The Future of MotoGP (part du)

The sport has been altered a half-dozen times since 2002. If you want a sport that preserves the moral-purity of the status quo, you probably need to look elsewhere.



Sliding the bars out by 20mm and raising the bubble by 30mm is not a backdoor conspiracy to pollute the integrity of the sport. As I said before, Pedrosa can ride an SBK, but Mladin cannot ride a GP, especially not a 21L 800cc machine. Obviously, including Mat is just an aesthetic pursuit b/c the man has no talent on a motorcycle.



The two of you have made numerous indecipherable posts to clarify your ethos. I liked it better when I thought you were wrong, but the more you type, the more you appear to be incapable of reasonable thought.

mylexicon said:

The sport has been altered a half-dozen times since 2002. If you want a sport that preserves the moral-purity of the status quo, you probably need to look elsewhere.



Sliding the bars out by 20mm and raising the bubble by 30mm is not a backdoor conspiracy to pollute the integrity of the sport. As I said before, Pedrosa can ride an SBK, but Mladin cannot ride a GP, especially not a 21L 800cc machine. Obviously, including Mat is just an aesthetic pursuit b/c the man has no talent on a motorcycle.



The two of you have made numerous indecipherable posts to clarify your ethos. I liked it better when I thought you were wrong, but the more you type, the more you appear to be incapable of reasonable thought.

Click to expand...

Simoncelli could ride a MotoGP bike, and he's taller than me. Some Italian guy called Rossi is about the same height as me (5'11") and is reportedly halfway decent on a MotoGP bike (though the Australians may take issue with that). Spies is no midget either.



As for Pedrosa riding a WSBK bike, there are those who contend that Pedrosa is still neither tall enough nor strong enough to ride a MotoGP machine. He gets very touchy about the subject. He'd have a pretty tough time on a WSBK bike, I think.



Mladin could have ridden a MotoGP bike if he'd wanted to. But he only wanted to do so if he had the right bike, right team, etc. It takes a lot of clout for that to happen, and Mladin didn't have that kind of clout.



As for sports, well, cyclists are anorexic midgets, football offensive linemen are obese giants, motorcycle racers are anorexic shortarses, even car racing drivers are on the short and skinny side (with the exception of anyone called Bubba who drives something called "the #17 car"). Female gymnasts are only just post-pubescent anorexic midgets, male gymnasts are short, squat dwarves built like brick shithouses. Basketball players are beanpoles, but not as bad as high jumpers. The main physical attributes of a soccer player appears to be "having good hair", while golf isn't a sport, it's a waste of a perfectly good motocross track.



Sports isn't fair. Different sports suit different physiques. That's just the way it is.

Lex thinks I'm indecipherable, I think exactly the same of his reasoning.

Kropotkin said:

Simoncelli could ride a MotoGP bike, and he's taller than me. Some Italian guy called Rossi is about the same height as me (5'11") and is reportedly halfway decent on a MotoGP bike (though the Australians may take issue with that). Spies is no midget either.



As for Pedrosa riding a WSBK bike, there are those who contend that Pedrosa is still neither tall enough nor strong enough to ride a MotoGP machine. He gets very touchy about the subject. He'd have a pretty tough time on a WSBK bike, I think.



Mladin could have ridden a MotoGP bike if he'd wanted to. But he only wanted to do so if he had the right bike, right team, etc. It takes a lot of clout for that to happen, and Mladin didn't have that kind of clout.



As for sports, well, cyclists are anorexic midgets, football offensive linemen are obese giants, motorcycle racers are anorexic shortarses, even car racing drivers are on the short and skinny side (with the exception of anyone called Bubba who drives something called "the #17 car"). Female gymnasts are only just post-pubescent anorexic midgets, male gymnasts are short, squat dwarves built like brick shithouses. Basketball players are beanpoles, but not as bad as high jumpers. The main physical attributes of a soccer player appears to be "having good hair", while golf isn't a sport, it's a waste of a perfectly good motocross track.



Sports isn't fair. Different sports suit different physiques. That's just the way it is.

Click to expand...

Pretty much sums up the whole debate.



PS

Neither is life.

Kropotkin said:

Sports isn't fair. Different sports suit different physiques. That's just the way it is.

Click to expand...

The preservation of unfairness without any demonstrable benefit--do I really need to point out the weakness of this argument, or is the history of sociology sufficiently democratized that everyone has access to it?



A sport, in which the human body is doing all of the physical performance, is created solely to discriminate based upon physique. Motorsport doesn't function according to the paradigms of physical discrimination b/c the human being is manipulating a high-performance instrument. The fact that people cannot discern the differences between motorcycle racing and track-and-field demonstrates how far removed the sport is (and has been) from decent governance. Though, I am willling to give people the benefit of the doubt b/c motorcycling is something of a gray area.



