Joined Apr 2011
1K Posts | 87+
Pangea
Joined Apr 2011
1K Posts | 87+
Pangea
I completely disagree with your premise that scientific methodology is required to fine tune the rules so that parity with respect to riders physical characteristics should be a requirement to make the series fairer and ultimately achieve closer racing.
The entire history of the sport is based on the fact that a manufacturer innovates and ultimately bulids a better mousetrap and then finds a pilot who can go faster on their creation than anyone else. If a particular motorcycle is technically superior and they also happen to secure the services of a rider with ultimately the greatest skill level then I will stand and applaud this achievement rather than piss and moan about the lack of good racing. I am not advocating an open slather approach to rules and regulations either but common sense should prevail - we have seen far too many contentious rules introduced in recent times - the introduction of a control tyre, the move to 800cc and the current fuel regulations being among the worst.
It is up to the competition to rise to the occaision rather than constantly tinkering with rules to achieve equality...whats the bet that after 5 years of racing with the current 800cc machines we finally have a fantastic championship this year that goes down to the wire only to end up back at square one when they again change the rules to the new 1000cc formula next year...I wouldnt be suprised at all if this scenario eventuates.
Unfortunately this sport, like so many others, has become compromised due to financial considerations - the corporatisation of sport has undoubtedly bought certain benefits but when the profitability of a sport becomes the over-riding concern and rules are made to enforce a pseudo-parity to increase or maintain television ratings we are heading down the wrong path IMHO.
Absolutely agree , particularly about the corporatisation of the sport.
The worst thing for the sport, both in terms of cost and even competition, is constantly changing the rules, as dorna have done over the whole 800cc formula often ironically in the name of cost reduction. This has likely contributed to the loss of kawasaki, and the prospective loss of suzuki with the control tyre likely contributing to their problems.
As you say just as the formula has become mature with 5 or 6 bikes lining up with some chance of victory, and possibly more later in the year if rossi/jb are successful, as with the 990s they are going to change things again.
I particularly dislike phony equalisation for the sake of last lap battles such as by convenient yellow flags as in nascar, but seeing the nascar model is so commercially successful it is likley the way forward for all motorsport run by corporate entities for maximum profit.
Are you !@#$ing kidding me? I am arguing that the topic is worthy of debate and without proper documentation and facts it is hard to say. I can't keep up with these responses of people disagreeing with me and then presenting an argument that isn't contrary to mine!
FOR THE RECORD: I am on the side that this may be an issue that should be debated. Without further information it is currently unknown. If there is a problem and rider weight ends up making a large difference something needs to be changed.
I think claiming this as "constantly changing of rules" is a tad absurd. The only time this is really acceptable to bring up to debate is during a large change such as the one to 1000cc which is happening right now. It may in fact already be too late as some of the bikes are nearing completion. If ideas like this aren't played out during a massive overhaul when can they possibly be brought up?
Good post, having riders get to the point of risking their health to be competitive isn't right. I think there could be a reasonable fuel change between riders while still maintaining competition in that respect. I have to imagine there is some formula that takes into account fuel consumption in completely equal conditions to haul different masses a given distance. The idea would be to increase the larger riders fuel by only that amount to keep it similar between all the riders in the grid factoring out any other aspects of the riders style just focusing on hauling different weights the same distance.
I think you are assuming that I want to ignore some of the motogp field which is the opposite of the case. I am in the opinion that it shouldn't just be the motogp grid but the entirety of motorcycle racing that may want to progress to motogp. We wouldn't want people to never be able to achieve the highest level because of their weight.
I think the Simoncelli point is great and totally appropriate and shows strong evidence against balancing the weight. I don't think this is definitive and in no way makes the argument less valid as correlation does not dictate causation. To discuss this thoroughly and completely we would need unbiased scientific fact to see what the advantage is or isn't.
I believe I understand your point, which is (correct me by all means) that the success of no rider should be restricted by their being to heavy/big for MotoGP (or too light/small if that is the case). You allude that the beginning of correction should occur earlier than MotoGP so as to ensure that a riders exceptional talent not be overlooked sue to their physical characteristic - again, is that correct?
If this is the case it is an interesting 'moral' ground and one that has some merit, were it not for the 'perceived fact' that talent means little in determining who actually gets to MotoGP as opposed to dollars they bring.
Now that is a generalised statement admittedly but IMO a large talented rider from Italy/Spain/<another large DORNA market> will get the opportunity before (for sake of argument) would an equally talented (in every way) rider from New Zealand/South Africa/Canada etc. Now that does not only relate to MotoGP but lool across all feeder classes, BSB, AMA, WSBK etc, riders from 'lesser' countries are not elevated to the better opportunities yet there would be many supremely talented riders from those countries.
