If Stoner won the championship....
robo...@googlemail.com
rider won the championship riding a bike other than a Yamaha/Honda/
Suzuki since 1974?
Using my friendly neighbourhood Wikipedia, I note that no 500cc/MotoGP
championships were won by riders on Japanese bikes before 1974 (though
Honda won the 125 and 250 championships in 1961, and there were plenty
of champions riding Japanese bikes in the smaller classes after that),
and no championships have been won by riders riding anything other
than Yamaha/Honda/Suzuki since then.
Could a Stoner championship even be considered historic?
pablo
<robo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1178268781.7...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Could a Stoner championship even be considered historic?
Without a doubt. A rookie on a bike that's never come close to winnning
consistently? It would be huge.
...pablo
Mark N
> wrote
> Without a doubt. A rookie on a bike that's never come close to winnning
> consistently? It would be huge.
A rookie? No doubt it would be significant, but huge, or historic? Not
sure about that. It would likely be huge in Europe, because it would be
the first championship by a European manufacturer in over three decades.
It would also be Bridgestone's first championship, and the first time
Michelin has lost since 1991. Given that they'd pulled official factory
support from the series that year, you really have to go back to 1984.
And "never came close to winning consistently" is a bit of a stretch,
isn't it? Capirossi won three races last year, second only to Rossi,
finished third in points, only 23 behind the champion, and had he not
tangled with Gibernau in Barcelona he might well have won the championship.
If Ducati wins this championship you can thank Bridgestone and the
change in the class definition at least as much as the bike. Would
Stoner stand much of a chance if he was on Michelins and they were still
racing 990s? I have my doubts. I think the biggest power shift that may
be happening in MotoGP right now is from Michelin to Bridgestone, and
Ducati is the largest profiter in that.
T3
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gYadnSouXdGc2qbb...@giganews.com...
> If Ducati wins this championship you can thank Bridgestone and the change
> in the class definition at least as much as the bike.
As well as Honda's new (fuk'd-up) direction..
Would
> Stoner stand much of a chance if he was on Michelins and they were still
> racing 990s? I have my doubts.
Me too, but I wouldn't completely discount it...
I think the biggest power shift that may
> be happening in MotoGP right now is from Michelin to Bridgestone, and
> Ducati is the largest profiter in that.
It looks that way so far, but there's still a bunch of places in Europe
where the 'Lin's are boss, how the 'Stones do there will prolly determine
the Duc's overall success...
Paul B
>
> If Ducati wins this championship you can thank Bridgestone and the
> change in the class definition at least as much as the bike. Would
> Stoner stand much of a chance if he was on Michelins and they were still
> racing 990s? I have my doubts. I think the biggest power shift that may
> be happening in MotoGP right now is from Michelin to Bridgestone, and
> Ducati is the largest profiter in that.
I think Stoner would be doing just fine on lins on a 990 Honda, last
year was his rookie year and he pushed hard and fell off pushing the
limits, he has matured this year and i don't think the change in
capacity, manufacturer and tyres is the only reason he is currently
leading the MGP, the guy has talent and real ability and has shone so
far this year. He was given an opportunity to ride for factory
Ducati, took the chance and is now delivering.
It seems Suzuki is also benefiting from the Stones rise, most notably
Hopkins, if anyone Hoppers deserves a lucky break, he has persevered
with the Suz for so long and finally appears really competitive, I
REALLY want to see him get a podium or better still a win, God knows
he has the talent and now he just about if not already has the bike at
last.
Paul
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
> > If Ducati wins this championship you can thank Bridgestone and the
> > change in the class definition at least as much as the bike. Would
> > Stoner stand much of a chance if he was on Michelins and they were still
> > racing 990s? I have my doubts. I think the biggest power shift that may
> > be happening in MotoGP right now is from Michelin to Bridgestone, and
> > Ducati is the largest profiter in that.
> I think Stoner would be doing just fine on lins on a 990 Honda, last
> year was his rookie year and he pushed hard and fell off pushing the
> limits, he has matured this year and i don't think the change in
> capacity, manufacturer and tyres is the only reason he is currently
> leading the MGP, the guy has talent and real ability and has shone so
> far this year. He was given an opportunity to ride for factory
> Ducati, took the chance and is now delivering.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging Stoner at all. But if Stoner had
stayed on a 990 Honda, he'd be downstream to the Repsol guys and
Melandri as well, and that's not a good place to be if you want to win
a championship. And of course a 990 Honda would be more competitive
than the 800 is (now), that switch has created an opening for the
others. It's hard to tell how much Capirossi has been impacted by the
baby and how much by the new machine, which he's had problems with,
but in lieu of those issues I'd think Casey would be having more
problems beating Loris. The guy can ride, and he shows real maturing
this year, but a true championship contender on his own already? I
think he's still green. Right now he's leading because Honda has had
problems, Capirossi has had problems, Rossi has had problems, Michelin
has had problems. If you look at the guys who finished in front of him
last year - Hayden, Rossi, Capirossi, Melandri, Pedrosa, Roberts,
Edwards - they've all had something not working for them this year.
But not Casey.
> It seems Suzuki is also benefiting from the Stones rise, most notably
> Hopkins, if anyone Hoppers deserves a lucky break, he has persevered
> with the Suz for so long and finally appears really competitive, I
> REALLY want to see him get a podium or better still a win, God knows
> he has the talent and now he just about if not already has the bike at
> last.
Certainly has helped, but I think Suzuki has taken the biggest jump
forward of all of them with the 800 switch (not that that is
necessarily the reason). The bike just works better, and it would work
better on Michelins as well. Hopper seemed very pleased with the new
stuff tested after Istanbul, so we may see him take another step
forward this weekend. I'd pick him for his first podium; he was 4th
last year, if you recall. And a win is not out of the question.
pablo
"guig" <gu...@yerawathame.com> wrote in message
news:2007050419202616807-guig@yerawathamecom...
You can, in my opinion. The guy's 21, it's his frist year on a Dicati, and
the Ducati does not have a track record of success, with a reputation on
stability but lazy reflexes. It's quite obvious he rides in a very inspired
way, and takes risks in doing so. May the gods of racing help him instill
some long term changes into MotoGP.
Early on in the season we though Rossi had it wrapped up on a superior
Yamaha. We certainly thought too quickly.
...pablo
Chris Paine
> It looks that way so far, but there's still a bunch of places in Europe
> where the 'Lin's are boss, how the 'Stones do there will prolly determine
> the Duc's overall success...
Old George W has obviously put a tax on letters over there in the US
of A, so for T3's tax bill sake, I'll keep it brief. It's all a case
of whether 'i on the 'a can match the speed advantage of of the 'is
with new boy 'r and old boy 'i. And can the 'as with champion 'n and
wonder boy 'a catch up ? And how will the tyre battle between the 's
and the 's and the 's resolve itself ?
Cheers,
--
Chris Paine <c...@ist.co.uk>
"I'm happy, I'm happy, I'm happy ...
and I'll punch the man who says I'm not."
T3
"Chris Paine" <c...@ist.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1178328444.2...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 May, 16:21, "T3" <spamb...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks that way so far, but there's still a bunch of places in Europe
>> where the 'Lin's are boss, how the 'Stones do there will prolly determine
>> the Duc's overall success...
>
> Old George W has obviously put a tax on letters over there in the US
> of A, so for T3's tax bill sake, I'll keep it brief. It's all a case
> of whether 'i on the 'a can match the speed advantage of of the 'is
> with new boy 'r and old boy 'i. And can the 'as with champion 'n and
> wonder boy 'a catch up ? And how will the tyre battle between the 's
> and the 's and the 's resolve itself ?
Not sure what you were trying to say, but any $ kept from the Taxman is a $
earned twice, so, somewhat hesitantly, I prolly agree to whatever it was...
Russell Watson
>On 4 May, 16:21, "T3" <spamb...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks that way so far, but there's still a bunch of places in Europe
>> where the 'Lin's are boss, how the 'Stones do there will prolly determine
>> the Duc's overall success...
>
>Old George W has obviously put a tax on letters over there in the US
>of A, so for T3's tax bill sake, I'll keep it brief. It's all a case
>of whether 'i on the 'a can match the speed advantage of of the 'is
>with new boy 'r and old boy 'i. And can the 'as with champion 'n and
>wonder boy 'a catch up ? And how will the tyre battle between the 's
>and the 's and the 's resolve itself ?
>
>Cheers,
Just so you know, "George W" is the guy trying to LOWER our taxes.
Actually, he DID lower them, but the Demoncrats keep wanting to jack
them back up.
Wherever you're from, you have apparently bought into seriously
erroneous propaganda as to the state of political affairs in this
country. I'll be the first to admit he ain't perfect, and dragging us
into a land war in the middle east among all the heathens who seem to
actually WANT to live in a dictatorship is about all the proof you
need, but he's clearly not the "bad guy" on any taxation issues we
have except for those who stupidly believe the government knows better
how the money we earn should be spent than we do.
I for one don't care how many little bastards born to welfare queen
baby factories starve, I want to spend my earnings on a fuckin' big
screen HDTV to watch the races and football (the real thing, not
soccer) on...
Mark N
> any $ kept from the Taxman is a $ earned twice
Spoken like a true Republican... err... a southern Democrat, that is...
Tex
"AUS" <aus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178327496.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 11:59 pm, "pablo" <pabl...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote:
>> <roboti...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Honda winning?
> Ducati rule
LOL. Ducati don't seem to be "ruling" SBK right now, despite their usual
cheating.
Mark N
>>> <robo...@googlemail.com> wrote .
>>>> Could a Stoner championship even be considered historic?
> May the gods of racing help him instill
> some long term changes into MotoGP.
Well, that's perhaps the problem. At 58kg (127lbs), Stoner would be the
lightest premier class champion in my memory, and perhaps of all time.
Remotely recent champions Hayden, Rossi, Criville, Doohan, Schwantz,
Rainey, Lawson have all been in the "normal" 66-72kg range, so this is a
very notable change. And if Stoner wins this championship the historic
note on it might well be less Ducati's first championship and more the
watershed moment when riders ceased to be just racers and became equally
as much jockeys. I certainly thought the guy making that unfortunate
mark the the history books would be Pedrosa, and still do, but it could
end up being Stoner, I suppose...
robo...@googlemail.com
> Well, that's perhaps the problem. At 58kg (127lbs), Stoner would be the
> lightest premier class champion in my memory, and perhaps of all time.