Car racing fans don't seem to have the same ideological deficiencies. In car racing, the vehicles have always been relevant to the average sized male, and ballasting rules are always vehicle+driver. May I suggest that relevance to the average human being, both transportationally and physically, is one of the major pillars of automobile racing?



Marco Simoncelli received an RC212V with custom controls and bigger fairings. It makes sense then that I would recommend wider bars and taller fairings, accompanied by Dorna's proposal to do away with the fuel-limited formula and the 800cc engine. The sport already has minimum dimensions. Changing them shouldn't spark moral outrage.



Why does the sport have minimum dimensions?

mylexicon said:

The preservation of unfairness without any demonstrable benefit--do I really need to point out the weakness of this argument, or is the history of sociology sufficiently democratized that everyone has access to it?



A sport, in which the human body is doing all of the physical performance, is created solely to discriminate based upon physique. Motorsport doesn't function according to the paradigms of physical discrimination b/c the human being is manipulating a high-performance instrument. The fact that people cannot discern the differences between motorcycle racing and track-and-field demonstrates how far removed the sport is (and has been) from decent governance. Though, I am willling to give people the benefit of the doubt b/c motorcycling is something of a gray area.



Car racing fans don't seem to have the same ideological deficiencies. In car racing, the vehicles have always been relevant to the average sized male, and ballasting rules are always vehicle+driver. May I suggest that relevance to the average human being, both transportationally and physically, is one of the major pillars of automobile racing?



Marco Simoncelli received an RC212V with custom controls and bigger fairings. It makes sense then that I would recommend wider bars and taller fairings, accompanied by Dorna's proposal to do away with the fuel-limited formula and the 800cc engine. The sport already has minimum dimensions. Changing them should spark moral outrage.



Why does the sport have minimum dimensions?

Click to expand...

That may be true if you totally pretend that the laws of motion do not exist.

povol said:

That may be true if you totally pretend that the laws of motion do not exist.

Click to expand...

I already addressed the laws of motion so I'm not operating under that assumption, am I?



The issue is straightforward. Physical discrimination regarding attributes that have nothing to do with the skill of riding a motorcycle (e.g. aerodynamic hips/shoulders) have no positive benefit to the series. The sanctioning body and most of the participants appear to agree b/c they have created a system of minimum dimensions. I'm not sure the minimum dimensions do enough to prevent the miniaturization of riders and the loss of relevance to the average human being.



Since we have a dearth of reasonable thought on the issue, let me be my own devil's advocate:



Perhaps, mylexicon, we should wait and see what happens with the fuel capacity and engine capacity rules before we make changes to minimum dimensions. Changes to min dims could prove to be superfluous or unnecessary, and changing a single variable could be construed as slightly more scientific and reasonable.



Shortcomings in the scientific method notwithstanding, I'd prefer not to leave things open to chance, especially when the manufacturers have already committed to build entirely new motorcycles. The sanctioning body doesn't have absolute control over the independent variable. I realize that the scientific method is preferable to complex inferential reasoning, but I'm not sure the act of writing technical regulations is actually governed by science.



I see the conundrum. How bout this? If I can guarantee the ratification of 24L and 1000cc, would you suspend changes to the minimum dimensions for a period of 5-10 years in order to study the effects of more potential energy and higher horsepower? Is it a deal?



You have provided almost nothing other than a guarantee, without any consideration, for 24L and 1000cc. You're not giving me a lot to work with. If we accept to the terms of the guarantee, you must be willing to raise the minimum dimensions by at least 5% if 1 of 2 possible events occurs: 1. fuel capacity is reduced to less than 24L for all 'factory' participants or all participants regardless of classification 2. capacity is reduced to less than 1000cc or the horsepower output is reduced by more than 10%.



You're kind of painting us into a corner b/c we can't guarantee stability to the participants if they ratify a new formula.



On the contrary, if the participants know that undesirable volatility will result from frivolous formula changes, frivilous rule changes will not be adopted.



What about changes to the technical regulations in the interest of safety? If we reduce horsepower, capacity, or fuel capacity in the name of safety, the manufacturers will incur additional development costs for which the venue owners are likely the cause.



Perhaps we could draft a clause that allows the GPC to decide whether or not a change to the technical regulations is needed for safety. A simple vote with the tie-breaking vote cast by the FIM. If the changes are related to safety, the minimum dimensions clause will not be activated.



That could be workable.



Good. We will recess until our next scheduled meeting, at which time, our committee will have prepared a memorandum of understanding regarding the proposed changes to the bylaws and the minimum dimensions clause.



Very good, we will see you at the end of this month. Now that business has been dispensed with, is anyone up for some drinking?



I will join you.

mylexicon said:

The preservation of unfairness without any demonstrable benefit--do I really need to point out the weakness of this argument, or is the history of sociology sufficiently democratized that everyone has access to it?

