Traction Control

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ May 15 2008, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What's his point Michael?...I genuinely don't understand. Motorcycle racing is replete with championships won on inferior machinery....man over machine. Look no further than Rossi at Welkome '04..the first rider to win cosequetive GP's on different machinery, going on to take the title in his first year at Yamaha at a time that the M1 was still handicapped from a lack of previous direction.. But the best example that springs to mind is '93. Had it not been for Misano, Rainey would have held Schwantz and taken a fourth title on pig of a Yam that handled like a puppy on a lead.

Tom, please have a break from your exam revision and enlighten me!! I'm obviously confused.
Rossi may well need less help from his machinery than most if not all riders in history, but he still needs some. This is why he has never gone and will never go to kawasaki. Tom has argued previously and I agree with him that the natural state of affairs is that the best rider ends up on the best or close to the best bike. I don't think premier class bike racing is all that replete with championship winners on markedly inferior bikes; I accept that 2004 is one case. I don't think the early part of 1993 is a good example, schwantz's suzuki also being notably porcine, and honda not having any fit riders of quality.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phleg @ May 15 2008, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>To be fair, who else in 02 could challenge him? I don't think anyone could put Ukawa on Rossi's level even on the best bike.



I think his point is, since a lot of you like to flame Tom for having a differing opinion, that you don't win a championship on a '.... bike'. I'd say that 04 was VERY good from Rossi, but I wouldn't have called the M1 the worst bike (that's reserved for the KRV5) since it seemed to be by far better in the corners and on the brakes with Rossi onboard.

I have no desire to 'flame Tom' for expressing a differing opinion - that is after all the whole rationale of a forum. I do however feel having paid more than just a passing interest in this forum for a year or so without participating, that he is on occasions uneccessarily forthright and contrary with some of his opinions. You have explained what he initially meant, and I agree that championships cannot be won on a .... bike; but in the history of this sport the advantages and 'circumstances' to which he refers that have favoured or been exploited by a championship winning rider have to my eyes been every bit a mark of the individual as they have technical aids.

I don't think that the M1 was the worst bike out there in '04, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near sorted when The Doctor inherited it - although by the same token, it bore no similarities to the '03 bike that the previous incumbent Barros had to endure.

Regarding '02 - many weren't even in the race from the off. Some title protagonists were still on a two stroke, while the M1 that Geoff Crust was supposed to make competetive for Biaggi was a joke - the only thing that has survived to this day is the name. And remember Barros got hold of and rode the V5 around the car park in Motegi before promptly winning the race, and repeated the feat two races later in Valencia. Regarding Tom's initial point on the technical front, in this instance the late great Antonio Corbas definitely utfoxed JB who's garage had already won the title in Rio and let his guard down, although Barros rode like a God at Valencia. But no, there was noone to take it to Vale in '02

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ May 15 2008, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't think premier class bike racing is all that replete with championship winners on markedly inferior bikes; I accept that 2004 is one case. I don't think the early part of 1993 is a good example, schwantz's suzuki also being notably porcine, and honda not having any fit riders of quality.
I didn't say just 'premier class bike racing', and in the context of the entire history of the sport, then yes I think there are many cases where a championship has been won on not the best machinery out there. I concede, perhaps inferior is the wrong word, because it implies the worst bike on the grid and I don't mean that.

Sorry that's a pile of crap. The ' 93 Suzuki was formidable, and so was Schwantz...but we'll forget ol' Kev 'cause the rider doesn't really count in this right? and if it was as you say as much of a 'pig' as Rainey's Yam, then surely that gives credence to the fact that the rider can in fact prevail over technical limitations winning 4 out of the first 9 races I think. Anyway, you're wrong, Suzuki produced a blinding bike that year - those were the days- but I do agree, what with Doohans absence for most of '92, and a lack of his vital developmental input to steer HRC, plus his physical limitations the following year, Honda did indeed struggle for the season.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ May 14 2008, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That depends if you consider engine braking control to be TC, it is there to aid traction afterall.IMHO, riders have all the braking power they need at their fingertips. Engine braking was an unneeded annoyance which they try to minimize with slipper clutches etc. To elaborate on my original point, if a riders comes in too fast into a corner, even the best "traction control" cannot help him brake (out of the situation).

