weight limit

Austin · Apr 21, 2011

Kropotkin said:
Do you believe that 320km/h is not fatal? Or 290km/h?

Well put.

stiefel · Apr 21, 2011

Kropotkin said:
You could put a trillion horsepower engine into a bike with Cheng Shin tires...

Yes! Let's do that, that would be awesome!

J4rn0 · Apr 21, 2011

Thinking of taller/heavier riders who won races and championships, one comes to mind -- but it's true he was an exception.

Hailwood on the MV500 4 cylinders after a crash...

Here Hailwood is on a 250 (the legendary Honda six cylinders with which he was capable to win also in the 350 class), but he won even on 125cc machines in times when they had half the power they have now.

Jumkie · Apr 21, 2011

Kropotkin said:
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.

Rob isn't going to like this.

Postiez · Apr 21, 2011

Kropotkin said:
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.

This is a good response but it really isn't contrary to my points. I gave a -very- brief reason to why these points are being brought up. I can agree with and respect that side of the argument and believe it is very valid except that the claim that the debate is .........

Austin said:
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.

I completely agree with what you are saying in the first and second paragraph, I don't think it is contrary to my points. If that is truly the case there needs to be no weight balance at all.

I don't think its enough of a reason to focus totally on rossi because he brought up the idea. If it was totally bs and had no merit then I'd agree but I think its a topic worthy of debate.

Gaz said:
You seem to work on an assumption that I did not know some of the answers either

ya, I did. Most of your comparisons were apples to oranges and making those rhetorical questions served no purpose so I assumed they werent rhetorical

Gaz said:
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?

I don't think metabolism plays a role in this at all really. They are all in great shape. Making a poor choice is not an inherent disadvantage, it's questions like this that really throw me off as to whether or not they are rhetorical. Obviously poor choices shouldn't be rewarded, or punished. That said, the punishment or reward of things outside of anyone on the grid's control such as bone mass is a topic worthy of debate.

Gaz said:
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).

Why would it be measured to the field? If there is already a problem the entire data set, in this case the field, would reflect that.

Gaz said:
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?

I think I specifically mentioned this in my post. No, the edge should stay on the side of the small it should just be lessened.

Gaz' timestamp='1303385769' post='275942 said:
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

I think this would be a benefit for riders size spies and simoncelli. Like I said earlier, there would need to be some equation found to not give the benefit to anyone.

Postiez · Apr 21, 2011

double post

Kropotkin · Apr 21, 2011

Postiez said:
This is a good response but it really isn't contrary to my points. I gave a -very- brief reason to why these points are being brought up. I can agree with and respect that side of the argument and believe it is very valid except that the claim that the debate is .........

Agreed that this is why the debate started, and you are right that there are clear advantages to lighter riders. However, my point was that focusing only on the advantages for lighter riders is like looking at the data on the benefits and dangers of drinking red wine, and then declaring RED WINE GIVES YOU CANCER!!!!!! as the Daily Mail likes to do, rather than present a nuanced and balanced argument.

Lighter riders have an undeniable advantage (in acceleration). However, lighter riders also have an undeniable disadvantage (in cornering, braking, traction). The debate has focused only on the advantages of being light, ignoring all other data. That's why I'm calling ........, riding a motorcycle at speed (let alone racing one) is infinitely more complex than just rider weight.

BTW, I'm not accusing you of such one-sidedness, just pointing out that that has been the tone of the debate for the most part.

Postiez · Apr 21, 2011

Kropotkin said:
Agreed that this is why the debate started, and you are right that there are clear advantages to lighter riders. However, my point was that focusing only on the advantages for lighter riders is like looking at the data on the benefits and dangers of drinking red wine, and then declaring RED WINE GIVES YOU CANCER!!!!!! as the Daily Mail likes to do, rather than present a nuanced and balanced argument.

Lighter riders have an undeniable advantage (in acceleration). However, lighter riders also have an undeniable disadvantage (in cornering, braking, traction). The debate has focused only on the advantages of being light, ignoring all other data. That's why I'm calling ........, riding a motorcycle at speed (let alone racing one) is infinitely more complex than just rider weight.

BTW, I'm not accusing you of such one-sidedness, just pointing out that that has been the tone of the debate for the most part.

Well said, exactly what I was trying to point out as well. There would need to be some tests done to see what exactly that edge is for the smaller or if it's non existent. I do think there is an advantage for the smaller riders, but it's also possible that the edge for the smaller is so small that nothing needs to be changed.

Kropotkin · Apr 21, 2011

Postiez said:
There would need to be some tests done to see what exactly that edge is for the smaller or if it's non existent.

I would argue that we have 18 of those every year, and that the data they have produce so far is inconclusive

stiefel · Apr 21, 2011

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/s...111-stoner-supports-pedrosa-in-weight-debate/

Postiez · Apr 21, 2011

Kropotkin said:
I would argue that we have 18 of those every year, and that the data they have produce so far is inconclusive

Of the 2 most current of these tests in time trials only was it the smaller or the larger who were fastest?

I think these make poor tests as there are too many other variables in races and bikes we would need to isolate just the weight issue to see the true facts. We need to scientific method this ......

Postiez · Apr 21, 2011

stiefel said:
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/s...111-stoner-supports-pedrosa-in-weight-debate/

Haha, as expected. I don't blame them though. For them to advocate against themselves would be stupid.

Kropotkin · Apr 21, 2011

Postiez said:
Of the 2 most current of these tests in time trials only was it the smaller or the larger who were fastest?

I think these make poor tests as there are too many other variables in races and bikes we would need to isolate just the weight issue to see the true facts. We need to scientific method this ......