> Remotely recent champions Hayden, Rossi, Criville, Doohan, Schwantz,
> Rainey, Lawson have all been in the "normal" 66-72kg range, so this is a
> very notable change. And if Stoner wins this championship the historic
> note on it might well be less Ducati's first championship and more the
> watershed moment when riders ceased to be just racers and became equally
> as much jockeys. I certainly thought the guy making that unfortunate
> mark the the history books would be Pedrosa, and still do, but it could
> end up being Stoner, I suppose...
Even that "normal" weight seems very light to me. I'm pretty sure I
could lift Stoner up above my head and walk around with him held up
there.
sturd
> Just so you know, "George W" is the guy trying to LOWER our taxes.
> Actually, he DID lower them, but the Demoncrats keep wanting to jack
> them back up.
Yea right. Cut taxes but spend like a drunken sailor. That's our
George. The latest in a long line of republifucks that can't use
a calculator.
And then there's the shitheads in Ohio. Who 'lowered' taxes
by eliminating corporate taxes and making a new tax that
taxes all money that changes hand between two entities.
Only exceptions - insurance companies and lawyers. So now
instead of corporations paying tax, more money is raised
(that's lower taxes?) by taxing small businesses.
Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.
DaveW
<pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote:
>> Can you still class Stoner as a rookie ... this is his 2nd season.
>
>You can, in my opinion. The guy's 21, it's his frist year on a Dicati, and
>the Ducati does not have a track record of success, with a reputation on
>stability but lazy reflexes.
Being a rookie is like being a virgin. You don't get to be one twice.
Mark N
What's really scary about all this is that the two guys who are lighter
than Stoner in MotoGP, Pedrosa (51kg) and Elias (57kg), now sit 3rd and
4th in points. That suggests the competitive edge of notably lighter
weight is already being felt. And at least the first seven guys in 250
points right now weight LESS than Stoner, so there's your future. On the
other side of the prospect spectrum, Cycle News recently reported that
there is talk of Spies doing a wildcard GP ride after the AMA season is
over, but they say, "It is also believed that he needs to lose about 10
pounds from his 165-pound frame." That translates to 75kg, so ten pounds
doesn't sound like nearly enough - and this is an extremely fit guy who,
I believe, does triathlons in his spare time.
This is very scary trend that needs to be attended to before it becomes
the ruin of GP racing. In that sense the emergence of Pedrosa could be
the worst possible development for contemporary GP - I seriously doubt
that Dorna will do anything about this issue as long as Dani is Spain's
best hope...
T3
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> T3 wrote:
>
>> any $ kept from the Taxman is a $ earned twice
>
> Spoken like a true Republican... err... a southern Democrat, that is...
Dem's, or Repug's no difference, after all, they're owned by the same
people. These days I'm split between the chaos guys and the anarchist's,
though I do still hold out hope for an all out revolution, not to mention, a
complete redistribution of wealth...
T3
"sturd" <mikestur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178371707.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Russell Watson thinks:
>
>> Just so you know, "George W" is the guy trying to LOWER our taxes.
>> Actually, he DID lower them, but the Demoncrats keep wanting to jack
>> them back up.
>
> Yea right. Cut taxes but spend like a drunken sailor. That's our
> George. The latest in a long line of republifucks that can't use
> a calculator.
There is little doubt that lyin', thievin' bastard of a President is the
worst this country has *ever* and hopefully will ever have and we've had
some real winnerz! Jeez Mike it's Saturday, don't get me started!
> And then there's the shitheads in Ohio. Who 'lowered' taxes
> by eliminating corporate taxes and making a new tax that
> taxes all money that changes hand between two entities.
> Only exceptions - insurance companies and lawyers. So now
> instead of corporations paying tax, more money is raised
> (that's lower taxes?) by taxing small businesses.
Those very same shitheads that stole the election for Georgie boi?
lolsson
> On 4 May, 16:21, "T3" <spamb...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks that way so far, but there's still a bunch of places in Europe
>> where the 'Lin's are boss, how the 'Stones do there will prolly determine
>> the Duc's overall success...
>
> Old George W has obviously put a tax on letters over there in the US
> of A, so for T3's tax bill sake, I'll keep it brief. It's all a case
> of whether 'i on the 'a can match the speed advantage of of the 'is
> with new boy 'r and old boy 'i. And can the 'as with champion 'n and
> wonder boy 'a catch up ? And how will the tyre battle between the 's
> and the 's and the 's resolve itself ?
'i is a bit of a disappointment. 'r has the edge now. I'd say 's are
still the winner's choice, because the 's seem to work only on the 'is,
while the 's are a good all around choice. You may choose 's only when
desperate for sponsor money.
Apparently they have also run out of humor in the 'ted 'tes of 'ica.
Champ
>
>"Chris Paine" <c...@ist.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1178328444.2...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On 4 May, 16:21, "T3" <spamb...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It looks that way so far, but there's still a bunch of places in Europe
>>> where the 'Lin's are boss, how the 'Stones do there will prolly determine
>>> the Duc's overall success...
>>
>> Old George W has obviously put a tax on letters over there in the US
>> of A, so for T3's tax bill sake, I'll keep it brief. It's all a case
>> of whether 'i on the 'a can match the speed advantage of of the 'is
>> with new boy 'r and old boy 'i. And can the 'as with champion 'n and
>> wonder boy 'a catch up ? And how will the tyre battle between the 's
>> and the 's and the 's resolve itself ?
>`
>
>Not sure what you were trying to say
heh. He was taking the piss out of your tendency to abbreviate words,
and especially the way you do it by dropping the *front* bit of the
word off (which I've never seen anyone else do).
But as you said to me somewhere else - he's just messing with you :-)
--
Champ
Champ
<stoner>
>Right now he's leading because Honda has had
>problems, Capirossi has had problems, Rossi has had problems, Michelin
>has had problems. If you look at the guys who finished in front of him
>last year - Hayden, Rossi, Capirossi, Melandri, Pedrosa, Roberts,
>Edwards - they've all had something not working for them this year.
>But not Casey.
But surely that's how racing works? Without wishing to re-open a long
dead argument, you could apply exactly that argument to Hayden winning
last year. Or usually, any rider winning in any year. You've just
got to have less problems than the opposition.
--
Champ
Champ
<pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote:
>>>> Could a Stoner championship even be considered historic?
>>>
>>> Without a doubt. A rookie on a bike that's never come close to winnning
>>> consistently? It would be huge.
>>>
>>> ...pablo
>>
>> Can you still class Stoner as a rookie ... this is his 2nd season.
>
>You can, in my opinion. The guy's 21...
The phrase 'rookie' is one, I believe, derived from American usage,
and, in sports terms, can only mean one's first season, surely? By
any definition, Stoner is not a rookie.
--
Champ
T3
"Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
news:m4es33t16m1ouokku...@4ax.com...
> heh. He was taking the piss out of your tendency to abbreviate words,
> and especially the way you do it by dropping the *front* bit of the
> word off (which I've never seen anyone else do).
>
> But as you said to me somewhere else - he's just messing with you :-)
I write like some people talk and if he was attempting to mess with me,
sorry, I missed it. Try again...
Karl S
> Being a rookie is like being a virgin. You don't get to be one twice.
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the news:
http://tinyurl.com/36u6o7
Mark N
I'm not going to argue to much with you, winning championships is as
much about having the right stuff in the equipment department as
anything. But that's not to say that it always works out that way. On
your point on Hayden, I totally disagree, he was having numerous
problems with that bike all year, and after four races you certainly
wouldn't have heard him sounding like Stoner is today. Casey has
basically not had a negative word about the Ducati or the Bridgestones,
and Nicky was saying things like at Jerez after finishing third, "If you
had asked me at the last test if I thought I'd be stand on the podium
this weekend, I'd have said, no way." His comments about the bike,
reading between the lines, included things like a power deficit, edge
grip problems, and a lousy clutch.
There are maybe as many as 12 or 13 guys in MotoGP who'd be winning
consistently and might win a championship if everything broke their way,
and Casey is one of those guys. Right now Bridgestone appears to have an
over edge on Michelin, and Honda seems to be behind both Yamaha and
Ducati. Capirossi is off song because of the baby, the bike doesn't seem
to suit his style so well, or he's just finally getting close to the
end, and his luck hasn't been that great as well. Rossi's had tire
problems in addition to the general slippage of the Michelins, and the
new tire rule seems to have hurt them more as well. Pedrosa isn't quite
there because of that and the bike problems, and he's had bad luck as
well. Hayden has had even more problems with the bike, and today he got
butt-fucked by a Spanish midget once again. Melandri seems to be
struggling with the Bridgestones, or he simply is having more problems
with his Honda than the factory guys. For Nakano the Honda/Michelin
switch has been a disaster. Edwards is having all of Rossi's problems
and then some, as usual. Suzuki isn't quite there, and Hopkins has a
injured wrist as well.
But there's Casey, with everything working right - visibly the most
powerful motor on top, the bike handles fine for him, the Bridgestones
grip and last, and his luck is holding. That perfection will likely
change over time, and we'll see how he reacts when it does. Four races
do not make a championship. Although the can, I suppose...
Carl Sundquist
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> There are maybe as many as 12 or 13 guys in MotoGP who'd be winning
> consistently and might win a championship if everything broke their way,
> and Casey is one of those guys. Right now Bridgestone appears to have an
> over edge on Michelin, and Honda seems to be behind both Yamaha and
> Ducati. Capirossi is off song because of the baby, the bike doesn't seem
> to suit his style so well, or he's just finally getting close to the end,
> and his luck hasn't been that great as well. Rossi's had tire problems in
> addition to the general slippage of the Michelins, and the new tire rule
> seems to have hurt them more as well. Pedrosa isn't quite there because of
> that and the bike problems, and he's had bad luck as well. Hayden has had
> even more problems with the bike, and today he got butt-fucked by a
> Spanish midget once again. Melandri seems to be struggling with the
> Bridgestones, or he simply is having more problems with his Honda than the
> factory guys. For Nakano the Honda/Michelin switch has been a disaster.
> Edwards is having all of Rossi's problems and then some, as usual. Suzuki
> isn't quite there, and Hopkins has a injured wrist as well.
12 or 13 seems a bit high. There are riders who simply don't seem to be able
to ride consistently from round to round, usually making their own errors
one way or another. Perhaps you view them amongst the bottom 1/3, but I
wouldn't be quite as generous as you regarding this subject.
You can bash me all you want for my bicycle-centric point of view, but I
hold no grudge against Capirossi. I find it odd that the speculation is that
he may be more affected by the birth of his child than the bicycle rider he
killed accidentally a few years ago. Birth is a joy. Death, especially
caused by one's hands, is tremendous sorrow. I know all about
compartmentalizing when you have a task at hand, but I don't see where a new
life takes away more focus than taking a life, even unintentionally.
Once again your bias comes into play. How does Elias's size factor into the
problems he caused?
