weight limit

Postiez said:

I'm confused... I thought you were kidding.



Sigh.



Either you are still trollin' or your arguments are just really weak.

Click to expand...

"I'm confused"



you should have left it at that......



Your basic premise seems to be that science can solve everything.....which is quite ludicrous - especially considering most science is a "work in progress" in that the majority of scientific theory is in fact unproven hypothesis which just happens to coincide with the data for any given theoretical model that currently exists. Maybe when they finally come up with a GUT of the universe you can point to that as proof you were indeed correct



There are innumerable questions which science will never be able to answer - and I believe this is one instance where that particular rule applies no matter how much you think we are all kidding.

Jumkie said:

Somebody (can't remember who or bothered to look back) gave the best possible answer to this proposition of scientifically testing this question of weight, (paraphrasing): "we already have 18 tests a year, the evidence is inconclusive." That should have been the thread end.

Click to expand...

See above. Kropotkin I believe.

Mr Squiggle said:

Excellent post Anders.



Rossi is a very smart guy and no doubt realises he has probably pushed the limits of fairness in the past and therefore his present and future public statements with respect to major rule changes must reflect this - hence a more diplomatic stance on this issue. The push for Bridgestone tires and subsequent control tire introduction was fairly transparent and I would think he knows he can only push things so far in future. He has every right to pursue a competitive advantage for himself, which he always does, and this is one of the reasons he is such a formidable competitor.



I would think he and Simoncelli would have definitely discussed their strategy before raising this issue at the riders safety meeting. My take is he would have made Simoncelli the spearhead of this campaign with the proviso he would back him up 100% without issuing any statements himself that would be too damning to his own standings. However, if you read between the lines (which is a prerequisite for deciphering his often coded messages) it is crystal clear he is again pursuing his own agendas at the expense of his "mate" Simo who is now copping most of the heat while Valentino can sit back and play "Mr Innocent".



As I said Rossi is a very shrewd operator and this aspect of his persona along with his psychological warfare, bike development skills and sublime riding talent are just some of the reasons he has remained on top for so long.

Click to expand...

Thanks,

He he,I mainly didn't mean to glorify Rossi as a competitor to the others,eventhough he is and has been extreemely successful at getting better of.On track and off track.It's more or less a fact.

But I don't have to like it still.

I prefer racers that do impressive stuff on track and I do not prefer to route for polititians who also do impressive stuff on track.



By the way, as Rossi seems to compete with the others 24 7 some might call that overambitious,Stoner for instance maybe.

(I think Stoner had been wishing for the right moment to say the"more ambition than tallent" words for a very long time.)

michaelm said:

Ok, I give up, you are obviously too smart for me, and for everyone else who has posted on this thread including kropotkin, and hence are quite justified in rejecting every point contrary to your opinion offered by every other poster in this thread (without recourse to the midlevels let alone the tip of your pyramid), and your several posts early in the thread stating that weight was a significant influence obviously didn't say that.

Click to expand...

My point is that it's possible there is an advantage and we need data do see this. To get this data I suggested science. I personally do think there is an advantage or at least there is evidence pointing to that enough to take a further look. I am not saying that evidence conclusive in any way.



No one is really arguing against me but rather picking small things I'm saying, taking them out of context and as absolutes, and using what they have personally seen to declare they know exactly what is going on. The only people actually arguing against me are the ones saying science is not good enough to make motorcycle more balanced which, to me, is beyond ridiculous.



If you want to debate with me against my point on this topic, "it's possible there is an advantage and we need data do see this" then go ahead. If you want to put words into my mouth and argue against those, then yes, I am too smart for you.

Mr Squiggle said:

"I'm confused"



you should have left it at that......



Your basic premise seems to be that science can solve everything.....which is quite ludicrous - especially considering most science is a "work in progress" in that the majority of scientific theory is in fact unproven hypothesis which just happens to coincide with the data for any given theoretical model that currently exists. Maybe when they finally come up with a GUT of the universe you can point to that as proof you were indeed correct

There are innumerable questions which science will never be able to answer - and I believe this is one instance where that particular rule applies no matter how much you think we are all kidding.

Click to expand...

This is a great example. You are saying I implied "science can solve everything" and arguing against that. I didn't imply that or even think that.

Postiez said:

My point is that it's possible there is an advantage and we need data do see this. To get this data I suggested science. I personally do think there is an advantage or at least there is evidence pointing to that enough to take a further look. I am not saying that evidence conclusive in any way.



