This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Valencia Tests 8-9 November 2011

povol said:
Doing whatever it takes to win is not a bad thing, unless you cheat, and as far as i know, Honda has not been accused of cheating.. The other manufacturers follow them around because they are competitors, and to be the best, you have to beat the best.They understand that without Honda, the sport would not be where it is today, and without them pushing innovation, the sport would most likely lose its appeal and become just another racing series. Racing has always been about the haves and have nots , why should today be any different. Oh, we need more bikes on the grid, Why, who does it benefit. Go back and look at the history of the sport, what is considered the best era. Some say the 990's, some say the 500's of the 80' 90's.



In the 990 era, my favorite, it was not uncommon for there to be 17-19 bikes on the grid, why does that suck now. In the 500 era, it was not uncommon for their to be anywhere from 20-25 bikes on the grid, with 4-5-6 of them getting lapped. I would much rather see 15 of the best bikes on the planet, than a 25-30 bike field with 1/5th of them getting lapped. .People watch whats happening at the front, if there is 1 at the front, so be it. If there is 2-3-4-5, at the front, so be it. Who really gives a .... what is happening back in 21st spot Like MA said, the only way to guarantee close racing is to artificially slow down the best, and at that point it ceases to be racing and the best will lose interest. If the best are not interested, you are no longer the pinnacle. Pick your poison. I personally believe GP is in for a natural drop off as Rossi and his traveling sideshow come to an end. He has been great for the pocketbooks of many, and they are desperately scrambling to figure out what it will take to retain those who were entertained by a chicken suit and other antics. Problem is, you have to have more than a character, you have to have one that wins, and the best young riders in the series are not characters. Lorenzo tried it, but even he saw how childish and contrived it looked and became himself this year. Obviously its not Pedro and Stoner, so what do you do. MotoGp was the recipient of a perfect storm for the last decade, an anomaly if you will. A character, that caught the imagination of fans, and even those that were not fans. Throw that in a pot with superior equipment, mediocre competition for the first half of that decade and viola, a cult is born. I dont think GP can recreate the perfect storm with todays competition, but that will not keep them from trying.
Click to expand...



You're not thinking things through.



According to you, oligopoly increases competition b/c the companies are bigger and more powerful. You wouldn't pass high school economics with an answer like that, and it doesn't fly in MotoGP either. As the cream rises to the top, competition often wanes. In market-based capitalist cultures, we have anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation to increase competition and development. Why would you prescribe the exact opposite for MotoGP? Furthermore, it appears that you endorse oligopoly and its negative long term consequences as a way to avoid dealing with unfortunate issues like haves-vs-have-nots.



How do you suppose MotoGP has come to this juncture? By embracing competition and good governance? If that's true, we need to apologize to the Russians and rebuild the USSR. MotoGP is in dire straights b/c it is run by an anti-competitive cartel who erect barriers to entry, and who practice a boring version of restricted-warfare. They are so consumed with their club, they don't even bother to serve their customers (Dorna, fans). If the fans say 21L 800s are horse manure, they need to find a better way to manage their cartel. Instead, they do nothing. When Dorna start sniping at them, the MSMA look like deer-in-the-headlights. Are the MSMA really that out of touch? I think they might be.



There is no cult. A power vacuum has been created by the MSMA who've only recently discovered that they abdicated 5 years ago when they stopped racing. The fans are horribly confused, particularly the fans who continue to pretend the MSMA are in charge. The MSMA are in charge of a pretend racing kingdom called Camelot, but not anything in the real world. While the MSMA play make-believe, the real power vacuum is being filled by an opportunistic commercial rights company who take orders from a private equity firm. The private equity firm got conned into buying MotoGP (at its peak) by a group of people who had no interest in following through on their commitments. No one knows if they have the brains or the proper frame of mind to pull this off, but they've managed to win over the fans by simply acknowledging their existence. Again, how pathetic can the MSMA possibly be? The fans always endorse the manufacturers b/c they communicate with the fans through sales and advertising. To lose the support of the fans is perhaps the most remarkable feat ever accomplished by the MSMA, far more spectacular than any of the prototypes they've built during the 800cc era.
 
