Stoner threatens to leave MotoGP over rules

Jumkie said:

At some point i'd like to extend an olive branch to u.



Sounds like ur not including urself as one of these "experts". U are as much of these self appointees as i am buddy. Les u forget ur takes.



So let me get something straight before i go on. You said changes in rules was to help Rossi out. But here you use a quote frim Rossi saying he's not in favor of the rules changes as padding of support for Stoner's take. Interesting. So who are the "experts" we should be listening too in ur shifting ATM quote machine of--who is credible today? Afterall, its Stoner & Rossi who said they wouldnt show up to Motegi because it was unsafe, while "non-experts" called ......... Turned out there was more abient radiation in Italy than in Motegi. So much for "expert" opinion, eh.



And here is the piece u ignored and continue to ignore, take a look at the thread title again. Those other riders, those expressing their apprehension about the new formula, didnt then add that they might walk away. That is a significant difference. That is why this discussion exists. We already know there are doomsdayer resisting change, its happened the last two formula changes (peehaps u didnt notice because Stoner wasnt complaining). I know u and others will again rally to his defense, but regardless, its a difference that makes his comments lame. Empty threat on top of it, as he will prob show up just like he did at Motegi.

Click to expand...

Don't bother mate I am gone. Too much happening in life and too much life to live to waste time debating ........ here. Only came back to post what I posted after finding it quite funny how so many riders thinks the same as Stoner but personal vendettas (after how many years) still like to distort simple and straight comments from Stoner into something they are not. It bores me and I have better things to do then waste my time discussing it.

Jumkie said:

And here is the piece u ignored and continue to ignore, take a look at the thread title again. Those other riders, those expressing their apprehension about the new formula, didnt then add that they might walk away. That is a significant difference. That is why this discussion exists. We already know there are doomsdayer resisting change, its happened the last two formula changes (peehaps u didnt notice because Stoner wasnt complaining).

Click to expand...

And the change resisting doomsayers where the change to the 800 formula was concerned were absolutely correct, which stoner's candid if blunt statements about many issues often also prove to be.



As I have said, I take your point that if CRT is the only hope for the survival of motogp then the current world champion opposing it is not helpful. Some then went on to debate that stoner retiring at a time of his own choosing would in itself be morally reprehensible; that is a significant difference .

Kropotkin said:

I don't see Rossi offering to fund a couple of bikes out of his salary. And Burgess' idea of going to 600s is a recipe for spending increases that make the 800 era look like a blowout sale at Walmart.

Click to expand...

I think 600s might actually be cheaper if they kept the 21L rule. The fuel restrictions would be moot, and the engines wouldn't rev much higher than the 800s.

michaelm said:

And the change resisting doomsayers where the change to the 800 formula was concerned were absolutely correct, which stoner's candid if blunt statements about many issues often also prove to be.



As I have said, I take your point that if CRT is the only hope for the survival of motogp then the current world champion opposing it is not helpful. Some then went on to debate that stoner retiring at a time of his own choosing would in itself be morally reprehensible; that is a significant difference

.

Click to expand...

Well buddy, i call ........ on both counts (with all due respect of course). The doomsdayers to the 800 formula said performance would be lost from 990s to 800s, stating it was just a kneejerk reaction to Katos death. Yet performance increased. Im not sure what "candid & blunt" comments of Stoner u are referring to. Perhaps his "candid & blunt" comments concerning Motegi?



On count 2, its nice & refreshing that at least we can speak from a point that he suggested early retirement as a result of proposed changes, as oppose to Mental & the gang who seem to downplay and deny this part to the point of debating its very existence.



It is true, he can retired whenever he feels like it. Tomorrow would be an equally valid time as last week or next week. I find the double standard a dastard point from peeps that are not applying the same standard these particular peeps applied to Rossi. It appears one rider's motives as oppose to the other were not given the benefit of the doubt. Notice they tried to say it was different, and explained away there lack of consistency and with it their credibility. I suppose threatening to leave the sport and ensuing discussion depended on the fan u were asking.