No one is really arguing against me but rather picking small things I'm saying, taking them out of context and as absolutes, and using what they have personally seen to declare they know exactly what is going on. The only people actually arguing against me are the ones saying science is not good enough to make motorcycle more balanced which, to me, is beyond ridiculous.



If you want to debate with me against my point on this topic, "it's possible there is an advantage and we need data do see this" then go ahead. If you want to put words into my mouth and argue against those, then yes, I am too smart for you.





This is a great example. You are saying I implied "science can solve everything" and arguing against that. I didn't imply that or even think that.

Click to expand...

If you think there is evidence to suggest an advantage can you clearly outline that evidence? Because all of the evidence I have seen and other educated commentators have outlined suggests that there is no advantage come race day. Remember this is racing around a circuit with acceleration, braking, cornering, sliding, traction and muscling a machine just some of the aspects involved in getting around that circuit 20-30 times faster than anyone else to cross the line first. Taking one aspect (acceleration) and saying there is an advantage and then not giving evidence to show how it has consistently skewed the results of who crosses the line first at the end of 20-30 laps is not proving anything at all.

Postiez said:

My point is that it's possible there is an advantage and we need data do see this. To get this data I suggested science. I personally do think there is an advantage or at least there is evidence pointing to that enough to take a further look. I am not saying that evidence conclusive in any way.

Click to expand...

Dennis Noyes asked Kevin Cameron to look at this. His conclusion was that there was a quantifiable advantage in being lighter, but there was also a definite but unquantifiable disadvantage too. It proved impossible to demonstrate by maths or physics the disadvantages, even though everyone excepts they are there. So Cameron's conclusion was it was better to leave it all alone.



Two examples of the problem: If there was a weight penalty, Pedrosa would have to manhandle a bike 10kg heavier than anyone else around the racetrack. Is that fair? On the plus side, he would be able to put the ballast where it would help him most (the back of the machine) giving him the drive that he is missing, potentially making him even faster than he is. Is that fair?



You see the problem....

Kropotkin said:

Dennis Noyes asked Kevin Cameron to look at this. His conclusion was that there was a quantifiable advantage in being lighter, but there was also a definite but unquantifiable disadvantage too. It proved impossible to demonstrate by maths or physics the disadvantages, even though everyone excepts they are there. So Cameron's conclusion was it was better to leave it all alone.



Two examples of the problem: If there was a weight penalty, Pedrosa would have to manhandle a bike 10kg heavier than anyone else around the racetrack. Is that fair? On the plus side, he would be able to put the ballast where it would help him most (the back of the machine) giving him the drive that he is missing, potentially making him even faster than he is. Is that fair?



You see the problem....

Click to expand...

Great, so now this issue should be put to rest. I don't expect any more posts saying, "yeah but bla bla bla"

Mental Anarchist said:

If you think there is evidence to suggest an advantage can you clearly outline that evidence? Because all of the evidence I have seen and other educated commentators have outlined suggests that there is no advantage come race day. Remember this is racing around a circuit with acceleration, braking, cornering, sliding, traction and muscling a machine just some of the aspects involved in getting around that circuit 20-30 times faster than anyone else to cross the line first. Taking one aspect (acceleration) and saying there is an advantage and then not giving evidence to show how it has consistently skewed the results of who crosses the line first at the end of 20-30 laps is not proving anything at all.

Click to expand...

Well just like you can see there is an advantage of being smaller in horse racing you can see there is an advantage of being smaller in motorcycling. The fact that the entirety of the field is smaller shows an advantage. Another advantage that I can clearly show is that the power to weight ratio is better for riders who weigh less.



Again though, I'll say that I'm not saying anything should be changed. All I'm saying is there is enough there that investigating it isn't out of the question.

Kropotkin said:

Dennis Noyes asked Kevin Cameron to look at this. His conclusion was that there was a quantifiable advantage in being lighter, but there was also a definite but unquantifiable disadvantage too. It proved impossible to demonstrate by maths or physics the disadvantages, even though everyone excepts they are there. So Cameron's conclusion was it was better to leave it all alone.



Two examples of the problem: If there was a weight penalty, Pedrosa would have to manhandle a bike 10kg heavier than anyone else around the racetrack. Is that fair? On the plus side, he would be able to put the ballast where it would help him most (the back of the machine) giving him the drive that he is missing, potentially making him even faster than he is. Is that fair?



You see the problem....

Click to expand...

Good post!