Or, as an alternate side.
Why not change Basketball and make it fairer for us short fat white guys who cannot jump?
I use the above simply to say that sport is not fair, thus why it is sport as there are some sports that simply cannot suit a particular type of person (physically or mentally) which means some people change their chosen sport. Certainly by the time the career sport had been chosen the problem should have been identified (thus I never took up basketball) and is a smaller relevance, but sometimes within the sport one must realise their limitations be that lack of talent (me) or size, or money or or or .
And as Kropo has said (or at least intimated), the variables are to great to be able to provide a definitive scientific solution or determination. All science could state is that weight does affect acceleration in one way, what it could not do is determine how much of an effect it has given the variables of bike motor type, rider style, tyres, weather etc etc.
Posties, none of this is personal as you are arguing/debating well and without turning this into a <favourite rider> vs the world thread. All I am trying to get across is that there was no problem at all with weighty issues until a few weeks back, why now as we near the end of a bike era?
I agree that it is in all likelihood a smokescreen thrown up a little to deflect from other situations and cause debate as we lead into the new era as to ways to possible bring a 'parity' to the sport and provide better 'entertainment'
Gaz
I can think of at least 4 major changes off-hand during the course of the 800cc formula, most purportedly for reasons of economy, often with the opposite effect. These are the limitation of pre-season testing, the reduction of race week-ends to 3 days (then back again in some cases), the control tyre rule (and the restriction of tyre technology the year prior to this if you are a lex files follower), and the engine rule. The non-availability of the 2007 compound bridgestones had major effects on ducati, suzuki and if some are to be believed kawasaki, and the engine rule required significant investment/development to improve engine durability, only for the teams to be required to build completely new engines after it operating for what will be only 2 years, and they decided to ignore in suzuki's case last year anyway.
I would like to think if there was a simple solution to help bring riders from those countries to motorcycle racing and promote more motorcycle racing across the world it would be a good thing. I think thats what programs like the red bull rookies and insanely cheap new 250cc WSBK league is trying to do. I support them in that as well.
Or, as an alternate side.
Why not change Basketball and make it fairer for us short fat white guys who cannot jump?
I use the above simply to say that sport is not fair, thus why it is sport as there are some sports that simply cannot suit a particular type of person (physically or mentally) which means some people change their chosen sport. Certainly by the time the career sport had been chosen the problem should have been identified (thus I never took up basketball) and is a smaller relevance, but sometimes within the sport one must realise their limitations be that lack of talent (me) or size, or money or or or .
This is a bit of a silly comparison. We shouldn't discuss and test changing motogp because basketball has no easy fix? If the team with a Manute Bol was winning to the point that every team was looking for the biggest players they could find instead of scouting talent there would be a problem, but its not the case. I'll agree that it isn't the case in motogp at the moment either, but with such an easier option of fix looking into it can't be that bad of a thing.
I think you are unfamiliar with science if you think it is this limited. I think my friends who are physics majors would take issue with those remarks as well. =P
I am having fun with the debate for the most part. I mean, I'm not taking it personally or anything. It does rub me the wrong way when people take more than what I am saying from my words and attempt to pick those assumptions apart. I actually find it really interesting that this is really turning into a partisan debate. The right wing side of freedom vs the left wing side of equality. The side of "let's not discuss this right now" vs "now is the very best time to talk about it". Fair trade vs free trade etc. etc. The funniest part to me is that I am on the same side I am always on, agreeing with someone yet still arguing with them.
I'll agree that integrity will probably be lost with the adding of weights as there is no place to fairly place them beside surgically inserting them into the riders. I think point a to point b fuel consumption could be a problem and deserves a closer more scientific look and its still in the realm of possibility that weights are the best way to solve this rather than removing or adding fuel is a possibility. Action doesn't need to be taken right away as the problem clearly isn't overwhelming but as MotoGP is on the bleeding edge of the motorcycle racing world it's something that deserves to be on their radar in my opinion.
I have made like 100 edits to this to try to make sure my tone comes across correctly. Sorry about that
I'm sorry I really don't understand what you are saying. I was saying that there would have to be some way designed into the bikes to add the weight and the best time to redesign (or at least look into how it could work) would be while the bikes are currently being designed. I'm not sure how this relates.
What is silly about it?
You purport that something does need to be investigated and potentially done to 'level the playing field' for those riders who may be physically unsuited to the sport that is MotoGP today and I align it to other sports who have chosen to do nothing about such 'perceived inequalities'.
Unfamiliar with science - yes as personally it does not interest me.
