Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
Interesting. Never heard that expression “bust him” used in racing. Not certain what he means by that.
As to making the junior classes safer, a good start would be - less riders on the track. That swarm of riders is insane. Especially in light of those kids being so young and inexperienced. Those first few turns in the first lap are like watching a game of Asteroids. And the riders being so young, have little to no sense of potential for mortality, so you can bet, they view the whole thing like it was the video game they practice on in their trailer.
As to making the junior classes safer, a good start would be - less riders on the track. That swarm of riders is insane. Especially in light of those kids being so young and inexperienced. Those first few turns in the first lap are like watching a game of Asteroids. And the riders being so young, have little to no sense of potential for mortality, so you can bet, they view the whole thing like it was the video game they practice on in their trailer.
Last edited:
Totally agree with Stoner's comments and these are not new as he has been saying that the tarmac areas have made racing more unsafe in terms of rider behaviour for years and to me, if they look at sorting that issue it will help with junior class safety (not solve but help).
My start, would be that in any 1 race allow one track limit breach only and then, implement long laps for breaches 2 and 3 followed by full pit lane excursions for any subsequent. Yes there may be times of a track breach caused by an incident but these are easily defined (ie. did the track limit breach occur under a yellow flag etc).
Additionally I would have cumulative penalties such that every breach deemed rider error/unnecessary through a year equals 1 penalty point with a defined number of points meaning specific penalties such as rear of grid start, pit lane start, suspension etc as well as team financial penalties.
As for improving safety elsewise, start to crack down on the poor and dangerous behaviours (such as the capability to use another rider as a berm as you have tarmac to save both of you) and you will start to get there as riders will start to slow due to the penalty applied (will need to see a few applied for it to happen)
Safety will improve under draconian rule implementation but then people will whinge and whine but to Stoner's point, the fact that they have gotten away with it for so long means the change needs to be swift and brutal and supported by all classes.
Riders would hate me sitting up in the tower
My start, would be that in any 1 race allow one track limit breach only and then, implement long laps for breaches 2 and 3 followed by full pit lane excursions for any subsequent. Yes there may be times of a track breach caused by an incident but these are easily defined (ie. did the track limit breach occur under a yellow flag etc).
Additionally I would have cumulative penalties such that every breach deemed rider error/unnecessary through a year equals 1 penalty point with a defined number of points meaning specific penalties such as rear of grid start, pit lane start, suspension etc as well as team financial penalties.
As for improving safety elsewise, start to crack down on the poor and dangerous behaviours (such as the capability to use another rider as a berm as you have tarmac to save both of you) and you will start to get there as riders will start to slow due to the penalty applied (will need to see a few applied for it to happen)
Safety will improve under draconian rule implementation but then people will whinge and whine but to Stoner's point, the fact that they have gotten away with it for so long means the change needs to be swift and brutal and supported by all classes.
Riders would hate me sitting up in the tower
Last edited:
Joined Aug 2018
33 Posts | 2+
Atlantis
Ah! I agree wholehearted with the true KING of MOTOGP.
On his day, no-one can hold a candle to Casey.
On his day, no-one can hold a candle to Casey.
I agree with Stoner as well.
The thing is, all these painted lines, different color tarmac and all the complicated rules associated with this nonsense take away from the racing. Then guys like Mir think nothing of stuffing into somebody because well, nobody’s going to get hurt, there’s now plenty of runoff. Or whatever other ...... up reason he would give for that behavior.
Remove all that mommy/nanny crap and let’s get back to racing.
The thing is, all these painted lines, different color tarmac and all the complicated rules associated with this nonsense take away from the racing. Then guys like Mir think nothing of stuffing into somebody because well, nobody’s going to get hurt, there’s now plenty of runoff. Or whatever other ...... up reason he would give for that behavior.
Remove all that mommy/nanny crap and let’s get back to racing.
Joined Aug 2008
6K Posts | 748+
Thailand
Yeah, go back to tarmac and then grass, we all want the premiere class to be just like BSB...
Can't have it all. Can't turn the clock back. MotoGP tracks are configured for 230hp GP bikes and the smaller classes have to deal if you want semi-prototype, fastest bikes in the world. Something's gotta give.
Not that I disagree that the smaller classes need to be more strictly regulated tho.
Can't have it all. Can't turn the clock back. MotoGP tracks are configured for 230hp GP bikes and the smaller classes have to deal if you want semi-prototype, fastest bikes in the world. Something's gotta give.
Not that I disagree that the smaller classes need to be more strictly regulated tho.
Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Spa Francorchamps over the winter was revamping the circuit with the aim of hosting a round of the world championship. They've added gravel traps back in sections that were paved over with tarmac runoff.
