weight limit

Ideally I would like to respond to each point in depth but I think it's gotten a bit past that point so I will just summarize.



@stiefel



The line was to sort of tease Gaz for saying "science can only". It's funny, I mentioned this to my roommate and he said essentially the same thing as what I said in response. There was little to no serious argument in that statement. Perhaps my sense of humor is different than yours but I was in no way asserting anything you are saying.



Also, if you are trolling me I hate you. I said "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". You not only did that but then said it "rubbed you the wrong way" about what I said. I will assume your intentions were legit though.



@Gaz



Re basketball: They are clearly very different situations as one is a team sport and the other isn't. One doesn't have a simple fix while the other might. It is the case that in the NBA that sometimes being tall is better than being good but there is no way to fix that. This does not imply that motogp shouldn't evaluate its options.



Re science: Physicists essentially do exactly that. They perform theoretical experiments in "frictionless vacuums" to isolate variables. This is because these experiments more often then not reflect the world despite having variables removed. I think most of the variables you are concerned with can be safely ignored as they will be essentially the same from rider to rider and race to race. I could go in to this in more detail but I really don't think its necessary.



Re the spelling of my name: I misinterpreted what you were saying and deleted and restated that line. It was my mistake and I don't have any hard feelings about the simple mix up. At first I read it as "Posties, none of this is personal as you are arguing" when that wasn't what you meant. Again, my mistake, sorry.



Re timing: If you reread what I said I think we are on exactly the same page for that issue.



@Austin



Re rookies: I think they are trying to make it easier and you can't fault them for not getting it done perfectly. I think the WSBK version will allow for less sponsorship as it is really reallly cheap.

The entry fee is 18,950 euros (US$25,000) which covers the Ninja 250R race bike, pit equipment, and riding equipment. Riders will also be provided with Pirelli tires, fuel, hospitality at the paddock village, technical support, and coaching from professional riders.

Click to expand...

That cost also includes transportation of the bike and a training camp!



Re testing: I don't care who does the testing as long as they are impartial. I also don't really care who pays for it either. I think both points are a bit irrelevant to whether the solution is viable or not.



Re rule changing: I was just saying that changing the bikes while we are changing the bikes is essentially less rule changes than changing the bike and then changing them again right after. I could see your point that any time is as good as any when there are changes all the time.





@Gaz



My first posting of my rebuttal was poorly worded to say the least and I should really say sorry. It came off as hostile and thats not what I was intending. I see from your quotes that you saw the first posting and if you were so inclined you should reread it as it is much more accurate to my intention now. Again, sorry.



I totally agree that there is no good place to put it (as far as I know) and putting it on the rider is so outlandish it was meant to be a joke.



Time handicaps wouldn't be fun at all, motogp turning into f1 is actually my biggest concern. Not that f1 has time handicaps but no one overtakes each other and it has gotten really boring to watch. Weight catagories would take away from some of the epicness that motogp represents in my opinion.



I think giving heavier riders extra fuel in a purely distance/acceleration sense would be the best solution. I will give you that these number might need to change circuit to circuit or they could just see which circuit the imbalance is the least and use those numbers for every race to keep the change as minimalistic as possible.



Traction issues like extra tire wear and rain could put a damper on the entire thing as well but it's hard to know without data. I really think wheel spin or traction loss will be the same for everyone and it will still take about the same amount of fuel to get around the track based on the numbers by weight. I can't say this for certain but I imagine these variables can be safely ignored.

Postiez said:

Ideally I would like to respond to each point in depth but I think it's gotten a bit past that point so I will just summarize.



@stiefel



The line was to sort of tease Gaz for saying "science can only". It's funny, I mentioned this to my roommate and he said essentially the same thing as what I said in response. There was little to no serious argument in that statement. Perhaps my sense of humor is different than yours but I was in no way asserting anything you are saying.



Also, if you are trolling me I hate you. I said "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". You not only did that but then said it "rubbed you the wrong way" about what I said. I will assume your intentions were legit though.



@Gaz



Re basketball: They are clearly very different situations as one is a team sport and the other isn't. One doesn't have a simple fix while the other might. It is the case that in the NBA that sometimes being tall is better than being good but there is no way to fix that. This does not imply that motogp shouldn't evaluate its options.



Re science: Physicists essentially do exactly that. They perform theoretical experiments in "frictionless vacuums" to isolate variables. This is because these experiments more often then not reflect the world despite having variables removed. I think most of the variables you are concerned with can be safely ignored as they will be essentially the same from rider to rider and race to race. I could go in to this in more detail but I really don't think its necessary.



Re the spelling of my name: I misinterpreted what you were saying and deleted and restated that line. It was my mistake and I don't have any hard feelings about the simple mix up. At first I read it as "Posties, none of this is personal as you are arguing" when that wasn't what you meant. Again, my mistake, sorry.



Re timing: If you reread what I said I think we are on exactly the same page for that issue.



