Yess, boo to technology and progress!!!! Lets have carbs, cross ply tyres, drum brakes and steel frames
Rossi's MotoGP formula
- Thread starter J4rn0
- Start date
-
- Tags
- formula rossi's
I think I still have some pics floating around in a box somewhere.
back to gp-
There is difference between technology being used to advance progress. It's a different thing altogether to have it think for the rider.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
After seeing Pedrosa's crash, caused by a "ride by wire" glitch,
http://motomatters.com/news/2010/10/01/throttle_glitch_cause_of_pedrosa_s_moteg.html
I would add to my "wish list" for the ideal MotoGP formula a mandatory, traditional "mechanical wire" connection between the right wrist and the intake throttle. That, alone, would already make many electronic aids impossible. Fck the electronic throttle control!
A malfunction with the fly-by-wire throttle caused the gas to stay open as Pedrosa braked,
The unlucky fall, just three laps into the session, was caused when a small problem with the throttle cable didn't allow Pedrosa to close the throttle when he came to brake,
Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
The name may be misleading, but there is no cable in so called "ride by wire"....!
The only mechanical thing that could go wrong is the rotational mechanism on the handlebar, but I do not think it was a mechanical failure. When there is a complicated software interpreting inputs from various sensors in between your right wrist and the actual throttle, what do you think is most likely responsible when something goes wrong?
BTW, I do not expect Honda to ever blame their beloved electronics...
In an interview to Gazzetta dello Sport in Italy, Rossi has outlined his preferences for the ideal MotoGP formula:
Number of participants: "24 to 26".
Engine type: "4 strokes (I prefers 2 strokers, but they are extinct an one has to acknowledge that)".
Capacity: "1000 cc. (not less; with a rev limit of 16,000-17,000 rpm, rather than 19,000 as it is now, to prevent the bikes from reaching 360 km/h. 320-330 km/h are enough".
Electronics: "One could keep basic traction control, because the bikes would be very powerful, but I would keep just one fourth of the electronic aids we have now. Now we can set power, throttle and traction control for each corner, and each gear. The bike knows exactly where it is on the track, so by setting the parameters right you can have it run through each corner in a perfect way. I would keep traction control, but of a fixed type, not adaptable to each corner. And no anti-wheelie, no brake management: this way we could see the bikes slide more when braking, and also have closer fights.
Tyres: "Open, as much as possible. Competition among different manufacturers is a positive thing".
Well, I think this would be a nice formula for 2012.
Rossi poached my thread!!!!!!!!
Tom, a sports motorcycle is an utterly meaningless and inconsequential consumer good (tangible) that is designed to enrich human life (intangible). The Japanese have forgotten what a motorcycle is and the main contributions to the human condition by the 800cc formula have been contraction and misery.
If the manufacturers want to play with electronics they need to develop a new class with a new formula, or they need the need an entirely different marketing concept.
http://www.twowheelsblog.com/post/5241/valentino-rossi-interview-with-gq
This contains a brief excerpt of his GQ Italia interview. Seems there's really no love lost between the 2 Yamaha riders...
This contains a brief excerpt of his GQ Italia interview. Seems there's really no love lost between the 2 Yamaha riders...
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
it's always going to be a heated debate between old schoolers and people in favour of new technologies.
while tend to agree that gp racing should be a platform where new technologies should be developed i have a very conservative attitude towards anything that stands between the rider and his backwheel.
look at it this way : ABS is the most useful electronic aid in a motorcycle to me and i'd never switch back to a non abs bike for the road (if i was living in a country where there is no rain,no slippery roads in the forest and stuff like that i'd probably would think differently,but germany isn't really superbike heaven,so i'm glad to have safety net when things become a little difficult).
but would it be debateable to allow abs in racing,where the ability to brake is a key factor?surely not although i would argue that it would be the only rider assistance that could make the sport more safe
so why do we have fly by wire and traction control and what benefits do does technologies give the sport?one has to really think about that.
fly by wire and traction control are great for the road.because every order from the rider first goes to the ECU instead of the engine,power delivery can be programmed to be much smoother and traction control could virtually kill any slide,that is a huge benefit for road lega sport bikes.i'm sure that at least 95% of all sport bikes riders do not intentionally slide their bikes on the road.(the remaining 5% of idiots who have too much money and no respect for their own well being are of no relevance to me)
now just take a moment here : which is the current king of technology when it comes to street legal superbikes?why do the japanese push and push for these technologies in motogp when they don't use those technologies in their roadbikes?i always expected that honda and yamaha would be the first to offer a usable traction control because of their experience in gp......yet the only major manufacturer to offer those systems is the only one that had nothing to do with sports bikes in the past couple of decades. i don't get it.
