Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
First up, I didn't write that, a couple of my contributors did. No credit can be taken.
Secondly, the fuel limits originated as a way of controlling horsepower. When the 990s were introduced, they agreed to limit fuel to keep speeds down. Naturally, that didn't work, it merely meant more corner speed, and higher speed crashes. Unintended consequences, as usual.
I agree, but here is the dilemma.
Suppose 1000cc with no fuel restrictions. The bikes make 320hp. Top speeds and acceleration are obscene and the FIM must rewrite homologation procedures for circuits. They can either order up some really crappy tires (new tire supplier necessary) or they can reduce the number of forward gears. Gearbox homologation is also a possibility (restricting total unique gears or restricting the number of unique gearboxes). I doubt performance restrictions would be effective unless they were extreme.
Suppose 800cc. Unrestricted 800s would have roughly the same problems as unrestricted 1000s. Good news is that reducing the number of forward gears or implementing homologation to reduce the number of unique gears or unique gearboxes would probably work a bit better. Lower grip control tires is also a possibility (hopefully more predictable even if lower performance). Could be interesting.
Suppose something below 800cc. Unrestricted capacities below 800cc might require few performance controls. The bikes may only make 200-230hp so restrictions might not even be necessary. However, reducing capacity to 750cc or even 600cc, doesn't allow for much flexibility in the lower classes. GP has always been differentiated by displacement. Running MotoGP and Moto2 at 600cc would be very strange.
Several situations. None perfect. Which should GP choose?
If they kept the current tires and banned Bridgestone from developing them (other than minor tweaks), 320hp would be meaningless, as they would rip the tires to shreds.
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
Any chance this happens? Capping tire development or getting a new supplier, Pirelli, for example? Using tires to slow the bikes down keeps coming up as the most logical scenario, and Formula 1 has received great attention for it. Thoughts?
Bridgestone just renewed for 3 years, but I am certain this is an avenue they will pursue.
Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
There could be 4 cylinders, 4-stroke 1000cc, 24 liters of commercial unleaded fuel, same choice of tires through the season (no more track-specific tires), only generic TC (no more track-specific and corner-specific programmable TC), no more carbon brakes. This way the race development regarding fuel, electronics, brakes and tires would also become much more useful for street bikes. The only problem would be that probably the current SBK formula would also have to be downgraded...
Joined Mar 2005
7K Posts | 20+
Woody Creek
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
You are a bad loser in debate, Jum.
How does that work. You make a claim that we all must have imagined Rossi brought it up. You continue to say it didn't happen. You ask for proof, quotes, etc. This was back in page two. An you still continue to deny your Golden Boy is party behind all this weight limit ........? Then I tell you, its there for you to go see, I don't need to prove .....
J4rno, you continue to deny Ducati is doing anything special. You continue to deny that Ducati actually tested a modified GP11 calling it a GP12. Now you deny that Rossi had anything to do with this "raging" weight limit debate. Maybe Rossi doesn't really exist, since everything that surrounds him is imaginary.
Here is what you are denying My only question is, how will you continue to deny it? I guess you will just ignore it and continue saying, "what guys, who said that Rossi brought it up?" (On a side note, how anybody takes anything you say with any credibility is amazing, you have so far proven to be blind and deaf, with zero ability to debate except to say, it just didn't happen.)
So let me recap for you:
J4rno: Rossi had nothing to do with this debate people.
Kropo: YES he did as I understand it.
J4rno: Rossi had nothing to say about this debate people.
Kropo: YES he did.
J4rno, I think you are the only one denying Rossi had anything to do with this debate. I don't even think the other crazies have joined you on this one.
J4rno, I'll save you the response: "What guys, Rossi had nothing to do with the weight-limit thing, so there is nothing to debate."
I think Talpa was referring to the possibility of a formula with fewer restrictions. I'm not sure cylinder restrictions, electronics restrictions, and brake restrictions are what he had in mind, but fuel RON/MON rating is definitely intriguing. If they reduced the octane rating to be in-line with common pump gas, MotoGP could probably reduce peak power output by 10%. They could do the same in WSBK.
The FIM would have to be willing to police new fuel rules, the MSMA would have to agree to build engines for new fuel, and fuel suppliers would have to continue supplying; but the formula would be more production relevant.
Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
Jum, we have already read those messages and quotes in their integral form, by clipping some of them to just a few words convenient for you will not fool anybody except yourself...
It does look like a very extreme form of climbing though... Having fun?
It does look like a very extreme form of climbing though... Having fun?
Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
Yes -- in general they always say that racing helps the development of road bikes so much, but I think special high-octane gasoline, dual-compound tires, carbon fiber brakes and corner-specifing TC can never produce anything useful for the bikes we actually ride on our roads.