Click to expand...

Last I checked, sociology is the science of human societies, not the ethics of sport.

mylexicon said:

Perhaps we could draft a clause that allows the GPC to decide whether or not a change to the technical regulations is needed for safety. A simple vote with the tie-breaking vote cast by the FIM. If the changes are related to safety, the minimum dimensions clause will not be activated.



That could be workable.

Click to expand...

GPC can already make rules on safety. Dorna and FIM have authority there, and don't need approval by FIM. Brake lever protectors are a case in point, Dorna and the FIM wanted them, the MSMA didn't. Dorna won.

Kropotkin said:

GPC can already make rules on safety. Dorna and FIM have authority there, and don't need approval by FIM. Brake lever protectors are a case in point, Dorna and the FIM wanted them, the MSMA didn't. Dorna won.

Click to expand...

I meant safety changes that pertained to the fuel capacity, engine displacement, or horsepower output which were part of the activation for the minimum dimensions clause.



Amusement was the general purpose of that section, anyway.

Lex, I must admit, I don't get it. Physical size and stature has always played a part in piloting a motorbike. My 5'3" 96lb. wife cannot throw my 800 around like I (6'1" 180lb) can. But she can chuck her 250 around just fine. Her 250 feels like a dwarf bike when I first get on it.



Motorbikes bridge the gap between athletics and car racing... Not 100% physical like athletics but 100% more physical than driving a car.



Here in Thailand (and in many parts of the developing world) the average size of a person is much smaller than in the west (I can see clearly over the heads of any crowd here!).



Face it - on a motorbike size does matter.

Lex, I must admit, I don't get it. Physical size and stature has always played a part in piloting a motorbike. My 5'3" 96lb. wife cannot throw my 800 around like I (6'1" 180lb) can. But she can chuck her 250 around just fine. Her 250 feels like a dwarf bike when I first get on it.



Motorbikes bridge the gap between athletics and car racing... Not 100% physical like athletics but 100% more physical than driving a car.



Here in Thailand (and in many parts of the developing world) the average size of a person is much smaller than in the west (I can see clearly over the heads of any crowd here!).



Face it - on a motorbike size does matter.

Motorcycling is an agility, balance, strength, intelligence sport.



Too tall ....... not agile enough and often too slow with the balance.



Too little ..... problems with strength sometimes



Too fat ...... you got none of these.











There is no set size cos each size can work on their weak points and good points, except if you are too fat, you can only race couch.

mylexicon said:

I think you are confusing "production" and "stock". Production bikes are whatever people are willing to sell on the open market. Stock bikes are street-legal machines built for mass consumption. Mixing stock bikes and production race bikes has never worked terribly well, unless it's a feeder class. Production race bikes should probably always be based on stock machines. Prototype should include equipment, built to formula guidelines, that the manufacturers would never sell or lease on the open market.



I also think SBK and GP are too close in performance. If GP was still 2t, I wouldn't care, but they are slowly becoming clones. I also agree with Domenicali that the Aprilia CRT is against the spirit of the regulations, but I think it is within the vision of Dorna/Bridgepoint. The claiming rules were intended to discourage factories from getting involved b/c they don't want their SBK parts claimed by other manufacturers. The bigger vision of Dorna, imo, is for GP to own 1000cc and the related production bikes. Not sure what will happen with SBK, but we know the MSMA don't like the 1000cc base anymore. Not sure why Domenicali would complain. Just claim the bike, and release the parts specifications on the internet so anyone can build Aprilia WSBK parts.

Click to expand...

Did you miss this part...



"Lastly I would like to add that what I just said means jack .... and I really havent got a clue what I am talking about "

Mick D said:

Lex, I must admit, I don't get it. Physical size and stature has always played a part in piloting a motorbike. My 5'3" 96lb. wife cannot throw my 800 around like I (6'1" 180lb) can. But she can chuck her 250 around just fine. Her 250 feels like a dwarf bike when I first get on it.



Motorbikes bridge the gap between athletics and car racing... Not 100% physical like athletics but 100% more physical than driving a car.



Here in Thailand (and in many parts of the developing world) the average size of a person is much smaller than in the west (I can see clearly over the heads of any crowd here!).



Face it - on a motorbike size does matter.

Click to expand...

I understand that size does indeed matter in motorcycling. I don't have any particular difficulty understanding convention, but I do question whether or not it is beneficial for the sport.



Why is a world championship better (in theory) than a national championship? b/c it pulls the best talent from a much bigger sample. Therefore, if you want the skill level in GP to continue rising, you incorporate as many people as possible. This has been an underlying tenant of my posts for a long time and over a wide variety of subjects from including Asia, to including more manufacturers, to making technical regs that are more accomodating of average stature.