I've been too busy with more important issues to reply to your "hater"
comment in the other thread. But if I actually hated you, why would I send
you my condolences last year when you went to Wisconsin?
Mark N
>
> "Mark N" wrote
>> consistently and might win a championship if everything broke their
>> way, and Casey is one of those guys. Right now Bridgestone appears to
>> have an over edge on Michelin, and Honda seems to be behind both
>> Yamaha and Ducati. Capirossi is off song because of the baby, the bike
>> doesn't seem to suit his style so well, or he's just finally getting
>> close to the end, and his luck hasn't been that great as well. Rossi's
>> had tire problems in addition to the general slippage of the
>> Michelins, and the new tire rule seems to have hurt them more as well.
>> Pedrosa isn't quite there because of that and the bike problems, and
>> he's had bad luck as well. Hayden has had even more problems with the
>> bike, and today he got butt-fucked by a Spanish midget once again.
>> Melandri seems to be struggling with the Bridgestones, or he simply is
>> having more problems with his Honda than the factory guys. For Nakano
>> the Honda/Michelin switch has been a disaster. Edwards is having all
>> of Rossi's problems and then some, as usual. Suzuki isn't quite there,
>> and Hopkins has a injured wrist as well.
> 12 or 13 seems a bit high. There are riders who simply don't seem to be
> able to ride consistently from round to round, usually making their own
> errors one way or another. Perhaps you view them amongst the bottom 1/3,
> but I wouldn't be quite as generous as you regarding this subject.
Well, here's my thinking on that, and I do think I miscounted. First,
you start with anyone who's won a higher-level world championship, the
logic being that they've been through the pressure cooker before, even
at a somewhat lesser level, even if they had the equipment edge at that
time. So there's Rossi, Hayden, Roberts, Capirossi, Edwards, Pedrosa,
Melandri. Then come the guys who appear to have the talent and drive,
and have been winners at some level and/or serious contenders at a
higher level - Hopkins, Stoner, Vermeulen, Nakano. That's 11, so I was a
bit high on that. The guys I really don't think could do it are the
rest - Barros, Checa, Elias, de Puniet, Jacque, Tamada, Guintoli, Hofmann.
> You can bash me all you want for my bicycle-centric point of view, but I
> hold no grudge against Capirossi. I find it odd that the speculation is
> that he may be more affected by the birth of his child than the bicycle
> rider he killed accidentally a few years ago. Birth is a joy. Death,
> especially caused by one's hands, is tremendous sorrow. I know all about
> compartmentalizing when you have a task at hand, but I don't see where a
> new life takes away more focus than taking a life, even unintentionally.
It's all about timing, and his wife being pregnant with their first
child, combined with what is reported to be the decision to make this
his last year, may have impacted him in terms of the total focus on
maximum speed. We've seen 30-something family men lose their edge
before. But who knows.
> Once again your bias comes into play. How does Elias's size factor into
> the problems he caused?
I doubt it does, and I didn't say it did. But it's kind of odd that
Hayden has been hit from behind and seriously impacted in two of the
last six races by young, tiny, recent 250 Spanish graduates on other
Hondas. And Elias has now done this to defending world champions two
years in a row. Maybe this has something to do with a 125/250 GP ridings
style that doesn't fit a 350lbs+ bike, or maybe somehow it's where the
lack of physical strength factors in, who knows.
And I DO have a bias against these guys, if you insist on calling it
that. I've detailed the trend that I see in GP elsewhere, and it's
pretty obvious why I think this is a bad deal, it not only turns riders
into sideshow freaks, but the only ones who can get there will come
through the JIS-dominated supporting classes, the ones that now seem to
essentially eliminate anyone over 60kg. You don't care, that's your
call, but I do. And what frustrates me is that they can eliminate the
problem with a simple rules tweak, establish some sort of package
minimum in both 250 and MotoGP. But that simply won't happen, and for
the most part Eurojournalists don't even talk about the problem, from
what I can see. From my view it's a lot like the Eurodenial of the rules
problems involving twins in WSB in the mid-late '90s, which in my view
had a lot to do with WSB's near death.
> I've been too busy with more important issues to reply to your "hater"
> comment in the other thread. But if I actually hated you, why would I
> send you my condolences last year when you went to Wisconsin?
I really don't have any idea what motivates you, Carl, maybe it was
because you wanted to show you're the better man or something? You can
become quite the attack dog when something gets your back up, and you
don't pull many punches. You call me a racist, and you know almost
nothing about me. I will guarantee you I'm not some politically-correct
bleeding heart, but I try to view things as they are and don't sit in
some big house in the suburbs talking indignantly about how Imus should
have been fired immediately. What I am, keeping this somewhat on topic,
is someone who hasn't been an AMA member in nearly 20 years because I
don't support their efforts to open up undeveloped areas to off-road
motorcycles and ATVs. Those areas need to be defended; the Spaniards in
GP don't need any help.
But maybe you're such a Europhile that you can't even see straight? For
some reason I can't think of you and not also think of the movie
"Breaking Away"...
T3
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ra6dnQVKZd8rBaPb...@giganews.com...
> do not make a championship. Although the can, I suppose...
Btw, good call on the top 3. I was somewhat surprised Vale and the
Michelin's could hang with Stoner to the end..
Did you watch the SSport race yesterday? Great "salute" Rog gave Davies,
huh?
Champ
<menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>Champ wrote:
>> On 4 May 2007 16:25:09 -0700, Mark N <menu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Right now he's leading because Honda has had
>>> problems, Capirossi has had problems, Rossi has had problems, Michelin
>>> has had problems. If you look at the guys who finished in front of him
>>> last year - Hayden, Rossi, Capirossi, Melandri, Pedrosa, Roberts,
>>> Edwards - they've all had something not working for them this year.
>>> But not Casey.
>
>> But surely that's how racing works? Without wishing to re-open a long
>> dead argument, you could apply exactly that argument to Hayden winning
>> last year. Or usually, any rider winning in any year. You've just
>> got to have less problems than the opposition.
>
>I'm not going to argue to much with you, winning championships is as
>much about having the right stuff in the equipment department as
>anything. But that's not to say that it always works out that way. On
>your point on Hayden, I totally disagree, he was having numerous
>problems with that bike all year, and after four races you certainly
>wouldn't have heard him sounding like Stoner is today.
But, demonstrably, less problems than everyone else. Which was my
point.
>There are maybe as many as 12 or 13 guys in MotoGP who'd be winning
>consistently and might win a championship if everything broke their way,
>and Casey is one of those guys. Right now Bridgestone appears to have an
>over edge on Michelin, and Honda seems to be behind both Yamaha and
>Ducati. Capirossi is off song because of the baby, the bike doesn't seem
>to suit his style so well, or he's just finally getting close to the
>end, and his luck hasn't been that great as well. Rossi's had tire
>problems in addition to the general slippage of the Michelins, and the
>new tire rule seems to have hurt them more as well. Pedrosa isn't quite
>there because of that and the bike problems, and he's had bad luck as
>well. Hayden has had even more problems with the bike, and today he got
>butt-fucked by a Spanish midget once again. Melandri seems to be
>struggling with the Bridgestones, or he simply is having more problems
>with his Honda than the factory guys. For Nakano the Honda/Michelin
>switch has been a disaster. Edwards is having all of Rossi's problems
>and then some, as usual. Suzuki isn't quite there, and Hopkins has a
>injured wrist as well.
I think this paragraph pretty much states my case.
>But there's Casey, with everything working right - visibly the most
>powerful motor on top, the bike handles fine for him, the Bridgestones
>grip and last, and his luck is holding.
Casey only looks like everything is perfect because he and his team
are doing a better job than everyone else. If he was finishing 4th,
at the same speed, we'd hear lots of complaints. The only way you
measure yourself in racing is by results. Right now, they are near
"perfect", as there's no other measure to use.
--
Champ
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>> Champ wrote:
>>> But surely that's how racing works? Without wishing to re-open a long
>>> dead argument, you could apply exactly that argument to Hayden winning
>>> last year. Or usually, any rider winning in any year. You've just
>>> got to have less problems than the opposition.
>> I'm not going to argue to much with you, winning championships is as
>> much about having the right stuff in the equipment department as
>> anything. But that's not to say that it always works out that way. On
>> your point on Hayden, I totally disagree, he was having numerous
>> problems with that bike all year, and after four races you certainly
>> wouldn't have heard him sounding like Stoner is today.
> But, demonstrably, less problems than everyone else. Which was my
> point.
That's very debatable, and quite subjective. For instance, last year I
went through a race-by-race breakdown of machine issues and what that
might have cost both Hayden and Rossi in points, and made the case that
his problems may have cost Hayden more in total, although it was a
Chinese water torture-style drip-by-drip deal. A lot of people focus on
the Catalunya injuries to Capirossi and Melandri, but what did that
really cost them? Melandri followed that round with 7th at Assen and a
fighting 3rd at Donington, so not all that much, and Capirossi has to
take some of the blame for the accident, plus the following rounds where
he struggled were likely to be poor ones for Bridgestone anyway. And
Rossi caused his own injury at Assen, which didn't end up costing him
all that much.
>> There are maybe as many as 12 or 13 guys in MotoGP who'd be winning
>> consistently and might win a championship if everything broke their way,
>> and Casey is one of those guys. <snip>
> I think this paragraph pretty much states my case.
What I think it shows is how many guys are having material problems in
this transitional year. Except Stoner.
>> But there's Casey, with everything working right - visibly the most
>> powerful motor on top, the bike handles fine for him, the Bridgestones
>> grip and last, and his luck is holding.
> Casey only looks like everything is perfect because he and his team
> are doing a better job than everyone else. If he was finishing 4th,
> at the same speed, we'd hear lots of complaints. The only way you
> measure yourself in racing is by results. Right now, they are near
> "perfect", as there's no other measure to use.
And I don't agree, I don't know that he and his team are doing anything
better than some of the others are. You can't say Rossi lost this race
because of his error in trying to pass Casey, that's just too
simplistic, you have to look at the details and what he was up against
in terms of a speed deficit. You can't say Casey & team are responsible
for the capabilities of the Ducati and Bridgestones, as Stoner had
little or no input into the development of that equipment, he was off
racing a Honda on Michelins with other guys last year. You make it sound
like everyone is starting at the same point and whoever ends up on top
did the best job. That's simply not reality.
sturd
> Those very same shitheads that stole the election for Georgie boi?
Actually, incredibly, the election was stolen by incompetent
elections officials in Cleveland, democrap homeland. Yea,
the top bosses were republifucks but the guys pulling the levers
that screwed it up were local officials.
