Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
Joined Jul 2006
11K Posts | 291+
Texas
make the bikes bigger, up the fue capl, ups the torque loose the rider assists prob solved.. Simo looks like the circus bear on a bike
.. most the bigger guys do imo. maybe we'll see 990 sized bikes back in 2012?
If its a fuel issue then if definitely needs to be resolved, Hopefully the 1000's may be able to be mapped to allow for more weight without compromising max performance to the end of the race. And we might be able to see the riders return to a more healthy less anemic weight.
I can't believe even this thread turned completely Rossi-centric. I don't think Rossi is the problem, he isn't the among the heavier in the field and shouldn't really be gaining any benefit from this apart from helping Simoncelli.
I think if they were to even it up it would probably give a more balanced field and result in more interesting closer racing. A mathematical formula would have to be derived to maintain balance and in fact should keep a slight edge for those who are smaller as it should be used to make it more balanced and not have some occurrence of some huge guy doing well based on the changes. Extra fuel could also be a part of said equation.
I think the worst thing that could happen for the sport is to have small guys run away with races. Without overtaking the sport will dry up and die.
I think if they were to even it up it would probably give a more balanced field and result in more interesting closer racing. A mathematical formula would have to be derived to maintain balance and in fact should keep a slight edge for those who are smaller as it should be used to make it more balanced and not have some occurrence of some huge guy doing well based on the changes. Extra fuel could also be a part of said equation.
I think the worst thing that could happen for the sport is to have small guys run away with races. Without overtaking the sport will dry up and die.
Joined Feb 2008
2K Posts | 0+
home
I see a lot of you offer solutions in this threat, most of which I like as such.
But I'm not sure I get what these solutions are meant to fix in the first place. What excatly is the problem?
Is it Pedrosa's starts?
Is it Simonchelli's fuel use?
Is it the amount of overtaking?
Is it the racing in general?
Is it a safety issue? (you know, given it has come up in the safety commission)
But I'm not sure I get what these solutions are meant to fix in the first place. What excatly is the problem?
Is it Pedrosa's starts?
Is it Simonchelli's fuel use?
Is it the amount of overtaking?
Is it the racing in general?
Is it a safety issue? (you know, given it has come up in the safety commission)
I have no problem with Pedrosa and his starts - bigger riders get advantages elsewhere as discussed, the issue is that if one rider has to ride a de-tuned bike as compared to another when on the same machinery. This means that the larger rider with a de-tuned bike is at a disadvantage without even getting on the thing. Providing each bike from a manufacturer is running the same map/power, I'm happy that the lighter/heavier rider issue will sort itself out on the track and the best rider will win.
If 'fuel mapping' is to be blamed, seriously where does it stop?
Should help be afforded the rider who is more ham-fisted than the others and find that his bike runs a detuned mapping?
Should help be afforded to the rider who chose a soft tyre when all else went hard and as such, due to his choice he has destroyed his tyres early and this is now affecting his fuel mapping?
Why should 'weight' matter?
Given that over recent times the smallest rider has not win many races, let alone a championship (in MotoGP) whilst the heaviest rider has also not won many races or a championship - does this not mean that no one rider is singularly disadvantaged?
Bah, where is that teacup, I sense a storm brewing
Gaz
This is irrelevant, obviously it shouldn't.If all riders have the same options there is no imbalance therefor no need for a fix.
If the rider is not given an option of the hard tire then yes, otherwise no. Again, if all riders have the same options there is no imbalance therefor no need for a fix.
Weight benefits in 2 ways.
1) Less weight gives a better power to weight ratio, increasing performance.
2) Less weight requires less fuel to traverse the track allowing that extra fuel to be used as extra power.
All things equal the lighter weight rider is at an advantage, that is the problem.
I think you are working under the assumption that riders like Lorenzo and Rossi aren't small which, in my opinion, is not the case. The entirety of the field is based around the fact that smaller is better. Last years champion weighed 143 lbs and for the physical shape that is required of motogp is tiny.
I think the problem is that they all make use of every bit of fuel they get so if they are all given the exact same amount the problem remains.
Joined Feb 2008
2K Posts | 0+
home
This sounds strangly familiar. Didn't somebody make a similar claim about engine power recently? I can't quite remember...