@Austin



Re rookies: I think they are trying to make it easier and you can't fault them for not getting it done perfectly. I think the WSBK version will allow for less sponsorship as it is really reallly cheap.





That cost also includes transportation of the bike and a training camp!



Re testing: I don't care who does the testing as long as they are impartial. I also don't really care who pays for it either. I think both points are a bit irrelevant to whether the solution is viable or not.



Re rule changing: I was just saying that changing the bikes while we are changing the bikes is essentially less rule changes than changing the bike and then changing them again right after. I could see your point that any time is as good as any when there are changes all the time.





@Gaz



My first posting of my rebuttal was poorly worded to say the least and I should really say sorry. It came off as hostile and thats not what I was intending. I see from your quotes that you saw the first posting and if you were so inclined you should reread it as it is much more accurate to my intention now. Again, sorry.



I totally agree that there is no good place to put it (as far as I know) and putting it on the rider is so outlandish it was meant to be a joke.



Time handicaps wouldn't be fun at all, motogp turning into f1 is actually my biggest concern. Not that f1 has time handicaps but no one overtakes each other and it has gotten really boring to watch. Weight catagories would take away from some of the epicness that motogp represents in my opinion.



I think giving heavier riders extra fuel in a purely distance/acceleration sense would be the best solution. I will give you that these number might need to change circuit to circuit or they could just see which circuit the imbalance is the least and use those numbers for every race to keep the change as minimalistic as possible.



Traction issues like extra tire wear and rain could put a damper on the entire thing as well but it's hard to know without data. I really think wheel spin or traction loss will be the same for everyone and it will still take about the same amount of fuel to get around the track based on the numbers by weight. I can't say this for certain but I imagine these variables can be safely ignored.

Click to expand...

My post was sincere, and I hope you took the effort to understand why I didn't particularly like yours. You say it you did not intend it the way I took it and I'm quite willing to believe that.

I did not consciously use the same words as you did, so there was no intended sarcasm there.



Now, since you're convinced that empirical testing would help us understand this presumed problem, let me show you where the problem lies as far as I am concerned. I'll try to do this point by point, because I am actually quite happy when people pick my words apart so weak spots in my chain of argument can be revealed.



What you propose is in essence an empirical test of the hypothesis that the lighter a rider is, the higher the probability he will be successful in motogp.



Ok, let's try to come up with an ideal design for such a test.



First we need a dependent variable, agreed? Some measure for success in motogp.

I would say the closest to the real world measure is points amassed in a collection of individual races of about one hour. This is our Y-variable.



Rider weight is our X1-variable, and it's measure seems quite forward.



Now, for the controls (I am not going to list all possibilities, but cherry pick some to highlight my point):



Traction (X2): probably positively related to Y and negatively to X1.

Braking capability (X3): probably positively related to Y and negatively to X1.

Rider injury proneness: probably negatively related to Y and positively to X1 (maybe also negatively to X2 and X3).



I could go on, but I think you get the point.



What happens when you fail to control for X2, X3, ...., Xn? You suffer from specification error and your estimates will be unreliable.



And that's just the case of the ideal experiment. What do you think happens if you redefine your Y-variable to fit better with the methods available to you? Not only do you fail to control for relevant variables which you really should not omit, your measurement of Y will become further removed from being applicable to the real world situation you want to investigate.





I will probably not be able to reply in the next couple of days, but I'm looking forward to yours!

Postiez said:

@Gaz



Re basketball: They are clearly very different situations as one is a team sport and the other isn't. One doesn't have a simple fix while the other might. It is the case that in the NBA that sometimes being tall is better than being good but there is no way to fix that. This does not imply that motogp shouldn't evaluate its options.



Re science: Physicists essentially do exactly that. They perform theoretical experiments in "frictionless vacuums" to isolate variables. This is because these experiments more often then not reflect the world despite having variables removed. I think most of the variables you are concerned with can be safely ignored as they will be essentially the same from rider to rider and race to race. I could go in to this in more detail but I really don't think its necessary.



Re the spelling of my name: I misinterpreted what you were saying and deleted and restated that line. It was my mistake and I don't have any hard feelings about the simple mix up. At first I read it as "Posties, none of this is personal as you are arguing" when that wasn't what you meant. Again, my mistake, sorry.



Re timing: If you reread what I said I think we are on exactly the same page for that issue.

Click to expand...

No problems Postiez, all good from my side as I give kudos to people who debate and not just say 'my guy is the best because .....', thus I have no issues with your responses be that tone or topic.



Ok so Basketball may have been a poor example so lets look at golf. Golf is an individual sport that is played by people of varying athletic sizes etc - on that we can agree. In golf one player can strike a drive 350 yards yet another of similar size may only strike it 280 yards yet there has been no talk of moving tees forward for the second player.



