Joined Jun 2008
2K Posts | 6+
America
If 1 rider won every race in a seaosn that is conclusive evidence that the series is dead in my opinion & yes i would comit hari kari!
Personally i like it when there is a new name on that trophy at the end of the year.
Back in 2003 i was bored as sin with GP, rossi winnig everything in sight.Yes he was the best rider on the best bike but that didnt make for good racing - which is what people pay for & its the people or more the revenue from the people that keep this whole circus turning.
2004 we were treated to a season of epic battles but we returned to the boredom of 2003 the following year in 2005.
Then along comes 2006 & i was blown away,not only by the outcome but by the racing,i dont think there was a dull one all season.
In 2007 a lot of people blamed stoner for the lack of racing, dont blame the player blame the game, he was just doing what he was paid to do.
2008 a very good season,made rossi ride out of his leathers - good to see.
2009 ok,some good races ( 1 brilliant one) but nothing to write home about.
2010 boredom revisited, thats not to say jorge didnt deserve it as he did.
2011 another desvered champion but very little racing at all,although the last 5 mins were quite exciting.
2012 Personally i hope stoner doesnt win it,i would like to see a new name on that trophy- Peddles or Spies maybe.
Please anything but more boredom. Glory hunters & fanboys may like to nothing more than to see thier favourite rider win everything in sight but thats not what racing is as no rider is that far ahead of the others,never has been & never will be.
Personally i like it when there is a new name on that trophy at the end of the year.
Back in 2003 i was bored as sin with GP, rossi winnig everything in sight.Yes he was the best rider on the best bike but that didnt make for good racing - which is what people pay for & its the people or more the revenue from the people that keep this whole circus turning.
2004 we were treated to a season of epic battles but we returned to the boredom of 2003 the following year in 2005.
Then along comes 2006 & i was blown away,not only by the outcome but by the racing,i dont think there was a dull one all season.
In 2007 a lot of people blamed stoner for the lack of racing, dont blame the player blame the game, he was just doing what he was paid to do.
2008 a very good season,made rossi ride out of his leathers - good to see.
2009 ok,some good races ( 1 brilliant one) but nothing to write home about.
2010 boredom revisited, thats not to say jorge didnt deserve it as he did.
2011 another desvered champion but very little racing at all,although the last 5 mins were quite exciting.
2012 Personally i hope stoner doesnt win it,i would like to see a new name on that trophy- Peddles or Spies maybe.
Please anything but more boredom. Glory hunters & fanboys may like to nothing more than to see thier favourite rider win everything in sight but thats not what racing is as no rider is that far ahead of the others,never has been & never will be.
Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
There are lot's of forms of motor racing that are close and have lots of passing. I suggest people go watch them. It is obvious that these bored folks don't know that they are not actually interested in MotoGP or in Motorbikes because they constantly complain about watching a guy ride a MotoGP bike to perfection. Sliding it at every opportunity in controlled aggression. If you can derive no enjoyment out of that then it is the wrong sport for you. Tin top car racing should be your sport, regulations are very strict and parity is used in almost every sentence. The history of GP bike racing is not littered with close racing it is the exception rather than the rule. I know that it is easy to paint history in a mythical light just like all the guys who bitched about the loss of the 500's during the 990's and now those same people ..... about the loss of those 990's that they claimed they hated. Soon they will ..... about the loss of real GP bikes to the touring cars bikes that are coming.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
Forget extra effects, just amplifying a good acoustic violin is a nightmare. They are mostly good disseminaters of sound, granted, but sadly they are also great reactors to ambient sound.
I have an acoustic here that when I hit a certain note, other violins on the shelf start vibrating, and if they are out of there stands, they will walk off the shelf.
No, as much as i like an acoustic violin, I am of the school that believes electric definitely have a place. Especially in modern music.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
Nickosil liners are a good example ......... need i say any more?
Swish paths
The expansion chamber
Fuel atomization,
Valve timing
just about everything in an engine ........
........ surely you jest ?
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Can I say your sudden crusade is obviously just Stonercentric? Or would that just be me fishing for ulterior motives where I have no business?
Without getting into a long drawn out exchange about the characteristics of the current racing (which I already did once with a few other decidedly "Stoner" fans, so you can reference that as far as point of debate), can you simply see that the 800 formula made for a unique form of racing that was more characteristic of clicking off lap times in similar fashion to the average of practices classification? The 800 formula simply produced this form of processional racing, and many fans of the sport, as well as some rides, claimed as much.