Just my read but I've been watching closely.
sturd
>What I am, keeping this somewhat on topic,
> is someone who hasn't been an AMA member in nearly 20 years because I
> don't support their efforts to open up undeveloped areas to off-road
> motorcycles and ATVs.
Which is in no way AMA policy. You've proven once again that
you don't let facts get in the way of your position.
Champ
<menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>> Casey only looks like everything is perfect because he and his team
>> are doing a better job than everyone else. If he was finishing 4th,
>> at the same speed, we'd hear lots of complaints. The only way you
>> measure yourself in racing is by results. Right now, they are near
>> "perfect", as there's no other measure to use.
>
>And I don't agree, I don't know that he and his team are doing anything
>better than some of the others are. You can't say Rossi lost this race
>because of his error in trying to pass Casey, that's just too
>simplistic, you have to look at the details and what he was up against
>in terms of a speed deficit. You can't say Casey & team are responsible
>for the capabilities of the Ducati and Bridgestones, as Stoner had
>little or no input into the development of that equipment, he was off
>racing a Honda on Michelins with other guys last year. You make it sound
>like everyone is starting at the same point and whoever ends up on top
>did the best job. That's simply not reality.
Sorry, when I said "<Casey> and his team", I meant the whole factory,
not just the guys who go to the races. Ducati have done a better job
than the rest, at this point of the season.
--
Champ
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
> >better than some of the others are. You can't say Rossi lost this race
> >because of his error in trying to pass Casey, that's just too
> >simplistic, you have to look at the details and what he was up against
> >in terms of a speed deficit. You can't say Casey & team are responsible
> >for the capabilities of the Ducati and Bridgestones, as Stoner had
> >little or no input into the development of that equipment, he was off
> >racing a Honda on Michelins with other guys last year. You make it sound
> >like everyone is starting at the same point and whoever ends up on top
> >did the best job. That's simply not reality.
> Sorry, when I said "<Casey> and his team", I meant the whole factory,
> not just the guys who go to the races. Ducati have done a better job
> than the rest, at this point of the season.
That I'd agree with. Although it's a little odd that the bike seems to
work better for the new guy than their #1 guy who's been there from
the beginning. And you can't give Ducati credit for what Bridgestone
is doing, although they do deserve the credit for deciding to make
that move after the 2004 season. I thought it was a very good decision
at the time, and probably not as risky as some thought. Although it
was something of an open consession that they didn't think they could
beat Honda and Yamaha straight up, on the same tires.
Chris Paine
> Apparently they have also run out of humor in the 'ted 'tes of 'ica.
Yet more evidence that we are two countries separated by a common
language. Of course it was an attempt at humour (admittedly a poor
attempt - I blame posting after being at my local beer festival). How
any one could take it as an attack on their countries political system
is beyond me.
Cheers,
--
Chris Paine <c...@ist.co.uk>
"I'm happy, I'm happy, I'm happy ...
and I'll punch the man who says I'm not."
Carl Sundquist
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
>
>> 12 or 13 seems a bit high. There are riders who simply don't seem to be
>> able to ride consistently from round to round, usually making their own
>> errors one way or another. Perhaps you view them amongst the bottom 1/3,
>> but I wouldn't be quite as generous as you regarding this subject.
>
> Well, here's my thinking on that, and I do think I miscounted. First, you
> start with anyone who's won a higher-level world championship, the logic
> being that they've been through the pressure cooker before, even at a
> somewhat lesser level, even if they had the equipment edge at that time.
> So there's Rossi, Hayden, Roberts, Capirossi, Edwards, Pedrosa, Melandri.
> Then come the guys who appear to have the talent and drive, and have been
> winners at some level and/or serious contenders at a higher level -
> Hopkins, Stoner, Vermeulen, Nakano. That's 11, so I was a bit high on
> that. The guys I really don't think could do it are the rest - Barros,
> Checa, Elias, de Puniet, Jacque, Tamada, Guintoli, Hofmann.
It's called an opinion for a reason, but despite his 125/250 success, I
still don't see Capirossi as consistent enough for a MGP championship. We've
gone around on this one before, but that's my opinion. Hopkins and Stoner
have yet to show the needed consistency as well, at least from a podium
level standpoint. For Nokano, I just don't see it. The body of work
(success) doesn't seem to be there over the long haul.
>
>> You can bash me all you want for my bicycle-centric point of view, but I
>> hold no grudge against Capirossi. I find it odd that the speculation is
>> that he may be more affected by the birth of his child than the bicycle
>> rider he killed accidentally a few years ago. Birth is a joy. Death,
>> especially caused by one's hands, is tremendous sorrow. I know all about
>> compartmentalizing when you have a task at hand, but I don't see where a
>> new life takes away more focus than taking a life, even unintentionally.
>
> It's all about timing, and his wife being pregnant with their first child,
> combined with what is reported to be the decision to make this his last
> year, may have impacted him in terms of the total focus on maximum speed.
> We've seen 30-something family men lose their edge before. But who knows.
You're right; who knows. It could be that once you (Capirossi) give yourself
a finite point of retirement you begin to mail it in, bit by bit.
>
>> Once again your bias comes into play. How does Elias's size factor into
>> the problems he caused?
>
> I doubt it does, and I didn't say it did. But it's kind of odd that Hayden
> has been hit from behind and seriously impacted in two of the last six
> races by young, tiny, recent 250 Spanish graduates on other Hondas. And
> Elias has now done this to defending world champions two years in a row.
> Maybe this has something to do with a 125/250 GP ridings style that
> doesn't fit a 350lbs+ bike, or maybe somehow it's where the lack of
> physical strength factors in, who knows.
Mark, I say this in all sense of being reasonable: you have complained that
I am too literal, but when you refer to Elias as a midget in a reference
where he had culpability in a racing incident, you want me _not_ to read
between the lines.
However, look what you've gone and done. Adding weight to the bikes to
minimize smaller riders' advantage only serves to accentuate any lack of
physical strength, which in turn means the smaller riders may have even less
strength to control the bike.
>
> And I DO have a bias against these guys, if you insist on calling it that.
> I've detailed the trend that I see in GP elsewhere, and it's pretty
> obvious why I think this is a bad deal, it not only turns riders into
> sideshow freaks, but the only ones who can get there will come through the
> JIS-dominated supporting classes, the ones that now seem to essentially
> eliminate anyone over 60kg. You don't care, that's your call, but I do.
I think a bigger problem is that there is no AMA prototype class. You can
argue that it's obsolete to race 125s and 250s, but when Dorna and the FIM
eventually figure out the formulas and mandate 4 stroke development
classes, will the AMA jump on the bandwagon?
> And what frustrates me is that they can eliminate the problem with a
> simple rules tweak, establish some sort of package minimum in both 250 and
> MotoGP.
See my above comments on added weight.
>
>> I've been too busy with more important issues to reply to your "hater"
>> comment in the other thread. But if I actually hated you, why would I
>> send you my condolences last year when you went to Wisconsin?
>
> I really don't have any idea what motivates you, Carl, maybe it was
> because you wanted to show you're the better man or something? You can
> become quite the attack dog when something gets your back up, and you
> don't pull many punches. You call me a racist, and you know almost nothing
> about me.
You're right, Mark. I know almost nothing about you, so I have to evaluate
you on what you have provided in this forum.
I will guarantee you I'm not some politically-correct bleeding
> heart, but I try to view things as they are and don't sit in some big
> house in the suburbs talking indignantly about how Imus should have been
> fired immediately. What I am, keeping this somewhat on topic, is someone
> who hasn't been an AMA member in nearly 20 years because I don't support
> their efforts to open up undeveloped areas to off-road motorcycles and
> ATVs. Those areas need to be defended; the Spaniards in GP don't need any
> help.
>
> But maybe you're such a Europhile that you can't even see straight? For
> some reason I can't think of you and not also think of the movie "Breaking
> Away"...
Too bad you couldn't have seen me numerous times flying in the Charles du
Gaulle airport, feeling "Euro-ed out" and wishing I could just turn around
and catch the next flight back to the east coast. Or times when the French
teams would leave the hotel after a race and we would stay after for a few
days until we traveled to the next race and the hotel operator would shut
off the heat. All too frequent ice cold showers in some small town school
after races. Washing clothes in the sink and having to let them drip dry so
you could wear them again, occasionally damp, the next day. The former US
airbase at Sembach in Germany was a haven for us. I'm not knocking the
French or Germans; for all I know, that's how all foreigners were treated,
Euro or not. I'm not looking for pity; those were the more or less accepted
routines. Club Med it wasn't.
Mark N
> "Mark N" wrote
>> Well, here's my thinking on that, and I do think I miscounted. First, you
>> start with anyone who's won a higher-level world championship, the logic
>> being that they've been through the pressure cooker before, even at a
>> somewhat lesser level, even if they had the equipment edge at that time.
>> So there's Rossi, Hayden, Roberts, Capirossi, Edwards, Pedrosa, Melandri.
>> Then come the guys who appear to have the talent and drive, and have been
>> winners at some level and/or serious contenders at a higher level -
>> Hopkins, Stoner, Vermeulen, Nakano. That's 11, so I was a bit high on
>> that. The guys I really don't think could do it are the rest - Barros,
>> Checa, Elias, de Puniet, Jacque, Tamada, Guintoli, Hofmann.
> It's called an opinion for a reason, but despite his 125/250 success, I
> still don't see Capirossi as consistent enough for a MGP championship.
> We've gone around on this one before, but that's my opinion. Hopkins and
> Stoner have yet to show the needed consistency as well, at least from a
> podium level standpoint. For Nokano, I just don't see it. The body of
> work (success) doesn't seem to be there over the long haul.
Right, it's just an opinion, but remember that we're talking about a
scenario where the guy has a notable equipment edge over everyone else,
the kind of situation that Stoner has been in so far this year (another
opinion, I suppose). The game becomes a little different then. I don't
have any doubt about Capirossi; he came so close to being champion last
year and he's pretty much delivered every time the Bridgestones gave him
an edge. Hopkins and Stoner, I would agree that my opinion would have
been the same as yours prior to this season, but watching them out there
the last couple races has me believing they're reaching a level of
maturity that can take them to the next level. That's not to say we
won't see them in the dirt again this season, of course. The guys I had
the most doubt about including were actually Nakano and Vermeulen, and
my doubts about Shinya are probably in part a byproduct of his horrible
start this year. For Chris V, it's more a matter of having just gotten
started in MotoGP and not yet having a real opportunity to show what he
can do. But he shows lots of signs, even with the kind of luck he's had
the last couple races.
>>> Once again your bias comes into play. How does Elias's size factor into
>>> the problems he caused?