Edit: it seems this thread has become very toxic. So when u read my posts, imagine i just came back with and ice cold beer, handed it to u and said, ok, lets talk about this... Thats the tone u should read me with. I donr want u to leave in haste like my old buddy Mental who seems to be having a fit, even though it was he who drew first.



So, gulp gulp... i dont think its fair for the same peeps who raked Rossi through the coals now turn a sympathetic shoulder to Stoner for essentially the same thing. Or they both had a right to whine to the point of throwing the sport on its face or neither did. If we are to apply the same standard, then a few on this thread gotta retract all the .... they gave Rossi. It seems only fair, eh good buddy?

Jumkie said:

Well buddy, i call ........ on both counts (with all due respect of course). The doomsdayers to the 800 formula said performance would be lost from 990s to 800s, stating it was just a kneejerk reaction to Katos death. Yet performance increased. Im not sure what "candid & blunt" comments of Stoner u are referring to. Perhaps his "candid & blunt" comments concerning Motegi?

On count 2, its nice & refreshing that at least we can speak from a point that he suggested early retirement as a result of proposed changes, as oppose to Mental & the gang who seem to downplay and deny this part to the point of debating its very existence. It is true, he can retired whenever he feels like it. Tomorrow would be an equally valid time as last week or next week. I find the double standard a dastard point from peeps that are not applying the same standard these particular peeps applied to Rossi. It appears one rider's motives as oppose to the other were not given the benefit of the doubt. Notice they tried to say it was different, and explained away there lack of consistency and with it their credibility. I suppose threatening to leave the sport and ensuing discussion depended on the fan u were asking.

Edit: it seems this thread has become very toxic. So when u read my posts, imagine i just came back with and ice cold beer, handed it to u and said, ok, lets talk about this... Thats the tone u should read me with. I donr want u to leave in haste like my old buddy Mental who seems to be having a fit, even though it was he who drew first.

So, gulp gulp... i dont think its fair for the same peeps who raked Rossi through the coals now turn a sympathetic shoulder to Stoner for essentially the same thing. Or they both had a right to whine to the point of throwing the sport on its face or neither did. If we are to apply the same standard, then a few on this thread gotta retract all the .... they gave Rossi. It seems only fair, eh good buddy?

Click to expand...

i like your "virtual beer" comment back there mate, but i just got a feeling someone is going to get hit with a "virtual barstool" shortly

mylexicon said:

I think 600s might actually be cheaper if they kept the 21L rule. The fuel restrictions would be moot, and the engines wouldn't rev much higher than the 800s.

Click to expand...

the only reason pneumatics and desmos don't rev higher at the moment is because they don't have more fuel to be burnt.reduce capacity to 600cc and revs rise ,as do costs.



there is no reason to believe that the 600s would not be more expensive

digger said:

i like your "virtual beer" comment back there mate, but i just got a feeling someone is going to get hit with a "virtual barstool" shortly

Click to expand...

You sir, are a very funny person. Hahaha

cliché guevara said:

the only reason pneumatics and desmos don't rev higher at the moment is because they don't have more fuel to be burnt.reduce capacity to 600cc and revs rise ,as do costs.



there is no reason to believe that the 600s would not be more expensive

Click to expand...

The 800s are actually rev limited to 19,000rpm. The MSMA discussed it way back in 2008 b/c they thought it was important (or Dorna thought it was important) to make sure the rev ceiling didn't exceed what could be achieved with state of the art valve spring technology. Nobody knew if they had done it or not, then Rossi let the cat out of the bag in his GQ interview last year.



The rev limit doesn't really affect the racing b/c the bikes are fuel limited and restricted to 6 engines, but if the on screen graphics are accurate, the Honda bounces off of the rev limit during the races as well.

mylexicon said:

The 800s are actually rev limited to 19,000rpm. The MSMA discussed it way back in 2008 b/c they thought it was important (or Dorna thought it was important) to make sure the rev ceiling didn't exceed what could be achieved with state of the art valve spring technology. Nobody knew if they had done it or not, then Rossi let the cat out of the bag in his GQ interview last year.



