Rossi vs Pedrosa
Julian Bond
Honda factory team
- 2 wins
- 8 podiums
- 3 DNFs
Finished 2nd to an American by 49 points
After 11 races
- 1 win
- 5 podiums
- 2 DNFs
2nd to an American by 42 points
Pedrosa's 1st season in MotoGP, so far, after 11 races.
Honda Factory team
- 2 wins
- 4 podiums
- 1 DNF
Currently 2nd to an American by 34 points
Can Dani win it and make it 4 championships in a row?
Now clearly Dani's not that good. He's had good luck, the best
machinery, the best teams, a silver spoon in his mouth and he's cheating
because he's so small, an unfair advantage getting sponsorship being
Spanish, he's boring and a typical example of the European conspiracy to
dominate the world championship. And he doesn't pull stunts on the
slowing down lap or kiss his motorcycle.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
*** Just Say No To DRM ***
Ed Light
"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote
> Now clearly Dani's not that good. He's had good luck, the best machinery,
> the best teams, a silver spoon in his mouth and he's cheating because he's
> so small, an unfair advantage getting sponsorship being Spanish, he's
> boring and a typical example of the European conspiracy to dominate the
> world championship. And he doesn't pull stunts on the slowing down lap or
> kiss his motorcycle.
I see you're mocking the doubters!
Little guys rule. And -- he's so unfunny next to Rossi? Racers can't be
expected to be entertainers. Shall we give Kenny a giggling pill?
--
Ed Light
Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
T3
"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
news:O4nu$cDOzn...@jblaptop.voidstar.com...
> Rossi's 1st season in 500cc
> Honda factory team
> - 2 wins
> - 8 podiums
> - 3 DNFs
> Finished 2nd to an American by 49 points
>
> After 11 races
> - 1 win
> - 5 podiums
> - 2 DNFs
> 2nd to an American by 42 points
>
> Pedrosa's 1st season in MotoGP, so far, after 11 races.
> Honda Factory team
> - 2 wins
> - 4 podiums
> - 1 DNF
> Currently 2nd to an American by 34 points
>
> Can Dani win it and make it 4 championships in a row?
>
> Now clearly Dani's not that good. He's had good luck, the best machinery,
> the best teams, a silver spoon in his mouth and he's cheating because he's
> so small, an unfair advantage getting sponsorship being Spanish, he's
> boring and a typical example of the European conspiracy to dominate the
> world championship. And he doesn't pull stunts on the slowing down lap or
> kiss his motorcycle.
>
Clearly, he *is* very good Though he does have a huge weight advantage, is
on the best team with the best bike and with the most favored passport , but
who knows? He might find a personality on a cool down lap someday. Or
not...
BTW, that baits gettin' a little stinky, might be time to change it... ';-)
Ed Light
<aus...@gmail.com> wrote
About Dani:
> Yes he has a large weight advantage and now this and next seasons bike
> is being totally designed for/around him exclusive, he is HRC's best
> hope
I thought Hayden had the development bike, exclusively.
Actually, it made it harder for him to develop it while racing.
pablo
"T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:7Evyg.4362$6q1....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Clearly, he *is* very good Though he does have a huge weight advantage,
Like Hayden from year 1?
> ... and with the most favored passport ...
Hayden's eligible next year for citizenship. With an extremist political
regime in charge, even faster. Europe welcome political refugees... :-)
> ... He might find a personality on a cool down lap someday. Or not...
we've seen Pedrosa as excited as he will ever get. He's known as a total
icecube.
> BTW, that baits gettin' a little stinky, might be time to change it...
> ';-)
The stinkier, the more they bite, I've heard fishermen say... :-)
Julian Bond
>Clearly, he *is* very good
>BTW, that baits gettin' a little stinky, might be time to change it... ';-)
I only raise it because I feel a tendency on this group to ignore him.
The talk about who might catch Hayden is all about Rossi and Marco, and
yet look who's in 2nd. And when you look at rookie years, there's
precious few people who've come anywhere close to Rossi and Pedrosa. In
fact Pedrosa's GP career record so far outshines Rossi's.
Maybe it's obvious given the points situation but it looks to me like
Pedrosa is the only person who can ruin Hayden's year and I think he has
a serious chance of doing it.
Morten Becker-Eriksen
> T3 <spam...@nowhere.com> Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:49:55
>>Clearly, he *is* very good
>
>>BTW, that baits gettin' a little stinky, might be time to change it...
>>';-)
>
> I only raise it because I feel a tendency on this group to ignore him. The
> talk about who might catch Hayden is all about Rossi and Marco, and yet
> look who's in 2nd. And when you look at rookie years, there's precious few
> people who've come anywhere close to Rossi and Pedrosa. In fact Pedrosa's
> GP career record so far outshines Rossi's.
>
> Maybe it's obvious given the points situation but it looks to me like
> Pedrosa is the only person who can ruin Hayden's year and I think he has a
> serious chance of doing it.
Rossi might catch Pedrosa but not Hayden. Pedrosa will gain on Hayden but
not catch him.
Only a DNF can take away the title from Hayden now. I expect a rerun of the
second part of the 2000 championship where the leader taking the safe path
to his championship. It might be sown to the last race but only with Pedrosa
winning and Hayden down at 10th or something. Most probably all the hunters
will have their race wins while Hayden is right behind. More podiums and
more top 5 positions, and that's enough for him to win comfortably.
/MBE
T3
> T3 <spam...@nowhere.com> Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:49:55
>>Clearly, he *is* very good
>
>>BTW, that baits gettin' a little stinky, might be time to change it...
>>';-)
>
> I only raise it because I feel a tendency on this group to ignore him. The
> talk about who might catch Hayden is all about Rossi and Marco, and yet
> look who's in 2nd. And when you look at rookie years, there's precious few
> people who've come anywhere close to Rossi and Pedrosa. In fact Pedrosa's
> GP career record so far outshines Rossi's.
I was jus messin' wid ya..
>
> Maybe it's obvious given the points situation but it looks to me like
> Pedrosa is the only person who can ruin Hayden's year and I think he has a
> serious chance of doing it.
It could happen, I just don't think it's going to for a couple of reasons.
If anything Marco might make a move on Dani, but I can see Hayden winning at
least one more,(PI?) Rossi a couple and maybe Capi, or some other 'Stone guy
two as well...
Morten Becker-Eriksen
"Ed Light" <nob...@nobody.there> wrote in message
news:hoAyg.9362$RD.6957@fed1read08...
>
> <aus...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> About Dani:
>
>> Yes he has a large weight advantage and now this and next seasons bike
>> is being totally designed for/around him exclusive, he is HRC's best
>> hope
>
> I thought Hayden had the development bike, exclusively.
>
> Actually, it made it harder for him to develop it while racing.
Without a couple of more wins for Hayden but a couple of more wins for
Pedrosa the next year No1 rider for Honda will be Pedrosa. It might not be
so officially, a WC for dispaly is nice, but Pedrosa are the best bet for
Honda if the rest of the season go on as expected.
/MBE
bram stolk
> Now clearly Dani's not that good. He's had good luck, the best
> machinery, the best teams, a silver spoon in his mouth and he's cheating
> because he's so small, an unfair advantage getting sponsorship being
> Spanish, he's boring and a typical example of the European conspiracy to
> dominate the world championship. And he doesn't pull stunts on the
> slowing down lap or kiss his motorcycle.
>
he he :-)
In enjoyed that.
Bram
Phil
"T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message > Clearly, he *is* very good
Yeah, the weight advantage that a lot of people said would be a disadvantage
before the season started.
Phil
T3
"Phil" <pc...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ylOyg.32757$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Actually, it was more a question if his size would allow for the stamina to
handle MGP equipment, the weight advantage was "pretty much" a given. I also
believe that advantage will grow as engine capacity decreases, i. e., next
year it'll be even greater...
Ed Light
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote
>> ... He might find a personality on a cool down lap someday. Or not...
>
> we've seen Pedrosa as excited as he will ever get. He's known as a total
> icecube.
I don't know how people can complain about racers' personalities, unless one
gets nasty alot.
P is obviously race-face serious all race day. And it surely is working for
him, psychologically. Total concentration. Perfectly "wicked"!
pablo
>
> Actually, it was more a question if his size would allow for the stamina
> to handle MGP equipment, the weight advantage was "pretty much" a given.
So convenient to re-invent. Those with memories remember many people
reaining the question why Honda was wasting its time promoting a 250cc guy
that clearly was too small in succeeding to tame the big guys. he was
dismissed as a typical misinvestment.
> ... I also believe that advantage will grow as engine capacity decreases,
> i. e., next year it'll be even greater...
The dcantage will be there because he is a very accurate, sharp rider. It
helped him on any bike he's been.
Kato was Pedrosa's weight. I can't recall him looking as having such an
advantage. Odd that.
Howard Kveck
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote:
At least we didn't hear about it here, that I can recall.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Andrew
> "T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:7Evyg.4362$6q1....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Clearly, he *is* very good Though he does have a huge weight advantage,
>> is on the best team with the best bike ...
>
> Like Hayden from year 1?
>
>> ... and with the most favored passport ...
>
> Hayden's eligible next year for citizenship. With an extremist political
> regime in charge, even faster. Europe welcome political refugees... :-)
>
Ok, I'll bite, which flag will he be carrying next year at Laguna on the
victory lap?
What if he decided to become a Spanish Citizen? That would piss most of
you off good! :-)
--
Andrew
00 Daytona
00 Speed Triple
71 Kawi H1
05 Infant
Ed Light
T3
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
news:do2dnYBFlKebgVHZ...@comcast.com...
>
> "T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:XLOyg.5772$Wi....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>
>> Actually, it was more a question if his size would allow for the stamina
>> to handle MGP equipment, the weight advantage was "pretty much" a given.
>
> So convenient to re-invent. Those with memories remember many people
> reaining the question why Honda was wasting its time promoting a 250cc guy
> that clearly was too small in succeeding to tame the big guys. he was
> dismissed as a typical misinvestment.
I think sometimes you get your groups, or people confused, I remember
nothing of the sort..
>
>> ... I also believe that advantage will grow as engine capacity decreases,
>> i. e., next year it'll be even greater...
>
> The dcantage will be there because he is a very accurate, sharp rider. It
> helped him on any bike he's been.
>
> Kato was Pedrosa's weight. I can't recall him looking as having such an
> advantage. Odd that.
I can't recall Kato riding a MGP bike...
Carl Sundquist
>
>>
>> Kato was Pedrosa's weight. I can't recall him looking as having such an
>> advantage. Odd that.
>
> I can't recall Kato riding a MGP bike...
It's what he was riding when he crashed at Suzuka in '03 and died.
pablo
>
> I think sometimes you get your groups, or people confused, I remember
> nothing of the sort..
Just a quick find, there were several others:
T3 in November 05: " ... upper body strength, endurance and
professional riders "pretty much" go hand in hand. ... those guy's(gals
too) are not only good
riders, they're athletes too! How that translates to road racing a
400lb, 250hp bike I do not know for sure, but I kinda think it does!
Pedrosa's flyweight ass probably was a bonus in 250, but it might not be
for MGP... "
MN in the same thread: ".. That assumes that all the forces of the bike play
out on the rider and
not the other way around. A 250 doesn't just turn in faster because it
does, it turns in faster in part because it has more radical geometry,
but also because it's lighter and the rider can pysically get it to turn
in faster. Most of the 500/MotoGP riders have either been lean and
lanky, guys like Schwantz and Rossi, applying their forces through
leverage, or they've been fairly solid little fireplugs, guys like
Capirossi and Melandri, or somewhere in between. Pedrosa is neither.
It's hard to say how much of a disadvantage that will be .."
So it was categorically stated his weight was going to be a disadvantage
(implied in the last sentence). The only question was how much of a
disadvantage. How convenient it is to re-spin.
> I can't recall Kato riding a MGP bike...
You recall wrong, then. Kato was rookie of the year in '02, when the switch
to MGP happened. Kato died racing a 4 stroke in '03, never having indicated
his size consituted a major advantage for him. And he could ride a little.
Ed Light
"Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox.net> wrote
>> I can't recall Kato riding a MGP bike...
>
> It's what he was riding when he crashed at Suzuka in '03 and died.
And he was one of the really fast guys.
pablo
"Ed Light" <nob...@nobody.there> wrote in message
> And he was one of the really fast guys.
Indeed he was. In 250. He didn't get a chance to prove it in MotoGP. In
fact, the curcumstances around his crash remain somewhat unclear, and more
than one person rumored the cause may have been that his size made it
difficult for him to effectively control the large machine.
For all of the discussion about the Pedrosa size factor, the riders
themselves aren't complaining much, which speaks volumes. It's their fans
making the excuses, as usual.
By the way, just read an interviews in a Spanish motomag, and none other
than Spencer says: "..
No me gusta que Hayden gane un campeonato sin vencer prácticamente
carreras. Su compañero de equipo, que es un recién llegado a la
categoría, ya ha ganado tantos grandes premios como él en cuatro
años. Le ha pasado. No se puede tener la mejor moto del campeonato
durante cuatro años y ganar sólo dos carreras. Lo siento por Nicky,
pero es mi opinión. .."
Spencer basically sees more parallels between him and Pedrosa than between
him and Hayden "You can't ride the best bike in the championship for 4
years, and win only two races. I am sorry about it, but that's my opinion
about Nicky."
I actually, for the record, disagree with Spencer.
...pablo
Bruce Hartweg
> "T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:XLOyg.5772$Wi....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> Actually, it was more a question if his size would allow for the stamina
>> to handle MGP equipment, the weight advantage was "pretty much" a given.
>
> So convenient to re-invent. Those with memories remember many people
> reaining the question why Honda was wasting its time promoting a 250cc guy
> that clearly was too small in succeeding to tame the big guys. he was
> dismissed as a typical misinvestment.
No, less weight is an advantage, period. to deny this is idiotic.
F = ma
for a given F (either engine power of braking force) a smaller mass
makes for a bigger acceleration. It's simple physics.
No, the doubts were about strength and endurance, which Dani has
answered loudly - he has no issues with running the bigger bike.
maybe it's because modern GP machines are tamer than the old beasts,
maybe it's because Dani is way tougher than anyone thought and he
could've handled the old 500's as well.
>
>> ... I also believe that advantage will grow as engine capacity decreases,
>> i. e., next year it'll be even greater...
>
> The dcantage will be there because he is a very accurate, sharp rider. It
> helped him on any bike he's been.
>
> Kato was Pedrosa's weight. I can't recall him looking as having such an
> advantage. Odd that.