I admire rossi greatly. I was happy when he won all his 5 premier class world championships, going with the crowd perhaps a trifle unfairly and regarding biaggi and gibernau as the black hat guys. I went for nicky in 2006 after capirossi's ducati challenge faded as a supporter of the underdog and an admirer of his gritty character, and for stoner in 2007 significantly for obvious patriotic reasons.

But supporters of honda or yamaha factory riders complaining because in one year out of the last 25 a bike other than the factory honda or yamaha was superior (even if this was the case which I don't accept is definitely proven)? Give me a break. As my brother, an english and history major says, irony can be pretty ironic .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ May 15 2008, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I admire rossi greatly. I was happy when he won all his 5 premier class world championships, going with the crowd perhaps a trifle unfairly and regarding biaggi and gibernau as the black hat guys. I went for nicky in 2006 after capirossi's ducati challenge faded as a supporter of the underdog and an admirer of his gritty character, and for stoner in 2007 significantly for obvious patriotic reasons.

But supporters of honda or yamaha factory riders complaining because in one year out of the last 25 a bike other than the factory honda or yamaha was superior (even if this was the case which I don't accept is definitely proven)? Give me a break. As my brother, an english and history major says, irony can be pretty ironic .

I don't think that's the case. A lot of people I know were behind the Ducati/ Bridgestone/ Stoner combination as the percieved underdog. I was personally very pleased that they took the title. However you're wrong again; the entire package was superior- all three siezed the initiative brilliantly, the Italians out-engineered the Japs, the Japs provided a better tyre within the new parametres that were given than the French, and the Australian's came up with another great talent. I say again though, without TC Casey would not have won that championship, it would have gone the Puppet Masters way.

As my Daughter, a minor says, ironing can be....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ May 15 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you are to put Casey's title down to Tc, why not put all of Rossi's down to JB. Or haydens down to HRC. Its not really fair to say one rider won because he had the best equipment and not to carry that value through when others win. Each rider has to deal with their circumstances, advantages and disadvantages. They are all world champions because they maximised their oppertunities



1. WRONG

2. You must have looked away when Hayden won the world title

3. WRONG
i think it was you who pointed out that nickys bike was a different bike from rossis rcv211v when peeps said nicky won the title because of rossi's development work, dont you remember ?

and you have said in threads rossi had won because he had a far superior bike, go on deny it !

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ May 15 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't think that's the case. A lot of people I know were behind the Ducati/ Bridgestone/ Stoner combination as the percieved underdog. I was personally very pleased that they took the title. However you're wrong again; the entire package was superior- all three siezed the initiative brilliantly, the Italians out-engineered the Japs, the Japs provided a better tyre within the new parametres that were given than the French, and the Australian's came up with another great talent. I say again though, without TC Casey would not have won that championship, it would have gone the Puppet Masters way.

As my Daughter, a minor says, ironing can be....
If you read my posts, I did not say tc wasn't involved; the basic ducati chassis which some with more engineering knowledge than me say is archaic does not appear to handle as well as the yamaha and the current honda and getting it through the corners fast enough certainly involved tc. I have also never said that stoner was rossi's match for talent. However tc as the latest in a series of explanations for why stoner didn't really deserve the 2007 title tends to rankle with stoner fans even if as seems likely you did not intend to imply this. I also freely admit that any criticism of stoner was more than matched by later ridiculous anti-rossi comments by some stoner fans, more strident on other forums than this.

As far as schwantz is concerned I have a very good memory and unfortunately the memory of rainey's crash is one that is particularly indelible. However I approach bike racing as a fan rather than a scientific observer and my prejudices may colour my memories of schwantz which are of a rider racing close to or over the edge wringing the neck of the suzuki against superior opposition. Perhaps 1993 was an exception, and I did only watch it on TV, but being advantaged by a superior bike is not something I have frequently heard schwantz accused of .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ May 15 2008, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you read my posts, I did not say tc wasn't involved; the basic ducati chassis which some with more engineering knowledge than me say is archaic does not appear to handle as well as the yamaha and the current honda and getting it through the corners fast enough certainly involved tc. I have also never said that stoner was rossi's match for talent. However tc as the latest in a series of explanations for why stoner didn't really deserve the 2007 title tends to rankle with stoner fans even if as seems likely you did not intend to imply this. I also freely admit that any criticism of stoner was more than matched by later ridiculous anti-rossi comments by some stoner fans, more strident on other forums than this.