People complain b/c 'riders have always been small and they always will be small'. Do people actually think that passes for cogent thought? Do people reckon the GPC balance the sport on such tenuous ideals? Two pages of blowback over something as uncontroversial a minor modifications to minimum dimension regulations--rules that purists have tolerated for decades despite their artificial impact on the holiness of the sport.



My suggestion was a nearly-imperceptible change in the existing minimum dimensions of the bikes to stabilize top speeds (not my agenda) and create a slightly larger cockpit to ensure that shoulder, hip, and feet measurements, which have nothing to do with the skill of riding a motorcycle, do not reduce the size of the talent pool. If such minor changes tax the intellectual capacity of this message board, perhaps MotoGP should be turned into WSBK.

Mr Squiggle said:

Did you miss this part...

"Lastly I would like to add that what I just said means jack .... and I really havent got a clue what I am talking about

"

Click to expand...

I didn't pay any attention to it b/c you post didn't sound clueless.

Bigger, faster, stronger... that's the general mantra for sports. It's also much more palatable for the (conditioned) viewer to watch--those guys are all so much bigger and stronger than me, that's why I'm watching and they're on TV; emaciated jockeys... not so much.



But back to the clusterfuck that is the future of MotoGP: you reap what you sow, Dorna. Ever since Ezpeleta discovered that 125 x 2 = 250, and that 250 x 2 = 500, the idea that each class of Grand Prix racing is but a progression has been relentlessly promoted. Age limiting the 125cc class devalued that championship, usually relegating it to a battle between a wily 'veteran' (slinking back to the smallest class to grab some silverware) and a pimply teenager, or a bunch of kids riding all over one another (and won by the one who crashed least).



And speaking of age, why is it so important, why does everything have to happen.. right ....... now? Kevin Schwantz was 29 when he won his only world championship, Mick Doohan was 29 when he won his first; Stoner could walk away from the sport having won 5 titles aged 29. Sure, there have always been guys who were just that good that they had great success at a young age (Spencer, Rossi, etc.), but Dorna's master plan seems to be: at 15/16 do a couples of years in Moto3, then a couple more in Moto2, then, bang, you're in MotoGP (and from there you later fall back to Moto2 as an also ran, or--if you're mediocre for long enough--you get pensioned off to WSBK).



Angel Nieto and Jorge Martinez are legends, right? Pfft... how many 500cc wins/championships do they have? They were just too scared to run with the big boys...



Yet Dorna couldn't even get their progression right, with the yawning gap between Moto2 and MotoGP being prime evidence of that. Solution: CRT!

As long as there is money and a fucken .... load of it being poured into motogp then the sport will survive and motogp will be here in 2012 to 3000...you take note of what Danny said and that is not Danny Pedrosa!



"Money Talks and ........ walks"



And that is what governs motogp today and will forever!!!

Still not getting it... Lex as you point out they are minimum dimensions. If as Kropo suggests 5'10" Sic and 5'11" Rossi can be accommodated what's stopping the accommodation of a 6'2" wonder boy? Why the need to bump up minimum dimensions possibly excluding those of smaller stature when there is no maximum dimension excluding Lebron James?

Rising Sun said:

Bigger, faster, stronger... that's the general mantra for sports. It's also much more palatable for the (conditioned) viewer to watch--those guys are all so much bigger and stronger than me, that's why I'm watching and they're on TV; emaciated jockeys... not so much.



But back to the clusterfuck that is the future of MotoGP: you reap what you sow, Dorna. Ever since Ezpeleta discovered that 125 x 2 = 250, and that 250 x 2 = 500, the idea that each class of Grand Prix racing is but a progression has been relentlessly promoted. Age limiting the 125cc class devalued that championship, usually relegating it to a battle between a wily 'veteran' (slinking back to the smallest class to grab some silverware) and a pimply teenager, or a bunch of kids riding all over one another (and won by the one who crashed least).



And speaking of age, why is it so important, why does everything have to happen.. right ....... now? Kevin Schwantz was 29 when he won his only world championship, Mick Doohan was 29 when he won his first; Stoner could walk away from the sport having won 5 titles aged 29. Sure, there have always been guys who were just that good that they had great success at a young age (Spencer, Rossi, etc.), but Dorna's master plan seems to be: at 15/16 do a couples of years in Moto3, then a couple more in Moto2, then, bang, you're in MotoGP (and from there you later fall back to Moto2 as an also ran, or--if you're mediocre for long enough--you get pensioned off to WSBK).



Angel Nieto and Jorge Martinez are legends, right? Pfft... how many 500cc wins/championships do they have? They were just too scared to run with the big boys...



Yet Dorna couldn't even get their progression right, with the yawning gap between Moto2 and MotoGP being prime evidence of that. Solution: CRT!

Click to expand...