That's several times this year that you've said people who characterize the racing as uneventful or "boring" simply are too dumb to understand their own selves (apart from other ways you have characterized these fans). Have the balls then to call out Kropo and other respected figures in the sport that have characterized the racing as a "snooze fest". Next time Kropo comes on here, tell him he doesn't know himself, and should go watch "tin top car racing" as it will suit him more. (And tell him he doesn't understand the sport or is just a bopper, as Pov & BM have characterized fans that feel the racing is "boring"). That is coming from a guy who has never characterized the racing as "boring" but has enough sense to see the point of other passionate fans whose motives for calling the racing as "boring" are not simply ignorant, tribal, or stupid.
I agree that some fans are "bored" with the racing because their guy isn't winning, but you can pretty easily pick out those guys in the crowd. Other than that, there are a bunch of other people who have noticed a certain processional proceeding to the races which has been laid at the feet of the formula. This seems a truth that you can't stomach, and I can pretty much tell you the rest who feel the same, Pov, Mr. Squigs, and BM (to name a few most vocal). When Michealm suggested the formula had its problematic issues, you suggested it was poor timing to speak about this given that Stoner had just won the title. That is, we should all have just paused to take in the moment. Its interesting to me that you had less appreciation for that concept, and made issue of his timing, given that you felt no problem disregarding other's feelings of what was inappropriate timing to speak out on your thoughts during the recent tragedy. So it wasn't ok for Michaelm to talk about the formula the day we all should have been celebrating Stoner's title, but it was ok to talk about your thoughts while most people were mourning Marco's death? I'm sure you will say, you can't see why I would compare the two "timing-appropriate" examples, however, I see it as a double standard.
I don't want to start another mini war with you, but dude, a bit more open mindness. You don't have to worry though, we will probably have a perfect season by Stoner next year, and that will be because he is finally on one of the best bikes on the grid like this year; best rider on one of the top bikes, with the added reality that we will have less competitive bikes. So relax.
Very good points about the fuel, here in the US there are tons of people complaining about the ethanol in the fuel and blaming it for destroying small engines in lawn equipment and boat outboards. I haven't had any problems myself but what you say makes sense. I know the 350z I used to own had a feature called limp mode that would kick in when soemthing was wrong with the car, not sure if it had to do with fuel but it would limit the engine to 2.5k rpm.
The control ECU is just a piece of hardware that is programmable, like a computer as long as it's powerful enough it should be able to handle any program and support accessories. By making a control ECU you can limit it's ability to communicate with accesories and force the teams to use something that can't process the 100+ sensors the bikes have on them. You make it tamper proof by simply limiting it's ability. There is probably someone on the forum that knows about CANbus, but if there is no interface on the ECU that can communicate with gyros, wheel sensors, strain gauges etc, then you simply can't use them.
Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
Nickosil liners are a good example ......... need i say any more?
Swish paths
The expansion chamber
Fuel atomization,
Valve timing
just about everything in an engine ........
........ surely you jest ?
This is not an answer. They're just terms for things engineers have known about for decades.
What about running two gallons less in a race makes the racing any different?
Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
If "Prototype" racing was as purely tech-centric as Pov implies - it would be just as interesting to see the bikes run by identical robots in a straight line. Or better yet, why even fabricate the bikes at all? Why not just screen computer simulations?
It's about the racing itself; the competition between riders. The machinery must necessarily be secondary to the riders.
The riders "drive" the bikes, not the other way around.
In interviews with numerous famous racers I've heard them say time and again that they were not nostalgic about the machines of the past. It was the competition between themselves and the guys they raced against. It was the fight itself that was the "meat" of racing.
It's about the racing itself; the competition between riders. The machinery must necessarily be secondary to the riders.
The riders "drive" the bikes, not the other way around.
In interviews with numerous famous racers I've heard them say time and again that they were not nostalgic about the machines of the past. It was the competition between themselves and the guys they raced against. It was the fight itself that was the "meat" of racing.
I was hopeing someone could explain it better, my understanding was that CANbus was an interface. It processes what the signals from the sensors are and then controls whatever it needs to. Like a gyro signal and wheel speed sensor signal telling the bike that the bike is in a wheelie so the throtle is reduced.
The devices that are connected by a CAN network are typically sensors, actuators, and other control devices. These devices are not connected directly to the bus, but through a host processor and a CAN controller.
This is what I'm getting at, you limit the number of them connected to the ECU and the sensors and other electronic pieces can't be used. I've read that the Marvel 4 has 5 of them.
Isn't the point of fuel limitation to find new ways of squeezing every last bit of energy from the fuel injected? Thus the designs for injectors, combustion chamber design, valve timing, spark plugs, inlets and exhausts. All filter down to production in a few years time.