Weight benefits in more ways than that:
1: More weight means more traction, allowing a heavier rider to get on the throttle earlier
2: More weight means the rider can displace the center of gravity more - an advantage which is increased still further if the rider is also tall. This gives the rider a greater selection of lines and the ability to corner faster, as they can use the edge of the tire better than a lighter rider (by leaning off more).
This whole debate reminds of the British newspaper the Daily Mail. The Mail has apparently embarked on a campaign to divide the physical world into two different classes of objects and activities: 1. Things that cause cancer; and 2. Things that cure/prevent cancer. The fact is that 99.9999999% of all objects in the physical world have both a beneficial and adverse effect, and can both raise and lower your risk of cancer, depending on a multitude of other factors.
A single example: Red wine. Red wine contains alcohol, and alcohol has been linked to many different forms of cancer, including stomach, breast and liver cancer. Red wine also contains flavonoids, anthocyanins and other phenolic compounds which have also been linked to helping to prevent cancer. Alcohol is linked to higher incidence of heart failure, while red wine is also linked to much lower rates of cardiovascular disease.
So, does red wine cause or cure cancer?
It should be clear that this is an idiotic and false dichotomy. It does both, and in extreme amounts has clearly negative effects.
The debate on weight is exactly the same. It's obvious that too much weight is a disadvantage, which is why you don't see any 100+ kg riders on the track (on the roads, however, it is a real advantage, as in road racing - e.g. Isle of Man TT, Northwest 200, etc - more weight adds more stability at the very high speeds the riders travel at, and greatly increases the sprung-to-unsprung weight ratio). But below a certain maximum (probably around 75, 76kg), the effects become far more complex to gauge as part of the whole package. Lighter weight is both a help and a hindrance, and the reverse is true for heavier riders. There is probably an ideal weight for a rider, which I would guess is in the region of 60, 62kg. And by "ideal" I mean "best compromise", or in other words, none of the advantages of the heavier rider, but also none of advantages of the lighter rider.
Just as with bike setup, you want a bike that isn't awful in the fast corners, without being terrible in the slow corners. You may choose to have a bike that is terrible round a slow chicane, in the hope that you can make good in the faster sweepers. Or you may choose to shift the balance of the bike to give it poor rear grip and lose on corner exit, which is compensated for by outstanding stability under braking and into corners.
The entire debate is ......... So why are the riders complaining? In my experience, the only time a rider does not complain is when he has a bike that has 20hp more and is half a second faster than that of his rivals, with tires and suspension made especially to suit his preferences and not those of the others. Riders - or rather, racers - want one thing above all, to win. Any illusions that riders want to compete on equal terms (a phrase that in my experience means "with an unfair advantage for me") are just that. The only time that a racer wants a fair fight is when they are assured of victory.
EDITED TO ADD: Things were no different in the old days. Schwantz is a skinny runt, Mamola is a shortarse, Doohan is hardly Hulk Hogan, Agostini is average height - if you're Italian. The only time that tall, heavy riders have been able to win in the past (and are still able to win) is on underdeveloped machines on public roads, where talent and (sometimes unwise) bravery would beat all other factors. Back in the 1960s, the tires, chassis and suspension were all so uniformly dire, and the circuits so uniformly dangerous, that other than horsepower, machine advantages had little role to play.
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
Bigger riders have an advantage in bike control. As has been mentioned by many journalists and experts, the added weight allows for easier flickability of the motorcycle. Further, moving that added weight around gives more control over tractability.
In comparison to the rest of the field, they aren't small. I know in real world terms those sorts of weights are miniscule, but this is the reality of the series, and Rossi and Lorenzo are amongst the "heavier" riders. Rossi is the fifth heaviest and second tallest rider on the grid, while Lorenzo is the eighth heaviest and seventh tallest. Kropotkin did a wonderful article using facts and figures to point out that there hasn't been much of an advantage for the lighter riders. You can read that article at motomatters thanks to Kropotkin.
And the reason that this is a Rossi-centric thread is because there are multiple competent journalists, and Casey Stoner, reporting that Rossi and Simoncelli are the two who brought the idea up. In a Riders Safety Commission meeting.
