I absolutely agree that riders having to ultimately prove themselves by the time they are barely out of their teenage years is crazy; I remember the argument when stoner was the second youngest premier class champion in history in 2007 that it must be down to the bike or he would have succeeded at a younger age.
Part of the problem is I suspect dorna using rossi who was so good so young as their model. He was actually also atypical in terms of his lower class success translating upwards; 125 and 250 success has quite often not been a good guide over the history of the sport with the "golden era" 500 riders mostly coming from superbikes for example as you obviously know. I agree Moto2 is hardly looking better for the role currently though.
Dorna are due a considerable amount of the blame for the current state of things as you say but the current economics do demand immediate success with so few competitive bikes and those few so expensive. They seem to be now belatedly looking for a more systemic solution, concerning which it is difficult to be confident given that virtually all their previous ad hoc changes have been unsuccessful, particularly in terms of reducing costs, with frequent rule changes being such a major contributor to costs. As I said earlier in this thread I for one certainly have no alternatives to pose though.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
I asked the same thing, and as usual,all you get is a 2000 word essay with Lex walking on both sides of fence. Its hard to be wrong when you argue both sides of a debate.
For health reasons apart from anything else, whatever the rules/formula if the result is already fit young men starving themselves I don't think it is desirable, and I also disapprove in the case of female gymnasts, and of jockeys. I realise that the argument can be extended to more sports, and I am not sure what my attitude is to (non-doping) distance runners and road cyclists for example, except that it is probably inconsistent as you consider lex to be.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
Athletes do what they have to do to compete. Be it steroids for sports that require muscle and endurance,or crash dieting to gain a perceived advantage. Big time competition will always have full blown scandals, or questionable practices when it comes training, as long as there is money at stake. I still dont think GP riders are dangerously malnourished, they fall within guidelines of what our health professionals deem satisfactory. Some of them are naturally that small, some have to work at it. Its the opposite in sports like football, and much more dangerous. A lot of these guys are not naturally 315 lbs, but that is where they have to be. I live in a college town that sends numerous athletes to the pros, especially the NFL. Some of them migrate back here once their careers are over and its amazing to see the 315 pound hulk, shrink to 250 lbs once the playing days are over.
A cursory glance at the MotoGP paddock should inform everyone that people 4" under average height are much more at home than people who are 4" over average height. It is a problem b/c it reduces the size of the population from which talent can be drawn. The crisis would manifest itself outside of the theoretical world if someone like Camier became the world's best SBK rider. His inability to fit on a MotoGP bike would call the integrity of the contest into question. Camier is still young, so the possibility is still present. Not to mention, riders on the larger side of the spectrum like Rossi or Simoncelli (RIP) were already starting to crow about the effect of the 21L fuel limit.
There is no reason to expose MotoGP to unnecessary risk. Excluding large groups of people from participating merely reduces the strength of the talent pool and creates an appearance of illegitimacy (in the long run). I'm sure would champions have more selfish ambitions, but it isn't like I'm the only one talking about modifying the min dimensions. Rider-bike ballasting is complicated. Kicking out the bars by 20mm and raising the min height is simple, and it reduces the likelihood of top speed problems. I don't see any reason Pedrosa would have to quit.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
RS meant that 125 and 250 were not always feeder classes for the 500s. They were stand alone prototyping contests with their own crew of manufacturers.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
And like so many have told you over and over again, certain sports require certain physiques. The world of sports is full of " tweeners" who were to big and slow to play one position, yet to small to play another. Guess what, they didnt make it, even though they were exceptional talents. Thats life, the sport didnt change for them. You adapt, or you go home. Besides, i cant think of one circumstance where a crash diet by a GP rider turned his fortunes around. Its all in their head. They see smaller riders dominating the scene and automatically assume its their size, when in fact, its more to do with talent. Lets face it, Nicky and other riders can lose down to 100 lbs and they are not going to be as fast as Stoner, Pedrosa, or Lorenzo. Like Krop said, bigger guys { Rossi, Sic, can/ could, ride GP bikes with the hobbits, they have/ had the talent.
Is MotoGP, in its current form, a sinful endeavor? No. Therefore, the discussion has no clear line of demarcation between absolute right and absolute wrong, which means that the sport doesn't fit into your dichotomized model of the universe. Since this is a relative discussion about the nuances of several different "good" scenarios, it might be necessary to include a few extra words.
Furthermore, anyone who replies to your posts, must, as a precondition, adhere to the idea that all sporting contests have an implicit morality. It is impossible to operate in such an environment without glossing over countless fallacies. Of course, cognitive estrangement is a one way street, isn't it? The fallacies and sensational shortcomings, often camoflagued when included in your posts, become conspicuous when used by someone else.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Hahaha. What a great thread this. Thanx gentz, has provided great reading. Carry on.
Attachments
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
Is MotoGP, in its current form, a sinful endeavor? No. Therefore, the discussion has no clear line of demarcation between absolute right and absolute wrong, which means that the sport doesn't fit into your dichotomized model of the universe. Since this is a relative discussion about the nuances of several different "good" scenarios, it might be necessary to include a few extra words.