As far as schwantz is concerned I have a very good memory and unfortunately the memory of rainey's crash is one that is particularly indelible. However I approach bike racing as a fan rather than a scientific observer and my prejudices may colour my memories of schwantz which are of a rider racing close to or over the edge wringing the neck of the suzuki against superior opposition. Perhaps 1993 was an exception, and I did only watch it on TV, but being advantaged by a superior bike is not something I have frequently heard schwantz accused of .
Michael, you misundersttand again, I'm not saying that Schwantz was advantaged by a superior bike, 'if you read my posts', that would very quickly be evidenced. The technical advantages availed to a rider at any particular time was in fact Tom's thread. I merely pointed out that you were wrong to say that the '93 suzuki was equally as 'porcune' as the Yam. Schwantz rode like a true champion in '93, albeit on a very sorted motorcycle. Unlike the Yamaha bestowed upon Rainey that year, which made the Yamaha's chassis developmental 'nightmare' of '06 look like a sweet dream. the situation was only reversed by Rainey extracting the motor and cobbling it to an old production frame and then riding the .... off it.

I am also not asserting that Casey didn't deserve his title - I am making one observation - nothing more, and I'll repeat it again. Without the advent of TC, Casey Stoner would not have had that title.

I do agree with much of the rest of your post though

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (crvlvr @ May 15 2008, 06:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>IMHO, riders have all the braking power they need at their fingertips. Engine braking was an unneeded annoyance which they try to minimize with slipper clutches etc. To elaborate on my original point, if a riders comes in too fast into a corner, even the best "traction control" cannot help him brake (out of the situation).

Today the rear wheel are slowed down when off power by both by a electronically controlled slipper clutch and by the engine that get a bit extra fuel to lessen the engine braking if nessesarry. Both working together, in theory, in perfect harmony.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ May 15 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>and you have said in threads rossi had won because he had a far superior bike, go on deny it !

I have put foreward many times the fact that Rossi's equipment was superior, and i still believe it to be true. I think it's significance in his results is as worthy of mention as Stoner's or any other champions and have voiced that to many people who consider the bike to be more significant when their rider loses to when he loses. As i mentioned earlier easch champion has to deal with advantages, disadvantages and varying circumstances but i have always believed that the rider is the most significant factor in the end result.

TC=Devil worship

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ May 16 2008, 09:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>TC=Devil worship
Too bad the devil doesn't exist!

Did I hear 'Stoner won his title just because of TC'?
NO, please, not again

But if it has to be again, then I'll repeat - again - that it's nonsense.
Stoner is a great rider and denying it means one doesn't know this sport well. Sorry!

Not even Capirossi said anything like that (how could he, he had the same bike and same TC...). Even Rossi never said Stoner won 'just' because of that. And in fact he went after his tyres, he did not pull all those strings to have his Magneti Marelli ECU or his Ducati, - he wanted the Bridgestones.

Which gives away which is the biggest rider aid, - it's the good tyres. Nothing else can make that much difference. Rossi knows it - there is nothing like having a good tyre manufacturer who will listen to you. Assuming you know what to ask for, of course... but that's another topic.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ May 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Michael, you misundersttand again, I'm not saying that Schwantz was advantaged by a superior bike, 'if you read my posts', that would very quickly be evidenced. The technical advantages availed to a rider at any particular time was in fact Tom's thread. I merely pointed out that you were wrong to say that the '93 suzuki was equally as 'porcune' as the Yam. Schwantz rode like a true champion in '93, albeit on a very sorted motorcycle. Unlike the Yamaha bestowed upon Rainey that year, which made the Yamaha's chassis developmental 'nightmare' of '06 look like a sweet dream. the situation was only reversed by Rainey extracting the motor and cobbling it to an old production frame and then riding the .... off it.

I am also not asserting that Casey didn't deserve his title - I am making one observation - nothing more, and I'll repeat it again. Without the advent of TC, Casey Stoner would not have had that title.

I do agree with much of the rest of your post though
It was quite late here when I was posting last night and I got on a hobbyhorse; you did ask me though.

I actually really enjoy your posts in general. You have a good turn of phrase and are obviously a passionate and knowledgeable bike racing fan.