I think there is a definite quantifiable advantage to being bigger. Moving more mass further out to keep the bike more upright therefor holding more speed though a corner. I'm really surprised they couldn't show this. Is this an article somewhere? Have a link?



I think almost everyone here would agree that adding weights to the bike seems like a bad idea. I'm actually interested though if there is a place on the bike that could lead to an advantage if there is a place that could not be neutral and just adding weight... hrm.



I definitely see the problem with adding weights, I just don't want to have riders have to be jockeys to compete. Everything seems to be balanced right now but I worry for the future. The fuel issue is something that could be changed without adding weights as well and could be a reasonable alternative.

Postiez said:

Good post!



I think there is a definite quantifiable advantage to being bigger. Moving more mass further out to keep the bike more upright therefor holding more speed though a corner. I'm really surprised they couldn't show this. Is this an article somewhere? Have a link?



I think almost everyone here would agree that adding weights to the bike seems like a bad idea. I'm actually interested though if there is a place on the bike that could lead to an advantage if there is a place that could not be neutral and just adding weight... hrm.



I definitely see the problem with adding weights, I just don't want to have riders have to be jockeys to compete. Everything seems to be balanced right now but I worry for the future. The fuel issue is something that could be changed without adding weights as well and could be a reasonable alternative.

Click to expand...

To paraphrase, the current situation is the worst of all possible rules, except for all the other options.

Kropotkin said:

Dennis Noyes asked Kevin Cameron to look at this. His conclusion was that there was a quantifiable advantage in being lighter, but there was also a definite but unquantifiable disadvantage too. It proved impossible to demonstrate by maths or physics the disadvantages, even though everyone excepts they are there. So Cameron's conclusion was it was better to leave it all alone.



Two examples of the problem: If there was a weight penalty, Pedrosa would have to manhandle a bike 10kg heavier than anyone else around the racetrack. Is that fair? On the plus side, he would be able to put the ballast where it would help him most (the back of the machine) giving him the drive that he is missing, potentially making him even faster than he is. Is that fair?



You see the problem....

Click to expand...

Well all I can say is that this here does scientifically prove that they really need to get more chick riders into the game .........



They all start off light weight, but come winter 10kg of extra weight goes straight to their arse ends!!!



Perfect solution!













oooow gee I just had a flash incite ........ just imagine how bad would get if we did have chick riders and somebody dared mention weight!!

BarryMachine said:

Well all I can say is that this here does scientifically prove that they really need to get more chick riders into the game .........



They all start off light weight, but come winter 10kg of extra weight goes straight to their arse ends!!!



Perfect solution!

oooow gee I just had a flash incite ........ just imagine how bad would get if we did have chick riders and somebody dared mention weight!!

Click to expand...

hahahahaha, nice one

Kropotkin said:

Dennis Noyes asked Kevin Cameron to look at this. His conclusion was that there was a quantifiable advantage in being lighter, but there was also a definite but unquantifiable disadvantage too. It proved impossible to demonstrate by maths or physics the disadvantages, even though everyone excepts they are there. So Cameron's conclusion was it was better to leave it all alone.



Two examples of the problem: If there was a weight penalty, Pedrosa would have to manhandle a bike 10kg heavier than anyone else around the racetrack. Is that fair? On the plus side, he would be able to put the ballast where it would help him most (the back of the machine) giving him the drive that he is missing, potentially making him even faster than he is. Is that fair?



You see the problem....

Click to expand...

Surely that's an issue for the safety committee to sort out, no?

Kropotkin said:

To paraphrase, the current situation is the worst of all possible rules, except for all the other options.

Click to expand...

Vale's take on Weight limit and overtaking!



Rossi relaxed about overtaking row



Valentino Rossi believes it is pointless for the MotoGP rulemakers to try and legislate on overtaking etiquette in the wake of recent rows over track manners.



Marco Simoncelli has been at the centre of the controversy, with several riders complaining about his aggressive overtaking, and Jorge Lorenzo taking him to task over it in front of the media at Estoril a fortnight ago.



But Rossi said that while the riders were entitled to their opinions, he did not see any way in which the safety commission or FIM could stipulate how riders tried to overtake each other.



"I understand if the riders come to the safety commission to make a personal attack on Simoncelli," he said. "If [Andrea] Dovizioso came to the safety commission and said 'for me, Simoncelli is too dangerous, because of this and because of that', okay this is one way.