I don't know anyone that says the *only* reason Dani is there is because
e is small. He is an incredibly talented rider.
Actually, this past race was his most impressive to me, Laguna is not an
easy circuit, especially for 1st timers. All the other tracks this year
he has plenty of experience from the 125/20 days, but to do that well
his first time there was very impressive.
As far as the advantage goes - who cares. I'm sure some riders have
better vision than others, that gives them an advantage. Dani is lighter
so he gets a bit of a boost. But the thing is *none* of the natural
advantages are big enough to let a mediocre or poor rider do better
than a good rider. I believe skill is the primary driver for winning
and the biggest outside affect is the team/bike. The weight thing is
not that big of a deal to me (or most people). The biggest whiner I
know of was Porto last year - every time Dani won he wined - it made
him quite the poor loser. And now that mini DP is gone where is Porto?
Bruce
pablo
"Bruce Hartweg" <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote in message
news:WqadnSPyMvYyolDZ...@comcast.com...
>>
> No, less weight is an advantage, period. to deny this is idiotic.
> F = ma
> for a given F (either engine power of braking force) a smaller mass
> makes for a bigger acceleration. It's simple physics.
Yeah. And the fact is that a motorcycle is *NOT* simple physics. Get your
facts straight and save us the 5th grade basics.
...pablo
sturd
> No, less weight is an advantage, period. to deny this is idiotic.
> F = ma
> for a given F (either engine power of braking force) a smaller mass
> makes for a bigger acceleration. It's simple physics.
>
OK, I'm an idiot then. MotoGP bikes aren't even close to simple
physics. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, braking forces both
aero and from the binders are higher (much higher) for a larger
guy. Your F in F=ma is larger for a large guy under acceleration
too since F=mu N. Are the forces higher enough to compensate
for the increased m??? I don't know.
You probably know all this and I'm only scratching the surface of
how complicated it really is. I'm also pretty certain that simulating
a lap at optimum throttle/brake/body position setting is possible
and maybe even already done inside the warrens of Honda and the
like. Hell, get your xbox out and play Tourist Trophy or whatever
it's called. Lots of the calculations are there. Since we see no
bitching from any of them, even during Pedrosa's 250 years, they
may know the "advantage" of his size is small, at least in MotoGP.
> >> ... I also believe that advantage will grow as engine capacity decreases,
> >> i. e., next year it'll be even greater...
I agree that with smaller horsepower, lighter mass becomes more
of an advantage. If that is the only thing you change.
Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.
Mark N
> Just a quick find, there were several others:
> MN in the same thread: ".. That assumes that all the forces of the bike play
> out on the rider and
> not the other way around. A 250 doesn't just turn in faster because it
> does, it turns in faster in part because it has more radical geometry,
> but also because it's lighter and the rider can pysically get it to turn
> in faster. Most of the 500/MotoGP riders have either been lean and
> lanky, guys like Schwantz and Rossi, applying their forces through
> leverage, or they've been fairly solid little fireplugs, guys like
> Capirossi and Melandri, or somewhere in between. Pedrosa is neither.
> It's hard to say how much of a disadvantage that will be .."
>
> So it was categorically stated his weight was going to be a disadvantage
> (implied in the last sentence). The only question was how much of a
> disadvantage. How convenient it is to re-spin.
Wrong, Pablo. You said, "Those with memories remember many people
reaining the question why Honda was wasting its time promoting a
250cc guy that clearly was too small in succeeding to tame the big guys.
he was dismissed as a typical misinvestment". You may consider the
differences between "size", "weight" and "height" to only be a matter of
semantics, but I don't, they are different things. Weight was always,
ALWAYS going to be a Pedrosa advantage. The only question was, would he
have the strength to handle a MotoGP bike, was he big enough for that
task? I said it was hard to say how much of a disadvantage that would
be, as you quote. What I also said back then was that I thought it was
an indication of how the politics of GP work that a guy with that
question hanging over his head would get one of the very best rides in
GP anyway (probably the very best, as it turns out}. What I didn't know
and Honda almost certain did was how "easy" these bikes have become to
ride, how much impact the advanced electronics and the current
generation of tires mean, what the development direction of the machines
means. So they are looking for jockeys to ride the things, and Pedrosa
is merely the prototype.
Btw, Schwantzie made an interesting comment about Dani on the ABC
broadcast of the Laguna race today: "You know, he should have the
fastest motorcycle out there by far, as big as an advantage as he has in
the weight category. But the thing about motorcycling racing, not always
the fastest bike in a straight line wins, you still have to be able to
get those things around corners." Hard to say exactly what he meant by
that...
> You recall wrong, then. Kato was rookie of the year in '02, when the switch
> to MGP happened. Kato died racing a 4 stroke in '03, never having indicated
> his size consituted a major advantage for him. And he could ride a little.
Yes, Katoh did ride a 990cc four stroke, at the start of '03 as well as
the last few races of '02. But he spent most of '02 on a 500. What I
can't recall is Katoh riding a MotoGP bike while he was the same size as
Pedrosa, because that probably would have meant he was on one when he
was 12 or 13, and I'm pretty certain he wasn't. Quit falsely claiming
guys like Roberts and Katoh were the same size as Pedrosa when they came
into the premier class of GP, they simply weren't, and neither has
anyone else of any note in my memory. There is so much discussion about
Pedrosa's size because he is unique in that regard, they're not picking
on him just because he's a Spaniard or what ever you're thinking.
T3
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
>
> "T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:CX4zg.7134$Wi....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> I think sometimes you get your groups, or people confused, I remember
>> nothing of the sort..
>
> Just a quick find, there were several others:
>
> T3 in November 05: " ... upper body strength, endurance and
> professional riders "pretty much" go hand in hand. ... those guy's(gals
> too) are not only good
> riders, they're athletes too! How that translates to road racing a
> 400lb, 250hp bike I do not know for sure, but I kinda think it does!
> Pedrosa's flyweight ass probably was a bonus in 250, but it might not be
> for MGP... "
What's re-inventing about any of that Pab?
> MN in the same thread: ".. That assumes that all the forces of the bike
> play out on the rider and
> not the other way around. A 250 doesn't just turn in faster because it
> does, it turns in faster in part because it has more radical geometry,
> but also because it's lighter and the rider can pysically get it to turn
> in faster. Most of the 500/MotoGP riders have either been lean and
> lanky, guys like Schwantz and Rossi, applying their forces through
> leverage, or they've been fairly solid little fireplugs, guys like
> Capirossi and Melandri, or somewhere in between. Pedrosa is neither.
> It's hard to say how much of a disadvantage that will be .."
>
> So it was categorically stated his weight was going to be a disadvantage
> (implied in the last sentence). The only question was how much of a
> disadvantage. How convenient it is to re-spin.
It was stamina pab, or the ability to handle all those ponies! I kinda think
he's removed most doubts on that issue..
>
>> I can't recall Kato riding a MGP bike...
>
> You recall wrong, then. Kato was rookie of the year in '02, when the
> switch to MGP happened. Kato died racing a 4 stroke in '03, never having
> indicated his size consituted a major advantage for him. And he could ride
> a little.
I know he got killed in Nipland somewhere, but I don't recall him in MGP. If
you say he was , I guess he was, but that doesn't mean I was wrong by not
recalling, I just don't remember... You need to work on your, well, I'll put
it like this, you interpret things slightly different than how they were
meant and you seem to do that more often, than not...
S Frank
weight is not an advantage at all? If so, then everything
you say is suspect. I actually like Pedrosa and I have
never said that I think they should add weight to his bike,
but to say 40-50 lbs doesn't matter at all is just silly.
And just like Tom said, they thought he was too small
to handle the big bike and they were wrong, he can handle
it fine. But I am sure everyone knew that in acceleration and
braking his weight would help.
Shane
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
news:do2dnYBFlKebgVHZ...@comcast.com...
pablo
"S Frank" <lemm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b49f$44cd6349$186068cd$27...@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Oh come on, are you seriously trying to say that his
> weight is not an advantage at all?
I have never said that. In fact I stated from very early on that I believed
his weight would be an advantage, and certainly a non-factor.
> ... I actually like Pedrosa and I have
> never said that I think they should add weight to his bike,
> but to say 40-50 lbs doesn't matter at all is just silly.
Supposedly he's already put on 10lbs of weight, so the stats are no longer
accurate. It's still a significant weight advantage, then again, these guys
are all professional riders, and perhaps they should (a) watch their weight
and (b) look for another job if their weight renders them uncompetitive. It
doesn't mean we'll wind up with a midget series - they guys must be
fantastic riders, otherwise they'll get their asses handed to them by
heavier guys with skill.
It's like any other sport, really.
> And just like Tom said, they thought he was too small
> to handle the big bike and they were wrong, he can handle
> it fine. But I am sure everyone knew that in acceleration and
> braking his weight would help.
Actually, physics in hand his weight is a disadvantage. But the physics
involved in bike racing are too complicated to be reduced to basic
formulas - if they weren't bikes would never break down, tires would never
fail, etc etc. It'd be easy to simulate things in advance.
...pablo
Bruce Hartweg
Pablo, even complicated physics don't invalidate simple physical laws.
(unless you are claiming there are things going on at the quantum
level that invalidate newtonian physics? even *I* don't think he
is that small)
And way to jump on the wrong part of the post.
If you read the entire thing, you'll see I really respect Dani as
a rider, and stated that the advantage from his weight is not the
overriding factor in his performance - ability is.
Honda has him on the team because he won the 250 and they think he
can win in MotoGP. The fact that sponsers like his nationality is a
bonus, and I'm sure it helped here and there in getting s shot but
his ability and results are what kept him there and gave him the
advancement.
But to claim less weight is not an advantage flies in the face of
everything the teams do. It's like the anti-helmet law crowd. The ones
I'll discuss the issue with admit it's safer, but believe that the
experience of bugs in your face is worth the trade-off, or the ones
that generally wear them, but on principle believe there shouldn't
be laws about personal risks, but there is always some the make
ridiculous arguments or convoluted situations to try and say that
helmets aren't any safer than riding bare headed.
bruce
Bruce Hartweg
> Bruce Hartweg calculates:
>
>> No, less weight is an advantage, period. to deny this is idiotic.
>> F = ma
>> for a given F (either engine power of braking force) a smaller mass
>> makes for a bigger acceleration. It's simple physics.
>>
>
> OK, I'm an idiot then. MotoGP bikes aren't even close to simple
> physics. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, braking forces both
> aero and from the binders are higher (much higher) for a larger
> guy. Your F in F=ma is larger for a large guy under acceleration
> too since F=mu N. Are the forces higher enough to compensate
> for the increased m??? I don't know.
I do - they don't.
a = F/m
changes of m are linearly related to the final a
yes F is a function of m, but has much higher terms in engine HP
and braking friction. so even if the F was smaller
it wouldn't be small enough to offset the m in the denominator.
the aero forces are a small component of the braking (to test this
yourself get going to a buck 50 then see how long it takes to stop
1) sitting up high maxing areo, and clamping down on your
binders as hard as possible (without crashing of
course )
2) using the same braking, but stay tucked beneath the screen.
3) sit up high, but don't touch your breaks
You'll discover that 1 is the best, but is not that different and
3 is way way off.
It's not enough of an advantage to make a crappy small guy win,
Pedrosa wins because he is good, but there is a factor.
If somehow more weight improved performance there would be rules
on max weight.
>
> You probably know all this and I'm only scratching the surface of
> how complicated it really is. I'm also pretty certain that simulating
> a lap at optimum throttle/brake/body position setting is possible
> and maybe even already done inside the warrens of Honda and the
> like. Hell, get your xbox out and play Tourist Trophy or whatever
> it's called. Lots of the calculations are there. Since we see no
> bitching from any of them, even during Pedrosa's 250 years, they
> may know the "advantage" of his size is small, at least in MotoGP.
>
Didn't you watch 250's last year? Porto whined the entire season
And he was an idiot for doing it. There is an advantage, but it wasn't
the reason the Dani beat him, look at this years results of both of
them to prove it.
>
>>>> ... I also believe that advantage will grow as engine capacity decreases,
>>>> i. e., next year it'll be even greater...
>
> I agree that with smaller horsepower, lighter mass becomes more
> of an advantage. If that is the only thing you change.
>
doesn't matter what you change, less weight is better. that's way they
don't have cast iron rotors.
Bruce
pablo
>
> Didn't you watch 250's last year? Porto whined the entire season
I truly can't recall Porto complaining about Pedrosa's size, he complained
about his support and how disadvantaged he (Porto) was as an Argentinian.
Well, and then this year the discriminated-against Argentinian gets hired by
Repsol as their lead rider, what he wanted all along and claimed was
impossible given his passport... and retires early in the season, embarassed
by his own results.
> doesn't matter what you change, less weight is better. that's way they
> don't have cast iron rotors.
Less weight is better in *most* things. With the right engineering
compromises, it does allow a bike to go faster all in all. But it is a
complex equation, in some things less weight is a disadvantage. Braking is
one of them. Surprisingly, some Cruiser-like bikes have stopping power that
compares very favorably with many sportsbikes, and in fact beats several of
them (provides they're not crappy setups that overheat in a sec). I don't
remember which mag it was a few years ago, but they ran a test and the
winner was a Japanese cruiser bike, and I could not believe my eyes. But
it's a mix of physics (contact patches, the fact friction in many cases is
positively influenced by higher weight, but all in all a lot of non-linear
crap) and the stoppie factor on sportsbikes. Of course, in MotoGP you have
similar spec bikes competing, so you will not see bikes engineered to
extremes - they will always engineer to minimize weight.
Bike physics aside, we'll never agree how much it is the size and how much
it is the rider. What's for sure is that bad riders don't win, even if they
were made out of helium.
...pablo
pablo
> pablo wrote:
>> "Bruce Hartweg" <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote in message
>> news:WqadnSPyMvYyolDZ...@comcast.com...
>>> No, less weight is an advantage, period. to deny this is idiotic.
>>> F = ma
>>> for a given F (either engine power of braking force) a smaller mass
>>> makes for a bigger acceleration. It's simple physics.
>>
>> Yeah. And the fact is that a motorcycle is *NOT* simple physics. Get your
>> facts straight and save us the 5th grade basics.
>>
>
> Pablo, even complicated physics don't invalidate simple physical laws.