I will admit the possibility that schwantz could have had a better handling bike than rainey in 1993 but had to push so hard because of a power disadvantage and because that was what he did anyway . Rainey is also one of my heroes; see my avatar. As is widely acknowledged all of the bikes at the time were such animals that it was a question of degree, as rainey and to a lesser extent doohan can unfortunately attest.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ May 15 2008, 09:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>thats a good point tom. we need help on this issue from our resident Tc expert <strike>dumber</strike> barrymachine.


Well in reality I don't know why you all want to just say "TC" thats a small subsystem of the holistic lot of enhancement on a bike ...... sure one could and might have interaction between engine run on and TC I guess its just a simillar thing in reverse .... ie. when the back end breaks loose under engine backoff then one could increase revs to stop it happening .... one of my vehicles had that ... 81 model ... it was crap .... I can see why they went the more mechanical method of employing a slipper clutch if you ask me. most dangerous it seemed in a vehicle. Sure the touching of the brakes killed it but gee it was crap .... I disabled it immediately I found the actuator.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ May 16 2008, 12:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Btw: Where did he go? Not that I miss him, but it was occationally amusing reading his posts.
Maybe he decided to leave us as his predictions gets increasingly amusing as well?

Ot:
In my book engine braking is part of the TC electronics.

What are you calling "engine breaking"??

Its just the excess shutoff power that 4 stroke engines have over a two stroke ..... due mostly to the fact that when the fuel air is shut off 4 strokes make nice compressors whereas 2 strokes tended to run on from only having such a small effective enclosed ( above exhaust port ) swept volume.


Its good to see JB has cleared up some of the "myths" on TC ..... I bet I could go back and find the likes of Rog. and Babel citing that TC was an all new feature since 2006


I told you so ...........

That felt good

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ May 16 2008, 06:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What are you calling "engine breaking"??

Its just the excess shutoff power that 4 stroke engines have over a two stroke ..... due mostly to the fact that when the fuel air is shut off 4 strokes make nice compressors whereas 2 strokes tended to run on from only having such a small effective enclosed ( above exhaust port ) swept volume.


Its good to see JB has cleared up some of the "myths" on TC ..... I bet I could go back and find the likes of Rog. and Babel citing that TC was an all new feature since 2006


I told you so ...........

That felt good
are you reading your secret messages in artical's that no one else can see again barry ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Back in 2002 when the Repsol team tested Honda's first traction control system at Valencia, JB recalls Rossi getting off the bike and saying "Don't tell anyone, but this isn't fair!"

note the word "tested". no one used tc in the race back then, or not tc as we know it now. also notice rossi said ""Don't tell anyone, but this isn't fair!", stark contrast to what jb is saying if infact he did say anything at all. maybe if you actually read the words in articals instead of looking for hidden meanings you may see the contradictions.
told you so my arse !

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ May 16 2008, 06:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Its good to see JB has cleared up some of the "myths" on TC ..... I bet I could go back and find the likes of Rog. and Babel citing that TC was an all new feature since 2006


ok, i know i shouldnt feed it but, go on barry, show us the quotes and links etc. i would be curious to see them..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ May 16 2008, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What are you calling "engine breaking"??

Its just the excess shutoff power that 4 stroke engines have over a two stroke ..... due mostly to the fact that when the fuel air is shut off 4 strokes make nice compressors whereas 2 strokes tended to run on from only having such a small effective enclosed ( above exhaust port ) swept volume.
Thanks for the most needed education. I've never noticed the difference after racing both V-twin 250 2.str and V-twin 1000 4.str
Is that why we havent seen you around lately; your condition is getting worse? A few posts above you should be able to see this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Today the rear wheel are slowed down when off power by both by a electronically controlled slipper clutch and by the engine that get a bit extra fuel to lessen the engine braking if nessesarry. Both working together, in theory, in perfect harmony.
That's what I refer to as engine braking in the context of TC.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Its good to see JB has cleared up some of the "myths" on TC ..... I bet I could go back and find the likes of Rog. and Babel citing that TC was an all new feature since 2006


I told you so ...........

That felt good
As others said: what article were you reading, and I might add, what tread have you been reading?
Good for you that he cleard that up for you. Probably most others here allready figured that one out.