Not trying to be picky but the basics are the same, in sports each and every person will have advantages and disadvantages, it is how they use the advantage and minimise the disadvantage that determines their success, the sport itself should not change to suit them (ie. Billiards with Walter Lindrum)



With regards to the science, I am no scientist and will never pretend to be as personally the sciences are as interesting to me as question time in parliament is to the average layman ..... and no offence to people who do enjoy science. But I have met a number throughout the years (admittedlys, not psychics related) and I have not met one who would accept an estimate as being a scientifcally acceptable answer as they strive for the definite (my scientific experience is related to heavy industry etc).



That does not lessen your friends opinions in one way but again I do doubt that the variables are comfortably measurable on a race track level whilst in normal racing mode. I may well be wrong, have been a few times as have all married guys, and if so then I am happy to admit it, but with my racing experiences I doubt an accurate measurement could be determined from which a definitive solution could be implemented.



Still however it would actually be interesting to see some scientific study done to determine if a measurable impact is apparent and thence put that ito play by 'backdating' to see results. That reads poorly but basically it would be interesting to see if there really is ay measurable impact that would change results of years past.

Postiez said:

@Gaz



My first posting of my rebuttal was poorly worded to say the least and I should really say sorry. It came off as hostile and thats not what I was intending. I see from your quotes that you saw the first posting and if you were so inclined you should reread it as it is much more accurate to my intention now. Again, sorry.



I totally agree that there is no good place to put it (as far as I know) and putting it on the rider is so outlandish it was meant to be a joke.



Time handicaps wouldn't be fun at all, motogp turning into f1 is actually my biggest concern. Not that f1 has time handicaps but no one overtakes each other and it has gotten really boring to watch. Weight catagories would take away from some of the epicness that motogp represents in my opinion.



I think giving heavier riders extra fuel in a purely distance/acceleration sense would be the best solution. I will give you that these number might need to change circuit to circuit or they could just see which circuit the imbalance is the least and use those numbers for every race to keep the change as minimalistic as possible.



Traction issues like extra tire wear and rain could put a damper on the entire thing as well but it's hard to know without data. I really think wheel spin or traction loss will be the same for everyone and it will still take about the same amount of fuel to get around the track based on the numbers by weight. I can't say this for certain but I imagine these variables can be safely ignored.

Click to expand...

All good mate and as you could no doubt tell, my 'ideas' were jokes anyway to get discussion happening.



With regards to extra fuel I would actually say that were it to be implemented it would be worse to vary the levels from circuit to circuit due to the setup variations caused by the extra weight. I mention this as the team then has an extra variable with which to contend whereas other teams (ie. the rider/team used as the base) would have no such issues as their fuel load and subsequent weight will remain static, thus one less variable come circuit set-up.



The wheelspin/traction issue I feel you may be underestimating a little as not all riders are the same in how the produce the wheelspin or even if they produce it. I would expect (and this is only an opinion) that riding style would have a far greater impact on wheelspin/traction than it be a consistent level of variable, unless you mean (and I have misunderstood) consistent for each rider individually.



I personally have no issues with people looking for a solution but I have yet to see the problem as the earlier statistic placed by Kropotkin showed, the riders classed as heavier have achieved better results in the 800cc era which kind of dispels an unfair advantage myth.



And Postiez, again mate is good to debate in this manner















Gaz

Postiez said:

@Austin



Re rookies: I think they are trying to make it easier and you can't fault them for not getting it done perfectly. I think the WSBK version will allow for less sponsorship as it is really reallly cheap.





That cost also includes transportation of the bike and a training camp!

Click to expand...

My point about the Rookies Cup is not the cost of entry. Most of these kids are probably looking at something similar to that cost for a season's worth of racing in a domestic or European championship when you factor in good equipment, entrance fees, travel, etc. My point is what happens afterwards. The whole point is to get these kids noticed on the world stage, rather than having just kids coming to the CEV and getting picked up. Thus, broadening the pool of talent. However, like I said before, there is still a lack of sponsorship outside Spain and Italy so the kids graduating without any financial backing are still missing out to the kids with the Spanish, Italian, etc. connections.

stiefel said:

My post was sincere, and I hope you took the effort to understand why I didn't particularly like yours. You say it you did not intend it the way I took it and I'm quite willing to believe that.

I did not consciously use the same words as you did, so there was no intended sarcasm there.



Now, since you're convinced that empirical testing would help us understand this presumed problem, let me show you where the problem lies as far as I am concerned. I'll try to do this point by point, because I am actually quite happy when people pick my words apart so weak spots in my chain of argument can be revealed.



What you propose is in essence an empirical test of the hypothesis that the lighter a rider is, the higher the probability he will be successful in motogp.



Ok, let's try to come up with an ideal design for such a test.



First we need a dependent variable, agreed? Some measure for success in motogp.

I would say the closest to the real world measure is points amassed in a collection of individual races of about one hour. This is our Y-variable.



Rider weight is our X1-variable, and it's measure seems quite forward.