Simplified physics don't even begin to represent a much more complex
problem. It's a fallacy to try to make the point you're making with F=m*a,
and you know it, since that simple formula hardly ever governs the
performance of a sportsbike. That's why they have gearing ratios, and many
other nifty tricks. Less weight *is* better. No one disputes that, I have
never done it, but let's not oversimplify the argument. A linear formula it
is most likely not.
And the msaller riders still have to be extremely talented. There have been
very small riders there before. I find it odd Pedrosa comes up and everybody
is in arms about size. The smaller guys have always been there. It just so
happens Pedrosa is small and a super-talent. For all we know he'd do even
better with some additional weight and muscle on him. In fact he is bulking
up, aggressively, with a trainer. It is a big priority for him, he's voiced
that often, indicating he himself isn't that sure that being the smallest he
can is the best for him.
...pablo
Mark N
> I find it odd Pedrosa comes up and everybody
> is in arms about size.
Really? I don't find it odd that you would say this, but I do find it
amusing and obviously dishonest on your part...
The smaller guys have always been there.
yes, guys at 130-135 lbs. 105-110 lbs? No, not even close. But of course
you knew that...
It just so
> happens Pedrosa is small and a super-talent.
No, it just so happens Pedrosa is a talent and is super-small...
For all we know he'd do even
> better with some additional weight and muscle on him.
But the question is, can he do as well on a bike that's accelerating and
stopping equal weight?
In fact he is bulking
> up, aggressively, with a trainer. It is a big priority for him, he's voiced
> that often, indicating he himself isn't that sure that being the smallest he
> can is the best for him.
Sure, you can afford to bulk up if you have that kind of weight
advantage - is it a huge deal if you're 40 lbs lighter or only 35? The
added strength has to help him some, I'd think. But the fact is, we
don't really know what his weight advantage is, since he was reported to
be only 94 lbs in 250 last year and we keep hearing different figures.
Who knows, the 112 lbs may be exaggerated because they don't want people
to know how big his edge is.
The bottom line is that Pedrosa will always be haunted by the weight
question unless they create some sort of bike-rider weight standard. And
the series will pay for it well beyond Pedrosa, because normal guys like
Ben Spies will never seriously consider going there, or will never
receive a serious offer to do so.
Bruce Hartweg
> "Bruce Hartweg" <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote in message
> news:6KKdnVWsRYdA91DZ...@comcast.com...
>> pablo wrote:
>>> "Bruce Hartweg" <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote in message
>>> news:WqadnSPyMvYyolDZ...@comcast.com...
>>>> No, less weight is an advantage, period. to deny this is idiotic.
>>>> F = ma
>>>> for a given F (either engine power of braking force) a smaller mass
>>>> makes for a bigger acceleration. It's simple physics.
>>> Yeah. And the fact is that a motorcycle is *NOT* simple physics. Get your
>>> facts straight and save us the 5th grade basics.
>>>
>> Pablo, even complicated physics don't invalidate simple physical laws.
>
> Simplified physics don't even begin to represent a much more complex
> problem. It's a fallacy to try to make the point you're making with F=m*a,
> and you know it, since that simple formula hardly ever governs the
> performance of a sportsbike. That's why they have gearing ratios, and many
> other nifty tricks.
gearing ratio are there to let the engine stay at (or as near as
possible) peak power/torque for different speeds, i.e. and is all about
maximizing the F in the F=ma equation - gears do NOT change the the
way a body reacts to the force.
> Less weight *is* better. No one disputes that, I have never done it,
it seems until now disputing that is *exactly* what you have been doing
> never done it, but let's not oversimplify the argument. A linear formula it
> is most likely not.
I agree the full formula is complex, because the F is a function of
traction, aero forces, etc some of which are dependent on weight
(and/or area), but the component of the F that depends on m is less
than the m term itself.
>
> And the msaller riders still have to be extremely talented. There have been
> very small riders there before. I find it odd Pedrosa comes up and everybody
> is in arms about size.
I'm not up in arms about it - this thread I've repeated said Dani wins
because of talent, not size. (although you keep clipping that part out).
> better with some additional weight and muscle on him. In fact he is bulking
> up, aggressively, with a trainer. It is a big priority for him, he's voiced
> that often, indicating he himself isn't that sure that being the smallest he
> can is the best for him.
adding strength, endurance, conditioning is a big help in completing the
race optimally for the rider, but just adding weight doesn't or else he
would carry a bag of rocks around the track.
Bruce
Bruce Hartweg
> "Bruce Hartweg" <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote in message
> news:3c6dnc9Ifr1U8FDZ...@comcast.com...
>> Didn't you watch 250's last year? Porto whined the entire season
>> And he was an idiot for doing it. ...
>
> I truly can't recall Porto complaining about Pedrosa's size, he complained
> about his support and how disadvantaged he (Porto) was as an Argentinian.
> Well, and then this year the discriminated-against Argentinian gets hired by
> Repsol as their lead rider, what he wanted all along and claimed was
> impossible given his passport... and retires early in the season, embarassed
> by his own results.
I saw 2 or 3 post race interviews last year (mid/late season) where he
said there was an unfair advantage, and said there should be a *total*
weight rule liek the 125s.
And I though it was pathetic at the time, and this year proved it.
>
>> doesn't matter what you change, less weight is better. that's way they
>> don't have cast iron rotors.
>
> Less weight is better in *most* things. With the right engineering
> compromises, it does allow a bike to go faster all in all. But it is a
> complex equation, in some things less weight is a disadvantage. Braking is
> one of them. Surprisingly, some Cruiser-like bikes have stopping power that
> compares very favorably with many sportsbikes, and in fact beats several of
> them (provides they're not crappy setups that overheat in a sec). I don't
> remember which mag it was a few years ago, but they ran a test and the
> winner was a Japanese cruiser bike, and I could not believe my eyes. But
> it's a mix of physics (contact patches, the fact friction in many cases is
> positively influenced by higher weight, but all in all a lot of non-linear
> crap) and the stoppie factor on sportsbikes. Of course, in MotoGP you have
> similar spec bikes competing, so you will not see bikes engineered to
> extremes - they will always engineer to minimize weight.
>
> Bike physics aside, we'll never agree how much it is the size and how much
> it is the rider. What's for sure is that bad riders don't win, even if they
> were made out of helium.
>
I think we do agree, the rider's talent is more important than size, or
else mini-me would be world champ.
Bruce
T3
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a_qdnZW0Wd7CGVDZ...@giganews.com...
> The bottom line is that Pedrosa will always be haunted by the weight
> question unless they create some sort of bike-rider weight standard. And
> the series will pay for it well beyond Pedrosa, because normal guys like
> Ben Spies will never seriously consider going there, or will never receive
> a serious offer to do so.
Yes, but the real question should be why?
Howard Kveck
Bruce Hartweg <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote:
> Didn't you watch 250's last year? Porto whined the entire season
> And he was an idiot for doing it. There is an advantage, but it wasn't
> the reason the Dani beat him, look at this years results of both of
> them to prove it.
Porto seriously lost the plot this year. He said that he had no confidence and
that's why he retired a couple of weeks ago (just after Germany? I think so...). But
it's true that Pedrosa outrode him all last year.
sturd
> I do - they don't.
Ahh, you've done a complete analysis then.
> a = F/m
> changes of m are linearly related to the final a
F = mu N
so changes of N are linearly related to final F. In the
opposite direction from your a.
Tires don't work that simply and the ability to change
position makes it even more complicated.
> the aero forces are a small component of the braking (to test this
> yourself get going to a buck 50 then see how long it takes to stop
>From an earlier post of mine::
-------------------------------------------
Fdrag = 1/2 rho * v^2 * Cd * A
where
rho - air density, around 0.073 lbm/ft^3
v - velocity, let's go from 200mph to 60
Cd - drag coefficient, assume it's around 1 and the same for
a big guy and a little guy as shape of the system is only a little
different
A - area. If the guy makes the system heavier by 7%, let's
for the sake of arguement say he makes the system frontal
area bigger by 5% when he is trying to be big and stop
Big guy
Fdrag (200 mph) = 3287 lbf
Fdrag (60 mph) = 296 lbf
small guy
Fdrag(200 mph) = 3130 lbf
Fdrag(60 mph) = 282 lbf
----------------------------------------------
and from another post regarding braking force
due to the brakes:
--------------------------------------------------
it's just a torque balance around the front axle
For a 52" wheelbase bike, 18" tire OD, center of gravity at 50"
of the wheelbase
Big guy (160 lbs) Fbraking - 1387 lbf
small guy (110 lbs) Fbraking - 1242 lbf
----------------------------------------------------
Point being that at high speed, aero braking is a BIG component
of braking forces..
> It's not enough of an advantage to make a crappy small guy win,
> Pedrosa wins because he is good, but there is a factor.
We are in complete agreement that Pedrosa wins because he
is good. You seem certain that he has an advantage due to
his size. I don't think that there is proof of that, based on
back of the envelope calculations.
I'd be happy to take a look at more detailed calcs. I can't believe
none of the teams have taken a look.
> Didn't you watch 250's last year?
As horsepower goes down, weight advantages certainly become
larger. We're talking MotoGP right now, I thought.
> doesn't matter what you change, less weight is better. that's way they
> don't have cast iron rotors.
Carbon instead of cast is as much due to heat issues though you are
absolutely right weight is big issue there.
Bruce Hartweg
just ther person alone, the weight will be bigger than area
(volume vs. area)
and as far as the final force the cross sectiona area of
the bike is being ignored - i.e. even if it is a
difference of 5% between riders, the rider is only
a percentage of the area so the total forces
are closer.
> Big guy
> Fdrag (200 mph) = 3287 lbf
> Fdrag (60 mph) = 296 lbf
>
> small guy
> Fdrag(200 mph) = 3130 lbf
> Fdrag(60 mph) = 282 lbf
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> and from another post regarding braking force
> due to the brakes:
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> it's just a torque balance around the front axle
> For a 52" wheelbase bike, 18" tire OD, center of gravity at 50"
> of the wheelbase
> Big guy (160 lbs) Fbraking - 1387 lbf
> small guy (110 lbs) Fbraking - 1242 lbf
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
where's the weight of the bike? - again the delta will be a smaller percentage
of the force
>
> Point being that at high speed, aero braking is a BIG component
> of braking forces..
>
>
>> It's not enough of an advantage to make a crappy small guy win,
>> Pedrosa wins because he is good, but there is a factor.
>
> We are in complete agreement that Pedrosa wins because he
> is good. You seem certain that he has an advantage due to
> his size. I don't think that there is proof of that, based on
> back of the envelope calculations.
>
> I'd be happy to take a look at more detailed calcs. I can't believe
> none of the teams have taken a look.
>
me neither. which is why all the teams do anything they can to minimize
weight. if more weight was better, Dani would ride with rocks in his
pockets, and the fairing would be made of lead.
>
>> Didn't you watch 250's last year?
>
> As horsepower goes down, weight advantages certainly become
> larger. We're talking MotoGP right now, I thought.
>
>
>> doesn't matter what you change, less weight is better. that's way they
>> don't have cast iron rotors.
>
> Carbon instead of cast is as much due to heat issues though you are
> absolutely right weight is big issue there.
>
Again, I'll repeat - I don't think this is why Dani wins, but I do
think it is an advantage, just not one that needs to be legislated.
Bruce
T3
"sturd" <mikestur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154359263....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> As horsepower goes down, weight advantages certainly become
> larger. We're talking MotoGP right now, I thought.
Actually, when HP is reduced the weight advantage becomes more pronounced,
that said, there other factors involved as well. Engine loading will become
more critical, along with applicable torque ranges, which by the way, will
favor a lighter pilot..
>
>
>> doesn't matter what you change, less weight is better. that's way they
>> don't have cast iron rotors.
>
> Carbon instead of cast is as much due to heat issues though you are
> absolutely right weight is big issue there.
Er, rotating mass, carbon graphite, or carbon/carbon(c/c) rotors are much
easier to turn, but actually suk for braking until they get fairly warm and
don't really retain heat very well either..
sturd
> where do you come up with those numbers?
Tell me your real email address (google doesn't let me
see it) and I'll send you the really crude spreadsheet I
put together.
> even if it is a
> difference of 5% between riders, the rider is only
> a percentage of the area so the total forces
> are closer.
OK, do it for smaller area difference. Point is aero
is a huge factor at high speed.
> where's the weight of the bike? - again the delta will be a smaller percentage
> of the force
It was included.
> Dani would ride with rocks in his
> pockets, and the fairing would be made of lead.
>
Dani couldn't move as good so first one is a bad idea.
Second one is always bad - that is heavier bike is
always bad. Moveable mass though (the rider) I think is
not.
> Again, I'll repeat - I don't think this is why Dani wins, but I do
> think it is an advantage, just not one that needs to be legislated.
We're in agreement there, just not getting the same arguement to
get there.
Brutus
> Bruce Hartweg asks:
>
> > where do you come up with those numbers?
>
> Tell me your real email address (google doesn't let me
> see it) and I'll send you the really crude spreadsheet I
> put together.
>
>
> > even if it is a
> > difference of 5% between riders, the rider is only
> > a percentage of the area so the total forces
> > are closer.
>
> OK, do it for smaller area difference. Point is aero
> is a huge factor at high speed.
I agree with Bruce that the difference between different sized riders would be a fairly small
percentage of the aerodynamic drag. In your calulations for stopping force you must combine the drag
and the braking force together...Mark is probably correct in assuming that the reduced mass (for
Dani) while braking is at least a wash if not a net advantage.
sturd
> I agree with Bruce that the difference between different sized riders would be a fairly
>small
> percentage of the aerodynamic drag. In your calulations for stopping force you must >combine the drag
> and the braking force together...Mark is probably correct in assuming that the reduced
>mass (for
> Dani) while braking is at least a wash if not a net advantage.
Ooookay. Difference in height from 5'10" to 5'0" is 14%. Assuming
frontal
area of the person is similarly different and you can get halfish of
your body
area out of the screen when you want to, 4-5% difference in frontal
area
of the bike/rider is reasonable. Go measure it if you'd like more
accuracy.
Go ahead and combine the braking force and drag force. Tell us what
you
get.
>.Mark is probably correct in assuming that the reduced mass (for
>Dani) while braking is at least a wash if not a net advantage.
I would guess that you're right. But I don't know and the numbers
are too close, on the back of an envelope, to go off and change
the rules so that light riders carry more weight.
pablo
>
> Actually, when HP is reduced the weight advantage becomes more pronounced,
> that said, there other factors involved as well. Engine loading will
> become more critical, along with applicable torque ranges, which by the
> way, will favor a lighter pilot..