The rev limit doesn't really affect the racing b/c the bikes are fuel limited and restricted to 6 engines, but if the on screen graphics are accurate, the Honda bounces off of the rev limit during the races as well.

Click to expand...

I can assure you that no rev limit exists in MotoGP. I have this on the highest authority, and from a person who is right now engaged in trying to actually impose a rev limit. But I realize that you see rev limits everywhere, and won't believe me. Confirmation bias, I believe it is known as.



EDIT: I would point out that when Ducati switched to the GP11.1, they went for a bike with an 81mm bore. That imposed a de facto rev limit on the bike, which is what the bore restriction was supposed to do. You can work out the limit imposed by an 800cc four cylinder engine with an 81mm bore for yourself.

has stoner fooked off home yet for good ?

Kropotkin said:

I can assure you that no rev limit exists in MotoGP. I have this on the highest authority, and from a person who is right now engaged in trying to actually impose a rev limit. But I realize that you see rev limits everywhere, and won't believe me. Confirmation bias, I believe it is known as.



EDIT: I would point out that when Ducati switched to the GP11.1, they went for a bike with an 81mm bore. That imposed a de facto rev limit on the bike, which is what the bore restriction was supposed to do. You can work out the limit imposed by an 800cc four cylinder engine with an 81mm bore for yourself.

Click to expand...

http://www.twowheelsblog.com/post/5241/valentino-rossi-interview-with-gq

Imagine you could invent a new motorcycling championship, what would be your rules?

“First, the right number of competitors is 24 or 26. At the moment I’d keep the four-strokes, even if everyone loves the 500cc two strokes, but unfortunately the world is now four-stroke. I believe the right displacement is 1000cc, not 800cc with a limit of 16,000 to 17,000 rpm, not 19,000 as it is right now

Click to expand...

I know there is no rev limit ATM b/c they don't race 800s anymore. Whether or not the 800s were rev limited is another matter. Rossi says there was a rev limit during the 800cc era. I tend to believe him b/c the MSMA discussed the 19,000rpm limit as early as 2008, and the 19,000rpm rev limit appears to be corroborated by the onboard telemetry shown during the race.



The MSMA probably have everyone under non-disclosure, but it could make an interesting article. MotoGP's future might be more similar to MotoGP's past than people realize.

mylexicon said:

The 800s are actually rev limited to 19,000rpm. The MSMA discussed it way back in 2008 b/c they thought it was important (or Dorna thought it was important) to make sure the rev ceiling didn't exceed what could be achieved with state of the art valve spring technology. Nobody knew if they had done it or not, then Rossi let the cat out of the bag in his GQ interview last year.



The rev limit doesn't really affect the racing b/c the bikes are fuel limited and restricted to 6 engines, but if the on screen graphics are accurate, the Honda bounces off of the rev limit during the races as well.

Click to expand...

wrong



a valve spring head cannot rev past 15000rpm, thats why renault were the first to use pneumatics in f1



i don't know why you're so obsessed with rev limits when its obvious that there aren't any





but for the sake of argument, why would 600cc, and thus higher revs, be cheaper?

cliché guevara said:

wrong



a valve spring head cannot rev past 15000rpm, thats why renault were the first to use pneumatics in f1



i don't know why you're so obsessed with rev limits when its obvious that there aren't any





but for the sake of argument, why would 600cc, and thus higher revs, be cheaper?

Click to expand...

http://www.crash.net/motogp/feature/80155/1/yamaha_five_more_ponies.html



[quote name= 'Masao Furusawa']"From the theoretical point of view we don't need to use the pneumatic valves, because the rev limit is around 19,000 rpm [achievable with valve-springs],"[/quote]



You ought to write Mr. Furusawa a letter. I'm sure he has plenty of time to read it now that he spends his days fishing.