I understand your point completely, but I believe you are missing mine. You said "there are too many other variables in races" which is exactly my point. There are so many variables that it makes isolating the advantage of lighter weight meaningless. If there was a genuine correlation between rider weight and rider success, you would see it in the results. As I wrote on Motomatters.com, there is no statistical correlation between the two. There are four riders who have won more than one race in the 800cc class, and those riders span the gamut between featherweight and tiny and tall and heavier. Of those four, the rider with the most wins is the second lightest. The rider with the least wins is the lightest. The two heaviest riders have the most wins and the most titles between them. There's not even a correlation between points and weight, with points spread pretty evenly among both lighter and heavier riders, of all abilities.

Now, you may be able to create laboratory conditions which will prove a slight advantage one way or another. But statistics show that such an advantage means nothing at 2pm Sunday on a race weekend.

One more example: Dani Pedrosa complains consistently about his rear suspension. It is harsh and non-compliant, no matter what they do to it. You can guess the cause: weighing less than a fart in a balloon. Nevertheless, Pedrosa rides round these problems to win consistently. Talent is a vastly greater factor - by orders of magnitude - than weight, whether you are a very light rider or a heavier rider.

Kropotkin · Apr 21, 2011

stiefel said:
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/s...111-stoner-supports-pedrosa-in-weight-debate/

What is brilliant about Matt Birt is the way he fills in the space with the material he collects. The Pedrosa and Stoner quotes on weight that appeared last week and this week were all collected at Jerez. Rossi also made comments about it, as did Hayden. I think MCN has already reported on Hayden's comments, but a story may yet appear on what Rossi thinks of the weight debate. Very smart in terms of publishing, and keeping the public interest up. I have a lot to learn.

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, so you can safely ignore me. Everyone except for Austin, that is, who needs to pick up these tricks of the trade!

stiefel · Apr 21, 2011

Please don't, there is a reason your site has such an outstanding reputation.

I think most more-than-casual fans don't rate MCN much higher than Crash.net, although many (me included) still enjoy reading it (it's like the motorsports equivalent of a tabloid).

Speaking of this, is it me or has Superbikeplanet taken a considerable turn for the worse? I mean, they've always played this trick of updating their site every day by way of putting up 5 year old articles again, but lately they seem to alternate solely between those, rather one-sided opinion-pieces and pretty lousy race reports.

Gaz · Apr 21, 2011

Postiez said:
I don't think metabolism plays a role in this at all really. They are all in great shape. Making a poor choice is not an inherent disadvantage, it's questions like this that really throw me off as to whether or not they are rhetorical. Obviously poor choices shouldn't be rewarded, or punished. That said, the punishment or reward of things outside of anyone on the grid's control such as bone mass is a topic worthy of debate.

Agreed.

But then define what is outside of one's control and therefore worthy of debate (rhetorical).

Specifically and as an example across the years we have seen riders who have suffered through poor quality tyres, these being tyres that delaminate or simple wear quicker. They did not choose to have poor quality tyres as it was something not visible nor predictable and as such was outside of their control - should they receive a level of recompense at a later stage?

Postiez said:
Why would it be measured to the field? If there is already a problem the entire data set, in this case the field, would reflect that.

Because to find a fair ad equitable solution based upon light/heavy one must take into consideration the entire field of (in this case) weight in order to define a solution (if one need to be found). It is no good saying that only the lightest and heaviest riders have input into the answers.

Postiez said:
I think this would be a benefit for riders size spies and simoncelli. Like I said earlier, there would need to be some equation found to not give the benefit to anyone.

I work on the theory that Simoncelli (as the example) did manage to win a 250cc championship in 2008, a category that (given the argument/topic) one would expect to be greatly influenced be weight issues.

For me it is as Kropo says.

There are swings and roundabouts where each side 'may' be deemed to have an advantage but in the end it is not a sufficient advantage/disadvantage (depends on which side of the fence) to be concerned with.

Gaz

Tekniqs · Apr 21, 2011

you know what this really tells us...we're all ....... bored and can't wait until the next race starts lol

Talpa · Apr 21, 2011

Gaz said:
I work on the theory that Simoncelli (as the example) did manage to win a 250cc championship in 2008, a category that (given the argument/topic) one would expect to be greatly influenced be weight issues.

Great point, not too sure about the fuel situation in 250cc back then and if it was as crucial as the current mapping for fuel limits in Motogp, combined weight limits are not the answer at all, however it would be great to see the MSMA increase the fuel limit by a couple of litres to put pay to all of this as I don't see the problem is with rider size in general, more so Fuel consumption in relation to size......

BTW-Hope all are enjoying the Easter break!!!!

Talpa · Apr 21, 2011

michaelm · Apr 21, 2011

Postiez said:
That said, the punishment or reward of things outside of anyone on the grid's control such as bone mass is a topic worthy of debate.

This is exactly what worries me in medical terms, that the effects on things like bone mass will be punishing in later life. There is no doubt under the current rules, specifically the fuel restriction rule, that the teams and riders believe weight to be a significant factor, obvious in terms of the leanness of the larger riders; ben spies is apparently skeletonic compared to his ama superbike days.

What the answer is apart from upping the fuel limit (this won't happen since improving fuel economy whilst maintaining power output is the current supposed raison d'etre of the factory teams) I don't know; a minimum weight limit requiring ballast for the lighter riders would likely disadvantage them unfairly. I had thought there were weight limits in the lower classes in the past though.

Search

Search

weight limit

Austin

stiefel

J4rn0

Jumkie

Postiez

Postiez

Kropotkin

Postiez

Kropotkin

stiefel

Postiez

Postiez

Kropotkin

Kropotkin

stiefel

Gaz

Tekniqs

Talpa

Talpa

michaelm

Similar threads

Recent Discussions