fly by wire and TC in racing?there are no wet leaves behind corners you don't know. the riders should be experienced enough to estimate and master the power of the bike. the riders ought to look for the limit,where tires start sliding .
now how can electronic throttles and traction control really help there?they can make the guys go more faster because the machinery will open the throttel to the calculated optimum,but by doing so you take away the feel and predictabilty .that doesn't sound very safe does it?even if the system works perfectly fine, the riders trust their bikes with their lives. get your head around that. yes i know, its racing and its dangerous.but that kind of danger is just plain stupid.
think of krjr interview. all the riders can do corner exit is pinning the throttle and hope they have the best setting for their TC systems so that the slide will be as tiny (and therefor as fast) as possible.
thats not safe at all,given that track temperatures,tire temperatures and other variables play a huge role in the available grip level. ultra high grip tyres that are impossible to stop sliding if they start to go just add for a recipe of desaster in my opinion. often it's kinda scary for me to watch stoner pin it and wrestle his machine to stay on line when TC lets go. i'd much rather see that kind talent displayed in controlled slides rather than just letting the bike slide ,panically working the rear brake to catch back what the tc let loose.
those technologies are great, and i embrace them if they can help an amateur to get his speed up on the track and make dangerous situations on a bike more safe.
but i really can't see the point when it comes to racing.
the same thing goes for the tires,it's just huge waste of money to me.
tire development? yeah, i see the point
blowing uncountable millions of dollars into the development of a tire that only lasts a race distance and is so ultra high grip that corner speeds climb up and up,only that the feel starts to go? totally stupid!
it's time that dorna rethinks the whole concept. what use are ever faster laptimes if the spectacle suffers?
here's my suggestion :
1. analog throtte
2. elimination of traction control (really, if anybody can argue why TC has any benefit,please tell me.spectacle?no. safety?hell no!!!)
3.harder compound tires that are able to last much longer than race distance.that might sacrafice the spectacle of the last few laps where the increase in spinning the rear is visible but at the same time ,as far as i know, a harder (and therefor slower) tire give more feel back to the rider and is easier to control on the limit. i thought the end of the tire war would result in such a tire. i was wrong,bridgestone are too stupid and focused on ever faster laptimes than to realize that they blow vast amounts of money. i also think that its bad pr for bridgestone as there's always more talk about when the tires do not work as good as they could.
as i see it,all of that will make the sport safer,much more fun to watch ,cheaper to run,and none of the manufacturers would suffer in any way.
and while we're at it, minimum weights including the rider of around 210-220 kg.
and .... all engine regulations.
give everybody 20liters and let them make the most out of it.
that way we see more different designs ,and there is a benefit for road bikes.hell you could even call it a green series if they cut back on fuel every 2 years or so.
they all use the same forks anyway so why not make a few standard parts mandatory to cut costs?we're seeing roughly the same bikes anyway . Engines are the hearts of every vehicle, we need to get more focus on engines!you know,the stuff that at least a majority of the viewers recognizes.
tell me if i'm wrong but i can't see how that would be more expensive than all the development in electonics,tyres and all that irrelevant stuff
come to think of it : i find myself actually to be in favour of a moto2 style motogp. mandatory standard parts for the chassis (to whatever degree, i'd be perfeclty fine if everybody had the same chassis fine tuned to their personal preferences) ,and total focus on engine development.
cut costs,much more diversity on the track, high relevance for road bike production,increased spectacle
problem solved
while tend to agree that gp racing should be a platform where new technologies should be developed i have a very conservative attitude towards anything that stands between the rider and his backwheel.
look at it this way : ABS is the most useful electronic aid in a motorcycle to me and i'd never switch back to a non abs bike for the road (if i was living in a country where there is no rain,no slippery roads in the forest and stuff like that i'd probably would think differently,but germany isn't really superbike heaven,so i'm glad to have safety net when things become a little difficult).
but would it be debateable to allow abs in racing,where the ability to brake is a key factor?surely not although i would argue that it would be the only rider assistance that could make the sport more safe
so why do we have fly by wire and traction control and what benefits do does technologies give the sport?one has to really think about that.