mylexicon said:
You're not thinking things through. According to you, oligopoly increases competition b/c the companies are bigger and more powerful. You wouldn't pass high school economics with an answer like that, and it doesn't fly in MotoGP either. As the cream rises to the top, competition often wanes. In market-based capitalist cultures, we have anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation to increase competition and development. Why would you prescribe the exact opposite for MotoGP? Furthermore, it appears that you endorse oligopoly and its negative long term consequences as a way to avoid dealing with unfortunate issues like haves-vs-have-nots. How do you suppose MotoGP has come to this juncture? By embracing competition and good governance? If that's true, we need to apologize to the Russians and rebuild the USSR. MotoGP is in dire straights b/c it is run by an anti-competitive cartel who erect barriers to entry, and who practice a boring version of restricted-warfare. They are so consumed with their club, they don't even bother to serve their customers (Dorna, fans). If the fans say 21L 800s are horse manure, they need to find a better way to manage their cartel. Instead, they do nothing. When Dorna start sniping at them, the MSMA look like deer-in-the-headlights. Are the MSMA really that out of touch? I think they might be. There is no cult. A power vacuum has been created by the MSMA who've only recently discovered that they abdicated 5 years ago when they stopped racing. The fans are horribly confused, particularly the fans who continue to pretend the MSMA are in charge. The MSMA are in charge of a pretend racing kingdom called Camelot, but not anything in the real world. While the MSMA play make-believe, the real power vacuum is being filled by an opportunistic commercial rights company who take orders from a private equity firm. The private equity firm got conned into buying MotoGP (at its peak) by a group of people who had no interest in following through on their commitments. No one knows if they have the brains or the proper frame of mind to pull this off, but they've managed to win over the fans by simply acknowledging their existence. Again, how pathetic can the MSMA possibly be? The fans always endorse the manufacturers b/c they communicate with the fans through sales and advertising. To lose the support of the fans is perhaps the most remarkable feat ever accomplished by the MSMA, far more spectacular than any of the prototypes they've built during the 800cc era.
Click to expand...



Didn't I say that someone here was capable of saying the same thing more eloquently?
<
 
Advantage is the aim of business. The ultimate advantage is to be a monopoly. Consumers made Honda the power that it is by buying their products. Now at the same time we bemoan that power? Might as well say how much we hate apple for combining a phone with a computer and making it small enough to fit it in your pocket. What have they done to the pc market? They did this for market dominance not social service. In time good competitors will catch up or surpass. Why can't motogp be based on the same principles?
 
Did you not read Lex' post #241? Of course, by nature, corporations move towards dominance, which is why there are checks and balances ("anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation to increase competition and development"). The iPhone and derivatives have hardly put Apple in a

the position of a computer industry oligopoly.
 
birdman said:
Advantage is the aim of business. The ultimate advantage is to be a monopoly. Consumers made Honda the power that it is by buying their products. Now at the same time we bemoan that power? Might as well say how much we hate apple for combining a phone with a computer and making it small enough to fit it in your pocket. What have they done to the pc market? They did this for market dominance not social service. In time good competitors will catch up or surpass. Why can't motogp be based on the same principles?
Click to expand...



My post pertained to the nature of competition, an attribute of both racing and market-economics. Racing cannot be compared to other market characteristics b/c racing isn't much of a market.



What competitor-less industry has Apple dominated? Apple's business model is market-development and self-cannibalization. Apple was once the world's largest company (by market-cap) so I tend to believe the owners understand that Apple operates in a highly-competitive, rapidly-evolving marketplace with low barriers to entry. If anything, the market has gotten more competitive since Apple was founded.



Apple's market would be like a GP formula with no fuel restrictions, no displacement restrictions, and few tire restrictions. Not the kind of place you'd find many monopolies or oligopolies. Operating systems is the only oligopolistic segment I can think of, but people want efficiency and less complication so they routinely choose the most popular systems.
 
Lex are you not aware of the patent wars going on as Apple tries to lock out the competitors to the market that it basically created - Tablet Computers and Smart Phones? Surely these patents are barriers to entry.
 
Mental Anarchist said:
Lex are you not aware of the patent wars going on as Apple tries to lock out the competitors to the market that it basically created - Tablet Computers and Smart Phones? Surely these patents are barriers to entry.
Click to expand...



Steve Jobs was the ultimate control freak.



Apple are the thieves who stole the WIMP interface from the PARC Xerox research facility during the early development of operating system graphical user interfaces - the hypocrisy of Jobs was that he then got pissed off when Bill Gates did the exact same thing and stole their stolen ideas to create their ubiquitous Windows OS.