>> I doubt it does, and I didn't say it did. But it's kind of odd that
>> Hayden
>> has been hit from behind and seriously impacted in two of the last six
>> races by young, tiny, recent 250 Spanish graduates on other Hondas. And
>> Elias has now done this to defending world champions two years in a row.
>> Maybe this has something to do with a 125/250 GP ridings style that
>> doesn't fit a 350lbs+ bike, or maybe somehow it's where the lack of
>> physical strength factors in, who knows.
> Mark, I say this in all sense of being reasonable: you have complained
> that I am too literal, but when you refer to Elias as a midget in a
> reference where he had culpability in a racing incident, you want me
> _not_ to read between the lines.
I call them midgets to emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of
hard to tell when you look at them on TV or see pictures. But when you
see that the top seven guys in 250 (prior to Shanghai) are under 125
pounds, that's amazingly small. Any of them could go on to be MotoGP
champion, and they'd probably be the smallest guy to ever win a premier
class championship. There is something so obviously wrong with that
picture, isn't there?
> However, look what you've gone and done. Adding weight to the bikes to
> minimize smaller riders' advantage only serves to accentuate any lack of
> physical strength, which in turn means the smaller riders may have even
> less strength to control the bike.
Exactly. Which shows that they probably aren't really the best riders in
the world, rather they only are appearing to do so well now because they
have a package weight advantage that is very significant, the bikes have
been designed for guys with their riding style, the electronics allow
them to deal with these powerful machines, and they have the usual
inside track on circuit knowledge, etc. GP is running an assembly line
for freaks, and I don't like it.
>> And I DO have a bias against these guys, if you insist on calling it
>> that.
>> I've detailed the trend that I see in GP elsewhere, and it's pretty
>> obvious why I think this is a bad deal, it not only turns riders into
>> sideshow freaks, but the only ones who can get there will come through
>> the
>> JIS-dominated supporting classes, the ones that now seem to essentially
>> eliminate anyone over 60kg. You don't care, that's your call, but I do.
> I think a bigger problem is that there is no AMA prototype class. You
> can argue that it's obsolete to race 125s and 250s, but when Dorna and
> the FIM eventually figure out the formulas and mandate 4 stroke
> development classes, will the AMA jump on the bandwagon?
If the bikes are cheap enough, there is an equivalent street class that
starts to develop, and the Japanese factories are involved, probably.
But if the bikes are all made by Aprilia, KTM and the like, and it's
just a four-stroke version of 125/250then probably not. Does it matter
in the end? I doubt it, if the FIM doesn't put a package minimum weight
on the new class and the series doesn't find a way to break out of its
JIS mold. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing about riding a 250
that should prepare one for MotoGP, SBs should be just as good. The
problem is, the AMA series develops a guy like Spies, who, aside from
being American, is 30, 40, maybe 50 pounds too heavy for what GP is
looking for today. And they are really only looking for that because
that's what 250s breed. Vicious circle of sorts.
What is hopeful is that the GP powers are actually talking about 600s,
and that's a whole different ballgame. Almost all of the top AMA SB
stars came up through 600s, so that doesn't foster a different breed. If
Dorna really wants to grow the series and make it a true world
championship, there could hardly be a better step they could take.
Howard Kveck
Mark N <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
> > "Mark N" wrote
> > Mark, I say this in all sense of being reasonable: you have complained
> > that I am too literal, but when you refer to Elias as a midget in a
> > reference where he had culpability in a racing incident, you want me
> > _not_ to read between the lines.
>
> I call them midgets to emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of
> hard to tell when you look at them on TV or see pictures. But when you
> see that the top seven guys in 250 (prior to Shanghai) are under 125
> pounds, that's amazingly small. Any of them could go on to be MotoGP
> champion, and they'd probably be the smallest guy to ever win a premier
> class championship. There is something so obviously wrong with that
> picture, isn't there?
No, there *isn't* something so obviously wrong with that. Just look
at what you wrote at the begining of that graf: "I call them midgets to
emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of hard to tell when you
look at them on TV or see pictures." If it's hard to tell that they're
some size or the other, why are you getting so worked up over it?
They're guys on motorcycles, going around very fast - who really cares
how big they are?
> > However, look what you've gone and done. Adding weight to the bikes to
> > minimize smaller riders' advantage only serves to accentuate any lack of
> > physical strength, which in turn means the smaller riders may have even
> > less strength to control the bike.
>
> Exactly. Which shows that they probably aren't really the best riders in
> the world, rather they only are appearing to do so well now because they
> have a package weight advantage that is very significant, the bikes have
> been designed for guys with their riding style, the electronics allow
> them to deal with these powerful machines, and they have the usual
> inside track on circuit knowledge, etc. GP is running an assembly line
> for freaks, and I don't like it.
Okay, perhaps we're getting someways toward understanding your issues
with it here. But in trying to solve the "problem" of a small, light
rider being on a bike of equal weight as a bigger rider by adding weight
until the overall "package" weight is the same, you handicap that
smaller rider. He won't be as strong as the bigger rider and that could
lead to him being less competitive (or unsafe). So your scheme for
making things equal makes things unequal in a different way. The
solution would be to only allow riders of a certain size and weight to
race - kind of like having one of those "you must be this tall to ride
this ride" signs at Disneyland. But what happens when a bigger, heavier
rider comes along? Does everyone have to add weight until that guy is
"equal" too?
> What is hopeful is that the GP powers are actually talking about 600s,
> and that's a whole different ballgame. Almost all of the top AMA SB
> stars came up through 600s, so that doesn't foster a different breed. If
> Dorna really wants to grow the series and make it a true world
> championship, there could hardly be a better step they could take.
You say that you think Dorna should be trying to grow the sport. In
what way? More spectators? Most of the races are packed - the obvious
exceptions are the ones that are at places that don't have a great
economy (Sepang, Shanghai, etc.). It isn't that the public aren't
interested in the races, they can't afford to get in. Do you mean grow
the sport by having more bikes on the grid? That's a function of money,
again.
As far as making it a "true world championship" gaoes, anyone is
welcome to participate in MotoGP and the 125 and 250 classes. The fact
that there is't a lot of racing of those classes in areas other than in
Europe (and Japan) isn't the fault of Dorna. Take America as an example:
the AMA wasn't interested in those classes and made it obvious that that
was the case. It sounds like your idea of a "true world championship" is
one that caters to the American model.
p.s. If you're out there reading this in creepy internet stalker dude
mode: Hi Tommy!
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Julian Bond
> As far as making it a "true world championship" gaoes, anyone is
>welcome to participate in MotoGP and the 125 and 250 classes. The fact
>that there is't a lot of racing of those classes in areas other than in
>Europe (and Japan) isn't the fault of Dorna. Take America as an example:
>the AMA wasn't interested in those classes and made it obvious that that
>was the case. It sounds like your idea of a "true world championship" is
>one that caters to the American model.
The talk about Indianapolis has included talk about having 125GP and
250GP races. Laguna not having them may have as much to do with Laguna's
noise problems and wanting to have AMA races there.
Still think that's a damn shame as I'd love to have seen the 125s going
down the Corkscrew.
--
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 ***
Champ
<YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> No, there *isn't* something so obviously wrong with that. Just look
>at what you wrote at the begining of that graf: "I call them midgets to
>emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of hard to tell when you
>look at them on TV or see pictures." If it's hard to tell that they're
>some size or the other, why are you getting so worked up over it?
>They're guys on motorcycles, going around very fast - who really cares
>how big they are?
>
>> > However, look what you've gone and done. Adding weight to the bikes to
>> > minimize smaller riders' advantage only serves to accentuate any lack of
>> > physical strength, which in turn means the smaller riders may have even
>> > less strength to control the bike.
Should short basketball players get to wear platform shoes? Should
skinny marathon runners have to carry a weight belt?
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>> I call them midgets to emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of
>> hard to tell when you look at them on TV or see pictures. But when you
>> see that the top seven guys in 250 (prior to Shanghai) are under 125
>> pounds, that's amazingly small. Any of them could go on to be MotoGP
>> champion, and they'd probably be the smallest guy to ever win a premier
>> class championship. There is something so obviously wrong with that
>> picture, isn't there?
> No, there *isn't* something so obviously wrong with that. Just look
> at what you wrote at the begining of that graf: "I call them midgets to
> emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of hard to tell when you
> look at them on TV or see pictures." If it's hard to tell that they're
> some size or the other, why are you getting so worked up over it?
> They're guys on motorcycles, going around very fast - who really cares
> how big they are?
Uh, anyone who wants to see the very best riders in the top series?
Anyone who wants it to be about the riders and not just the bikes?
>> Exactly. Which shows that they probably aren't really the best riders in
>> the world, rather they only are appearing to do so well now because they
>> have a package weight advantage that is very significant, the bikes have
>> been designed for guys with their riding style, the electronics allow
>> them to deal with these powerful machines, and they have the usual
>> inside track on circuit knowledge, etc. GP is running an assembly line
>> for freaks, and I don't like it.
> Okay, perhaps we're getting someways toward understanding your issues
> with it here. But in trying to solve the "problem" of a small, light
> rider being on a bike of equal weight as a bigger rider by adding weight
> until the overall "package" weight is the same, you handicap that
> smaller rider.
No, you don't. You make that rider perform without a weight advantage.
If he can't deal with it, he's not as good.
He won't be as strong as the bigger rider and that could
> lead to him being less competitive (or unsafe). So your scheme for
> making things equal makes things unequal in a different way. The
> solution would be to only allow riders of a certain size and weight to
> race - kind of like having one of those "you must be this tall to ride
> this ride" signs at Disneyland. But what happens when a bigger, heavier
> rider comes along? Does everyone have to add weight until that guy is
> "equal" too?
You are correct that they can't come up with a rule that balances out
truly larger riders, it just won't work. And I don't necessarily
advocate a rule as simple as a minimum weight for the combined rider and
machine. But my thinking on the whole thing works this way: Every
500/MotoGP champion in at least the last quarter century or so weighed
in somewhere in the range of 65-73kg, so let's call that an optimal
size. My guess is that almost every WSB and AMA SB champion fell in that
same range as well. So why are we seeing this migration to a smaller
size? Well, now we are in a time when the primary source of riders
coming in are from 250, and most of them started in 125. That's never
been the case before. The 125 class DOES have a package weigh minimum,
because the people running the series saw how rider weight was damaging
the class and damaging riders, starving themselves to get an edge. But
that minimum still drives the class toward smaller riders, and there is
no minimum in 250. So now we have a 250 class that has the smallest
riders ever. Are those guys the best? No, they just are small enough and
light enough that they have a sufficient edge to beat larger, more
talented riders. The trend gets ingrained and everyone is looking for
very small riders, guys are getting pushed out of the picture on size alone.