fly by wire and traction control are great for the road.because every order from the rider first goes to the ECU instead of the engine,power delivery can be programmed to be much smoother and traction control could virtually kill any slide,that is a huge benefit for road lega sport bikes.i'm sure that at least 95% of all sport bikes riders do not intentionally slide their bikes on the road.(the remaining 5% of idiots who have too much money and no respect for their own well being are of no relevance to me)
now just take a moment here : which is the current king of technology when it comes to street legal superbikes?why do the japanese push and push for these technologies in motogp when they don't use those technologies in their roadbikes?i always expected that honda and yamaha would be the first to offer a usable traction control because of their experience in gp......yet the only major manufacturer to offer those systems is the only one that had nothing to do with sports bikes in the past couple of decades. i don't get it.
fly by wire and TC in racing?there are no wet leaves behind corners you don't know. the riders should be experienced enough to estimate and master the power of the bike. the riders ought to look for the limit,where tires start sliding .
now how can electronic throttles and traction control really help there?they can make the guys go more faster because the machinery will open the throttel to the calculated optimum,but by doing so you take away the feel and predictabilty .that doesn't sound very safe does it?even if the system works perfectly fine, the riders trust their bikes with their lives. get your head around that. yes i know, its racing and its dangerous.but that kind of danger is just plain stupid.
think of krjr interview. all the riders can do corner exit is pinning the throttle and hope they have the best setting for their TC systems so that the slide will be as tiny (and therefor as fast) as possible.
thats not safe at all,given that track temperatures,tire temperatures and other variables play a huge role in the available grip level. ultra high grip tyres that are impossible to stop sliding if they start to go just add for a recipe of desaster in my opinion. often it's kinda scary for me to watch stoner pin it and wrestle his machine to stay on line when TC lets go. i'd much rather see that kind talent displayed in controlled slides rather than just letting the bike slide ,panically working the rear brake to catch back what the tc let loose.
those technologies are great, and i embrace them if they can help an amateur to get his speed up on the track and make dangerous situations on a bike more safe.
but i really can't see the point when it comes to racing.
the same thing goes for the tires,it's just huge waste of money to me.
tire development? yeah, i see the point
blowing uncountable millions of dollars into the development of a tire that only lasts a race distance and is so ultra high grip that corner speeds climb up and up,only that the feel starts to go? totally stupid!
it's time that dorna rethinks the whole concept. what use are ever faster laptimes if the spectacle suffers?
here's my suggestion :
1. analog throtte
2. elimination of traction control (really, if anybody can argue why TC has any benefit,please tell me.spectacle?no. safety?hell no!!!)
3.harder compound tires that are able to last much longer than race distance.that might sacrafice the spectacle of the last few laps where the increase in spinning the rear is visible but at the same time ,as far as i know, a harder (and therefor slower) tire give more feel back to the rider and is easier to control on the limit. i thought the end of the tire war would result in such a tire. i was wrong,bridgestone are too stupid and focused on ever faster laptimes than to realize that they blow vast amounts of money. i also think that its bad pr for bridgestone as there's always more talk about when the tires do not work as good as they could.
as i see it,all of that will make the sport safer,much more fun to watch ,cheaper to run,and none of the manufacturers would suffer in any way.
and while we're at it, minimum weights including the rider of around 210-220 kg.
and .... all engine regulations.
give everybody 20liters and let them make the most out of it.
that way we see more different designs ,and there is a benefit for road bikes.hell you could even call it a green series if they cut back on fuel every 2 years or so.
they all use the same forks anyway so why not make a few standard parts mandatory to cut costs?we're seeing roughly the same bikes anyway . Engines are the hearts of every vehicle, we need to get more focus on engines!you know,the stuff that at least a majority of the viewers recognizes.
tell me if i'm wrong but i can't see how that would be more expensive than all the development in electonics,tyres and all that irrelevant stuff
come to think of it : i find myself actually to be in favour of a moto2 style motogp. mandatory standard parts for the chassis (to whatever degree, i'd be perfeclty fine if everybody had the same chassis fine tuned to their personal preferences) ,and total focus on engine development.
cut costs,much more diversity on the track, high relevance for road bike production,increased spectacle
problem solved
I like most of it. I'm not sure about strict fuel limits b/c Group C has already proven the problems. Fuel flow limiting on the other hand would be a cool way to limit horsepower and it has the same basic effect without the Group C cost and top speed issues. Somekind of tire restrictions would be good as well. Imo, consistent tires are not the problem, the problem is that they yield much too high a performance level. If they tires are hard and they slide predictably, it's similar to riding on really grippy tires that have gone off. I'm sure the feel is different, but the performance capabilities are roughly the same.