Now, for the controls (I am not going to list all possibilities, but cherry pick some to highlight my point):



Traction (X2): probably positively related to Y and negatively to X1.

Braking capability (X3): probably positively related to Y and negatively to X1.

Rider injury proneness: probably negatively related to Y and positively to X1 (maybe also negatively to X2 and X3).



I could go on, but I think you get the point.



What happens when you fail to control for X2, X3, ...., Xn? You suffer from specification error and your estimates will be unreliable.



And that's just the case of the ideal experiment. What do you think happens if you redefine your Y-variable to fit better with the methods available to you? Not only do you fail to control for relevant variables which you really should not omit, your measurement of Y will become further removed from being applicable to the real world situation you want to investigate.





I will probably not be able to reply in the next couple of days, but I'm looking forward to yours!

Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking the tests would be real world tests, at least not to start. We could get some sort of mythbusters-esque decent result doing all real world tests but it would be easier and better to start purely with formulas and move on to real world to reinforce. I will agree with your x1 x2 and x3 but I think rider injury is far too complicated and would need its own set of testing to see if there is even a small correlation of weight to injury. I would also think race time would be better than points per race but I think they would show essentially the same thing in the end.



I imagine there is some quantifiable amount of energy required to get some blank slate around the track at race speed based on weight. I imagine this is based on Newton's laws of motion and I would think the teams use this formula when they maximize fuel consumption for use for the entire race. I realize there is also the system that reduces fuel usage when they get low but there is no way they are just taking a shot in the dark and hoping it works out well.



We would also need to find another acceleration graph not based on energy but rather a speed/time ratio as a function of weight. This has formula interested me in the past. So you have f(x) being time to speed. f'(x) and f''(x) would have to account for rolling on the throttle, feathering the clutch, the increasing revs and hitting the power band. I imagine a lot of this could be done using information from a dyno and Newton's laws again.



We also have energy saved by a larger rider able to keep his bike more upright by repositioning more of the total mass of the bike + rider and therefor holding more speed though a corner. On top of this he loses less energy during braking and needs less energy to regain max speed (if we were to hypothetically normalize weight in that given acceleration).



As far as traction is concerned I think it really ins't a factor for acceleration and maintaining speed in the dry. I will admit that the larger rider probably has more traction but if it were limited the smaller rider wouldn't accelerate faster at all and bike would look more like drag bikes with super long swingarms etc. I think the big issue for traction is going to be braking. I'm not sure who has the edge here actually. I would think the larger rider would have more traction to the ground but he also has more inertia. I think this would fall into Newton's laws of motion again.



So for x=weight an f(x) being a function representing race time based on weight we could find a formula and see what weight is ideal and how much of a hindrance it would be to increase weight.



First, for potentially (reasonably) infinite fuel f(x) = (acceleration/speed) + (cornering factor) + (braking/traction)



If there wasn't a definite correlation between weight and lap time without looking at fuel it would be shown here.



We could then take the data of how much leaner riders with more weight have to ride to make it to the end of the race and find a function based on my first variable I brought up for a rider with a constant weight to see how much he loses for riding leaner.



This would give us a good starting point to see where the problem, if one exists, lies.

Gaz said:

No problems Postiez, all good from my side as I give kudos to people who debate and not just say 'my guy is the best because .....', thus I have no issues with your responses be that tone or topic.



Ok so Basketball may have been a poor example so lets look at golf. Golf is an individual sport that is played by people of varying athletic sizes etc - on that we can agree. In golf one player can strike a drive 350 yards yet another of similar size may only strike it 280 yards yet there has been no talk of moving tees forward for the second player.



Not trying to be picky but the basics are the same, in sports each and every person will have advantages and disadvantages, it is how they use the advantage and minimise the disadvantage that determines their success, the sport itself should not change to suit them (ie. Billiards with Walter Lindrum)



With regards to the science, I am no scientist and will never pretend to be as personally the sciences are as interesting to me as question time in parliament is to the average layman ..... and no offence to people who do enjoy science. But I have met a number throughout the years (admittedlys, not psychics related) and I have not met one who would accept an estimate as being a scientifcally acceptable answer as they strive for the definite (my scientific experience is related to heavy industry etc).



That does not lessen your friends opinions in one way but again I do doubt that the variables are comfortably measurable on a race track level whilst in normal racing mode. I may well be wrong, have been a few times as have all married guys, and if so then I am happy to admit it, but with my racing experiences I doubt an accurate measurement could be determined from which a definitive solution could be implemented.



Still however it would actually be interesting to see some scientific study done to determine if a measurable impact is apparent and thence put that ito play by 'backdating' to see results. That reads poorly but basically it would be interesting to see if there really is ay measurable impact that would change results of years past.



All good mate and as you could no doubt tell, my 'ideas' were jokes anyway to get discussion happening.