I've argued for years that increasing runoff areas in all motorsports has led to a rise of unsafe/dangerous driving/riding. If you know there is no penalty for running wide, why cede any space in battle? Gravel traps are safer for motorcycles, and bring back an element of racing where someone has to blink first lest they find themselves beached in the gravel.
I've argued for years that increasing runoff areas in all motorsports has led to a rise of unsafe/dangerous driving/riding. If you know there is no penalty for running wide, why cede any space in battle? Gravel traps are safer for motorcycles, and bring back an element of racing where someone has to blink first lest they find themselves beached in the gravel.
As with JPS, I too have been one that has whinged for years about a runoff that does not result in a form of penalty to a rider that finds themselves on it but I also recognise (as I am sure does everyone) that we do need something for the safety aspect but personally, I feel the full tarmac or longer tarmac runoff is the concern.
I do not have the answer that fits all scenarios, hell, not even sure there would be one as with a return of grass or gravel at trackside we run the risk of punishing a rider who is forced wide through another riders error or action. Is it then fair that the 'innocent' party loses time or is taken out of the race through no real fault of their own?
Is the issue that needs to be addressed tarmac or the increase in bad behaviour on the track, or even both?
To me, I have no issues with a small tarmac outside the line that draws the boundary for the track - maximum width should be 1 car width (I say car as most tracks cater for cars before bikes) with gravel or grass beyond this point. Then I suggest that where a rider then uses that piece of tarmac, at anytime they are subject to a long lap penalty (now with the advent of these) - irrespective of whether the cause was another rider.
Now, where another rider causes the issue I feel that the rider needs to be subject to a post race review and guaranteed, hard-wired penalties apply (ie. no discretionary penalty but hard firm penalty). These could be grid spots at future race, time added (and time added should start at 15 or so seconds), points against an overall licence etc, something that will punish irrespective but that then accumulates on a 'per occurence' base.
I suppose for me we have 2 issues here, the use of tarmac to increase a corner speed and the increase in riding behaviour that we often see end in contact or badly, so for me, address both as separate issues
I do not have the answer that fits all scenarios, hell, not even sure there would be one as with a return of grass or gravel at trackside we run the risk of punishing a rider who is forced wide through another riders error or action. Is it then fair that the 'innocent' party loses time or is taken out of the race through no real fault of their own?
Is the issue that needs to be addressed tarmac or the increase in bad behaviour on the track, or even both?
To me, I have no issues with a small tarmac outside the line that draws the boundary for the track - maximum width should be 1 car width (I say car as most tracks cater for cars before bikes) with gravel or grass beyond this point. Then I suggest that where a rider then uses that piece of tarmac, at anytime they are subject to a long lap penalty (now with the advent of these) - irrespective of whether the cause was another rider.
Now, where another rider causes the issue I feel that the rider needs to be subject to a post race review and guaranteed, hard-wired penalties apply (ie. no discretionary penalty but hard firm penalty). These could be grid spots at future race, time added (and time added should start at 15 or so seconds), points against an overall licence etc, something that will punish irrespective but that then accumulates on a 'per occurence' base.
I suppose for me we have 2 issues here, the use of tarmac to increase a corner speed and the increase in riding behaviour that we often see end in contact or badly, so for me, address both as separate issues
Joined Aug 2008
6K Posts | 748+
Thailand
I still vividly remember rookie Brett Mccormick getting run off the track at WSBK Assen by Checa. Broken back. End of a promising career.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2226087789/
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2226087789/
I just remember Mir last year whinging when Jack Miller who was on the track held his line when Mir re-entered after going off the track. He was perfectly free to re-join behind Miller. Iirc the stewards looked at it from the point of view of Miller being at fault which was ridiculous imo.
Weren't we talking about this 7 years ago, when I last logged on? Maybe it was a slow newsday in December. Anyway.....
First, I'm happy Casey is still an 80-year-old curmudgeon who reminds everyone to get off of his lawn. However, he's linking too many disparate concepts with the arc of his narrative.
Increased runoff is a symptom of a much bigger problem--the corporate corruption of sport. I'm certain insurance premiums played a role, but the commercial ambitions of the manufacturers, sponsors, and teams were the primary factor. They are risking tens of millions and they want to limit, as much as possible, the risk factors associated with them not getting paid.
They want the riders to run off track, without being retired, which increases sponsor visibility as well as increasing start money, finish money, etc (if those are still a concern in the modern revenue sharing accords). They don't want their vehicles or highest-paid employees hitting walls or flipping end over end in the gravel.
The FIM could put concrete walls just off of the racing line. Nothing would improve. The sport would get worse as the legitimate competitors are replaced by subpar Murder Inc.
If you wanna fix the sport, you gotta start chipping away at the golden calves that dominate most motorsport: (1) "Nothing matters as long as our rolling billboard is in front", which leads to (2) "our corporation must use devious and under-handed tactics to control, as much as possible, the race results on Sunday.