From the CAN systems I have worked on, they basically only talk from control unit to control unit, maybe different from different manufacturers. If for example on your car, rear wheel speed sensor detects lack wheel spin. That would send an anologue signal to a "stability control unit" (for example). That control unit would then send a CAN message, which is just binary code, to the engine control unit asking for a reduction in power. There is more to it than that but its too complicated to waffle on about it
You're only looking at the rules, not the entire system. Prototype racing is unique b/c it has relaxed homologation restrictions or no homologation restrictions at all. At a MotoGP race weekend, the bikes are rarely the same. Pedrosa's bike is different than Stoner's bike. Lorenzo's bike is different than Spies'. Hayden's bike is not Rossi's bike, particularly this year. The factory bikes are different from the satellite machines. Everything changes as the season progresses.
None of us knew the bore measurements prior to the 81mm rule, and all of the bikes were already 4-cylinders. We only imagined that the bikes had bore differences, and we only imagined that the machines had different performance capabilities. In fact, the bikes were all limited to 19,000rpm, and the engine dimensions were not nearly as important as friction-fighting, fuel-saving technologies within the engine and transmission. Those technologies are still unlimited.
I dislike the bore measurement as much as anyone else and I really dislike the 4-cylinder rule, but it won't stop MotoGP from being prototype. The factories can still run 6 completely different engine designs during the season, and they can still run multiple chassis/bodywork variants on the same weekend. You want to know why it doesn't happen--b/c a 2% fuel savings from redesigned crank bearings and reformulated cylinder plating is worth 10x more than changing the engine configuration to improve handling. When they actually do throw parts at the bike to improve the chassis feel, the changes are kept away from the public domain. Ducati actually gave the fans a big treat by divulging information about the destroked GP11.1 and the aluminum frame development. It's a shame everything went pear-shaped. People might have enjoyed prototyping more if Rossi started making the podium with regularity.
The new rules are not as fun as the old rules, but MotoGP will remain prototype as long as the sport has very relaxed homologation procedures.
In my view it is still about the riders racing each other. If the bikes didn't require a riders input then all the Honda's would cross the line simultaneously as would all the Yamaha's, the Ducati's etc. They don't so it is still about the riders. Just because one rider clears out does not mean he is not racing the other riders. By definition that is exactly what he is doing. It is because of the different talent levels of riders that races are processional. Each rider 1 through 17 has a max speed they can go each lap over the course of the race. The total of those times results in a race time and the differences are the gaps. If there are a number of riders who can ride the same lap speed over race distance accumulated then they finish close.
The ONLY way to change this is to artificially reduce the speed of some riders. The ONLY way I can think to do this is weight penalties as is done in horse racing.
This is true but in racing the bikes are saving fuel by limitng how much can flow at any certain point on the track or bike position. For example, the rider can go wide open throttle in a turn and the bike will limit the engine because it knows the maximum amount of fuel that can be used at any time. In that scenario it would be wasting fuel as opposed to letting the throttle go wide open down a straight. This is all programed into the bike and adjusted by the bike lap by lap as it gets feedback from tire temperature sensors, tire speed sensors, suspension sensors, and gyros. This is why GPS was banned but it was banned when the factories found a way to get around it. The bikes now know exactly where they are with the use of gyros and accelrometers. Yamaha have recently made this information public. The bikes are basically learnig while going round the track, and keeping the riders from wasteing fuel and making mistakes with the throttle.
http://www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/global/race/2007season-review/technical-guide/index.html
These riders aren't better than any rider from any other era, they say this when asked about the lack of mistakes they make, but in reality the bikes are not letting them make mistakes or even getting to the point of needing TC. Even the amount of wheel spin is programed into the bikes now. As the Honda boss has said, the old way to do it wasn't good because the correction came when the bike was already unsettled.
I think I'm picking up what you're putting down but they would need the CAN system in place for the bike to be controlled? What I'm missing is that the sensor or device is connected to a controller that is then connected to the CAN network? That network(CANbus) is how the electronics communicate and control the vehicle.
Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
You're missing the point of the discussion altogether. What you say is a given. But it has zero to do with why people watch MotoGp racing by the millions. It has nothing to do with why hundreds of thousands of people lay out big money for tickets to races and plan all year their trips flying and driving all over the planet to watch these events. I didn't shut down my business for a week at my busiest time of the year, fly to California and sleep in a camper full of drunken madmen because I wanted to rub elbows with the results of some geek's computer simulations on valve timing. I went for the racing.