With regards to extra fuel I would actually say that were it to be implemented it would be worse to vary the levels from circuit to circuit due to the setup variations caused by the extra weight. I mention this as the team then has an extra variable with which to contend whereas other teams (ie. the rider/team used as the base) would have no such issues as their fuel load and subsequent weight will remain static, thus one less variable come circuit set-up.



The wheelspin/traction issue I feel you may be underestimating a little as not all riders are the same in how the produce the wheelspin or even if they produce it. I would expect (and this is only an opinion) that riding style would have a far greater impact on wheelspin/traction than it be a consistent level of variable, unless you mean (and I have misunderstood) consistent for each rider individually.



I personally have no issues with people looking for a solution but I have yet to see the problem as the earlier statistic placed by Kropotkin showed, the riders classed as heavier have achieved better results in the 800cc era which kind of dispels an unfair advantage myth.



And Postiez, again mate is good to debate in this manner

Click to expand...

The big problem with using a physical sport as an example is there is no real way to balance it. Moving the tee forward essentially changes the game which is purely about moving the ball and not so much about strategy.



How about instead of basketball or golf we use something mental that involves using an item to its maximum potential similar to what is done in motogp. I first wrote this about professional video gaming so the idea of using a machine to its maximum potential was there but I think chess is a bit more universal so I will use that, the idea is the same either way. Let's say there is a man with no thumbs that is very good at chess, he has studied it and plays with friends and wants to start playing competitively. A problem quickly arises that in competitive chess it is timed and it takes him far longer to move a piece than the other players. After doing some research only he finds a chess set designed with loops in the pieces so he can easily move them. The rules don't allow different pieces for obvious reasons and the chess community is put into a similar situation as ours. To me, it seems silly to not allow this person to compete to the best of his ability.



This is how I see motogp, if we have the ability to focus purely on rider skill and manufacturing excellence why wouldn't we want to?



As far as fuel is concerned how about this. Instead of motogp rules regulating exactly how much fuel you get they restricted how much can be used in some sort of richness gauge. Everyone gets enough to make it all the way to the end and no one has to run leaner purely because they weigh more. It is essentially the same thing as increasing fuel for the heavier just viewed in a different light.

Austin said:

My point about the Rookies Cup is not the cost of entry. Most of these kids are probably looking at something similar to that cost for a season's worth of racing in a domestic or European championship when you factor in good equipment, entrance fees, travel, etc. My point is what happens afterwards. The whole point is to get these kids noticed on the world stage, rather than having just kids coming to the CEV and getting picked up. Thus, broadening the pool of talent. However, like I said before, there is still a lack of sponsorship outside Spain and Italy so the kids graduating without any financial backing are still missing out to the kids with the Spanish, Italian, etc. connections.

Click to expand...

I guess what I was trying to say is you can't fault them for trying. I don't think there is any part of these programs that forces this imbalance after and thus not really their fault for failing. It's like voting for a losing political party, when the person you voted for doesn't win it doesn't matter that you voted except for the opinions of those who may vote for them next time. If it wasn't even close they wont bother but if its really close the slackers will finally go vote.



To me, it is enough for them to be promoting these good ideas even if they don't completely fix everything themselves. The ideas are out there and it seems like more of a legitimate cause that others may want to help as well now.

Get real folk



The only reason Rossi and Sic want a weight spec. is because Rossi has opened a pizza parlour and he's planning on partaking in the fare with greater gusto.

The whole debate is simply a creation by two savvy men who well crafted seed of crying victum. This whole thread shouldnt hav gone past it original tone of calling ........ on Sic & Vale. Certainly not past the first few posts of Kropo, Austin, & the like. Now its describe as a "raging debate"? WTF?



If ther was ever a time Sic should hav been crying, it was during 250s. Vale going along for me simply speaks about the man that has become Rossi. Im disappointed in Hayden going along with this BS. (And i'll call him on it when o see him ) i admit, at one time i thot Pedro had an advantage, but the fact is its a mixed bag. Well folks we can add another reason why Rossi lost and perhaps Stoner or X winning another title: poor Rossi had a weight disadvantage.

Jumkie said:

The whole debate is simply a creation by two savvy men who well crafted seed of crying victum. This whole thread shouldnt hav gone past it original tone of calling ........ on Sic & Vale. Certainly not past the first few posts of Kropo, Austin, & the like. Now its describe as a "raging debate"? WTF?



If ther was ever a time Sic should hav been crying, it was during 250s. Vale going along for me simply speaks about the man that has become Rossi. Im disappointed in Hayden going along with this BS. (And i'll call him on it when o see him

) i admit, at one time i thot Pedro had an advantage, but the fact is its a mixed bag. Well folks we can add another reason why Rossi lost and perhaps Stoner or X winning another title: poor Rossi had a weight disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Jum, you forget a small detail: Rossi never complained about having a weight disadvantage... Debug your virtual reality.