Furthermore, anyone who replies to your posts, must, as a precondition, adhere to the idea that all sporting contests have an implicit morality. It is impossible to operate in such an environment without glossing over countless fallacies. Of course, cognitive estrangement is a one way street, isn't it? The fallacies and sensational shortcomings, often camoflagued when included in your posts, become conspicuous when used by someone else.Drama
http://youtu.be/ss2hULhXf04
Joined Jul 2006
11K Posts | 291+
Texas
Way back at the start of this topic, there was talk of the proposed Spec ECU, does anyone know anything about it?
What parts of it are going to be 'spec'? I mean it must be programable to some degree other wise it would force the manufacturers to build identical engines?
What parts of it are going to be 'spec'? I mean it must be programable to some degree other wise it would force the manufacturers to build identical engines?
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
Parts definitely, but the bit I don't get is ....... is the program to be spec.? I doubt it. Thats just part of tuning.
Maybe its a way of getting a cheap top notch ECU for even the lowest earning teams?
Personally I don't care whether they go spec. or not except, I have a leaning toward saying no Spec. ECU as it would hinder competitive development ( which is what MGP was once about )
Maybe its a way of getting a cheap top notch ECU for even the lowest earning teams?
Personally I don't care whether they go spec. or not except, I have a leaning toward saying no Spec. ECU as it would hinder competitive development ( which is what MGP was once about )
The spec-ECU is the great unknown b/c "spec" isn't very descriptive. A spec-ECU like the one used in BSB would make a mockery of the sport. A spec-ECU like the one used in F1 would probably make MotoGP more complicated than it is now. For all we know, the spec-ECU could be a negotiating tactic to put pressure on the MSMA.
Whether or not it is a good idea depends upon the formula that gets ratified. If we are stuck with 21L fuel capacity, spec-ECU as soon as possible. If the sport miraculously navigates itself to a 1000cc rev-limited formula, I think the ECUs should be left alone.
I cant see anyway it could work.
All the engines run differently, trying to create a single ECU to cater to every engine would be impossible without the teams being able to alter them freely, and then it's not really 'spec'
And if they did force them to use a locked ecu all engines would eventually be identical because firing order, MAP sensor settings etc would all be the same :/
All the engines run differently, trying to create a single ECU to cater to every engine would be impossible without the teams being able to alter them freely, and then it's not really 'spec'
And if they did force them to use a locked ecu all engines would eventually be identical because firing order, MAP sensor settings etc would all be the same :/
Although my politics are likely quite different to yours, I am with you in general about "socialism" in sports, particularly elite sports, and I am opposed to nascar type artificial equalisation in the interests of "close racing". If stoner or whoever else is good enough to dominate a season, as rossi and doohan and others have done previously and more often, then so be it.
I think there is more than one aspect to the argument about rider size/weight though. It is true that premier class racing has always been suited to smaller guys, but bigger guys with sufficient talent have been able to compete, rather successfully in rossi's case for one. It can perhaps be argued though that the sport has recently been changed to more strongly favour lighter weight riders, and perhaps rather arbitrarily, due to a somewhat random decision to change the formula to a fuel efficiency formula, and perhaps even to fit an engineering philosophy held to by a particular manufacturer.
To draw an exaggerated parallel, it is as if the olympic high hurdles were switched to hurdles 2 feet higher, because the manufacturer of hurdles is sick of making hurdles of the previous height and thinks making 2 foot higher hurdles will increase its knowledge of the aluminium alloy used to make hurdles; coincidentally or not, they have a major shareholder who is Spanish, and there is currently a world-class Spanish hurdler who is much taller than is common
I take your point about health issues in your earlier post; I think there is evidence that the nfl linemen who artificially bulk up have poor post-career health outcomes though, but acknowledge that when surveyed most sportsmen consider such things worth the risk. Some of the current riders look unhealthily asthenic to me, but as you say there does not seem to be much evidence of health issues as yet, and the sport may have come to this anyway with increasing professionalism and the modern search for the smallest edge. Dani pedrosa, who according to some opinions either had the 800 formula designed for him or was selected because he theoretically was ideally suited to a formula designed to suit honda's design philosophy, did appear to be too fragile to ultimately succeed in that formula, but I acknowledge one case does not constitute proof and that his fragility may be due to factors intrinsic to him other than his size and weight.
Joined Oct 2006
445 Posts | 43+
Adelaide, Australia
Are you asking if [a] I knew that the classes have been in existence since 1949, or that the idea you 'must' graduate through the ranks goes back to 1949?
If [a]
If really? Sure, some number of riders have always stepped up to bigger capacities, including those who raced 500s, but it was more common for riders to compete in several classes at once. And if the progression idea has always been so strong, why did so many of the 'lower class' champions never 'make it to the top'?
Indeed. Marquez is prime example. The hysteria over his need to be in MotoGP in 2012 aged 19 is largely understandable only in the light of the (seemingly) endless ranks of (mostly) Spanish teenagers coming up just behind.
Certainly. Rossi is the template, and no doubt Dorna had big expecatations for Pedrosa in MotoGP (seeing as though he actually did better in 125 & 250s than Rossi), but right now it appears he 'can't cut it' in the premier class.
One thing that would've appealed to my sense of humour: imagine if, for ..... and giggles, Rossi had not signed with Ducati in 2011, but gone to Moto2 and started up his own team so that he could complete the set of all Grand Prix championships on offer during the time he'd raced. Rossi would have been able to thumb his nose at the boring 800cc formula, and all of Dorna's class-progression-promotion-packaged-for-TV would be undone by their own golden boy!
Not simply feeder classes... that's the phrase I was looking for!