Apple are now basically trying to patent certain gestures within the use of their smart phone / tablet OS user interfaces. This is in the realm of allowing pharmaceutical and genetic reasearch companies to "patent" genes and therefore monopolise any cures for diseases related to said particular gene. It benefits no one but the patent holder themselves. Apple are always pursuing patents that give them exclusivity and lock out fair competition but hopefully they will be unsuccessful in their bid to prevent others from using this technology.
 
Mental Anarchist said:
Lex are you not aware of the patent wars going on as Apple tries to lock out the competitors to the market that it basically created - Tablet Computers and Smart Phones? Surely these patents are barriers to entry.
Click to expand...



People said the same thing about proprietary tags during the browser wars. Cloud computing never took off as a business model, and the market-evolved so quickly that everyone stopped caring.



Patents are barriers to entry, but their purpose is to entice the owner to make his design publicly available. MotoGP has no public sales motive, so I'm not sure Apple's patent wars are applicable to MotoGP competition.
 
Mr Squiggle said:
Steve Jobs was the ultimate control freak.



Apple are the thieves who stole the WIMP interface from the PARC Xerox research facility during the early development of operating system graphical user interfaces - the hypocrisy of Jobs was that he then got pissed off when Bill Gates did the exact same thing and stole their stolen ideas to create their ubiquitous Windows OS.



Apple are now basically trying to patent certain gestures within the use of their smart phone / tablet OS user interfaces. This is in the realm of allowing pharmaceutical and genetic reasearch companies to &quot;patent&quot; genes and therefore monopolise any cures for diseases related to said particular gene. It benefits no one but the patent holder themselves. Apple are always pursuing patents that give them exclusivity and lock out fair competition but hopefully they will be unsuccessful in their bid to prevent others from using this technology.
Click to expand...



Hi,



I'm sorry but that's a rather prejudiced and revisionist viewpoint that's hardly in line with the facts.



But as they say: never let the truth get in the way of a good story...

The smallest amount of research, even on Wikipedia, will uncover that Xerox and Apple had an agreement that involved Apple engineers being granted access to Xerox labs and an understanding that Apple would develop a GUI in return for Xerox having the opportunity to buy pre-IPO apple stock. Both were happy with the agreement and that's exactly what happened. Apple were very open about it and the to use the word "stole" is a joke. The only hypocrite was Xerox years later deciding in hindsight that Apple had gained more than them, and trying to belatedly take them to court - needless to say it was thrown out.



That affair has nothing to do with the Microsoft issue which was ultimately settled out of court, at the very least indicating that the grounds for the court case were there to start with. Microsoft ended up paying big on that.



And please don't think you can characterize the whole patent wars going on right now as akin to apple trying to patent the air we breathe. If you really know what you're talking about you will realise its a lot more complicated than that and cant be (and shouldn't be) dissected properly here.



I suggest you use some other analogy when talking about bikes.



An interesting article to read including interviews with ppl involved might be

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all



Cheers



Ps. Ive been reading this forum for about 3 years-I enjoy it and the views of everyone immensely
 
Welcome to the forum and thanks for your excellent and enlightening response of which I must admit I did learn a few things. eg I didnt realise a share transfer had occured between the two companies and Apple had legal access to some of this R&D.



I wont get into this debate too much in here as its not the time or place (as you correctly point out).....However, I agree with you that the word "stole" is inflammatory and doesnt reflect the actual scenario accurately. The fact is that Jobs was smart enough to see the potential of PARC's research and took advantage of their managements lack of commercial enterprise savvy to manipulate a fantastic deal for his own company - one that PARC would later regret.



In Steve Jobs own words....



"“If Xerox had known what it had and had taken advantage of its real opportunities,” Jobs said, years later, “it could have been as big as I.B.M. plus Microsoft plus Xerox combined—and the largest high-technology company in the world.”



Whilst Apple may not have technically stolen their ideas Jobs certainly took advantage of the naivety of senior management at PARC and the excellent research that was being done there for his own ends. Gates took advantage of IBM with their OS licensing deal in much the same way and both IBM and PARC simply didnt realise what they were giving away until it was too late.



Cheers.
 
You're welcome, and thanks for the welcome.



I've been watching the premier class since Gardner and others were riding but I'm only a casual rider myself and know little of techniques and the technical side, thus I really value the thoughts and discussions of the group of people on this site regarding the goings-on in the motogp world.