Thats what i like about u J4rno, u keep ur defense of debates simple. "It didnt happen".--J4rno. Reminds me of ur "Ducati are doing nothing out of ordinary to help Rossi" mode of defense. Anything we see plain as day, u always got ur bulletproof defense, "what guys, that didnt happen". How can we argue with that?

Rossi had a weight disadvantage in 08-09 and he still won, so why is he crying about it now?

Jumkie said:

The whole debate is simply a creation by two savvy men who well crafted seed of crying victum. This whole thread shouldnt hav gone past it original tone of calling ........ on Sic & Vale. Certainly not past the first few posts of Kropo, Austin, & the like. Now its describe as a "raging debate"? WTF?



If ther was ever a time Sic should hav been crying, it was during 250s. Vale going along for me simply speaks about the man that has become Rossi. Im disappointed in Hayden going along with this BS. (And i'll call him on it when o see him

) i admit, at one time i thot Pedro had an advantage, but the fact is its a mixed bag. Well folks we can add another reason why Rossi lost and perhaps Stoner or X winning another title: poor Rossi had a weight disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Whats your take on Honda RC212V in 2007 Jums? From memory Nicky thought he was being punk'd at the launch!

Postiez said:

I wasn't thinking the tests would be real world tests, at least not to start. We could get some sort of mythbusters-esque decent result doing all real world tests but it would be easier and better to start purely with formulas and move on to real world to reinforce. I will agree with your x1 x2 and x3 but I think rider injury is far too complicated and would need its own set of testing to see if there is even a small correlation of weight to injury. I would also think race time would be better than points per race but I think they would show essentially the same thing in the end.



I imagine there is some quantifiable amount of energy required to get some blank slate around the track at race speed based on weight. I imagine this is based on Newton's laws of motion and I would think the teams use this formula when they maximize fuel consumption for use for the entire race. I realize there is also the system that reduces fuel usage when they get low but there is no way they are just taking a shot in the dark and hoping it works out well.



We would also need to find another acceleration graph not based on energy but rather a speed/time ratio as a function of weight. This has formula interested me in the past. So you have f(x) being time to speed. f'(x) and f''(x) would have to account for rolling on the throttle, feathering the clutch, the increasing revs and hitting the power band. I imagine a lot of this could be done using information from a dyno and Newton's laws again.



We also have energy saved by a larger rider able to keep his bike more upright by repositioning more of the total mass of the bike + rider and therefor holding more speed though a corner. On top of this he loses less energy during braking and needs less energy to regain max speed (if we were to hypothetically normalize weight in that given acceleration).



As far as traction is concerned I think it really ins't a factor for acceleration and maintaining speed in the dry. I will admit that the larger rider probably has more traction but if it were limited the smaller rider wouldn't accelerate faster at all and bike would look more like drag bikes with super long swingarms etc. I think the big issue for traction is going to be braking. I'm not sure who has the edge here actually. I would think the larger rider would have more traction to the ground but he also has more inertia. I think this would fall into Newton's laws of motion again.



So for x=weight an f(x) being a function representing race time based on weight we could find a formula and see what weight is ideal and how much of a hindrance it would be to increase weight.



First, for potentially (reasonably) infinite fuel f(x) = (acceleration/speed) + (cornering factor) + (braking/traction)



If there wasn't a definite correlation between weight and lap time without looking at fuel it would be shown here.



We could then take the data of how much leaner riders with more weight have to ride to make it to the end of the race and find a function based on my first variable I brought up for a rider with a constant weight to see how much he loses for riding leaner.



This would give us a good starting point to see where the problem, if one exists, lies.









The big problem with using a physical sport as an example is there is no real way to balance it. Moving the tee forward essentially changes the game which is purely about moving the ball and not so much about strategy.



How about instead of basketball or golf we use something mental that involves using an item to its maximum potential similar to what is done in motogp. I first wrote this about professional video gaming so the idea of using a machine to its maximum potential was there but I think chess is a bit more universal so I will use that, the idea is the same either way. Let's say there is a man with no thumbs that is very good at chess, he has studied it and plays with friends and wants to start playing competitively. A problem quickly arises that in competitive chess it is timed and it takes him far longer to move a piece than the other players. After doing some research only he finds a chess set designed with loops in the pieces so he can easily move them. The rules don't allow different pieces for obvious reasons and the chess community is put into a similar situation as ours. To me, it seems silly to not allow this person to compete to the best of his ability.



This is how I see motogp, if we have the ability to focus purely on rider skill and manufacturing excellence why wouldn't we want to?



As far as fuel is concerned how about this. Instead of motogp rules regulating exactly how much fuel you get they restricted how much can be used in some sort of richness gauge. Everyone gets enough to make it all the way to the end and no one has to run leaner purely because they weigh more. It is essentially the same thing as increasing fuel for the heavier just viewed in a different light.