Now that's rolling into MotoGP, where the preferences of 250-bred riders
in the top seats fore the last decade and the advanced electronics
have formed machines that these little guys can control sufficiently
that their size once again may give them an edge. That issue certainly
is a matter of debate still, but there's no debating the trend. A big
part of that trend is that a significant potential MotoGP rider base
have to pass through the filter of 250, which favors much smaller
riders. In contemporary times anyone in 250 GP has an edge in the door
anyway, so that problem is magnified.
So let's say the rules are changed to add weight to the minimum for any
bike that has a rider under 65kg, to bring the weight of the rider and
the ballast up to 65k. Any rider over that just has to deal with the
additional weight. The little guys get to add the weight wherever they
want on the bike, so they can optimize that to a great degree,
potentially even make that weight dynamic. There is nothing that makes
the smaller guys physically larger, so they still have whatever
advantages that creates, mostly aerodynamics. What would be so horrible
about that? How would that be penalizing the little guys?
The end of the spectrum on this is jockeys. They are so small because
the intent is to put the lightest possible load on the horses, which
helps them to run faster. Then of course the racing is all about the
horses. Bikes won't get that far, but do you want the sport heading in
that direction? And are jockeys the very best riders? I doubt it,
they're just the lightest ones. Doesn't matter what kind of riding
talent you have, if you weigh 150 pounds you're out.
>> What is hopeful is that the GP powers are actually talking about 600s,
>> and that's a whole different ballgame. Almost all of the top AMA SB
>> stars came up through 600s, so that doesn't foster a different breed. If
>> Dorna really wants to grow the series and make it a true world
>> championship, there could hardly be a better step they could take.
> You say that you think Dorna should be trying to grow the sport. In
> what way? More spectators? Most of the races are packed - the obvious
> exceptions are the ones that are at places that don't have a great
> economy (Sepang, Shanghai, etc.). It isn't that the public aren't
> interested in the races, they can't afford to get in. Do you mean grow
> the sport by having more bikes on the grid? That's a function of money,
> again.
If you want to boil it down to one word, it's television. That brings in
the real money, and the sponsors, and we don't need to be talking about
full grids anymore. We also don't need to be talking about Spanish
sponsors and their preference for Spanish riders, or tobacco money, or
lots of problems that threaten GP racing. And the growth of GP will
filter down to other series, if interest in GP takes off, we'll see
larger crowds at WB, BSB and AMA races, and more television for them.
Grow the sport.
> As far as making it a "true world championship" gaoes, anyone is
> welcome to participate in MotoGP and the 125 and 250 classes. The fact
> that there is't a lot of racing of those classes in areas other than in
> Europe (and Japan) isn't the fault of Dorna. Take America as an example:
> the AMA wasn't interested in those classes and made it obvious that that
> was the case. It sounds like your idea of a "true world championship" is
> one that caters to the American model.
The interest in small two stokes seems to mostly be focused in Italy and
Spain, and those two countries along with the manufacturers there really
drive those two classes. Those bikes are dying outside of that arena,
and everyone knows their days are numbered. And racing 450 and 250 twins
and singles that are four strokes isn't all that different, it's basing
the racing on a foundation on street motorcycles that's 50 years old and
long gone now. The AMA didn't really kill 250, it died a quite natural
death, and 125 never had much of a place here. Pretty much the rest of
racing, WSB, AMA, BSB, other national series, uses a different model
entirely, SBs as the premier class, 600SS as the top supporting class,
and less modified 1000s and 600s beyond that, even if they do still make
some room for 125s and 250s. They don't rely on bikes that are properly
sized for children (and in the case of GP, ridden by children).
GP made a huge step in switching from 500s to 990 four strokes, and
without that I think GP would be pretty much dead today. Now they have
to finish the job, get rid of 250 and 125, replace them with classes
that don't produce a distorted rider base and do have some commonality
with the rest of the racing world. Dorna definitely wants to grow the
sport and has a clue what they have to do to do that, that's why they
try to make spots for riders from various countries and that's why they
are now very open to pushing the sport in America as well as places like
China and India. The problem seems to be that they are stuck in the
mindset of their homeland, and don't want to rock the boat much with
that loyal base. But catering to them had GP headed for its deathbed a
decade ago, and there's no guarantee that it couldn't head that way
again. I'm fairly pro-Dorna, but I think they're treading in dangerous
waters now and need to make some changes quickly. I'm not optimistic
that they will.
[In what sounds like kind of an odd move, they do seem to be headed
toward making a separate paddock for MotoGP, that's one of the things
coming out of the sponsorship summit. May not sound like much, but it
shows that they know MotoGP is the key, and they are willing to somewhat
marginalize 125 and 250 to benefit MotoGP. It's apparently got the
125/250 teams royally pissed off.]
But if you want to continue spewing that tired, old Euro-line, hiding
your head in the sand, making pro-America accusations to disarm my
argument, be my guest, it's not like you're alone around here...
Carl Sundquist
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> So let's say the rules are changed to add weight to the minimum for any
> bike that has a rider under 65kg, to bring the weight of the rider and the
> ballast up to 65k. Any rider over that just has to deal with the
> additional weight. The little guys get to add the weight wherever they
> want on the bike, so they can optimize that to a great degree, potentially
> even make that weight dynamic. There is nothing that makes the smaller
> guys physically larger, so they still have whatever advantages that
> creates, mostly aerodynamics. What would be so horrible about that? How
> would that be penalizing the little guys?
There already is a small rider penalty in the form of minimum weight.
Relative to their own size, the bike is a greater % of total weight.
Generally, I'm not enamored with adding weight to "even things up", but your
suggestion of dynamic weight is an interesting one.
Although it will never happen, the issue could be eliminated by making the
bikes generally harder to ride, like the 500s without traction control.
Mick
> The talk about Indianapolis has included talk about having 125GP and
> 250GP races. Laguna not having them may have as much to do with Laguna's
> noise problems and wanting to have AMA races there.
>
> Still think that's a damn shame as I'd love to have seen the 125s going
> down the Corkscrew.
Noise restrictions aren't the problem at Laguna, once they designate one
of their 5 "noise" events for a race weekend, it doesn't matter how many
classes are run that are above the noise limit. The AMA classes are all
above the regular noise limit at Laguna, which is 92db.
As for the reasons that the 125cc & 250cc classes don't come to Laguna
is that it saves the teams in those classes the cost of coming to the
states. I also believe that the AMA pushed to be part of the weekend for
the exposure and the fact that up till this year, it was the only date
the AMA could be a part of. That changed and Laguna will host another
weekend of AMA races this year in September which will be the final
round on the AMA schedule. We'll see what the future holds and whether
the AMA continue to be a part of the MotoGP weekend.
I loved it when the full GP circus came in to race at Laguna in the late
80's and early 90's. Of course there weren't any 4 strokes involved then
with the MotoGP class. I do miss the morning wake up of the smell of
two-stroke racing out on a corner. It'll be interesting to see if the
somewhat near future holds foor-strokes for all classes.
--
Mick aka MotoMania
motomick at sbcgobal dot net
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in a pretty and well preserved body -- but rather to skid in
broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming
-- WOW, WHAT A RIDE!!" - Author : Unknown
Mark N
> Julian Bond wrote:
>> The talk about Indianapolis has included talk about having 125GP and
>> 250GP races. Laguna not having them may have as much to do with
>> Laguna's noise problems and wanting to have AMA races there.
>>
>> Still think that's a damn shame as I'd love to have seen the 125s
>> going down the Corkscrew.
> Noise restrictions aren't the problem at Laguna, once they designate one
> of their 5 "noise" events for a race weekend, it doesn't matter how many
> classes are run that are above the noise limit. The AMA classes are all
> above the regular noise limit at Laguna, which is 92db.
>
> As for the reasons that the 125cc & 250cc classes don't come to Laguna
> is that it saves the teams in those classes the cost of coming to the
> states. I also believe that the AMA pushed to be part of the weekend for
> the exposure and the fact that up till this year, it was the only date
> the AMA could be a part of. That changed and Laguna will host another
> weekend of AMA races this year in September which will be the final
> round on the AMA schedule. We'll see what the future holds and whether
> the AMA continue to be a part of the MotoGP weekend.
The cost savings relative to including 250 and 125 falls on the
promoters and not so much the teams, so that's a savings the promoters
wanted to realize, given the economics of the race. They also wanted to
have the AMA at the event, given the past history of the combined
WSB/AMA round, and the interest level in 125/250 at the prior GPs. So
even with a separate round, there's no reason to believe that they would
want to switch, I almost can't imagine it.
Who knows what Indy might do, but I have some doubt that they'd want to
do the full GP thing either. What I'd think would be their ideal is to
have MotoGP, WSB and AMA SB as the three classes. But that's extremely
unlikely. If GP support classes are included, my guess is that it would
be 250s only, supplemented by AMA SB. Remember that the first four
Laguna GPs didn't include 125 either, it was Roberts that brought them
in later.
Julian Bond
>Noise restrictions aren't the problem at Laguna, once they designate
>one of their 5 "noise" events for a race weekend, it doesn't matter how
>many classes are run that are above the noise limit.
>I also believe that the AMA pushed to be part of the weekend for the
>exposure and the fact that up till this year, it was the only date the
>AMA could be a part of.
That's what I was trying to get at. If that's the only weekend the AMA
can race there, and total number of weekends os limited, I can
understand the decision.
>That changed and Laguna will host another weekend of AMA races this
>year in September which will be the final round on the AMA schedule.
>We'll see what the future holds and whether the AMA continue to be a
>part of the MotoGP weekend.
If that's the case then there's a possibility of the MotoGP weekend
being the full GP circus of 125, 250, MotoGP.
>It'll be interesting to see if the somewhat near future holds
>foor-strokes for all classes.
It could well be 4 years away still.
Carl Sundquist
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
> Right, it's just an opinion, but remember that we're talking about a
> scenario where the guy has a notable equipment edge over everyone else,
> the kind of situation that Stoner has been in so far this year (another
> opinion, I suppose). The game becomes a little different then. I don't
> have any doubt about Capirossi; he came so close to being champion last
> year and he's pretty much delivered every time the Bridgestones gave him
> an edge.
And when it wasn't a Bridgestone track? That's what I mean about his
consistency.
Howard Kveck
Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
That sounds like how it would work if Mark was into those sports.
Howard Kveck
Mark N <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > Mark N wrote:
>
> >> I call them midgets to emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of
> >> hard to tell when you look at them on TV or see pictures. But when you
> >> see that the top seven guys in 250 (prior to Shanghai) are under 125
> >> pounds, that's amazingly small. Any of them could go on to be MotoGP
> >> champion, and they'd probably be the smallest guy to ever win a premier
> >> class championship. There is something so obviously wrong with that
> >> picture, isn't there?