You're talking like an 800cc race bike is a 50cc two-stroke. Come on. We
don't know about the engineering compromises that dominate in the 800cc
world yet. Some are talking about a Honda 3-cyl bike - which clearly means
they favor torque over peaky 250cc style power. We shall see.
> Er, rotating mass, carbon graphite, or carbon/carbon(c/c) rotors are much
> easier to turn, but actually suk for braking until they get fairly warm
> and don't really retain heat very well either..
It just so happens that, while unspung mass is critical to bike engineering,
the rider weight itself does not factor into it.
Geez. Where were you US guys when Roberts and Mamola -both little gusy
compared to the Euro riders of the time- started to win. I can't recall the
Euros complaining, even though some of the classiest riders -like Hartog-
were the only plus 6ft riders I can ever recall. he only won in the rain
from then on. No one claimed Roberts and Mamola won on size.
It'll be *really* liberating when Hayden wins the title and this whole USA
inferiority complex recedes a notch or two, really. Finally a US rider that
wins a meaningful world title again, hallelujah, we're the best etc, and
some distraction from the Euro conspiracy bullshit. Until the next 10+ year
title less streak, which given the clueless way the AMA manages the sport
may turn into a century for all we know, really.
When was the last time lower weight alone won a motorcycle open title,
really? Like, never ever?
For all we know Pedrosa may never win the title, talented as he is. The
focus on him right now for whatever reason just reflect how paranoid some
fans are about the next big "Euro thing". Lots of bad things can happen to
Pedrosa, it is a chancy sport. And the sad thing is, he would be missed by
all true motorcycling fans, because he brings true quality to the table'
along with Stoner. I wish them both progression and the world titles their
talent seems to merit, eventually. This year hsould be rightfully Hayden's,
and it's a tad early for a priori-excuses than in the end may backfire and
devaluate the perception of how much the '06 title is worth. The less
deserving the opposition, the less value a title has, that's a basic rule of
sports.
...pablo
pablo
"Brutus" <se6...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:_9wzg.671$xp2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> I agree with Bruce that the difference between different sized riders
> would be a fairly small
> percentage of the aerodynamic drag. In your calulations for stopping force
> you must combine the drag
> and the braking force together...Mark is probably correct in assuming that
> the reduced mass (for
> Dani) while braking is at least a wash if not a net advantage.
In braking with equal systems, reduces mass is a *disadvantage*. Effective
friction is a fucntion of mass with current sportsbike brakig systems. A
heavier rider will stop the *same* bike in a shorter distance, nearly
equivalent to the rider's mass *linearly*. This is from an issue of Sports
Rider a few years ago, they went through the whole pseudo-physics and then
included the actual data with a Suz 750, ridden by a rider that was 140 and
another than was 210lbs. The heavier guy stopped faster.
pablo
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
>
> In braking with equal systems, reduces mass is a *disadvantage*. Effective
> friction is a fucntion of mass with current sportsbike brakig systems.
watch
http://www.msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2552
Introductory but a reference nevertheless.
pablo
Brutus
> Brutus points out:
>
> > I agree with Bruce that the difference between different sized riders would be a fairly
> >small
> > percentage of the aerodynamic drag. In your calulations for stopping force you must >combine the
drag
> > and the braking force together...Mark is probably correct in assuming that the reduced
> >mass (for
> > Dani) while braking is at least a wash if not a net advantage.
>
> Ooookay. Difference in height from 5'10" to 5'0" is 14%. Assuming
> frontal
> area of the person is similarly different and you can get halfish of
> your body
> area out of the screen when you want to, 4-5% difference in frontal
> area
> of the bike/rider is reasonable. Go measure it if you'd like more
> accuracy.
Wait a minute only half of the body(at best) would create extra drag so maybe 7% by your
calculations. As Bruce has pointed out this is only a small percentage of the total frontal area.
Are we even talking about a 1% increase?
> I would guess that you're right. But I don't know and the numbers
> are too close, on the back of an envelope, to go off and change
> the rules so that light riders carry more weight.
I'm inclined to agree with you about the rule changes. BTW are the riders alowed to rehydrate before
being weighted after the race?
I don't follow the 125cc class racing and have'nt seen how they handle the potential cheating :)
Carl Sundquist
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
news:Ze2dnX_7-_GkNFPZ...@comcast.com...
>
Does it take an 18 wheeler with a 20,000 kg load proportionately longer to
brake than a 1500 kg automobile?
Brutus
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
> http://www.msgroup.org/TIP125.html
>
> another one.
I couldn't get the first link to open for me, but did take a quick look at this link.
A few points: We are not talking about a single stop from 60 or 80mph to 0.
We a talking about repeted braking which must be converted to heat by both the brake rotors AND the
tires.
This repeted use will create additional wear on the front tire and may have have an additional
negative effect on the brake pad/rotor performance due to excessive heat build-up...
Greg Campbell
> http://www.msgroup.org/TIP125.html
>
> another one.
On a cruiser or big touring boat, tire traction may well be the limting
factor. On a racebike the first limit the rider reaches is the 'stoppie
factor.' Since the rider's CG is located rather high, probably in front
of the braking thrust vector, more weight will only make the bike more
top-heavy, reduing the amount of braking force the rider can apply
without going over the bars.
The same goes for acceleration. If the rider can't move far enough
forward, extra weight will make the bike want to wheelie.
Does anyone have G values for acceleration and braking of GP bikes? If
so, we can do some crude photo analysis to determine where the rider's
CG is in relation to the bikes' dynamic CG, and hopefully determine if
extra weight will help or hurt braking/accel stability.
-Greg
Mark N
> http://www.msgroup.org/TIP125.html
> another one.
Aside from the fact that you can find something on the net that supports
your view, this proves nothing. And what this guy leaves out is the real
limit on straight-line braking on a GP bike - it's not traction, it's
not braking force on the rotors, it's the limit of those things while
keeping the bike from flipping over on its nose. And since a larger
rider puts more weight as high up as possible on a bike, where it has
the most leverage, one has to assume that rider can't apply as much
braking force without doing a stoppie.
And even if this was correct, wouldn't that make it possible for Pedrosa
to stop more quickly if they add weight to the bike? Particularly if
they can optimize that weight by putting it farther down than in the
rider's leathers? So let's put 20 kilos on Dani's bike and make him even
faster, I'm all for it...
pablo
"Greg Campbell" <ggeo...@ccoxx.nnett> wrote in message
news:dGyzg.7660$wU.6555@fed1read06...
> On a cruiser or big touring boat, tire traction may well be the limting
> factor. On a racebike the first limit the rider reaches is the 'stoppie
> factor.' Since the rider's CG is located rather high, probably in front
> of the braking thrust vector, more weight will only make the bike more
> top-heavy, reduing the amount of braking force the rider can apply without
> going over the bars.
Ah, the simple theories rear the head again. What about a heavier rider
lowering the *transient* CG (it does move, by they way) - either through
standard bike geometry, or through instinctively transfering more weight
onto their feet (which riders do just as instinctively as they countersteer,
by the way)...?
> The same goes for acceleration. If the rider can't move far enough
> forward, extra weight will make the bike want to wheelie.
So you're saying a lighter rider now has a disadvantage in acceleration,
since he can't load up the front as much? Interesting, I hadn't thought of
that.
> Does anyone have G values for acceleration and braking of GP bikes? If
> so, we can do some crude photo analysis to determine where the rider's CG
> is in relation to the bikes' dynamic CG, and hopefully determine if extra
> weight will help or hurt braking/accel stability.
We will not be able to. The fact is that it is extremely dependent on setup
etc. A lighter rider will anturally chose a different front-suspension setup
than a heavier one in racing, further complicating the situation. If all
riders went into a race with the same setup irrespective of their weight...
they'd be stupid and not very good riders. So, as with every lesson in bike
physics, it's all quite relative.
pablo
> A few points: We are not talking about a single stop from 60 or 80mph to
> 0.
> We a talking about repeted braking which must be converted to heat by both
> the brake rotors AND the
> tires.
> This repeted use will create additional wear on the front tire and may
> have have an additional
> negative effect on the brake pad/rotor performance due to excessive heat
> build-up...
You're talking brake fade - race motorcycles are remarkably enginnered for
resistance to that. In fact current brake setups will operate best at
certain operating temperatures that are hard to achieve by most mere
mortals. Tire traction in the end will be the problem here, and the same
tire will get up eaten faster if it needs to carry a higher weight at
identical payloads. Again, there are a lot of non-linear, difficult to
factor things in here. No one disputes that lower weigth is better, we know
that empirically, but we should also be open to the same empirical fact that
there are some disadvantages to the lower weight, and not allow for 5th
grade physics to slant our views here. It's not a perfectly linear
advantage.
Moreover, in a worst case scenario, we're talking about a slightly under 10%
weight differential of rider+bike comparing a 160lbs rider to a 100lbs
lightweight, so it's nowhere near the linear 60% advantage the rambling here
suggests, and well within a realm that allows for engineering compromises to
perhaps exploits the different approaches to an overall advantage. To cite
an example, towards the end of WW2 fighter planes were no longer engineered
to lower weights, since it actually *hurt* their dogfight performance (and
of course also firepower) given available engine performance (on the allied
side, and the Germans and especially Japanese reacted too late). More
aggressive aerodynamics in wing design were possible along with larger
profiles, rendering the older lighter planes uttterly obsolete. I am not
claiming the same applies to racing motorcycles, I have way too little
insight into it, but rather just using it as an example for complex
engineering trade-offs, where higher weight in some cases *aids*
performance, counter-intuitive as it may seem at first. Motorcycles are
close to helicopters when it comes to the complexity of the math that
dominates their behavior, actually, so things are not quite as linear as
this discussion indicates when it comes to weight. Think about Ducatis, who
stopped winning when they tried to win too much weight in WSB, I seem to
recall.
...pablo
Julian Bond
>You're talking like an 800cc race bike is a 50cc two-stroke. Come on. We
>don't know about the engineering compromises that dominate in the 800cc
>world yet. Some are talking about a Honda 3-cyl bike - which clearly means
>they favor torque over peaky 250cc style power. We shall see.
Hmmm. The weight limits really aren't changing except to make >4
cylinders less attractive. So the manufacturers can go for revs and/or
try to take advantage of a smaller size engine. And Honda will probably
do anything to avoid building just another straight 4. So we'll probably
end up with 18k rpm screamers that are geared to stay above 12k all the
time. That's actually much more like recent 600SS than a 250 stroker as
two strokes very rarely rev above 12k.
And in 12-24 months they'll be just as fast.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
*** Just Say No To DRM ***
T3
>
> And in 12-24 months they'll be just as fast.
If not sooner...
Bruce Hartweg
> watch
>
> http://www.msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2552
>
> Introductory but a reference nevertheless.
>
>
a video on stopping a goldwing
pablo also wrote:
> http://www.msgroup.org/TIP125.html
>
> another one.
>
an article that talks about MSF coureses, (stopping from 20moph)
stopping Valkeries and overloaded cruiser with luggage and passengers.
both talk about brake friction and traction, race bikes/sport bikes
are geometry limited - not traction limited
besides, your conclusion if weight doesn't matter to braking
so pedrosa doesn't have an advantage, but the same reasoning
then states he doesn't have a disadvantage either.
bruce
Bruce Hartweg
> "Brutus" <se6...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:Yiyzg.8163$157....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> A few points: We are not talking about a single stop from 60 or 80mph to
>> 0.
>> We a talking about repeted braking which must be converted to heat by both
>> the brake rotors AND the
>> tires.
>> This repeted use will create additional wear on the front tire and may
>> have have an additional
>> negative effect on the brake pad/rotor performance due to excessive heat
>> build-up...
>
> You're talking brake fade - race motorcycles are remarkably enginnered for
> resistance to that. In fact current brake setups will operate best at
> certain operating temperatures that are hard to achieve by most mere
> mortals. Tire traction in the end will be the problem here, and the same
> tire will get up eaten faster if it needs to carry a higher weight at
> identical payloads. Again, there are a lot of non-linear, difficult to
> factor things in here. No one disputes that lower weigth is better, we know
> that empirically, but we should also be open to the same empirical fact that
> there are some disadvantages to the lower weight, and not allow for 5th
> grade physics to slant our views here. It's not a perfectly linear
> advantage.
I will NOT agree there are disadvantages to lower wieght.
I will agree that things that go along *with* lower weight
(strength, stamina) can be a disadvantage.
>
> Moreover, in a worst case scenario, we're talking about a slightly under 10%
> weight differential of rider+bike comparing a 160lbs rider to a 100lbs
> lightweight, so it's nowhere near the linear 60% advantage the rambling here
> suggests, and well within a realm that allows for engineering compromises to
> perhaps exploits the different approaches to an overall advantage. To cite
> an example, towards the end of WW2 fighter planes were no longer engineered
> to lower weights, since it actually *hurt* their dogfight performance (and
> of course also firepower) given available engine performance (on the allied
> side, and the Germans and especially Japanese reacted too late). More
> aggressive aerodynamics in wing design were possible along with larger
> profiles, rendering the older lighter planes uttterly obsolete.
lower weight hurt there ability? please show some references for that.
now, lower *strength* is a different issue. The fact that an new design
is superior than an old one and it happens to be heavier (to be stronger
to support required forces acting on it) does not mean that the *weight*
itself is an advantage, if the same design could be made lighter with
the same strength - it would be better.
I am not
> claiming the same applies to racing motorcycles, I have way too little
> insight into it, but rather just using it as an example for complex
> engineering trade-offs, where higher weight in some cases *aids*
> performance, counter-intuitive as it may seem at first. Motorcycles are
> close to helicopters when it comes to the complexity of the math that
> dominates their behavior, actually, so things are not quite as linear as
> this discussion indicates when it comes to weight. Think about Ducatis, who
> stopped winning when they tried to win too much weight in WSB, I seem to
> recall.
>
> ...pablo
>
>
Again, I am NOT saying Dani wins because he is small, I am not saying
there needs to be any rule changes, i am NOT saying the advantage is a
big one, but lower weight in and of itself is better.
Bruce
Bruce Hartweg
>
> Moreover, in a worst case scenario, we're talking about a slightly under 10%
> weight differential of rider+bike comparing a 160lbs rider to a 100lbs
> lightweight,
or you high? a 60 pound difference is 10% - you think motoGP machines are 1/4 ton?