I guess what I was trying to say is you can't fault them for trying. I don't think there is any part of these programs that forces this imbalance after and thus not really their fault for failing. It's like voting for a losing political party, when the person you voted for doesn't win it doesn't matter that you voted except for the opinions of those who may vote for them next time. If it wasn't even close they wont bother but if its really close the slackers will finally go vote.



To me, it is enough for them to be promoting these good ideas even if they don't completely fix everything themselves. The ideas are out there and it seems like more of a legitimate cause that others may want to help as well now.

Click to expand...

The other disadvantage of smaller stature is being injury prone; dani will never win a world title in my view because apart from anything else he doesn't bounce well when he falls, which he doesn't necessarily do more than others. He has been impeded by injury to some extent most years in the premier class, including fractures on multiple occasions. Even if fully fit you would wonder if he could ride the current ducati anyway; valentino rossi has had troubles with the physical demands of that bike and has openly said he can't ride to its potential whilst weakened by his shoulder injury.



I think the perceived need for the larger riders to be as light as possible has adverse implications for their health long-term as I have said, but agree with others that there is no real way of adding weight to either bike or rider in a sensible or fair fashion, and that in actuality only 1 significantly lightweight rider has won an 800cc world championship, and even he was considerably heavier than dani pedrosa.

The trouble with the size and weight of riders is that they are all human and all different, so there are too many variables to isolate certain things and pin point them as the cause of certain performance differences. Obviously some things are easier to determine than others, but if the rules were changed to act on those areas and try to equalise them it would have consequences that would be very difficult to predict and that could easily make the problem worse. If they start fiddling with the results on a trial and error basis to try and get some kind of equality that we can't even measure then the sport will just make a mockery of itself. Looking at the results too there is not a significant correlation between size, weight and success. I'd say just leave it.

Talpa said:

Whats your take on Honda RC212V in 2007 Jums? From memory Nicky thought he was being punk'd at the launch!

Click to expand...

Should u b out Easter egg hunting?



Talps, the crazy thing is ur actually being serious. This is why i dont hav meaningful exchange with u buddy, bcuz u just dont posses the minimum logical skill. U remind me of when ur retort to us arguing Rossi's powerful influence on the sport, u replied, well if he has so much power, why didnt he have the officials at Indy repave the bumps that caused him to crash. (U wer being equally serious then.) Well, this is how threads go on tangents. Bcuz some people will actually respond as if this above is a the point Sic & Vale are complaing about. If u dont know the difference, an explanation here wont help u. I think it was lost on u at a very young age. Wer u dropped as a baby?

Jumkie said:

Should u b out Easter egg hunting?



Talps, the crazy thing is ur actually being serious. This is why i dont hav meaningful exchange with u buddy, bcuz u just dont posses the minimum logical skill. U remind me of when ur retort to us arguing Rossi's powerful influence on the sport, u replied, well if he has so much power, why didnt he have the officials at Indy repave the bumps that caused him to crash. (U wer being equally serious then.) Well, this is how threads go on tangents. Bcuz some people will actually respond as if this above is a the point Sic & Vale are complaing about. If u dont know the difference, an explanation here wont help u. I think it was lost on u at a very young age. Wer u dropped as a baby?

Click to expand...

From a press release issued by Indianapolis Motor Speedway:







World's best riders to race on new surface Aug. 26-28 during Red Bull Indianapolis GP



INDIANAPOLIS, Thursday, April 21, 2011 - The infield section of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway road course will be repaved this summer in anticipation of the Red Bull Indianapolis GP MotoGP race Aug. 26-28.



The project, which will repave 1.5 miles of the circuit from Turn 5 through Turn 16, will start Thursday, June 9. Turn 5 is where the course leaves the short chute between Turns 1 and 2 of the oval. Turn 16 is where the circuit leaves the infield near the start of the front straightaway at the exit of Turn 4 of the oval.



It's the first time this section of the course has been resurfaced since it was built in 2000. Turns 1 through 4 of the 2.621-mile circuit - located inside Turn 1 of the oval - were created in 2008 for the inaugural Red Bull Indianapolis GP and will not be repaved during this project.



The new asphalt will be consistent with the other sections of the course.



"This project is an example of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway providing competitors the finest racing facilities in the world," said Mel Harder, IMS senior vice president, operations. "We had a very long, hard winter this year, which exacerbated the bumps and cracks in this aging section of the track.



"We also decided to undertake this project this year due to feedback from riders during the Red Bull Indianapolis GP last year. The new surface will produce even closer, more exciting racing for the world's best riders and our loyal fans this August."



The project is scheduled to be completed by the end of June.



"I'm happy to hear the infield section is being repaved at Indy," said 2006 MotoGP World Champion Nicky Hayden, who rides for the Ducati Team. "It's already a great track, and I'm sure this will make a smoother, more consistent racetrack for everybody.



"It also shows how the people at IMS pay attention to every detail - that's probably why they've been around over a hundred years. I've always loved it there, as it's my home track. I can't wait to get back to Indy and race in August."