Here's why you never hear about the rev limit (if it exists): http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/02/11/hrc_opens_witch_hunt_for_rev_limit_moles.html If there was a rev limit, it was part of a private agreement between the manufacturers. If someone blabs, HRC will put them in a hole in the desert. Rossi is the only made man in the GP paddock so he can do whatever he wants.



I don't have a cognitive bias towards rev limiting. I found a reference to an FIM homologated rev limit in the BSB rulebook, and I have an article where Rossi claims that MotoGP is rev limited. The cognitive bias exists in the minds of people who are afraid of the implications, not only for their credibility, but also for the purity of prototype motorsport--a rev limit shatters the doubters' world view. It would also prove that the manufacturers can have similar contracts in WSBK or in the WSBK homologation papers (also proprietary intellectual property). I would not be dismayed to learn that motorcycle racing is not rev limited.



To me, a rev limit is just another interesting piece of the puzzle, and it appears to fit quite nicely. I don't have any cognitive biases about the existence of a rev limit so I am more willing to accept the evidence from credible sources, and the empirical evidence I gather with my own sight.

yes but valve springs don't rev past a maximum of 16.500rpm

the problem with increasing revs is more friction and thus higher fuel consumption. trust me on this, somewhere i've got an interview with furusawa in a german motorcycle magazine and in that interview he states explicitly that its the fuel limit why it doesn't make sense to look for even more revs.



i too believe that there may be a sort of gentlemens agreement as you've said, but if there was an understanding to not rev past 19k then it would have nothing to do with valve springs



edit: what about 600s?i'm curious to know why you think 600s would be cheaper (thanks for the tech talk ,really appreciate it so awesome to have a discussion on a motogp forum )

cliché guevara said:

yes but valve springs don't rev past a maximum of 16.500rpm

the problem with increasing revs is more friction and thus higher fuel consumption. trust me on this, somewhere i've got an interview with furusawa in a german motorcycle magazine and in that interview he states explicitly that its the fuel limit why it doesn't make sense to look for even more revs.



i too believe that there may be a sort of gentlemens agreement as you've said, but if there was an understanding to not rev past 19k then it would have nothing to do with valve springs



edit: what about 600s?i'm curious to know why you think 600s would be cheaper (thanks for the tech talk ,really appreciate it

so awesome to have a discussion on a motogp forum

)

Click to expand...

I just quoted Furusawa from an article where he said valve-springs can rev to 19,000rpm. Furusawa is also correct when he says the fuel limit makes it pointless to search for revs, but it isn't the reason the bikes don't rev higher in qualifying trim. The engine rules also put a damper on revs, but they weren't around in 2008 or most of 2009.



I think 600s would be cheaper b/c I think the reciprocating internals would be smaller. More importantly, if they reduced displacement but maintained the 21L capacity, the sport would no longer be fuel limited.

I don't think there is an actual rule against a hard rev limit, but maybe an agreement to ban the metal composites and other exotic materials that would let getting more revs become reliable. I see it as being like the ban on Direct Injection, the rule doesn't say no DI but that some of the ingredients to get the DI to work have been banned. The GP rules as they sit now are just a complete bunch of ........ though. The bikes don't get a real technical inspection and you can bet that none of these factories are letting anyone into their bikes before them after a race to see what is being used. When you have a bunch of rules that say "what you can't do" as opposed to "what you will do" it just leaves a bunch of loop holes and that's exactly what the factories want. Just look at F1 when the rules changed to prevent any unfair advantages Honda walked away.

mylexicon said:

I just quoted Furusawa from an article where he said valve-springs can rev to 19,000rpm. Furusawa is also correct when he says the fuel limit makes it pointless to search for revs, but it isn't the reason the bikes don't rev higher in qualifying trim. The engine rules also put a damper on revs, but they weren't around in 2008 or most of 2009.