> lightweight, so it's nowhere near the linear 60% advantage the rambling here
> suggests,
I have seen no one (and I *know* I never claimed) anything like a 60% linear advantage
you are the only one putting specific number out (and usually way out of wack like above)
bruce
Mark N
> pablo bleats on:
>> You're talking like an 800cc race bike is a 50cc two-stroke. Come on. We
>> don't know about the engineering compromises that dominate in the 800cc
>> world yet. Some are talking about a Honda 3-cyl bike - which clearly
>> means
>> they favor torque over peaky 250cc style power. We shall see.
> Hmmm. The weight limits really aren't changing except to make >4
> cylinders less attractive. So the manufacturers can go for revs and/or
> try to take advantage of a smaller size engine. And Honda will probably
> do anything to avoid building just another straight 4. So we'll probably
> end up with 18k rpm screamers that are geared to stay above 12k all the
> time. That's actually much more like recent 600SS than a 250 stroker as
> two strokes very rarely rev above 12k.
I think it's almost certain that Honda will build a V-four, that's their
history in SBs, and they only built a V-five previously because of the
ill-conceived original weight rules. The new rules actually increase the
weights for all configurations, which I've wondered about - was this
driven by the factories in a desire to reduce costs, or was it more of
the effort to slow the bikes down? (Little did they know that, as Pablo
has "proven", a lighter package is actually slower!). But fives and then
triples get hammered most.
So the grid will be all fours next year, that's pretty much guaranteed.
It appears Ducati will make public their new V4 at the Brno test after
the break, giving their riders some time on it. Edwards, in Japan for
the 8-Hour, may well be on their new bike as we speak. That and Kawi's
bike will surely be inline fours, which would leave the Suzuki as the
only question. In terms of revs and power, Honda would have the least
reengineering to do (essentially the same sized cylinders) but would be
taking the biggest hp hit as well, losing a cylinder as well as
capacity. Ducati's desmo valve actuation and Suzuki's pneumatics put
them in a good position to deal with higher revs, but I don't know about
the others.
> And in 12-24 months they'll be just as fast.
What we should see is lower peak speeds, where the current bikes can use
all their power, and that won't change for a long time. In the corners
the bikes will be slightly heavier (until lower fuel loads kick in), so
shouldn't be any faster, unless they can make the geometry more
aggressive with the smaller motors - and smaller riders. Where the new
bikes won't lose out is under braking and initial acceleration in lower
gears, where the lower horsepower won't have as much impact, because the
current machines make too much already.
It's really tire improvements and then electronic advancements that will
eventually result in faster laps, I think. Followed by putting 45kg
midgets in the saddles...
Bruce Hartweg
>
> What we should see is lower peak speeds, where the current bikes can use
> all their power, and that won't change for a long time. In the corners
> the bikes will be slightly heavier (until lower fuel loads kick in), so
> shouldn't be any faster, unless they can make the geometry more
> aggressive with the smaller motors - and smaller riders. Where the new
> bikes won't lose out is under braking and initial acceleration in lower
> gears, where the lower horsepower won't have as much impact, because the
> current machines make too much already.
>
pretty good analysis
> It's really tire improvements and then electronic advancements that will
> eventually result in faster laps, I think.
I'll agree to that
> Followed by putting 45kg midgets in the saddles...
give it a rest, I've hounded those who try to twist the physics and
claim the lower weight isn't *some* advantage, but it's not that
big a deal. the poeple riding the bikes will be the riders who perform
not just based on size.
Bruce
Bruce Hartweg
> Ah, the simple theories rear the head again. What about a heavier rider
> lowering the *transient* CG (it does move, by they way) - either through
> standard bike geometry, or through instinctively transfering more weight
> onto their feet (which riders do just as instinctively as they countersteer,
> by the way)...?
>
transferring your weigh to your feet does NOT lower you CG
the mass of your body does not actually move to your feet.
changing the application of the force of your weight from
your butt to the footpegs changes how you can affect the bike
itself with your weight, it does NOT change the total CG of
bike+rider in respect to geometry around the front axle
Bruce
Mark N
> "Greg Campbell" wrote
>> factor. On a racebike the first limit the rider reaches is the 'stoppie
>> factor.' Since the rider's CG is located rather high, probably in front
>> of the braking thrust vector, more weight will only make the bike more
>> top-heavy, reduing the amount of braking force the rider can apply without
>> going over the bars.
> Ah, the simple theories rear the head again. What about a heavier rider
> lowering the *transient* CG (it does move, by they way) - either through
> standard bike geometry, or through instinctively transfering more weight
> onto their feet (which riders do just as instinctively as they countersteer,
> by the way)...?
Have you ever actually seen a GP rider hard on the brakes? With all that
stopping power and the shift of weight onto the upright rider's arms,
he's going to shift appreciable weight onto his feet, which are way back
and up on those racing rearsets? Get real, Pablo, you're better off
going back to claiming Roberts was Pedrosa's size when he was racing...
Anyway, beyond straight-line braking, once the riders turn in and are
trail-braking, the advantage clearly shifts to the lighter rider. Then
the limiting factor is front tire side grip, and the more weight that is
shifted onto it, the more likely that a rider will wash out the front.
At any given level of deceleration, a lighter rider will be putting less
weight on the front end. And with less sprung weight on the bike the
suspension can probably be made more compliant, so may react better to
bumps and other irregularities that could push the grip over the edge.
Watch Stoner's turn five crash at Laguna, with Pedrosa right behind him
and actually going faster, and you might be seeing this effect...
pablo
"Bruce Hartweg" <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote in message
news:5kJzg.2$DT...@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
> ...
> I will NOT agree there are disadvantages to lower wieght.
> I will agree that things that go along *with* lower weight
> (strength, stamina) can be a disadvantage.
While I find that a somewhat mutually exclusive statement (categoric denial
followed by a statement allowing for the contary?), since you summarize
things with...
> Again, I am NOT saying Dani wins because he is small, I am not saying
> there needs to be any rule changes, i am NOT saying the advantage is a
> big one, but lower weight in and of itself is better.
...which I totaly agree with, and have always done, I think we're in total
agreement when it comes to the essential aspect of the issue.
...pablo
pablo
> pablo wrote:
>
>> watch
>>
>> http://www.msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2552
>>
>> Introductory but a reference nevertheless.
> a video on stopping a goldwing
>
> pablo also wrote:
> > http://www.msgroup.org/TIP125.html
> >
> > another one.
> >
>
> an article that talks about MSF coureses, (stopping from 20moph)
> stopping Valkeries and overloaded cruiser with luggage and passengers.
>
> both talk about brake friction and traction, race bikes/sport bikes
> are geometry limited - not traction limited
Actually, with that I disagree, because it is wrong. Regular streetbikes are
just as geometry limited... as surprisingly also are the heavier cruisers
that won a braking distance comparo a few years ago. They were't harleys,
they had nice braking systems, by the way.
But it comes to show that in braking weight is not the clear advantage it
has been presented to be in this thread.
> besides, your conclusion if weight doesn't matter to braking
> so pedrosa doesn't have an advantage, but the same reasoning
> then states he doesn't have a disadvantage either.
True. However it's worth noting that in race situations he has quite
consistently pointed out that others can outbreak him as his Achilles heel
in race situations this year. There's a newbie factor there, for sure, but
perhaps just a tad bit more than that, too.
Mark N
> > Followed by putting 45kg midgets in the saddles...
>
> give it a rest, I've hounded those who try to twist the physics and
> claim the lower weight isn't *some* advantage, but it's not that
> big a deal. the poeple riding the bikes will be the riders who perform
> not just based on size.
I respectfully disagree. Honda has been talking about smaller riders to
fit the more compact bikes of the future, and they surely have applied
more brainpower to this issue than this newsgroup. And as I said before,
perception is reality, and if the Spanish/Italian rider development
highway starting with Puig and going through 125 and 250 quite naturally
promotes smaller riders, and it does, then they will get the rides, and
the sponsors will sign off quite willingly. So where does that leave a
Spies, outside that system, sponsors not all that interested, standing
5-11 and weighing in at 160lbs? He could be the most talented rider in
the world, but will never get the shot, at least not on one of the
better machines. And those machines will continue to be designed around
the midgets who are riding them, taking advantage of their strengths and
masking their weaknesses, increasing the exclusivity of the class.
Bruce Hartweg
If spies is the most talented rider in the world (a claim I don't see
anything to really support) He'll get his shot. There are a lot of issues
with who gets what rides (sponsers mainly) but I don't see anyone
getting turned away based on size alone.
Bruce
Julian Bond
>If spies is the most talented rider in the world (a claim I don't see
>anything to really support) He'll get his shot. There are a lot of issues
>with who gets what rides (sponsers mainly) but I don't see anyone
>getting turned away based on size alone.
Since he's signing for another 2 years with Suzuki in the USA (confirmed
yet?), he probably won't get his shot.
Bruce Hartweg
> Bruce Hartweg <bruce...@hartweg.us> Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:32:59
>> If spies is the most talented rider in the world (a claim I don't see
>> anything to really support) He'll get his shot. There are a lot of issues
>> with who gets what rides (sponsers mainly) but I don't see anyone
>> getting turned away based on size alone.
>
> Since he's signing for another 2 years with Suzuki in the USA (confirmed
> yet?), he probably won't get his shot.
>
thing as not getting it because you are too tall.
Mark's conjecture was that even if he was the best rider in the world they would
turn him away because he ain't a midget. If he show the next 2 years that
he is without a doubt the best rider in the world, and showed interest in
going, I bet one of the GP teams would give him a shot.
Bruce
sturd
> Wait a minute only half of the body(at best) would create extra drag so maybe 7% by your
> calculations. As Bruce has pointed out this is only a small percentage of the total frontal area.
> Are we even talking about a 1% increase?
Depends on the size of the body. I'm guessing that more than
50% of a big guy is out in the wind during braking. Those MotoGP
bikes are pretty small. Even a GSXR1000 is pretty small in
relation to a 5'10" human frontal area. Maybe 2/3 the human.
So I don't know for sure and would love somebody take
the time to measure but 4-5% increase in total frontal
area during braking seems reasonable, for a big guy.
>. BTW are the riders alowed to rehydrate before
> being weighted after the race?
> I don't follow the 125cc class racing and have'nt seen how
> they handle the potential cheating :)
Do they make them pee first???
sturd
> pablo wrote:
> > Moreover, in a worst case scenario, we're talking about a slightly under 10%
> > weight differential of rider+bike comparing a 160lbs rider to a 100lbs
> > lightweight,
> or you high? a 60 pound difference is 10% - you think motoGP machines are 1/4 ton?
You both need to actually calculate a bit. For a 145 kilo 4-5 cylinder
MotoGP
bike, the difference between rider of 160 lb and 100 lb is about 14%.
Bruce Hartweg
That was my point. if a 60 pound difference was 10% that would mean
a total weigh of 600 pounds, with a 100 pound rider would mean a 500
lb bike, which i referred to as 1/4 ton for effect.
Bruce
sturd
>which i referred to as 1/4 ton for effect.
Ohh.
Nevermind.
Mark N
I was speaking hypothetically there, using Spies because he's the most
obvious talented, accomplished, normal-sized young guy outside GP today.
And you're right, there hasn't been anyone who hasn't gotten a job in
MotoGP on size alone. But that's way too simple, no one gets a ride or
doesn't on anything alone - Max didn't lose his ride just because he was
too publicly critical of Honda, he didn't lose his ride just because he
didn't win any races, Dani didn't get that spot just because he was 250
champion, he didn't get it just because he's Spanish, he didn't get it
just because he weighed under 110 lbs.
What is true is that there are indications that size matters today. The
Honda teams cut loose four riders after last year - Bayliss, Barros,
Biaggi, Gibernau - who all weighed 65 kg or more, and they brought in
three riders - Pedrosa, Elias, Stoner - who all weight under 60 kg.
Think about that - the lightest rider they got rid of outweighed the
heaviest replacement by something like 20 pounds. They had the
opportunity to bring in Hopkins (72kg), Checa (69kg) and Vermeulen
(68kg), but none of that happened. No, none of that was on size alone,
but it would be a mistake to think it was no factor at all. And where
does that leave Hayden (69kg)?
You also said "If he [Spies] shows the next 2 years that he is without a
doubt the best rider in the world, and showed interest in going, I bet
one of the GP teams would give him a shot". The operative part of that
sentence is of course "shows he's without a doubt the best rider in the
world", which is of course a virtual impossibility. He could win every
single race in AMA SB in the next couple seasons and there would be
those not impressed at all (I'm sure Pablo and Julian think it's even
theoretically impossible that the best rider in the world could be in
the AMA). Julian says you simply won't get noticed by MotoGP if you're
racing outside of their view, but there's more to it than that. I think
Mladin is the perfect example of all this - he's been a top guy and
maybe the top guy in the AMA since 97-98, but has never had a shot at GP
in that time.
The other thing is opportunity even if you get hired. Vermeulen has
convincingly shown how much track experience matters this year - even
with four or five years of international racing under his belt, he's
mostly struggled at tracks he's never seen before, but has looked very
good at tracks he knows and was outstanding at Laguna, where he was on
equal footing for the first time. So guys like Mladin, Duhamel, Corser,
Gobert, Hodgson, et al had one season or less to prove themselves and
that was it, and they were probably lucky to get that. Those were mostly
the bad old JIS days, but those days appear to be coming back now -
today any top Spanish, Italian or Japanese rider in 125/250 is pretty
much guaranteed a shot at MotoGP and likely for more than a year, and
they already know the tracks. Anyone else is doubtful.
I don't think anyone can just walk into MotoGP and be the best anyway,
it takes time even for a guy who has that capability. When was the last
time that someone even won a premier class race at a track that he'd
never seen before (and wasn't new to everyone)? Gotta be at least back
to Beattie at Hockenheim in '93, and I don't know that he didn't test
there; otherwise, probably Schwantz in '88. This year Pedrosa, the new
genius, has everything going for him - probably the best bike and tires
in the class, five years of GP experience, Rossi having a disastrous
year, and everyone spotting him 20-50 lbs. in weight - and he's still
not likely to win the championship.
Of course those who choose not to see it will always claim all the top
riders are in GP, and bag on those who aren't there - they're too lazy
and greedy, they aren't willing to take the risks, they don't want to,
they just aren't good enough and know it. We've heard it all before and
will again, I'm sure...
pablo
"sturd" <mikestur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154466319....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The limit I assume dwas 148 for 4, and 5 cyl is higher... I checked and saw
I assumed '07 numbers (5 cyls are %$# i n '07, it'll be a 4 and 3 cyl grid),
and rounded up some off the top off my hat. In any case, we're fighting over
single % digits here.