>
> > No, there *isn't* something so obviously wrong with that. Just look
> > at what you wrote at the begining of that graf: "I call them midgets to
> > emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of hard to tell when you
> > look at them on TV or see pictures." If it's hard to tell that they're
> > some size or the other, why are you getting so worked up over it?
> > They're guys on motorcycles, going around very fast - who really cares
> > how big they are?
>
> Uh, anyone who wants to see the very best riders in the top series?
> Anyone who wants it to be about the riders and not just the bikes?
Uh, you're assuming that they aren't the very best riders because
they're small or came through 125 / 250?
> > Okay, perhaps we're getting someways toward understanding your issues
> > with it here. But in trying to solve the "problem" of a small, light
> > rider being on a bike of equal weight as a bigger rider by adding weight
> > until the overall "package" weight is the same, you handicap that
> > smaller rider.
>
> No, you don't. You make that rider perform without a weight advantage.
> If he can't deal with it, he's not as good.
Mark, what you seem to miss is that there are different size people
on this earth. You must think that there is a very narrow range of rider
size to be allowed to be referred to as "good enough". Trying to
legislate "equality" in a competition like this always disadvantages
someone.
A "package weight" on 125s doesn't seem so far out of line compared
to MotoGP because the 125s have 20-25% of the horsepower of a MGP bike
and the bikes are much lighter in the first place, negating (for the
most part) the issue of rider strength. And you completely discount the
skill of the riders in 250 who are winning.
> Now that's rolling into MotoGP, where the preferences of 250-bred riders
> in the top seats fore the last decade and the advanced electronics
> have formed machines that these little guys can control sufficiently
> that their size once again may give them an edge. That issue certainly
> is a matter of debate still, but there's no debating the trend. A big
> part of that trend is that a significant potential MotoGP rider base
> have to pass through the filter of 250, which favors much smaller
> riders. In contemporary times anyone in 250 GP has an edge in the door
> anyway, so that problem is magnified.
>
> So let's say the rules are changed to add weight to the minimum for any
> bike that has a rider under 65kg, to bring the weight of the rider and
> the ballast up to 65k. Any rider over that just has to deal with the
> additional weight. The little guys get to add the weight wherever they
> want on the bike, so they can optimize that to a great degree,
> potentially even make that weight dynamic. There is nothing that makes
> the smaller guys physically larger, so they still have whatever
> advantages that creates, mostly aerodynamics. What would be so horrible
> about that? How would that be penalizing the little guys?
You really do believe that weight is the extent of the issue. It
isn't.
I think I know what the real issue is with you on this. You don't
like the idea that Italians and Spaniards might win races and
championships because that's who might be the perceived beneficiaries of
the present rules. You've pretty mch stated that a smaller rider winning
a championship isn't legitimately "the best". That's why you don't watch
the 125 and 250 races, right? Your biases are keeping you from seeing
some really good racing, Mark.
> If you want to boil it down to one word, it's television. That brings in
> the real money, and the sponsors, and we don't need to be talking about
> full grids anymore. We also don't need to be talking about Spanish
> sponsors and their preference for Spanish riders, or tobacco money, or
> lots of problems that threaten GP racing. And the growth of GP will
> filter down to other series, if interest in GP takes off, we'll see
> larger crowds at WB, BSB and AMA races, and more television for them.
> Grow the sport.
Then it's up to Dorna to make deals to get the races on TV. But
because it's a worldwide thing, they're going to have a tough time
making that happen. But I don't see that having a different set of
classes is going to help that much. Face it, Mark, the overwhelming
majority of the public don't really get so wound up in the details of
"small rider / Mark's optimal size rider". You rope the general public
in by having good, close racing. Sure the public would probably also be
able to get into a bit of nationalistic identification. Dorna would need
to work at getting more diversity into it by working with the
associations in the various feeder countries. But they need to do that
anyway.
> GP made a huge step in switching from 500s to 990 four strokes, and
> without that I think GP would be pretty much dead today. Now they have
> to finish the job, get rid of 250 and 125, replace them with classes
> that don't produce a distorted rider base and do have some commonality
> with the rest of the racing world.
The rest of the racing world isn't focused on pure race bikes or
prototypes - they're focused on production based bikes. I like it that
way.
> But if you want to continue spewing that tired, old Euro-line, hiding
> your head in the sand, making pro-America accusations to disarm my
> argument, be my guest, it's not like you're alone around here...
I base my comments on what you write. I wouldn't go so far as to say
that you're a racist, but you do harbor a lot of enmity towards other
countries. Just sayin'.
Howard Kveck
Julian Bond <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> Tue, 8 May 2007 23:11:44
> > As far as making it a "true world championship" gaoes, anyone is
> >welcome to participate in MotoGP and the 125 and 250 classes. The fact
> >that there is't a lot of racing of those classes in areas other than in
> >Europe (and Japan) isn't the fault of Dorna. Take America as an example:
> >the AMA wasn't interested in those classes and made it obvious that that
> >was the case. It sounds like your idea of a "true world championship" is
> >one that caters to the American model.
>
> The talk about Indianapolis has included talk about having 125GP and
> 250GP races. Laguna not having them may have as much to do with Laguna's
> noise problems and wanting to have AMA races there.
>
> Still think that's a damn shame as I'd love to have seen the 125s going
> down the Corkscrew.
They had the GPRU 125s as a support class at one of the WSB races at
Laguna a few years ago - it was pretty cool seeing them do the corkscrew.
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> Mark N wrote:
>>> No, there *isn't* something so obviously wrong with that. Just look
>>> at what you wrote at the begining of that graf: "I call them midgets to
>>> emphasize just how small they are, it's kind of hard to tell when you
>>> look at them on TV or see pictures." If it's hard to tell that they're
>>> some size or the other, why are you getting so worked up over it?
>>> They're guys on motorcycles, going around very fast - who really cares
>>> how big they are?
>> Uh, anyone who wants to see the very best riders in the top series?
>> Anyone who wants it to be about the riders and not just the bikes?
> Uh, you're assuming that they aren't the very best riders because
> they're small or came through 125 / 250?
Right, at least to some extent. But of course my position isn't that
simplistic.
>> No, you don't. You make that rider perform without a weight advantage.
>> If he can't deal with it, he's not as good.
> Mark, what you seem to miss is that there are different size people
> on this earth. You must think that there is a very narrow range of rider
> size to be allowed to be referred to as "good enough". Trying to
> legislate "equality" in a competition like this always disadvantages
> someone.
No, I'm not missing anything, and I don't think that. The people running
any series have to define issues like machine dimensions, machine
weight, etc., and need to determine what sort of competitive balance
they want. In the course of that some win and some lose.
>> You are correct that they can't come up with a rule that balances out
>> truly larger riders, it just won't work. And I don't necessarily
>> advocate a rule as simple as a minimum weight for the combined rider and
>> machine. But my thinking on the whole thing works this way: Every
>> 500/MotoGP champion in at least the last quarter century or so weighed
>> in somewhere in the range of 65-73kg, so let's call that an optimal
>> size. My guess is that almost every WSB and AMA SB champion fell in that
>> same range as well. So why are we seeing this migration to a smaller
>> size? Well, now we are in a time when the primary source of riders
>> coming in are from 250, and most of them started in 125. That's never
>> been the case before. The 125 class DOES have a package weigh minimum,
>> because the people running the series saw how rider weight was damaging
>> the class and damaging riders, starving themselves to get an edge. But
>> that minimum still drives the class toward smaller riders, and there is
>> no minimum in 250. So now we have a 250 class that has the smallest
>> riders ever. Are those guys the best? No, they just are small enough and
>> light enough that they have a sufficient edge to beat larger, more
>> talented riders. The trend gets ingrained and everyone is looking for
>> very small riders, guys are getting pushed out of the picture on size alone.
> A "package weight" on 125s doesn't seem so far out of line compared
> to MotoGP because the 125s have 20-25% of the horsepower of a MGP bike
> and the bikes are much lighter in the first place, negating (for the
> most part) the issue of rider strength. And you completely discount the
> skill of the riders in 250 who are winning.
I struggle with this fine line stuff, that a package weight rule is okay
in 125 but is completely unacceptable in MotoGP. If one sees the same
patterns emerging - riders focusing on losing weight, riders becoming
progressively smaller - then the same problem exists. The average weight
of the top six riders in points in 250 today is 120 pounds - do you
consider that a "skill"? It sure as hell isn't a random occurrence.
>> So let's say the rules are changed to add weight to the minimum for any
>> bike that has a rider under 65kg, to bring the weight of the rider and
>> the ballast up to 65k. Any rider over that just has to deal with the
>> additional weight. The little guys get to add the weight wherever they
>> want on the bike, so they can optimize that to a great degree,
>> potentially even make that weight dynamic. There is nothing that makes
>> the smaller guys physically larger, so they still have whatever
>> advantages that creates, mostly aerodynamics. What would be so horrible
>> about that? How would that be penalizing the little guys?
> You really do believe that weight is the extent of the issue. It
> isn't.
>
> I think I know what the real issue is with you on this. You don't
> like the idea that Italians and Spaniards might win races and
> championships because that's who might be the perceived beneficiaries of
> the present rules. You've pretty mch stated that a smaller rider winning
> a championship isn't legitimately "the best". That's why you don't watch
> the 125 and 250 races, right? Your biases are keeping you from seeing
> some really good racing, Mark.
Just can't take the issue at face value, eh, Howard? Back to trying to
undermine my arguments with accusations of nationalism/raceism? Too bad
that you have to resort to these tired, old RMR tactics instead of
actually engaging in a meaningful discussion on the issue...
>> If you want to boil it down to one word, it's television. That brings in
>> the real money, and the sponsors, and we don't need to be talking about
>> full grids anymore. We also don't need to be talking about Spanish
>> sponsors and their preference for Spanish riders, or tobacco money, or
>> lots of problems that threaten GP racing. And the growth of GP will
>> filter down to other series, if interest in GP takes off, we'll see
>> larger crowds at WB, BSB and AMA races, and more television for them.
>> Grow the sport.
>
> Then it's up to Dorna to make deals to get the races on TV. But
> because it's a worldwide thing, they're going to have a tough time
> making that happen. But I don't see that having a different set of
> classes is going to help that much. Face it, Mark, the overwhelming
> majority of the public don't really get so wound up in the details of
> "small rider / Mark's optimal size rider". You rope the general public
> in by having good, close racing. Sure the public would probably also be
> able to get into a bit of nationalistic identification. Dorna would need
> to work at getting more diversity into it by working with the
> associations in the various feeder countries. But they need to do that
> anyway.
