<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Feb 6 2008, 03:18 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>NO I can't, not any
direct reference .... but thats hardly surprising is it .... especially since as I have said right from the beginning that
So I was alluding to Mat Oxley being a "spin doctor"
ok I bothered to read the article ..... since you all insist
and yes straight away the "spin" starts"
1st paragraph
The "racing is getting boring" line is used .... yes he said its we who are worried about it .... but then says at the end "I can see why" ..... where did the "the racing is getting boring" line come from?
He then starts on TC
and how 250's could become the "real fans" ( connoiseurs ) class.
Then theres a lot of "odd" stuff there .... eg.
according to the article follk apparently got bored before, with the 500's, at the time of the MV domination ........
....... gee who remembers who won on those MV's? ......... who remembers who was in the 250's? ......
so if you do remember Agostini and Hailwood .... makes a bit of a mockery of what he is saying doesn't it?.
And the DI two strokes ....... well they do have a benefit ...... in that a short pulse of air fuel can be sent into the combustion chamber whilst the exhaust port is closed .... and such a small amount fed in that it can be metred to be of a quantity that burns allmost entirely before the exhaust port re-opens ( hence no wasted unburnt gases ) ..... but thats great for making a low power fuel efficient engine. But for real high performance 2 strokes .... to get more power out you have to start raizing quantities of fuel/air put in ...... this translates to a longer time of charging ..... as soon as this charging time goes so long as the exhaust port is opening then it has no benefit over a relatively conventional two stroke ... ..... conventional two strokes have to oversaturate the supply of air/fuel to get the most out of them. The whole reason "the expansion chamber" worked was that it is a device that sonically "bats" the escaping wadted charge back into the combustion chamber .... So to get real high power you would just be using the DI gear to pump huge amounts into the combustion chamber. So why tack on extra gear for that?? A conventional two stroke already has a good pump for large amounts ( the crankcase ) ...... So sadly DI has little benefit in motogp .... but is operable if trying to meter just the right smal amount of air/fuel. So that bit of the article is misleading. Sadly their is no such thing as a high power and fuel efficient 2 stroke, you can have either but you can't have both. Hence why 4 strokes are taking over worldwide.
Hence why motogp thought it wize to follow suit.
Also on the the orbital DI system, to put it into perspective, it has been around since before the internet ...... if it was so great .... why hasn't it taken off?
So .....
if you don't think motogp is boring then the article becomes just more of the same old stuff we heard from the Rossi fans about how boring it was getting because Stoner would not slow down and fight like a man
if you don't think TC is making it unfair for the "real riders" ...... then the article is just more of the spin to that effect, that we heard from the Rossi fans .... many of whom claimed Rossi had never had a drop of TC in his life
( but thats ok I figured out why they think that ..... see Rossi never actually touches the ground as he is god hence TC would be useless for him
) I think some out there even think TC was first used by Stoner and only in 07, or some even say he uses the "most TC"
But I believe TC has been there for for quite a few years now and all riders have it in one form or another ... and they all must set it up to suit themselves in order to optimise their performance. Its a pretty level playing field in that they all do have it .... but it is also a good development media as they all are competitive with creating a system and setup that most optimises their performance. In all honesty I don't really care if TC is removed if it is a "level playing field" ..... but I do think that it does have some development benefits so I would rather it was explored a bit further at present.
Anyhow it seems you sucked me in
... well done !! you got me to read it
but it was just more of the same ......
The other article was all about the
poor old Yamaha, and the
tyres, .... this article was about the
"boring racing" and the
TC .......... now where have I heard all that before
No more Oxley ..... I'm done with it
Jeez, are you the most paranoid guy on here or what, nobody else is giving Stoner or Rossi a thought on this thread. But of course were all just fanboys looking for an excuse.....Actually are you Alphabet? Did your caps lock break? Are you Toni Elias? Coz they are the only other folk who could uncover the pro Rossi anti whoever stuff in any post that didnt say "I want to be the mother of (insert this weeks favourite rider's name here) babies.
Sorry pal weve seen all this stuff before. I'ts not big or clever. It's boring.
Pete
, not that I would suggest all you rossiphiles have not been given very good cause by him for being fans of his. The actual orbital engine itself of course never got off the ground.