Champ
<pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote:
>> You both need to actually calculate a bit. For a 145 kilo 4-5 cylinder
>> MotoGP
>> bike, the difference between rider of 160 lb and 100 lb is about 14%.
>
>The limit I assumed was 148 for 4, and 5 cyl is higher
No it isn't. Honda's whole rationale for the 5-cyl bike is that the
regs give the same minimum weight for 5 cyls as 4. (pre-2007).
--
Champ
Bruce Hartweg
see you start our reasonable, and then you go on in a way that suggests
you don't think pedrosa deserves his ride - and that is nonsense. his
incredible rookie season proves he deserves,
>
> What is true is that there are indications that size matters today. The
> Honda teams cut loose four riders after last year - Bayliss, Barros,
> Biaggi, Gibernau - who all weighed 65 kg or more, and they brought in
> three riders - Pedrosa, Elias, Stoner - who all weight under 60 kg.
> Think about that - the lightest rider they got rid of outweighed the
> heaviest replacement by something like 20 pounds. They had the
> opportunity to bring in Hopkins (72kg), Checa (69kg) and Vermeulen
> (68kg), but none of that happened. No, none of that was on size alone,
> but it would be a mistake to think it was no factor at all. And where
> does that leave Hayden (69kg)?
or instead of looking at the weights of those riders, you could look at
results none of the four let go were giving any challenge, and the new
guys are.
>
> You also said "If he [Spies] shows the next 2 years that he is without a
> doubt the best rider in the world, and showed interest in going, I bet
> one of the GP teams would give him a shot". The operative part of that
> sentence is of course "shows he's without a doubt the best rider in the
> world", which is of course a virtual impossibility. He could win every
> single race in AMA SB in the next couple seasons and there would be
> those not impressed at all (I'm sure Pablo and Julian think it's even
> theoretically impossible that the best rider in the world could be in
> the AMA). Julian says you simply won't get noticed by MotoGP if you're
> racing outside of their view, but there's more to it than that. I think
> Mladin is the perfect example of all this - he's been a top guy and
> maybe the top guy in the AMA since 97-98, but has never had a shot at GP
> in that time.
>
I agree that there is a lot involved in getting a ride, timing,
availability sponsers, but a conspriacy against non-midgets is
nutty conspiracy.
> The other thing is opportunity even if you get hired. Vermeulen has
> convincingly shown how much track experience matters this year - even
> with four or five years of international racing under his belt, he's
> mostly struggled at tracks he's never seen before, but has looked very
> good at tracks he knows and was outstanding at Laguna, where he was on
> equal footing for the first time. So guys like Mladin, Duhamel, Corser,
> Gobert, Hodgson, et al had one season or less to prove themselves and
> that was it, and they were probably lucky to get that. Those were mostly
> the bad old JIS days, but those days appear to be coming back now -
> today any top Spanish, Italian or Japanese rider in 125/250 is pretty
> much guaranteed a shot at MotoGP and likely for more than a year, and
> they already know the tracks. Anyone else is doubtful.
I agree the 125/250 route has the advantage of runnning the same tracks.
That's life, get over it.do you think MotoGP should only run on AMA
tracks? Are you suggesting that the AMA folks should run there rounds
all over the world? The only way you can enforce "fair" chances is to
get a written agreement between all the different racing series
(national championships, SBK, MotoGP) that is you win (or place
high enough) in one series you get to go to the next series. Or if
the factories or other teams supported all the different series and had
an internal policy of promotion from one series to the next. That'll
never happen because they are all different entities and no team (other
the the factories) has the money to run in different series.
>
> I don't think anyone can just walk into MotoGP and be the best anyway,
> it takes time even for a guy who has that capability. When was the last
> time that someone even won a premier class race at a track that he'd
> never seen before (and wasn't new to everyone)? Gotta be at least back
> to Beattie at Hockenheim in '93, and I don't know that he didn't test
> there; otherwise, probably Schwantz in '88. This year Pedrosa, the new
> genius, has everything going for him - probably the best bike and tires
> in the class, five years of GP experience, Rossi having a disastrous
> year, and everyone spotting him 20-50 lbs. in weight - and he's still
> not likely to win the championship.
>
Jeez, mark. Dani is having one of the best (if not *the* best) rookie
seasons ever and your bagging on him?
> Of course those who choose not to see it will always claim all the top
> riders are in GP, and bag on those who aren't there - they're too lazy
> and greedy, they aren't willing to take the risks, they don't want to,
> they just aren't good enough and know it. We've heard it all before and
> will again, I'm sure...
>
I think overall the GP has the top competition but there are other top
riders who aren't there for a variety of reasons.
Bruce
pablo
"Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
news:7em0d2ttimu156hf5...@4ax.com...
I said 2007. In '07, 4 cyl will be 148kg, 5 cyl will go up to 155.5kg.
Weights are going up across the board along with the 800cc limit. The 3cyl
limit will be 140.5kg (perhaps best deal?), 2cyl is set too high at 137kg.
Minimum Weight - MotoGP Class Cylinders 2004 Min 2007 Min Change
2Cylinder 135Kg 137Kg +2Kg
3Cylinder 135Kg 140.5Kg +5.5Kg
4Cylinder 145Kg 148Kg +3Kg
5Cylinder 145Kg 155.5Kg +10.5Kg
6Cylinder 155Kg 163Kg +8Kg
Julian Bond
>I think overall the GP has the top competition but there are other top
>riders who aren't there for a variety of reasons.
Name one who should be given a chance in MotoGP. Not that should be
there now or should have/could have been there in the past. But one who
should be given a chance next year.
Brutus
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
news:a9WdnX_199d0XE3Z...@comcast.com...
>
> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:7em0d2ttimu156hf5...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:57:01 -0700, "pablo"
> > <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> You both need to actually calculate a bit. For a 145 kilo 4-5 cylinder
> >>> MotoGP
> >>> bike, the difference between rider of 160 lb and 100 lb is about 14%.
> >>
> >>The limit I assumed was 148 for 4, and 5 cyl is higher
> >
> > No it isn't. Honda's whole rationale for the 5-cyl bike is that the
> > regs give the same minimum weight for 5 cyls as 4. (pre-2007).
>
> I said 2007. In '07, 4 cyl will be 148kg, 5 cyl will go up to 155.5kg.
> Weights are going up across the board along with the 800cc limit. The 3cyl
> limit will be 140.5kg (perhaps best deal?), 2cyl is set too high at 137kg.
The pre 07 weight rule were poorly writen giving both 5cyl (Honda) and 3cyl (Aprilla) a potential
advantage over the 4cyl and 2 cyl bikes. It seems the new rules still don't compensate for the 2cyl
bikes. Are they worried about Ducati building a competive 133 Kg bike with a Dani sized rider :-)
BTW what if the 1000cc WSB's bikes begin to match the track times of the Moto GP bikes, as they
began to before GP changed over to 4 strokes?
Bruce Hartweg
> "pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
> news:a9WdnX_199d0XE3Z...@comcast.com...
>> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7em0d2ttimu156hf5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:57:01 -0700, "pablo"
>>> <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You both need to actually calculate a bit. For a 145 kilo 4-5 cylinder
>>>>> MotoGP
>>>>> bike, the difference between rider of 160 lb and 100 lb is about 14%.
>>>> The limit I assumed was 148 for 4, and 5 cyl is higher
>>> No it isn't. Honda's whole rationale for the 5-cyl bike is that the
>>> regs give the same minimum weight for 5 cyls as 4. (pre-2007).
>> I said 2007. In '07, 4 cyl will be 148kg, 5 cyl will go up to 155.5kg.
>> Weights are going up across the board along with the 800cc limit. The 3cyl
>> limit will be 140.5kg (perhaps best deal?), 2cyl is set too high at 137kg.
>
> The pre 07 weight rule were poorly writen giving both 5cyl (Honda) and 3cyl (Aprilla) a potential
> advantage over the 4cyl and 2 cyl bikes. It seems the new rules still don't compensate for the 2cyl
> bikes. Are they worried about Ducati building a competive 133 Kg bike with a Dani sized rider :-)
>
compensate? - to me I don't like the weight rules at all. MotoGP should be
about building the best damn machine, if twins aren't as good as triples,
or triples arent as good as V4s or V5s then then they just shouldn't be used,
not get special treatment to include them. In a production based series it
makes sense, it allows different makes to compete together where the engine
config is predetermined by the stock bikes. but GP should be less biased
towards any particluar engine type - there should be a single wieght limit
and a displacement limit - and let people build the best damn engine they can.
maybe we'd see an outrageous V16 ;)
> BTW what if the 1000cc WSB's bikes begin to match the track times of the Moto GP bikes, as they
> began to before GP changed over to 4 strokes?
No worry as long as they stick with spec tire Pirelli's ;)
Bruce
Jake
> compensate? - to me I don't like the weight rules at all. MotoGP should be
> about building the best damn machine, if twins aren't as good as triples,
> or triples arent as good as V4s or V5s then then they just shouldn't be used,
> not get special treatment to include them. In a production based series it
> makes sense, it allows different makes to compete together where the engine
> config is predetermined by the stock bikes. but GP should be less biased
> towards any particluar engine type - there should be a single wieght limit
> and a displacement limit - and let people build the best damn engine they can.
> maybe we'd see an outrageous V16 ;)
Why is displacement privileged over number of cylinders? It was
rumored that the Chevy LS1 (5.7L OHV V8) was physically smaller,
weighed less, and made more power than the contemporaneous Northstar
(4.4L DOHC V8).
Why not just have a weight limit?
-jake
Bruce Hartweg
generally - the displacement is what is used to separate classes.
I'm talking about variations within a class
beside if the 990c is getting to fast/powerful for the tires/safety/whatever
so they are reducing it to scale it back some, an open displacement
class would be interesting but a bit out of control
Bruce
pablo
>
> compensate? - to me I don't like the weight rules at all. MotoGP should be
> about building the best damn machine, if twins aren't as good as triples,
> or triples arent as good as V4s or V5s then then they just shouldn't be
But then, barring dramatic engineering break-throughs that are unlikely to
happen out of nowhere, the biggest budget will win, period. We're pretty
close to that situation anyhow, as that has always been the secret to
Honda's long-time supremacy over the years - not originality or creativity,
but simply the fact they spent the most on thorough testing etc. And we all
love underdogs (unless it's an American riding the best bike, in which case
enough -US- people will argue he's somehow an underdog because he can't
interpret the roadsigns to the circuits in Europe or something), and thus we
should welcome rules that however clumsiliy try to establish some sort of
equality irrespective of budgets... and rider weights (as bike weights going
up indicates).
A berserko open class would be nice if motorcycles were more popular
vehicles and budgets were bigger. But motorcycle industry revenues can not
wing a F1 type of thing, unfortunately. Thus rules that limit the
engineering scope (and thus cost) ought to be welcome. This is a s close to
a real open experimental class as we'll get right now. Fuel prices of $10 a
gallon may change that... :-)
Bruce Hartweg
> "Bruce Hartweg" <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote in message
> news:X05Ag.3$a9...@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
>> compensate? - to me I don't like the weight rules at all. MotoGP should be
>> about building the best damn machine, if twins aren't as good as triples,
>> or triples arent as good as V4s or V5s then then they just shouldn't be
>> used ...
>
> But then, barring dramatic engineering break-throughs that are unlikely to
> happen out of nowhere, the biggest budget will win, period. We're pretty
> close to that situation anyhow, as that has always been the secret to
> Honda's long-time supremacy over the years - not originality or creativity,
> but simply the fact they spent the most on thorough testing etc. And we all
> love underdogs (unless it's an American riding the best bike, in which case
> enough -US- people will argue he's somehow an underdog because he can't
> interpret the roadsigns to the circuits in Europe or something), and thus we
> should welcome rules that however clumsiliy try to establish some sort of
> equality irrespective of budgets... and rider weights (as bike weights going
> up indicates).
jeez, why the honda hater? is it because an american is winning on one?
Honda has had some pretty original stuff.
>
> A berserko open class would be nice if motorcycles were more popular
> vehicles and budgets were bigger. But motorcycle industry revenues can not
> wing a F1 type of thing, unfortunately. Thus rules that limit the
> engineering scope (and thus cost) ought to be welcome. This is a s close to
> a real open experimental class as we'll get right now. Fuel prices of $10 a
> gallon may change that... :-)
>
>
I wasn't proposing the beserko open class, i am for a displacement spec
but without the varying weights base on # cylinders.
Bruce
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>> I was speaking hypothetically there, using Spies because he's the most
>> obvious talented, accomplished, normal-sized young guy outside GP
>> today. And you're right, there hasn't been anyone who hasn't gotten a
>> job in MotoGP on size alone. But that's way too simple, no one gets a
>> ride or doesn't on anything alone - Max didn't lose his ride just
>> because he was too publicly critical of Honda, he didn't lose his ride
>> just because he didn't win any races, Dani didn't get that spot just
>> because he was 250 champion, he didn't get it just because he's
>> Spanish, he didn't get it just because he weighed under 110 lbs.
> see you start our reasonable, and then you go on in a way that suggests
> you don't think pedrosa deserves his ride - and that is nonsense. his
> incredible rookie season proves he deserves,
Huh? I didn't say anything negative about Pedrosa at all, I was just
making a point about what happens in racing is a blend of a bunch of
issues and considerations. And whether or not he "deserved" that ride is
a whole other matter, and is entirely dependent on what one thinks of
"his ride"...
>> What is true is that there are indications that size matters today.
>> The Honda teams cut loose four riders after last year - Bayliss,
>> Barros, Biaggi, Gibernau - who all weighed 65 kg or more, and they
>> brought in three riders - Pedrosa, Elias, Stoner - who all weight
>> under 60 kg. Think about that - the lightest rider they got rid of
>> outweighed the heaviest replacement by something like 20 pounds. They
>> had the opportunity to bring in Hopkins (72kg), Checa (69kg) and
>> Vermeulen (68kg), but none of that happened. No, none of that was on
>> size alone, but it would be a mistake to think it was no factor at
>> all. And where does that leave Hayden (69kg)?
> or instead of looking at the weights of those riders, you could look at
> results none of the four let go were giving any challenge, and the new
> guys are.
True, although one has to wonder how well they'd be doing if the
situation was as it was the last two years - the Honda having some
problems and not melding well with the Michelins, the Yamaha having
fewer issues and working much better with the Michelins, and Rossi
having his typically stellar good fortune. But your point supports my
last one - a lot of factors figure in on these decisions. But when Honda
is openly talking about "compact riders for the compact bikes of the
future", you have to accept that. What would you think if Honda had
hired three Spanish riders, and were also talking about the need to hire
Iberians for their future relationship with important sponsors? That it
was just coincidence?