Very familiar with motorcycle racing however from active support, participation and other support over a great many years.
If this invalidates my comments in your eyes then so be it but I will say again that science will be unable today to measure the true impacts due to the number of variables. Yes they could estimate but no scientist would attempt to pass off an estimate of conculsive proof as no scientist likes estimation as a formal finding.
Put simply - do you propose/support the 'weight penalty' changing from circuit to circuit as any 'measure' will vary across circuits/riders/bikes/weather/tyres/moon alignment etc etc?
Well apologies for the typo if it causes offence
Agree and disagree
Logically one would think a changing formula to be the best time, but is not mid way through the pre-ceding season not to late given that most development would have already been undertaken on the (in this case) 2012 bikes to fit within the predefined criteria?
If there was serious pre-thought about it being implemented in 2012 thence it should have been raised a long time ago.
I personally see it as a 'if it aint broke' against a 'change is for the better' type of argument - I am on the 'if it aint broke side' (bit obvious really)
But your last sentence is the true issue that would be faced if there was to be something - where to place the 'ballast' - which I think is the over-riding fail factor.
To place on the rider is an outright NO due to possible safety concerns etc in the event of an incident.
To place on the bike would in all likelihood lead to a complete redesign of all components of the bike down to a true individual level which would increase manufacturer complexity, costs etc.
If such a penalty of ballast/penalty was imposed it would be an interesting conundrum as to how to do it with minimal impact and cost across the board whilst ensuring that it be fair and equitable - thus why it will never be done as 'fair and equitable' are not on the DORNA Dictionary.
Now, lets continue the discussion (applies to all Postiez - got it right this time
Would we/Could we run time handicaps (IMO not bloody likely)?
Why not run weight category titles etc?
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
I'm taking notes, friend.
In my opinion, and it's admittedly biased, I believe the reporting at MCN is just as good as anywhere. This sentiment had always been translated to me, that MCN was extremely sensationalist and made up stories. They report what is being discussed in the paddock. Sure, some of the headlines etc. are sensationalized but that's the case of modern day media. Especially in sports.
And yes, SuperBIAS Planet doesn't have a whole lot going for them at the moment. After talking to someone in the paddock, you have to wonder where their money is coming from. So it's not surprising the content is lessening, especially on their world championship coverage. Press releases, weekend reports from Jules Ryder, results, and photos isn't really a whole lot. They've always been an US publication trying to ride the popularity of Edwards, Hayden, Hopkins, and Spies to get some international coverage. Not a whole lot of respect, outside of Jules, for that outfit from me.
On paper, the Red Bull Rookies Cup and WSBK's equivalent are great ideas. However, as has been pointed out in another thread, without sponsorship behind these riders, it doesn't achieve anything. JD Beach won the title in 2008 and could only secure a ride for the Daytona round of the AMA championship. A former world champion of what is perceived to be the elite proving ground for young riders doesn't even have a full time ride in the domestic series of his home country. As Lex pointed out in that other thread, Jake Gagne is in the same boat. It's all well and good to promote young riders in an equitable manner, but the reality is that there isn't much sponsorship money outside of Spain and Italy. Without sponsorship money behind you, you're going to lose out to riders who do have that money. Unless of course Red Bull really ups the ante and starts fielding two or three Moto3 teams.
Who do you propose is going to carry out this testing? And who's going to foot the bill? It's not a matter of whether or not science can solve the mystery. It probably could, or at least point us in the right direction. Then again, the results that have been complied by Kropotkin do the same thing. You're asking to conduct controlled tests outside of the closed tests that occur every other weekend. The research is there for all to see. It's not conclusive, but it gives us an idea as to the legitimacy of the debate. Which is very little. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, but the heavy riders have been more successful in the 800 era.
If I may speak for michaelm, and please do correct me if I'm stepping on any toes, you said something along the lines that it was a little bit much to claim that the rules are constantly changing. Michael then pointed out all the rules changes that have happened in the 800 era: six-engine rule, cutting Friday morning practice, reinstating Friday morning practice, control tire, and limited testing.
But take a step back and there's more. There's the 1000cc change for next year, there was the 800cc change for 2007, the four-stroke change for 2002, the CRT rules for next season, fuel limitations, the flag to flag rule, three riders per row. That's all I've got off the top of my head. But that's 11 amendments to the rules in the past decade. The rules are constantly changing, there is no better or worse time to propose a change, because it's so frequently changing. Any time is the best time.
Joined Feb 2008
2K Posts | 0+
home
I'm taking notes, friend.Birty's a good guy, there's a reason my tweets are always directed at you two.