Imo, the problem is mainly that racing motorcycles are art (particularly prototypes), but the interpretation of what is and what isn't a racing motorcycle is very narrow. MotoGP, WSBK, Moto2, and WSS are basically the exact same thing which is why only hardcore fans "get it". They layperson can't tell a WSS from a MotoGP bike, only hardcore fans know why they are sooooo different.
Since MotoGP really is an art gallery (with the premier class as the main exhibit), they should run it like an art gallery. EXPERIMENT!! FIM e-Power is an example of experimentation, but it doesn't even race with MotoGP. Imo, get rid of the kiddie class. There is no reason for 14-16 year old kids to be traveling Europe with their private tutors. Send these children back home and replace the 125s with experimental classes. Electric bikes. Mechanical bikes (no electrics but spark). Clean 2-strokes. Whatever.
In an interview to Gazzetta dello Sport in Italy, Rossi has outlined his preferences for the ideal MotoGP formula:
Number of participants: "24 to 26".
Engine type: "4 strokes (I prefers 2 strokers, but they are extinct an one has to acknowledge that)".
Capacity: "1000 cc. (not less; with a rev limit of 16,000-17,000 rpm, rather than 19,000 as it is now, to prevent the bikes from reaching 360 km/h. 320-330 km/h are enough".
Electronics: "One could keep basic traction control, because the bikes would be very powerful, but I would keep just one fourth of the electronic aids we have now. Now we can set power, throttle and traction control for each corner, and each gear. The bike knows exactly where it is on the track, so by setting the parameters right you can have it run through each corner in a perfect way. I would keep traction control, but of a fixed type, not adaptable to each corner. And no anti-wheelie, no brake management: this way we could see the bikes slide more when braking, and also have closer fights.
Tyres: "Open, as much as possible. Competition among different manufacturers is a positive thing".
Well, I think this would be a nice formula for 2012.
We have to except TC is here to stay like we have to except strokers have gone for good. I agree TC should be more basic.,
Not sure i agree with 320-330kph being enough but i aint riding the bike
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
why?
there is no need to further improve the systems,they are fully capable of doing the job when it comes to road use.
so why can't we get rid of it in racing?
it's inevitable that traction control will one day be a thing of the past.but why should we wait a couple of years .....
racing fans should never have a soft attitude towards anything that kills sunday afternoon entertainment
Because of the power being produced now. We already have top speeds of 320-330kph with 360kph possible. The power needed to produce these speeds is going to cause problems excelerating out of turns. Some form of TC is needed to keep the bikes on the track.
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
disagree
think of the 500s, close to 200hp with a vicious power curve and .... tyres and somehow that worked in the 90s,same goes for the early 990s . think about it,i don't know whether you are riding yourself but when i'm on a superbike that has tyres made of wood compared to the motogp bridgestones it IS possible to transfer 170hp out of a bend onto the track.of course you need to be careful and pick the thing up before you gas really hard but i think thats the whole point of racing,which guy can twist the throttle the earliest and hardest?
i can't see why the likes of rossi and co couldn't do that with 240hp even if they had the same ...... tyres i have.hell i'm sure you could add a turbo and boost the thing to 300hp and let them run on moped tires and those guys would still be able to get the most out of it.
i don't know,maybe it's that i'm very close minded when it comes to TC but each and every time i try to think of reasons why it should stay i immediatly come up with counter arguments.
and IF there would really be no way that the bikes could be ridden without TC then why not reduce power?
i'd much rather see a 200hp bike (or even less) being mastered by the best riders than what we have now
i think this whole thesis that a motogp bike absolutely can't be ridden by even the best in the world without power regulating electronics is just a myth,nothing more and nothing less
Well what ever you think fact is ALL the riders want to keep some form of TC. Why do you think that is ?
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
define all riders. no really, of all interviews and stories i've read i can't recall a single one where the rider is like "yes we must keep some sort of traction control because of whatever reason"
i remember rossi and lorenzo wishing for no traction control as a rule change in an interview conducted by fiat.
Who do you know (rider) asking for it to be banned ? There silence on the subject tells me they want it.