If you want sport to flourish, you have to eliminate the mercantilists.
First, I'm happy Casey is still an 80-year-old curmudgeon who reminds everyone to get off of his lawn. However, he's linking too many disparate concepts with the arc of his narrative.
Increased runoff is a symptom of a much bigger problem--the corporate corruption of sport. I'm certain insurance premiums played a role, but the commercial ambitions of the manufacturers, sponsors, and teams were the primary factor. They are risking tens of millions and they want to limit, as much as possible, the risk factors associated with them not getting paid.
They want the riders to run off track, without being retired, which increases sponsor visibility as well as increasing start money, finish money, etc (if those are still a concern in the modern revenue sharing accords). They don't want their vehicles or highest-paid employees hitting walls or flipping end over end in the gravel.
The FIM could put concrete walls just off of the racing line. Nothing would improve. The sport would get worse as the legitimate competitors are replaced by subpar Murder Inc.
If you wanna fix the sport, you gotta start chipping away at the golden calves that dominate most motorsport: (1) "Nothing matters as long as our rolling billboard is in front", which leads to (2) "our corporation must use devious and under-handed tactics to control, as much as possible, the race results on Sunday.
If you want sport to flourish, you have to eliminate the mercantilists.
Joined Oct 2015
985 Posts | 634+
Siebenbürgen süße Heimat!
Fantastic prose style as was always the case. Sure Casey has never been able to construct a coherent argument about pretty much anything. He was someone who did walk the walk and did most of his talking with his on track performances though. It was you iirc who identified a significant part of his problem in post race interviews, that having wound himself up so tight and spent a whole gp bike race on the edge of crashing particularly when riding for Ducati it was a rather large come down when the race ended and he tended to speak right off the top of his head.
He might be right if gp bike racing was conducted on tracks designed for bike racing, but it is not obviously so there is not much alternative safety-wise on tracks designed for F1 car racing. As someone astutely imo pointed out recently Dorna don't seem averse to the riders being involved in a tire lottery riding on substandard Michelin tires, with safety implications on occasion, though.
I don't myself see much evidence that Dorna currently have preferred outcomes other than close results, not necessarily what floats my boat approaching an age where being a curmudgeon is not infrequent if it is at any cost/to the exclusion of all else; they don't however appear, again to me at least, to have marked preferences as to which riders win at the moment.
Last edited:
Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
Very much agree. So what’s the alternative tho? Technology, tires salaries etc paid for with a Go Fund Me scheme? As far as the golden days of real privateers and shade tree mechanics are concerned, that horse left the barn a long time ago. I don’t say this as a challenge, but genuinely curious as to what in a perfect world would make for a better alternative.
Thanks for the kind words and feedback everyone. Really happy to see so many original posters still active. I'll be around, and looking forward to some interesting discussions. Never really stopped watching MGP, but the 1000cc formula has been a disappointment. Performance is incredible, but the sport continues to slip away a little bit at a time. There is always some new contraption to arrest power from the riders.
Anyway, back on topic, though I disagree with Stoner regarding runoff, he's speaking the truth for himself. If the FIM put walls .5 meters off the racing line, Stoner would win every race. Everyone else would be dead, except maybe Lorenzo. Stoner is never wrong....as long as his tenets are applied to himself.
My primary interest is to see if these curmudgeonly words actually resonate with the governing body or Dorna, who have an golden opportunity, imo, to push through a few minor changes as the sport sheds its rider royalty.
Superbike is also experiencing a fourth turning, and it looks like it will be moving in the direction of GT3. Funny because balance of performance was the direction DMG wanted to take production bike racing, but they were laughed out of the FIM meeting 12 years ago. WSS 2022 is the first real attempt at GT3-style production bike racing. Will production racing devolve into a rich-man's club sport, ala FIA GT3 racing? or will we experience an international resurgence?
Look forward to finding out with you guys.
Anyway, back on topic, though I disagree with Stoner regarding runoff, he's speaking the truth for himself. If the FIM put walls .5 meters off the racing line, Stoner would win every race. Everyone else would be dead, except maybe Lorenzo. Stoner is never wrong....as long as his tenets are applied to himself.
My primary interest is to see if these curmudgeonly words actually resonate with the governing body or Dorna, who have an golden opportunity, imo, to push through a few minor changes as the sport sheds its rider royalty.
Superbike is also experiencing a fourth turning, and it looks like it will be moving in the direction of GT3. Funny because balance of performance was the direction DMG wanted to take production bike racing, but they were laughed out of the FIM meeting 12 years ago. WSS 2022 is the first real attempt at GT3-style production bike racing. Will production racing devolve into a rich-man's club sport, ala FIA GT3 racing? or will we experience an international resurgence?
Look forward to finding out with you guys.