In my opinion, and it's admittedly biased, I believe the reporting at MCN is just as good as anywhere. This sentiment had always been translated to me, that MCN was extremely sensationalist and made up stories. They report what is being discussed in the paddock. Sure, some of the headlines etc. are sensationalized but that's the case of modern day media. Especially in sports.
And yes, SuperBIAS Planet doesn't have a whole lot going for them at the moment. After talking to someone in the paddock, you have to wonder where their money is coming from. So it's not surprising the content is lessening, especially on their world championship coverage. Press releases, weekend reports from Jules Ryder, results, and photos isn't really a whole lot. They've always been an US publication trying to ride the popularity of Edwards, Hayden, Hopkins, and Spies to get some international coverage. Not a whole lot of respect, outside of Jules, for that outfit from me.
Can I infer from this that you are somehow linked to MCN? In which case, I hope I didn't/don't offend!
For my part, I like reading MCN, as I have posted before. Though I have to admit, I never really read the articles themselves, but skip straight to the quotes which are usually in the last paragraph. The quotes are great, because MCN publishes a lot of them and doesn't seem to censor too much. I think what mostly puts me off about the articles are the sensational headlines.
Joined Feb 2008
2K Posts | 0+
home
I would like to say I find it honourable that you are inclined to call for empirical evidence.
Having said that, I frown upon saying something like the first sentence in the quote above.
First of all, because I would say Gaz was quite probably right in the first place, I cannot think of a research design that would actually allow sufficient control to test the hypothesis that lighter rider have an advantage (of course, if you can, I would be glad to hear it).
Second, it looks to me like you feel that having some academic education makes your arguments hold more weight (I'll believe you if you say it wasn't meant to look like that). Unless you have a proper degree in a relevant field, it doesn't. Even less so if you propose "science" can easily test for something which I would say it probably cannot.
Third, saying things like that is the reason people often think of scientists as arrogant.
Fourth, don't assume you are the only one who knows a thing or two about science.
All right, I apologize sincerely if I'm a bit harsh on you. It's not meant to be a really vile attack. Your post just really rubbed me the wrong way.
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
No offense taken. Like I said, the headlines are a bit sensationalized. But with the state of media today, fighting for every pence, you have to grab as many readers with whatever you can. Putting that aside, they do a good job of reporting all the goings on within the paddock. But you and I seem to be on the same page there.
That's where I disagree with a lot of the established media. It isn't about grabbing as many readers as you can, it's about maximising revenue from the readers you have. And you do that by having a loyal, targeted (and hopefully wealthy) audience. I like to think that 10,000 committed readers are more valuable than 100,000 casual browsers. But then, given that I'm not flying to the races in my own Lear Jet at the moment, I could be wrong.
For what it's worth, the paper edition of MCN is superb, and you can see why Birt earns his money. The website headlines are a little trashy, and are actually damaging Birt's reputation rather than building it. Bauer needs to make up its mind about what it's doing with the website, as at the moment, it's heading in entirely the wrong direction.
I don't like their forum, which like crashnet seems to promote petty controversies, but I don't know how the economics of such things work; if revenue is related to hits I guess they and crashnet have a good business model.
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
That's a very fair point. I've just had the 'grab as many as you can' philosophy drilled into my head since I was 18. But I'm taking notes. Thanks, man.
Right now, revenue is related to hits (most ads are sold on a CPM basis). However, I believe that in the future, CPM rates will start to diverge more heavily just as they have in the print media, with quality sites attracting a premium. It's just taking a while for this to shake out, as it means a lot more work for advertisers to do the market research.
The superbikeplanet guy seems to be generally unpopular; the guy who runs the australian forum is also unimpressed with him.
I was perhaps talking at cross-purposes with postiez because dorna's rule changes are a bugbear of mine and many of the older hands on the forum, and frequent rule changes whilst failing to reign in the msma particularly when made by accountants and bankers rather than bike-racing guys are in my view the worst possible thing for both equality between the different bikes at this level and for cost implications.
I don't think there is any easy answer to the weight thing other than increasing the fuel limit which won't happen; the change in the engines etc for the lower classes may mean that larger riders will have more chance of coming through those classes, not that this stopped rossi and to a lesser extent simoncelli as has been pointed out.
That's a very fair point. I've just had the 'grab as many as you can' philosophy drilled into my head since I was 18. But I'm taking notes. Thanks, man.
If you are with mcn I will have to look it up.
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
Agreed that there is no easy answer to the weight issue outside of increasing fuel limits which, like you said, won't happen. I think making a combined rider/bike weight limit is going to make a meal of things. It'd be one thing if Pedrosa was running off into the distance round after round, but that's not that case. Like someone else said earlier, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