Jumkie said:

Thats what i like about u J4rno, u keep ur defense of debates simple. "It didnt happen".--J4rno. Reminds me of ur "Ducati are doing nothing out of ordinary to help Rossi" mode of defense. Anything we see plain as day, u always got ur bulletproof defense, "what guys, that didnt happen". How can we argue with that?

Click to expand...

Simple: by demonstrating that it happened -- providing quotes of Rossi complaining about his weight as a disadvantage vis a vis Pedrosa, for example. But you can't... They don't exist. Yet you indulge in your virtual world where Rossi is the Great Villain who will use weight as his next 'excuse'.



By the way, it's not Ducati helping Rossi -- it's the other way round because it is Rossi working for Ducati. This also is something very simple: difficult to argue with things that are simple and matter of fact.



And it's not a new swingarm or new crank that amounts to 'out of the ordinary' development. That's completely ordinary development -- Yamaha did more than that when they switched to Bridgestone in 2008.



Interestingly, you were not accusing Yamaha of 'helping Rossi' when they developed the pneumatic valve engine, the new electronics, or the shorter swingarm for the Bridgestones, or the heavier crank that Rossi likes so much because it makes the power delivery more controllable... Why?



In your words now a manufacturer has become the 'servant' of a rider. If that's not virtual reality...

Pov, i read that today. Haha, I know hes got influence, but daaamn. Mayb the Bops are right, he is God! I suppose thats fitting it being Easter and all.



J4rno, u r absolutely insane. Should i continue dialoging with a mad man? What would that say about me? Look no further than this thread. Kropo already told u. But u can continue to deny it. Hows that sand taste?

Jumkie said:

Pov, i read that today. Haha, I know hes got influence, but daaamn. Mayb the Bops are right, he is God! I suppose thats fitting it being Easter and all.



J4rno, u r absolutely insane. Should i continue dialoging with a mad man? What would that say about me? Look no further than this thread. Kropo already told u. But u can continue to deny it. Hows that sand taste?

Click to expand...

And Jums, I saw the link a few days ago, saw the headline associated to it and thought to myself - yep, unbiased journalism/editorial at it's best.



http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Apr/110421ims.htm



And this does kinda put a lot of the stuff from the site into a level of perspective with regards to how it should be viewed











Gaz

J4rn0 said:

Simple: by demonstrating that it happened -- providing quotes of Rossi complaining about his weight as a disadvantage vis a vis Pedrosa, for example. But you can't... They don't exist. Yet you indulge in your virtual world where Rossi is the Great Villain who will use weight as his next 'excuse'.

By the way, it's not Ducati helping Rossi -- it's the other way round because it is Rossi working for Ducati. This also is something very simple: difficult to argue with things that are simple and matter of fact.

And it's not a new swingarm or new crank that amounts to 'out of the ordinary' development. That's completely ordinary development -- Yamaha did more than that when they switched to Bridgestone in 2008.



Interestingly, you were not accusing Yamaha of 'helping Rossi' when they developed the pneumatic valve engine, the new electronics, or the shorter swingarm for the Bridgestones, or the heavier crank that Rossi likes so much because it makes the power delivery more controllable... Why?

In your words now a manufacturer has become the 'servant' of a rider. If that's not virtual reality...

Click to expand...

Yes but you are arguing with someone who has a 4000 word disclaimer as a signature, basically pleading with all not to take him seriously........his world is a Virtual as it comes, Jums exists in his 'Second Life'.......

More Brilliance from Kropo



http://www.motomatters.com/analysis/2011/04/24/the_troubles_with_fuel_limits_part_1_the.html



If your around Krop-how did the Fuel limit reg originate? Was there reasoning given for its introduction?





All I can deduce from this reaffirms what I've previously said, more litres in the tank, remove all doubt on weight issues and let the riders 'RACE'



It is far easier to accept a mistake on mechanical set-up, a crash or tyre wear issues. However seeing a rider obviously losing time due to his engine being starved is not what this series is about, its not what fans pay to see and its creating false presumptions on who is the 'best' on track. It may appeal to some boffins, however this is almost like watching the bikes race by remote control and its become par for the course for many 'well informed' spectators who are having to consider that a rider is falling behind because the bike is slowing itself down to finish the race- this should never have become a reality, however it is......



It might be idealistic, but a Grand Prix should be won through outright speed and race-craft, not through programming to cater for ridiculous regulations, of course hats off to the data engineers who get it right and some technical strategists may find mapping peaks and troughs another intriguing element to teams race outcomes, however the majority of fans are cheering for the guys in leathers and it seems their talent is having much less say in the result. I've just been watching a few races from the 2000-01-500cc and even the 2005-06 990 seasons......how far its gone backwards......



I just hope that information like this provided by Kropo will continue to surface and pressure is applied to the 'powers that be' to once again provide a less 'programmed' series.