>> You also said "If he [Spies] shows the next 2 years that he is without
>> a doubt the best rider in the world, and showed interest in going, I
>> bet one of the GP teams would give him a shot". The operative part of
>> that sentence is of course "shows he's without a doubt the best rider
>> in the world", which is of course a virtual impossibility. He could
>> win every single race in AMA SB in the next couple seasons and there
>> would be those not impressed at all (I'm sure Pablo and Julian think
>> it's even theoretically impossible that the best rider in the world
>> could be in the AMA). Julian says you simply won't get noticed by
>> MotoGP if you're racing outside of their view, but there's more to it
>> than that. I think Mladin is the perfect example of all this - he's
>> been a top guy and maybe the top guy in the AMA since 97-98, but has
>> never had a shot at GP in that time.
> I agree that there is a lot involved in getting a ride, timing,
> availability sponsers, but a conspriacy against non-midgets is
> nutty conspiracy.
It isn't a conspiracy, it's not a bunch of separate parties getting
together and deciding to do something underhanded under cover of
darkness. The forces at play are very much out in the open, and the
trend makes perfect sense when one considers all the forces involved.
What seems nutty is denying that anything like this is or could be
happening. Seems particularly ridiculous when one reads all of Pablo's
wild, desperate, inconsistent defenses of Pedrosa and the underlying
sheer terror that they might actually change the minimum weight rules in
MotoGP. Not to worry, though, it simply won't happen as long as Dorna is
in charge...
>> The other thing is opportunity even if you get hired. Vermeulen has
>> convincingly shown how much track experience matters this year - even
>> with four or five years of international racing under his belt, he's
>> mostly struggled at tracks he's never seen before, but has looked very
>> good at tracks he knows and was outstanding at Laguna, where he was on
>> equal footing for the first time. So guys like Mladin, Duhamel,
>> Corser, Gobert, Hodgson, et al had one season or less to prove
>> themselves and that was it, and they were probably lucky to get that.
>> Those were mostly the bad old JIS days, but those days appear to be
>> coming back now - today any top Spanish, Italian or Japanese rider in
>> 125/250 is pretty much guaranteed a shot at MotoGP and likely for more
>> than a year, and they already know the tracks. Anyone else is doubtful.
>
> I agree the 125/250 route has the advantage of runnning the same tracks.
> That's life, get over it.do you think MotoGP should only run on AMA
> tracks? Are you suggesting that the AMA folks should run there rounds
> all over the world?
Do you actually think that's what I'm saying? Are mocking questions like
that good for maintaining a reasonable discussion about this?
The only way you can enforce "fair" chances is to
> get a written agreement between all the different racing series
> (national championships, SBK, MotoGP) that is you win (or place
> high enough) in one series you get to go to the next series. Or if
> the factories or other teams supported all the different series and had
> an internal policy of promotion from one series to the next. That'll
> never happen because they are all different entities and no team (other
> the the factories) has the money to run in different series.
I'm not saying anything about fairness, I know the world isn't fair, I
certainly know anyone in favored classes that come up through 125/250 is
going to have a big edge in getting good rides. That's just the way it
is. What I am saying is that throwing this new weight/size issue on top
of that just makes that edge bigger, and it's something that is very
easy to correct, it's not like sponsor favoritism or track knowledge
advantages. It purely comes down to adjusting the rules. I can't see how
someone could say that doing so wouldn't be in the best interest of GP.
And I am saying that if the rule isn't changed, it's equally absurd to
say that even with that on top of everything else, the very best riders
will always get their shot, no matter where they are from. That's
extremely unlikely to be true, I don't think it was true five or ten
years ago and I don't think it'll be true five years from now.
>> I don't think anyone can just walk into MotoGP and be the best anyway,
>> it takes time even for a guy who has that capability. When was the
>> last time that someone even won a premier class race at a track that
>> he'd never seen before (and wasn't new to everyone)? Gotta be at least
>> back to Beattie at Hockenheim in '93, and I don't know that he didn't
>> test there; otherwise, probably Schwantz in '88. This year Pedrosa,
>> the new genius, has everything going for him - probably the best bike
>> and tires in the class, five years of GP experience, Rossi having a
>> disastrous year, and everyone spotting him 20-50 lbs. in weight - and
>> he's still not likely to win the championship.
> Jeez, mark. Dani is having one of the best (if not *the* best) rookie
> seasons ever and your bagging on him?
How am I bagging on him? I'm saying as a newcomer to the class even he
is unlikely to win the championship. I'm saying that the days are over
where someone like Roberts could come into GP and start winning
championships right off. Takes time, and someone coming from the outside
takes even more.
As to Pedrosa's season, for immediate impact and by the numbers I would
say Biaggi had the best rookie season in recent memory, on pole and
winning his very first race, 2 wins and 8 podiums in 14 races, 2nd in
the championship. But that's relative to the competition, which was as
weak as I've seen when he came in, he was on one of the dominant Hondas
(although a lease version), and he never beat Doohan in a race both
riders finished. Schwantz and Rainey had very good years in '88, Kevin
winning 2 races including the first one on an underpowered bike (but
only 4 podiums in 15 races and 8th in points) and Wayne a win, 7
podiums, 3rd in points. Rossi started slowly but ended up with 2 wins,
10 podiums in 16 races and 2nd in points. Then there's Kocinski in '91
(a win, 5 podiums, 4th) and Beattie in '93 (a win, 4 podiums, 3rd), I
suppose.
What Pedrosa has going for him is a bike/team situation that is probably
better than any of those guys, perhaps only Rossi coming close to
equaling that. And considering his total lack of international
experience and the level of competition, Hayden's rookie season (2
podiums, 5th) isn't terribly far off those guys.
>> Of course those who choose not to see it will always claim all the top
>> riders are in GP, and bag on those who aren't there - they're too lazy
>> and greedy, they aren't willing to take the risks, they don't want to,
>> they just aren't good enough and know it. We've heard it all before
>> and will again, I'm sure...
> I think overall the GP has the top competition but there are other top
> riders who aren't there for a variety of reasons.
Great reply - 100% accurate, and yet extremely vague...
pablo
>
> jeez, why the honda hater? is it because an american is winning on one?
> Honda has had some pretty original stuff.
To the first question, I have written enough about Hayden's season to get
into such lunatic accusations. I don't hate Honda, but they've traditionally
had the biggest budget, which means everybody else will have underdog
sympathy. I'd love for a team like Roberts to be successful, it'd be
awesome, and the rider can come from Mongolia as far as I am concerned - the
less mainstream and the less predictable, the better. And the more original
the technology, the better. The most original stuff that Honda has done was
the 4-stroke project in the middle of the 2-stroke era - that was beautiful.
> I wasn't proposing the beserko open class, i am for a displacement spec
> but without the varying weights base on # cylinders.
It'd be lovely to see some of the former craziness that existed come back -
didn't Blata plan to eventually use a 6 cylinder engine? Then again, in open
class I would assume at this stage the absolute quest for absolute power is
not a priority, and the additional horsepower that could be extracted with
an 8-cyle screamer may not really come into play, even at the same weight.
But I don't know, and as far as I am concerned you may be totally right, and
perhaps that would shake things up a bit in MotoGP.
Julian Bond
>"Bruce Hartweg" <bruce...@hartweg.us> wrote in message
>news:CoadnUT7wKtQE0zZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> jeez, why the honda hater? is it because an american is winning on one?
>> Honda has had some pretty original stuff.
>> I wasn't proposing the beserko open class, i am for a displacement spec
>> but without the varying weights base on # cylinders.
>
>It'd be lovely to see some of the former craziness that existed come back -
The problem is money. And it's behind the increase in weights as well.
Along with the 2 cylinder restriction in 250GP and single in 125cc.
There have to be some checks in place to discourage people like Honda
winning on a 110 Kg V8 by throwing money at it and using materials and
design techniques that nobody else can afford. And in a bike that would
require expensive engine rebuilds after every 50 minutes of riding.
The problem with then having weight changes to make the lower HP
configurations competitive is that it never works in a way that keeps
everyone happy. And historically, smaller, lighter machines with fewer
cylinders haven't been competitive (if at all) for very long.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone tries a 3 next year. There's still
nothing much beyond speculation about Honda. I think they'll go for a
four but whether it's a V-4, staggered straight 4 or something else, who
knows.
Mark N
> Bruce Hartweg
>> riders who aren't there for a variety of reasons.
> Name one who should be given a chance in MotoGP. Not that should be
> there now or should have/could have been there in the past. But one who
> should be given a chance next year.
Well, Spies is the most obvious guy, in his 2nd season in SB repeatedly
beating Mladin, the most accomplished rider outside MotoGP over the last
few years, on essentially the same bike and headed for the championship,
at age 21. I think if the factories are looking for a guy to develop who
could potentially start challenging for a championship in two or three
years, he's probably the guy.
Lorenzo and Dovisioso are probably next, although Dovisioso certainly
could use another year in 250, I think, that wouldn't hurt him at all,
and probably not Lorenzo as well. Those guys are 19 and 20, so pretty
young still. But if they're looking for sponsor magnets, jockeys
providing a weight advantage and potentially a more immediate return,
they'd be ahead of Spies. Which of course is the reality...
Morten Becker-Eriksen
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:U_qdnY_BncA09VLZ...@giganews.com...
> Watch Stoner's turn five crash at Laguna, with Pedrosa right behind him
> and actually going faster, and you might be seeing this effect...
or it could be the effect of any other factor of rider input, tire
condition............
/MBE
Bruce Hartweg
> Bruce Hartweg wrote:
>> Mark N wrote:
>
>>> I was speaking hypothetically there, using Spies because he's the
>>> most obvious talented, accomplished, normal-sized young guy outside
>>> GP today. And you're right, there hasn't been anyone who hasn't
>>> gotten a job in MotoGP on size alone. But that's way too simple, no
>>> one gets a ride or doesn't on anything alone - Max didn't lose his
>>> ride just because he was too publicly critical of Honda, he didn't
>>> lose his ride just because he didn't win any races, Dani didn't get
>>> that spot just because he was 250 champion, he didn't get it just
>>> because he's Spanish, he didn't get it just because he weighed under
>>> 110 lbs.
>
>> see you start our reasonable, and then you go on in a way that suggests
>> you don't think pedrosa deserves his ride - and that is nonsense. his
>> incredible rookie season proves he deserves,
>
> Huh? I didn't say anything negative about Pedrosa at all, I was just
> making a point about what happens in racing is a blend of a bunch of
> issues and considerations. And whether or not he "deserved" that ride is
> a whole other matter, and is entirely dependent on what one thinks of
> "his ride"...
you didn't say it, you implied it by listing his size & nationality
>
>>> What is true is that there are indications that size matters today.
>>> The Honda teams cut loose four riders after last year - Bayliss,
>>> Barros, Biaggi, Gibernau - who all weighed 65 kg or more, and they
>>> brought in three riders - Pedrosa, Elias, Stoner - who all weight
>>> under 60 kg. Think about that - the lightest rider they got rid of
>>> outweighed the heaviest replacement by something like 20 pounds. They
>>> had the opportunity to bring in Hopkins (72kg), Checa (69kg) and
>>> Vermeulen (68kg), but none of that happened. No, none of that was on
>>> size alone, but it would be a mistake to think it was no factor at
>>> all. And where does that leave Hayden (69kg)?
>
>> or instead of looking at the weights of those riders, you could look at
>> results none of the four let go were giving any challenge, and the new
>> guys are.
>
> True, although one has to wonder how well they'd be doing if the
> situation was as it was the last two years - the Honda having some
> problems and not melding well with the Michelins, the Yamaha having
> fewer issues and working much better with the Michelins, and Rossi
> having his typically stellar good fortune. But your point supports my
> last one - a lot of factors figure in on these decisions. But when Honda
> is openly talking about "compact riders for the compact bikes of the
> future", you have to accept that.
References?
> What would you think if Honda had
> hired three Spanish riders, and were also talking about the need to hire
> Iberians for their future relationship with important sponsors? That it
> was just coincidence?
what would you think if they hired 17 american basketball players?
I know that's facetious, but so is your. Trying to show some slights
and bias by using hypothetical what ifs?
here is where we disagree, I don't think Dani size is *that* big of an
advantage. it *is* an advantage (as I argued in the other thread) but
I don't see it as a big enough factor to make a rule change.
>
>>> The other thing is opportunity even if you get hired. Vermeulen has
>>> convincingly shown how much track experience matters this year - even
>>> with four or five years of international racing under his belt, he's
>>> mostly struggled at tracks he's never seen before, but has looked
>>> very good at tracks he knows and was outstanding at Laguna, where he
>>> was on equal footing for the first time. So guys like Mladin,
>>> Duhamel, Corser, Gobert, Hodgson, et al had one season or less to
>>> prove themselves and that was it, and they were probably lucky to get
>>> that. Those were mostly the bad old JIS days, but those days appear
>>> to be coming back now - today any top Spanish, Italian or Japanese
>>> rider in 125/250 is pretty much guaranteed a shot at MotoGP and
>>> likely for more than a year, and they already know the tracks. Anyone
>>> else is doubtful.
>>
>> I agree the 125/250 route has the advantage of runnning the same tracks.
>> That's life, get over it.do you think MotoGP should only run on AMA
>> tracks? Are you suggesting that the AMA folks should run there rounds
>> all over the world?
>
> Do you actually think that's what I'm saying? Are mocking questions like
> that good for maintaining a reasonable discussion about this?
>
I'm not sure exactly what your saying - it just seems like a lot
of whining about the poor AMA guys - so I asked questions to see what
your solution was.
> The only way you can enforce "fair" chances is to
>> get a written agreement between all the different racing series
>> (national championships, SBK, MotoGP) that is you win (or place
>> high enough) in one series you get to go to the next series. Or if
>> the factories or other teams supported all the different series and had
>> an internal policy of promotion from one series to the next. That'll
>> never happen because they are all different entities and no team (other
>> the the factories) has the money to run in different series.
>
> I'm not saying anything about fairness, I know the world isn't fair, I
> certainly know anyone in favored classes that come up through 125/250 is
> going to have a big edge in getting good rides. That's just the way it
> is. What I am saying is that throwing this new weight/size issue on top
> of that just makes that edge bigger, and it's something that is very
> easy to correct, it's not like sponsor favoritism or track knowledge
> advantages. It purely comes down to adjusting the rules. I can't see how
> someone could say that doing so wouldn't be in the best interest of GP.