I think 600s would be cheaper b/c I think the reciprocating internals would be smaller. More importantly, if they reduced displacement but maintained the 21L capacity, the sport would no longer be fuel limited.

Click to expand...

I haven't read what you linked but I have in the past linked to the articles about Yamaha getting valve springs to rev past 16krpm. They got it to work but then they ditched it when Rossi had an engine failure during a race. I think it was during the 2006 or 2007 season, they stopped trying to get them to work because they couldn't get enough clearance from the springs to use some of their cam profiles so the springs still have their limits just because of their size.

mylexicon said:

To me, a rev limit is just another interesting piece of the puzzle, and it appears to fit quite nicely. I don't have any cognitive biases about the existence of a rev limit so I am more willing to accept the evidence from credible sources, and the empirical evidence I gather with my own sight.

Click to expand...

You are obsessed with rev limits. Your intelligence (which is obvious) is leading you astray. You are taking the off the cuff remarks made as complete shorthand (and passed through a journalist, and then a translator) and seeing things that aren't there. I very strongly suggest you listen to the latest Freakonomics podcast, which is about the ways in which really smart people are really dumb. Here's an excerpt (full transcript here)

[font=Georgia, serif]

DUBNER: It doesn’t sound like it surprises you at all, then, that education—level of education — doesn’t necessarily have a big impact on whether you’re pro- or con-something. Correct?​

[/font]​

​

[font=Georgia, serif]

​

[/font]​

​

[font=Georgia, serif]

SHERMER: That’s right, it doesn’t. And giving smart people more information doesn’t help. It actually just confuses things. It just gives them more opportunity to pick out the ones that support what they already believe. So, being educated and intelligent, you’re even better at picking out the confirming data to support your beliefs after the fact.​

[/font]​

​

[font=Georgia, serif]

​

[/font]​

​

[font=Georgia, serif]

DUBNER: Let’s talk now for a bit about conspiracy theories, which we’re nibbling around the edges of. How would you describe, if you can generalize, the type of person who’s most likely to engage in a conspiracy theory that’s not true?​

[/font]​

​

[font=Georgia, serif]

​

[/font]​

​

SHERMER: Well, their pattern-seeking, their pattern-seeking module is just wide open. The net has, you know, is indiscriminatory. They think everything’s a pattern. If you think everything’s a pattern, then you’re, you’re kind of a nut.

Click to expand...

There is no rev limit in MotoGP. Ducati would never have agreed to it, and would have violated it, as the desmo system allows them to disregard any rev limit. There are certain practical limits, which are between 19 and 20K, because that's where the optimum borestroke point is for a powerful engine that still has some kind of torque. It took a lot of browbeating, threats and intimidation to get the MSMA to agree to the 81mm bore, there is no way they would agree a rev limit among themselves.





Unless of course the Illuminati made them do it.

hawkdriver said:

Just look at F1 when the rules changed to prevent any unfair advantages Honda walked away.

Click to expand...

Honda walked away from F1 b/c engine development was frozen. Furthermore, the FIA forced the manufacturers to lease their engines to private teams. Honda was against both the engine freeze and the lease requirement so they walked away from the sport........with Toyota and BMW. Different kettle of fish in F1. F1 was already bore limited before the real shenanigans started.

In relation to some of the things I have read here regarding cost/ expenses, etc. One thing that I know I will catch all kinds of hell for but...whatever.. Bring back tobacco money, not just Marlboro with no advertising markings anywhere, but genuine advertising as they used to be able to do. We are all adults here, I know I can choose what I do with my life and don't need some ..... in office telling me what I can and can't do. The debate about kids is pretty much moot, kids don't spend the money on GP and it just isn't the demographic at all. Hey most of us here grew up just fine with watching Schwantz and his Lucky Strike bike, or Lawson, and really any and all of the other tobacco sponsored bikes. For one, that in no way made me want to smoke a cig. I don't smoke today as it is so by them saying it is so influential well, it just isn't.