You seem to work on an assumption that I did not know some of the answers either
But what is the imbalance being experienced by these riders calling for a weight 'penalty'?
See, to me the whole basis of their argument is that they are at a "disadvantage' due to their weight so I ask what of riders who make poor choices?
A rider who is large (by comparison to the field) does have genetics and a metabolism at which to lay blame, certainly. But does not a rider who has made a poor choice also have a disadvantage for whatever reason - what if they destroyed a set of soft tyres due to an accident in practice, is that not a disadvantage?
Again, who says there is an imbalance now?
Where was this imbalance in 2010, or even 2009 etc etc
I see that Kropo and Austin have answered your statement so will not go there other than to say that I don't think you have it entirely correct
But if last years champion weighed 143 pounds (Lorenzo) that is not small but comparison to the field (which is to whom it should be measured).
See, my thinking is this.
If we are to place a weight 'balance' on things will we see 120kg former linebackers as riders/racers?
Will racers now suddenly start to pile on the kilograms in order to obtain an advantage by causing a disadvantage to their lighter competitors?
Or let me ask it another way.
Why penalise a collection of people who have won little in terms of races/championships in favour of a size (collection) of people who have won the majority?
And if weight was such a disadvantage we have had a number of 'larger' riders win minor/feeder class titles that one could suspect mean low weight is of the essence.
As I said in my original post, teacup + storm
Gaz
But what is the imbalance being experienced by these riders calling for a weight 'penalty'?
See, to me the whole basis of their argument is that they are at a "disadvantage' due to their weight so I ask what of riders who make poor choices?
A rider who is large (by comparison to the field) does have genetics and a metabolism at which to lay blame, certainly. But does not a rider who has made a poor choice also have a disadvantage for whatever reason - what if they destroyed a set of soft tyres due to an accident in practice, is that not a disadvantage?
Again, who says there is an imbalance now?
Where was this imbalance in 2010, or even 2009 etc etc
I see that Kropo and Austin have answered your statement so will not go there other than to say that I don't think you have it entirely correct
But if last years champion weighed 143 pounds (Lorenzo) that is not small but comparison to the field (which is to whom it should be measured).
See, my thinking is this.
If we are to place a weight 'balance' on things will we see 120kg former linebackers as riders/racers?
Will racers now suddenly start to pile on the kilograms in order to obtain an advantage by causing a disadvantage to their lighter competitors?
Or let me ask it another way.
Why penalise a collection of people who have won little in terms of races/championships in favour of a size (collection) of people who have won the majority?
And if weight was such a disadvantage we have had a number of 'larger' riders win minor/feeder class titles that one could suspect mean low weight is of the essence.
As I said in my original post, teacup + storm
Gaz
It's really amazing how many people are repeating this. The fuel limit has to be there otherwise these bike would be rockets. And next year with the 1000s it's going to be even worse. The fuel limit is the only way to keep the performance in check.
Speed is not a problem. Once the bikes leave pit lane, they are traveling at speeds which are more than enough to be fatal in the event of an accident, should the rider strike an object at that speed. However, the number of times that riders strike an object while travelling in a straight line (or even crash in some way) is vanishingly small. So straight line speed is not an issue.
Where do riders crash? In the corners. What limits corner speed? Tire grip and chassis performance. Horsepower is completely irrelevant. You could put a trillion horsepower engine into a bike with Cheng Shin tires, and it would still only wobble around the corners at 50 km/h.
Higher top speeds just mean you have to brake earlier, as corner speed is limited. If safety is important, then degrading tire performance (e.g. by forcing grooved tires) would be a much bigger factor.
Honestly, straight line speed is such a non-issue it's not even worth thinking about.
It's true that most crashes happen in corners but they crash on the straight too. Remember Nakano in Mugello? Or the Gibernau crash. Yeah, those might be freak crashes but one such crash is enough to kill somebody. They are already doing over 340 km/h on some circuits and that's a 800 with severe fuel limitations. I doubt very much that the riders think the straight line speed is a "non-issue".
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
If only the good folks at Dorna knew this when the MSMA were harping on about safety and 800s...