> And I am saying that if the rule isn't changed, it's equally absurd to
> say that even with that on top of everything else, the very best riders
> will always get their shot, no matter where they are from. That's
> extremely unlikely to be true, I don't think it was true five or ten
> years ago and I don't think it'll be true five years from now.
>
it'll never be true. even if you got all the rule changes you want.
The truth is there are timing, availability, money, sponser issues
that'll always be around, and sometime someone who seems like he should
get shot won't. no matter what you do it's a small club - less that 2 dozen
riders- Nothing you do can guarantee the those are all the top riders
in the world.
>>> I don't think anyone can just walk into MotoGP and be the best
>>> anyway, it takes time even for a guy who has that capability. When
>>> was the last time that someone even won a premier class race at a
>>> track that he'd never seen before (and wasn't new to everyone)? Gotta
>>> be at least back to Beattie at Hockenheim in '93, and I don't know
>>> that he didn't test there; otherwise, probably Schwantz in '88. This
>>> year Pedrosa, the new genius, has everything going for him - probably
>>> the best bike and tires in the class, five years of GP experience,
>>> Rossi having a disastrous year, and everyone spotting him 20-50 lbs.
>>> in weight - and he's still not likely to win the championship.
>
>> Jeez, mark. Dani is having one of the best (if not *the* best) rookie
>> seasons ever and your bagging on him?
>
> How am I bagging on him? I'm saying as a newcomer to the class even he
> is unlikely to win the championship. I'm saying that the days are over
> where someone like Roberts could come into GP and start winning
> championships right off. Takes time, and someone coming from the outside
> takes even more.
it just seemed like you listed all the silver spoon stuff and then
complained he wasn't winning championship
exactly my intent ;)
Bruce
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>> Huh? I didn't say anything negative about Pedrosa at all, I was just
>> making a point about what happens in racing is a blend of a bunch of
>> issues and considerations. And whether or not he "deserved" that ride
>> is a whole other matter, and is entirely dependent on what one thinks
>> of "his ride"...
> you didn't say it, you implied it by listing his size & nationality
I think you're being overly sensitive there, I wasn't implying that at
all. But there's no question that his being Spanish is at the core of
his rapid ascent to his current ride. He wouldn't have had Repsol and
Telefonica fighting over him the way they were if he wasn't Spanish, and
he wouldn't have had the benefit of all the influence of "Dani's Brain"
if he wasn't Spanish, just for starters. It's quite debatable if his
extremely small size was a help or a hindrance, though.
>> But when
>> Honda is openly talking about "compact riders for the compact bikes of
>> the future", you have to accept that.
> References?
I'm not going to try to chase a specific quote down, I previously quoted
something from a senior Honda/HRC guy on that here and I've seen it said
more than once.
>> What would you think if Honda had hired three Spanish riders, and
>> were also talking about the need to hire Iberians for their future
>> relationship with important sponsors? That it was just coincidence?
> what would you think if they hired 17 american basketball players?
>
> I know that's facetious, but so is your. Trying to show some slights
> and bias by using hypothetical what ifs?
If Honda said they felt the future was in hiring American basketball
players and then they hired several of them, one would have to assume
they were telling the truth, right? So when they said the future was
smaller riders and they hire three smaller riders, one should assume
there's some sort of connection, doesn't take a f*ckin' genius...
> here is where we disagree, I don't think Dani size is *that* big of an
> advantage. it *is* an advantage (as I argued in the other thread) but
> I don't see it as a big enough factor to make a rule change.
Okay, so let's look at it from the opposite direction. What problem
would you have with a new rule that established a minimum weight for
riders of 65kg, and any rider who was less than that at FIM weigh-ins
would have to ballast his bike, otherwise having to abide by the
established bike minimums, by the difference? Do you think that's unfair
in any way? If so, why? Do you think it would have a negative impact on
the series? If so, how?
> it'll never be true. even if you got all the rule changes you want.
> The truth is there are timing, availability, money, sponser issues
> that'll always be around, and sometime someone who seems like he should
> get shot won't. no matter what you do it's a small club - less that 2 dozen
> riders- Nothing you do can guarantee the those are all the top riders
> in the world.
Right, so why did you say, "If Spies is the most talented rider in the
world he'll get his shot." Seems like you're contradicting yourself.
>>> I think overall the GP has the top competition but there are other top
>>> riders who aren't there for a variety of reasons.
>> Great reply - 100% accurate, and yet extremely vague...
> exactly my intent ;)
You da Man...
Bruce Hartweg
> Bruce Hartweg wrote:
>> Mark N wrote:
>
>>> Huh? I didn't say anything negative about Pedrosa at all, I was just
>>> making a point about what happens in racing is a blend of a bunch of
>>> issues and considerations. And whether or not he "deserved" that ride
>>> is a whole other matter, and is entirely dependent on what one thinks
>>> of "his ride"...
>
>> you didn't say it, you implied it by listing his size & nationality
>
> I think you're being overly sensitive there, I wasn't implying that at
> all. But there's no question that his being Spanish is at the core of
> his rapid ascent to his current ride. He wouldn't have had Repsol and
> Telefonica fighting over him the way they were if he wasn't Spanish, and
> he wouldn't have had the benefit of all the influence of "Dani's Brain"
> if he wasn't Spanish, just for starters. It's quite debatable if his
> extremely small size was a help or a hindrance, though.
Ok, maybe I read too much into it, but you tend to go on at length
in many posts about his size or passport and neverseem to acknowledge
that is is a genuinnly good rider - currently one of the better in
the class.
>
>>> But when Honda is openly talking about "compact riders for the
>>> compact bikes of the future", you have to accept that.
>
ahh, but was that "We are looking for smaller riders" or we have
got some good riders, and they happen to be small, so we are trying
to design a smaller bike?
I think it's a bad idea for a couple of reasons.
1) employing it now would be a specific rule change targeted at one
specific rider. And there is no proof of how big an advantage it is.
2) defining the weigh in procedures (with/without gear, how soon before
the race, etc, etc, etc - just a big pain.
3) there are no real facts as to the extent of the advantage the smaller
rider, and the definitely no proof that a 10 kilo lump on the bike
itself is any way equivalent to a larger rider (and I think it would
be far worse to have extra ballast in the bike, handling wise)
>
>> it'll never be true. even if you got all the rule changes you want.
>> The truth is there are timing, availability, money, sponser issues
>> that'll always be around, and sometime someone who seems like he should
>> get shot won't. no matter what you do it's a small club - less that 2
>> dozen
>> riders- Nothing you do can guarantee the those are all the top riders
>> in the world.
>
> Right, so why did you say, "If Spies is the most talented rider in the
> world he'll get his shot." Seems like you're contradicting yourself.
>
Not really, both are expressions of vague generalities that can
sometime overlap into contradiction. I believe the *in general* if
someone shows themselves to be truly talented that they will get
a chance, but I also believe it isn't perfect (and no amount of rule
changes will make it so) so for any *specific* person there could
be factors of timing and team availability that could prevent them
from getting a shot.
To me it comes down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and right
now I don't see anything really broke. Without more evidence that
Dani's small size is an unfair advantage I don't see singling him
out for a rule screw.
If it can be shown that his size is a materially large difference
then talk about rule changes, but not until then. If it becomes
the spanish midget racing league, it's popularity will dwindle
accordingly and then they'll change, or SBK will become the real
world championship, or else the popularity will go up and fox will
have a new show "Ultimate Midget Racing" to look for new tiny talent;)
The real long term fix is to get more non-euro sponsers and teams
so that the "extra" reason for hiring people are more balanced.
But event given current sponsorship bias, which is there and totally
understandable, there is still pretty good mix of nationalities on the grid.
>>>> I think overall the GP has the top competition but there are other top
>>>> riders who aren't there for a variety of reasons.
>
>>> Great reply - 100% accurate, and yet extremely vague...
>
>> exactly my intent ;)
>
> You da Man...
I try.
bruce
Carl Sundquist
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
>
>> you didn't say it, you implied it by listing his size & nationality
>
> I think you're being overly sensitive there, I wasn't implying that at
> all. But there's no question that his being Spanish is at the core of his
> rapid ascent to his current ride. He wouldn't have had Repsol and
> Telefonica fighting over him the way they were if he wasn't Spanish,
Prove it.
Carl Sundquist
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> Well, Spies is the most obvious guy, in his 2nd season in SB repeatedly
> beating Mladin, the most accomplished rider outside MotoGP over the last
> few years, on essentially the same bike and headed for the championship,
> at age 21. I think if the factories are looking for a guy to develop who
> could potentially start challenging for a championship in two or three
> years, he's probably the guy.
>
> Lorenzo and Dovisioso are probably next, although Dovisioso certainly
> could use another year in 250, I think, that wouldn't hurt him at all, and
> probably not Lorenzo as well. Those guys are 19 and 20, so pretty young
> still. But if they're looking for sponsor magnets, jockeys providing a
> weight advantage and potentially a more immediate return, they'd be ahead
> of Spies. Which of course is the reality...
>
What effort/interest has Spies made toward MGP? Do you think his decided
dislike for air travel and lack of time abroad may be factors in an apparent
lack of interest on the part of MGP?
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>>>> But when Honda is openly talking about "compact riders for the
>>>> compact bikes of the future", you have to accept that.
> ahh, but was that "We are looking for smaller riders" or we have
> got some good riders, and they happen to be small, so we are trying
> to design a smaller bike?
This was last fall and winter, before anyone really knew how good
Pedrosa, Stoner and Elias would be, and they may have been saying it
earlier than that, I don't remember for sure. I do know that this was
related to the Brno bike, which was made public almost a year ago,
before any of those guys had arrived with Honda in MotoGP. There's a
certain chick-and-egg aspect to that, but I think the notion of a more
compact bike ridden by more compact and lighter riders has been brewing
within HRC for quite some time.
>> Okay, so let's look at it from the opposite direction. What problem
>> would you have with a new rule that established a minimum weight for
>> riders of 65kg, and any rider who was less than that at FIM weigh-ins
>> would have to ballast his bike, otherwise having to abide by the
>> established bike minimums, by the difference? Do you think that's
>> unfair in any way? If so, why? Do you think it would have a negative
>> impact on the series? If so, how?
> I think it's a bad idea for a couple of reasons.
>
> 1) employing it now would be a specific rule change targeted at one
> specific rider. And there is no proof of how big an advantage it is.
No, it would be targeted at a negative trend, which goes beyond Pedrosa,
and an imbalance in the rules, same as when similar rules were added to
other racing classes. If anything it would be targeted against Honda,
who have the 125/250 program breeding ground and are the factory having
headed down this road already. And a lot of rule changes impact very few
riders - when the AMA equalled the minimum weight between twins and
fours back in mid-'94, that really only hurt Corser and Picotte at
Ferracci. That shit happens, for the good of the racing.
> 2) defining the weigh in procedures (with/without gear, how soon before
> the race, etc, etc, etc - just a big pain.
But you don't have to do that, you could have something like a random,
short-notice monthly weigh-in, and the bikes would have their ballasting
set until the next one. It isn't critical if a bike/rider is a kilo off
or something, a rider can slam down that much water walking to the
weigh-in, the intent would be to deal with larger differences. Forget
the gear, weigh the guys in their skivvies and go from there.
A bad rule would be a combined bike-rider minimum, because that means a
lighter rider would mean they could build a heavier, cheaper bike, while
a heavier rider would mean more exotic materials. And then you get into
all those procedural issues.
> 3) there are no real facts as to the extent of the advantage the smaller
> rider, and the definitely no proof that a 10 kilo lump on the bike
> itself is any way equivalent to a larger rider (and I think it would
> be far worse to have extra ballast in the bike, handling wise)
The "no proof" defense is generally a bogus one, I think, that sort of
defense has been used for all sorts of distasteful things (like
"separate but equal" racism in this country). There never will be
generally-accepted "proof" of something like this (despite what Mike
says), rather it's a cause-and-effect, seat-of-the-pants call. And I
don't agree that ballast is worse - there have been all kinds of claims
that rider weight is the worst kind, because it's relatively unstable,
unpredictable, and pretty much the farthest from the center of mass you
can get. Plus, with the rule as I framed it, the little guys would still
have some weight advantage over most of the other riders, who are around
70kg, more or less. But if that wasn't good enough for you, then the
could ballast at 70% or 80% of the difference and not 100%, I suppose.
> To me it comes down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and right
> now I don't see anything really broke. Without more evidence that
> Dani's small size is an unfair advantage I don't see singling him
> out for a rule screw.
And I think it's broke and about to get more broken. There were plenty
of people saying the same thing about the twins-fours thing in SB in the
late '90s (like this, I think a pro-Euro thing), and when that series
broke, it broke pretty damned good. You've got to fix things before they
go to complete shit, I think. And only a blind man can't see the
direction all this is headed...
> If it can be shown that his size is a materially large difference
> then talk about rule changes, but not until then. If it becomes
> the spanish midget racing league, it's popularity will dwindle
> accordingly and then they'll change, or SBK will become the real
> world championship, or else the popularity will go up and fox will
> have a new show "Ultimate Midget Racing" to look for new tiny talent;)
Haven't you ever heard of "an ounce of prevention"? You want the best
racing series in at least 15 years and possibly ever ruined before
you'll change a simple rule? That's just nuts...
> The real long term fix is to get more non-euro sponsers and teams
> so that the "extra" reason for hiring people are more balanced.
> But event given current sponsorship bias, which is there and totally
> understandable, there is still pretty good mix of nationalities on the
> grid.
The long-term fix for a lot of the problems is to have enough income
into the series and perhaps shared sponsorship, so that individual
sponsors can't influence things as much as they do now. But you only get
there by growing the series, and retreating back to the old JIS
domination of the rides is most definitely NOT the way to get there. If
a rule change helps, do it. Even if it appears to be a bit unfair for a
few riders. Fuck 'em, I want my MotoGP...
Mark N
> "Mark N" wrote
>> I think you're being overly sensitive there, I wasn't implying that at
>> all. But there's no question that his being Spanish is at the core of his
>> rapid ascent to his current ride. He wouldn't have had Repsol and
>> Telefonica fighting over him the way they were if he wasn't Spanish,
> Prove it.
That's real good, Carl, you managed to double the number of words from
your last response. Some day you may actually be able to compose a
complete sentence...
Carl Sundquist
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
And that's your way of saying that you can't.