Everything you say in the post above is pretty spot on, and you'll notice that I never disagreed with you as far as Jobs being the "ultimate control freak"
<
coz he definitely was!



Thanks again for the gracious reply
<




Cheers
 
Col Clarke FL2 said:
You're welcome, and thanks for the welcome.



I've been watching the premier class since Gardner and others were riding but I'm only a casual rider myself and know little of techniques and the technical side, thus I really value the thoughts and discussions of the group of people on this site regarding the goings-on in the motogp world.



Everything you say in the post above is pretty spot on, and you'll notice that I never disagreed with you as far as Jobs being the "ultimate control freak"
<
coz he definitely was!



Thanks again for the gracious reply
<




Cheers
Click to expand...



No problems....it was good to actually learn a few things I didnt know about this fascinating time in computing history.



I also started watching GP's when Gardner first began his career....many great memories from those wonderful years of competition.
 
Povol, since you've expressed your disapproval of the new CRT future of MotoGP, to the point of saying you would lose interest and 'threaten' to not watch and leave the sport, I have a question for you. Will you leave the sport given the fact that this is no longer a proposal but a reality for next season and eventual full integration?



Btw, here is a bit more doom and gloom about the performance outlook for the future. Scary.



http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111114a.htm
 
If anything, thats testament to Lorenzo's amazing ability as well as Yamaha's computer model.
 
Jumkie said:
Povol, since you've expressed your disapproval of the new CRT future of MotoGP, to the point of saying you would lose interest and 'threaten' to not watch and leave the sport, I have a question for you. Will you leave the sport given the fact that this is no longer a proposal but a reality for next season and eventual full integration?



Btw, here is a bit more doom and gloom about the performance outlook for the future. Scary.



http://www.superbike...Nov/111114a.htm
Click to expand...



The people at SBK Planet always have an interesting opinion.



[size="-1"]If the recently completed 800cc era is any indication, expect speeds and horsepower figures to climb continually through the brave, new, 1000cc world of MotoGP, no matter what kind of restrictions the FIM and Dorna toss at the teams midstream.
Click to expand...
[/size]



[size="-1"]The MSMA enforced the 800s and the 21L rule. Dorna's 1000cc-81mm formula is actually a mild increase in peak horsepower compared to the 19,000rpm redline the MSMA allegedly agreed to for 800cc competition. [/size]
 
Povol continues to ignore the fact that rules have continually changed. He still hasn't answered me because he knows logically (well maybe I'm giving him too much credit here), he cannot make the connection that "prototype" racing is simply governed by rules, just like the previous formula and the next formula. He won't stop watching, because his threats are as empty as other's I've read regarding the next evolution of the sport.





Major technical change every season. The changes:





2007


  • []Engine capacity decreased from 990cc to 800cc.

    []Fuel capacity dropped from 22 liters to 21 liters.









    2008

    []Bridgestone and Michelin became the two tire suppliers after Dunlop's withdrawal.









    2009

    []Bridgestone became the sole tire supplier after Michelin's withdrawal.

    []Teams were allotted five engines every seven races instead of an unlimited supply.

    []Teams were allotted eight front and 12 rear tires per race instead of nearly an unlimited supply.

    []Practice time was reduced to two 60-minute sessions per event, down from three 60-minute sessions.









    2010

    []Teams were allotted six engines for the entire season instead of five engines every seven races.

    []Teams were allotted eight front and 10 rear tires per race instead of eight fronts and 12 rears.









    2011

    []A fuel pressure limit of 10 BAR replaced the previous unlimited pressures.

    []Practice time was increased to three 45-minute sessions per event, up from two 60-minute sessions. (SBP)
Click to expand...



2012 and 2013 will be no different. The sport will continue to evolve and people afraid of change will continue to whine about it.
 

Similar threads

#22
Jerez test, Technical updates
Replies
0
Views
344
#22
#22
J
Carmelo Ezpeleta's Grand Plan, Or The Long History Behind Tech3's Switch To KTM
Replies
12
Views
3K
AntG
A
moto vudu
Yamaha: Why Lorenzo won't test twice for Ducati
Replies
214
Views
29K
michaelm
M
G
Aleix Espargaro - fractured vertebrae - not at Suzuki Sepang tests
Replies
1
Views
1K
elptxjc
E
JPSLotus
KTM's MotoGP bike completes Jerez test
Replies
31
Views
7K
Keshav
Keshav

Recent Discussions