"But I don't understand in which way you can make the rules for overtaking in motorcycle racing. It's very difficult - you can just pass on the straight, or just on the right, or left, or you have to put an arrow out... It's something very, very stupid."



He also criticised coverage of the recent discussions over minimum weights in the safety commission, amid suggestions that Rossi had pushed for a change in the rules to reduce the advantage smaller riders like Dani Pedrosa are alleged to get under the current regulation in which bikes are weighed separately from their riders.



"I heard some stupid polemics about the safety commission, and I heard from some journalists that the safety commission is an Italian mafia. This is very stupid," said Rossi.



"In the safety commission we work mainly on the safety of the tracks. This is because it was formed in 2003 after Daijiro [Kato] died. I think it is very positive, because people listen to us. In Formula 1 the drivers don't speak. If [Fernando] Alonso says something, they say 'hey, shut up'.



"We always work for the other riders, we do a good job on the tracks. Other than that, we speak with Bridgestone about the tyres - more choice and better solutions for the riders.



"We never speak about changing the rules. Let me hear one thing that has come out of the safety commission that is an advantage for Italian riders or Valentino Rossi...?



"We spoke about the weight in Jerez, but because Dorna said to us 'why does Honda gain half a second on the straight'. I explained to them, but I didn't write to the safety commission and say 'hey, we have to change the weights because my weight is more than [Casey] Stoner's...'



"What I read in the newspapers is wrong. We didn't say we needed more weight on the light riders. We said with 21 litres [fuel limit], the disadvantage for the heavy riders is bigger. Just that. But change the rules? No."

bigbang said:

1) why does Dorna care how much Honda gains on the straight?

Click to expand...

Because their business is selling entertainment, and having 4 bikes clear off into the distance is bad for business.

bigbang said:

2) why have they asked Rossi. Wouldn't an engineer be able to explain that better?

Click to expand...

You would think so, wouldn't you?

bigbang said:

this brings up 3 questions:

1) why does Dorna care how much Honda gains on the straight?

2) why have they asked Rossi. Wouldn't an engineer be able to explain that better?

3) what exactly did Rossi explain to them?

Click to expand...

1) As kropo says they want to keep the fans, and no doubt are starting to get very tired of the MSMA dictating procedures, as are the rest of us.



2) It would depend on who the Engineer worked for, and the only qualified ones would be in the employ of?......Which other rider is better qualified to answer this? And it was no doubt a rider consultation.



3) Just in case you missed it "We didn't say we needed more weight on the light riders. We said with 21 litres [fuel limit], the disadvantage for the heavy riders is bigger. Just that. But change the rules? No."





The problem, as agreed by most, is the fuel restriction of 21 litres, the solution is not to put weight on the lighter riders bikes, but to increase the fuel limit to make it fairer to heavier riders.

bigbang said:

this brings up 3 questions:

1) why does Dorna care how much Honda gains on the straight?

Click to expand...

Money.



For them it is about entertainment and it is likely that what DORNA see as entertainment does not involve Honda's overtaking on the straight (funny, no mention when Ducati do it).

bigbang said:

2) why have they asked Rossi. Wouldn't an engineer be able to explain that better?

Click to expand...

Absolutely an engineer would have explained it better, actually many engineers could have explained it better and provided data, but in all likelihood (Krop please correct if needed) a meeting involving DORNA and engineers would not have been as greatly reported on and/or scrutinised by the general populace. This way, they have Rossi (and to be fair they should have asked other riders but they don't go to the meetings) whom they know is a major media drawcard giving an opinion that will reach the general media, and thus will provide a 'feeling' back to DORNA of the publics response.

bigbang said:

3) what exactly did Rossi explain to them?

Click to expand...

Who knows, we could guess all day long ......................... so here is mine.



Probably he explained what he sees from a riders perspective, be that whether he feels it is all electronics, the power to ground ability of the riders, the tyres etc - it would have been his opinion only.



The bigger question would be what credence DORNA place on his opinion given there would have been vested interest in any reply (that would have occurred irrespective of the rider asked)







Now to some fun.



Where is that fishing smiley again?

inam said:

"We spoke about the weight in Jerez, but because Dorna said to us 'why does Honda gain half a second on the straight'. I explained to them, but I didn't write to the safety commission and say 'hey, we have to change the weights because my weight is more than [Casey] Stoner's...'

Click to expand...

Who says that Stoner is not playing on Rossi's mind?



He is asked a question about Honda and replies with Stoner in the answer when the lighter rider is Pedrosa.



Or has he been following Stoner more?























Gaz