADD and lack historical perpective. Some of the revisionists on here wish to believe the past was different...I say get a clue as this is simply a complete fallacy.
Again, you haven't either been reading or understanding my posts, formulas are created by men. This one doesn't have some supernatural special dispensation. The rules are rules, but you think they are something perfect. Let me give you an example, the 6 engine rule, its a ....... rule. Do you think this is in the spirit of "prototype" racing?--that is, a place where engineers are free to produce the greatest performance? NO. Why? Because they now have to factor in reliability. That means riders go out there with a prescribed wick. Here is another rule, fuel limits. That is a ....... rule. Nothing more. So you think letting them have whatever their tanks can handle is a problem? You think that this rule is some edict from God and sacred? NO! They are ....... rule made by men. You go on like these rules are producing something very special and tweaking them is contrived. Well how the .... do you think they became rules?!? Newsflash genius (ad hominem), they were contrived by men. If anybody needs to get a clue on this point its YOU.
The fact of the matter is that there are some guys who are simply way better and have more talent - when a factory signs up such a talent and puts them on the best bike out there you are going to get a dominant victory in most instances as we have seen this year....it has ALWAYS been like this and close racing has been the EXCEPTION not the RULE.
You really are dense on this rules issue (ad hominem), though, its my belief the more you become aggravated, that you are attached to it because you wish to advance your position that processional racing must be inherent in prototype racing. The last title by Stoner was in 2007. Guess who changed the rules to allow them to have a spec tire after that? It wasn't God. It was men who sat around dreaming up ways to change the rules (at the time, because one tire manufacture looked to be a severe disadvantage, and the idea was to even out the parity in such an important factor, a tire war was no longer viable). Lets shelve the ramifications of power politics for a moment and talk about this idea of “rules changes” (which you seem so hung up on preserving). Had this not happened, there is a possibility that Stoner may have had more titles, as pushing the limit of his Ducati might have resulted in less crashes given Bridgestone's close development with the Italian brand. Do you understand that this was a result of a rules change? It was one that may have kept Stoner sequestered on a .... bike. This is what you are ‘now’ arguing in favor of, but I suspect, ONLY because Stoner is winning and the status quo on rules is suddenly favorable. Do you understand that the spec tire wasn't a rule change just for Ducati; it was a rules change for the series that effected Ducati. Its the same .... now, the rules are there, they produce a certain type of racing which has been more typified as a qualification practice. It’s a matter of degree when compared to eras past. So yes, there have been many processional-racing events through the years, but at the moment, this processional racing is in hyper drive, and its very much BECAUSE the rules.
Just deal with it and quite your moaning as some of you guys are putting Stoner and Rossi to shame in this respect.
That's rich. (ad hominem)
Love, Jumkie