Leaving all the rest free to prototype, could give us some interesting GP bikes anyway.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Jum, we have already read those messages and quotes in their integral form, by clipping some of them to just a few words convenient for you will not fool anybody except yourself...
It does look like a very extreme form of climbing though... Having fun?
All the links are there, you can read them in their entirety. But it didn't help, since you just continue to ignore the writing.
Well, there you have it folks. This is what you will get when debating J4rno. What really is the point of carrying a conversation with him? That's what you must ask yourself when engaging him in debate. One thing is having differing opinions, quite another thing is denying the reality of what has occurred.
It seems Rossi has retired folks. He is no longer in GP. He does not exist. He is a figment of your imagination.
Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
I read them. They do not help your case at all Jum -- assuming you have a case, other than the obsessive recurring statement in many different forms that 'Rossi is the Big Villain'.
Now, by extension Ducati have become the silly servants of the Big Villain, who 'will move heaven and earth to help him win'. What a crime! They will certainly cheat in the process, as it's impossible that Rossi can ever win without cheating, of course...
When Yamaha did everything they could to give a competitive bike to Rossi, following his leads, in 2004 and again in 2008, they were not his servants -- nope, they were just pursuing their corporate goals, right? Great.
But when Ducati does the same, then for you they are 'moving heaven and earth for Rossi'. You make up such stories out of your anti-Rossi obsessions, and call them reality.
If I say that it is Rossi working for Ducati, not the other way round, then I am 'denying reality'.
Have a couple of weeks on mineral water Jum, and then we can resume this discussion.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Reading...but zero understanding.
I should just start a thread with a poll. (Why not, Viper starts threads on a whim..)
May I borrow a tactic that had none of the desired effect from Mr. Squiz? (I say none of the effect, because it was a simple enough question dodged repeatedly by Talps...the other white meat).
Question: Was Valentino Rossi involved in the initial spawning of the now raging debate regarding weigh limits in MotoGP?
[] YES [] NO
(while some of you may be considering you answer, check this out: LINK)
The world according to J4rno: "Hey, what are you guys talking about, Rossi had nothing to do or say with the weight limit debate."
11864:Yellow.png]
Attachments
Joined Sep 2007
2K Posts | 60+
here
Yes, Rossi was involved.
However, as Kropotkin said
and
So, whilst the subject was brought up, and Rossi and Simoncelli were present (fact) we cannot do other than opine that it would have been one or more of the heavier riders present that raised the point. Simoncelli is the heaviest rider out there and Rossi 3rd or 4th heaviest depending on what source is used for the rider weights.
Rossi has not made any public statement that I have seen where he states he feels disavantaged by the lack of combined weight limits. Or that something should be done about it. I think that j4rno's point has been this all along.
Joined Apr 2011
1K Posts | 87+
Pangea
I think the evidence from past championship victors is all the information I needed to decide that this was a non-issue.
I have just one question for you....how is scientific methodology meant to quantify variables such as rider talent, setup differences, riding style etc etc???? Science in this instance may actually raise more questions than it solves.
And before you pillory me for being ignorant about the virtues of science - my background is in fact in biological science...which is hardly relevant to this particular discussion but means I do understand the principles behind scientific methodology and their application to problem solving.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Hi Yamaka. Thanks for taking up J4rno's cause.
Easy enough answer, thanks.
I'm a bit confused by what you say below:
With all due respect, you say Rossi's has made no public statement, but in your post, you quote Kropo basically saying Rossi DID make a public statement. How does this jive buddy? Either he said something, or he didn't day something, and according to Kropo, what he said was to the effect: "yes lighter riders have an advantage in some points, no, I'm not sure what we can do about it." This is in direct contradiction to what you just said by stating: "Rossi has not made any public statement....."
If you are saying that this is what J4rno's point is all along, then I agree. That is to say, both of you are denying the very simple FACT he did make a statement which helped spawned the debate. (The truth is, if Rossi has nothing to say, the issues is probably a side note and not some raging debate, such is his influence, believe it or not). Perhaps Stoner's statements, which were reactionary, were simply imagined too?
Easy enough answer, thanks.
I'm a bit confused by what you say below:
With all due respect, you say Rossi's has made no public statement, but in your post, you quote Kropo basically saying Rossi DID make a public statement. How does this jive buddy? Either he said something, or he didn't day something, and according to Kropo, what he said was to the effect: "yes lighter riders have an advantage in some points, no, I'm not sure what we can do about it." This is in direct contradiction to what you just said by stating: "Rossi has not made any public statement....."
If you are saying that this is what J4rno's point is all along, then I agree. That is to say, both of you are denying the very simple FACT he did make a statement which helped spawned the debate. (The truth is, if Rossi has nothing to say, the issues is probably a side note and not some raging debate, such is his influence, believe it or not). Perhaps Stoner's statements, which were reactionary, were simply imagined too?