And I think you're mostly wrong about all that. Interest grows in a more
organic manner, and is more complex than that. What seems absolutely
clear is that the premier class in GP today is MotoGP, yet the 125
lovers always talk about how much closer the racing is there. MotoGP has
also mostly rebuffed WSB as a challenger, even when the Phlegminis
instituted a spec tire rule to enhance close racing. Seems like all that
runs contrary to your "close racing uber alles" notion.
>> GP made a huge step in switching from 500s to 990 four strokes, and
>> without that I think GP would be pretty much dead today. Now they have
>> to finish the job, get rid of 250 and 125, replace them with classes
>> that don't produce a distorted rider base and do have some commonality
>> with the rest of the racing world.
> The rest of the racing world isn't focused on pure race bikes or
> prototypes - they're focused on production based bikes. I like it that
> way.
They're also not focused on 150-200 pound two-stroke minibikes, in
racing or on the street. Sure, there are a ton of little 'strokers on
the streets all over the world, but are those current or potential race
fans? Do they go to see 125 and not MotoGP? I don't think so.
>> But if you want to continue spewing that tired, old Euro-line, hiding
>> your head in the sand, making pro-America accusations to disarm my
>> argument, be my guest, it's not like you're alone around here...
> I base my comments on what you write. I wouldn't go so far as to say
> that you're a racist, but you do harbor a lot of enmity towards other
> countries. Just sayin'.
Keep it up, Howard. What you don't answer is my essential question,
what's wrong with a rule that adds weight to bikes that have riders
below a certain level, in the way I suggest? And "It's not necessary"
isn't an answer, it's a dodge, a cop-out. Since we're engaging in author
analysis here, it's quite obvious from your post here and others this
morning that you are one who loves 125s and 250s and will defend those
bikes to the end, the larger picture of racing be damned. Since you
won't just admit that, you engage in a dishonest attack on the
opposition, attacking credibility instead of the issue, etc. That's too
bad, but not that unusual around here...
"I love the smell of two-stroke exhaust in the morning. It reminds me
of... my long-lost youth..."
Mark N
> Champ wrote:
>> Should short basketball players get to wear platform shoes? Should
>> skinny marathon runners have to carry a weight belt?
> That sounds like how it would work if Mark was into those sports.
Very funny, Howard, nice to see you're upholding a fine RMR tradition -
when incapable of presenting a reasoned and logical counterargument,
resort to indirect mocking shots guised as humor...
In fact, way back when the startup ABA decided to include a 3-point
basket in their rules, it was intended to open up the game and emphasize
the smaller man's skills, and many of the early prolific 3-point
shooters were players deemed too small for the NBA. Guess that was a bad
idea as well, good thing it didn't take off...
Anyway, you're comparing sports that are entirely about a given
athlete's abilities to a sport that's about a partnership, that between
a man and a machine. The athletic challenge to the rider is to maximize
the performance of that machine. Unfortunately, at some point the
machine is simply limited in what it can do, and when that limit is
further impacted by something the rider really doesn't control, his
weight for instance, then the competitive balance of the sport is thrown
off. A lighter rider can probably accelerate faster and slow faster,
among other things, and that has little or nothing to do with ability.
The smaller the machine is, the more impact it has.
Racing at the premier class level has historically shown an optimal size
of rider (and not MY optimal size, Howie), and that is in the area of
145-165 pounds, and that's where most or perhaps all superbike and
500/MotoGP champions have been in the last 25, 30, 35 years, and maybe
even ever. That also happens to be a fairly average size person, at
least one in good shape and in their 20s or early 30s. Good stuff,
normal folks to cheer on and not semi-freaks.
But now we have certain aspects of GP racing that are shifting that size
downward, most of that related to the classes that are the designated
development ground for MotoGP riders. In order to be a successful 125 or
250 racer today you almost have to be below that optimal size. Today it
appears the optimal size for a 250 rider is 120 pounds, or at least
that's the average of the top guys. In fact optimal might well be
lighter than that, perhaps much lighter, as Pedrosa suggests. So this
problem isn't just about MotoGP, it's about 250 as well. And it's
relatively new, although every 250 champion since Rossi in '99 weighed
in at less than 60kg. In the '90s Harada may have been the only one that
did.
And we have three of the top four riders in MotoGP points who are
decidedly sub-optimal in size as well, lighter than any premier class
champion in at least the last 25 years. And each of those guys started
in 125 (all four, in fact), as did every one of those top six in 250.
What this shows is the effort some 15 years ago by various forces in GP
to offset the influx of (American and Australian) production-based
riders into 500 and turn that back to home-grown riders (almost by
definition heavily European and Japanese) has worked. So the smaller
classes were turned away from being free-standing world championships
and more to development and feeder classes for the premier class.
So what's wrong with that? Well, other than the usual shit about them
being Spanish-Italian championships, it might have made some sense back
in the 500 days, but in the MotoGP era those machine bare little
resemblance to what they run in the premier class - one rides a 200lb,
100hp two-stroke to prepare for riding a 335lb, 200hp+ four stroke? And
without ballasting for rider weight differences, it has become painfully
clear that size really matters on 250s, even if perhaps it doesn't so
much on MotoGP machines. But you can't get on one of those until you win
on one of these, so the little guys end up the only ones that can run
the gauntlet.
What's funny is that with this creative new 21st century method of
trying to maintain something of a closed shop and the rapidly shrinking
rider pool that has resulted, and having installed former 125/250
champions as lead riders at Honda, Yamaha and Ducati, they STILL end up
with an American sporting the #1 plate and an Aussie leading the
championship... ;)
Howard Kveck
Mark N <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Mark N wrote:
> > A "package weight" on 125s doesn't seem so far out of line compared
> > to MotoGP because the 125s have 20-25% of the horsepower of a MGP bike
> > and the bikes are much lighter in the first place, negating (for the
> > most part) the issue of rider strength. And you completely discount the
> > skill of the riders in 250 who are winning.
>
> I struggle with this fine line stuff, that a package weight rule is okay
> in 125 but is completely unacceptable in MotoGP.
I think it's pretty straightforward. It has to do with the
combination of the overall package weight and horsepower. In 125s, the
bikes all weigh pretty close to the same, so the difference in "package
weight" is determined by the rider. Differences in rider weight will be
a bigger percentage of the combination compared to the MGP bikes. Since
the 125s have 20-25% of the hp of an MGP bike, that weight difference
has a greater effect on the performance of the bike on the track.
> If one sees the same
> patterns emerging - riders focusing on losing weight, riders becoming
> progressively smaller - then the same problem exists. The average weight
> of the top six riders in points in 250 today is 120 pounds - do you
> consider that a "skill"? It sure as hell isn't a random occurrence.
That still ignores the skill those guys have to put them in that
position.
> And I think you're mostly wrong about all that. Interest grows in a more
> organic manner, and is more complex than that. What seems absolutely
> clear is that the premier class in GP today is MotoGP, yet the 125
> lovers always talk about how much closer the racing is there. MotoGP has
> also mostly rebuffed WSB as a challenger, even when the Phlegminis
> instituted a spec tire rule to enhance close racing. Seems like all that
> runs contrary to your "close racing uber alles" notion.
The WSB spec tire rule still saw a couple of riders dominate each
season, so I'm not all that sure that example really fits.
> >> But if you want to continue spewing that tired, old Euro-line, hiding
> >> your head in the sand, making pro-America accusations to disarm my
> >> argument, be my guest, it's not like you're alone around here...
>
> > I base my comments on what you write. I wouldn't go so far as to say
> > that you're a racist, but you do harbor a lot of enmity towards other
> > countries. Just sayin'.
>
> Keep it up, Howard. What you don't answer is my essential question,
> what's wrong with a rule that adds weight to bikes that have riders
> below a certain level, in the way I suggest? And "It's not necessary"
> isn't an answer, it's a dodge, a cop-out.
Sorry, I think it *is* an answer. It may not be the one that fits
your agenda, but it's an answer that I like. I'm just not all that
concerned about the size of the riders like you are.
> Since we're engaging in author
> analysis here, it's quite obvious from your post here and others this
> morning that you are one who loves 125s and 250s and will defend those
> bikes to the end,
Sure, I agree with that part. However, this part...
> the larger picture of racing be damned.
...is wrong.
> Since you won't just admit that, you engage in a dishonest attack on the
> opposition, attacking credibility instead of the issue, etc. That's too
> bad, but not that unusual around here...
Why should I "admit" to your strawman? There's no "dishonest attack
of the opposition" at all. In my readings of your posts (on this issue
and many others), that aspect repeatedly comes up. "Euro trash", "Euro
God", "Euro etc." If people come to the conclusion that you have a bias,
it's because you provide ample opportunities to reach that conclusion.
To me, at least, it comes across as being an integral part of what you
perceive to be a problem and your arguments about it.
> "I love the smell of two-stroke exhaust in the morning. It reminds me
> of... my long-lost youth..."
It reminds me of my present...
T3
"Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-8FCE3...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> "I love the smell of two-stroke exhaust in the morning. It reminds me
>> of... my long-lost youth..."
>
> It reminds me of my present...
Well, "presently" and somewhat ironically too, a couple of the most
intransigent dudes ever are dukin' it out over something, that at least to
me, is as obvious as the nose on your face. Here's an idea, how about you
both agree to disagree and let it go?
No one here locks horns with Mark more often than me, but I gotta tell 'ya,
(somewhat painfully too) he pretty much center punched this particular
issue...
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>> I struggle with this fine line stuff, that a package weight rule is okay
>> in 125 but is completely unacceptable in MotoGP.
> I think it's pretty straightforward. It has to do with the
> combination of the overall package weight and horsepower. In 125s, the
> bikes all weigh pretty close to the same, so the difference in "package
> weight" is determined by the rider. Differences in rider weight will be
> a bigger percentage of the combination compared to the MGP bikes. Since
> the 125s have 20-25% of the hp of an MGP bike, that weight difference
> has a greater effect on the performance of the bike on the track.
And by that logic a race machine that weighs four times what a MotoGP
bike weighs and makes four times the horsepower a MotoGP bike makes
shouldn't have any issue at all with rider weight. And yet, doesn't
Formula One have a combined car/rider package minimum? It seems like
your line regarding where it matters and where it doesn't is entirely
arbitrary.
>> If one sees the same
>> patterns emerging - riders focusing on losing weight, riders becoming
>> progressively smaller - then the same problem exists. The average weight
>> of the top six riders in points in 250 today is 120 pounds - do you
>> consider that a "skill"? It sure as hell isn't a random occurrence.
> That still ignores the skill those guys have to put them in that
> position.
Oh, I happily will grant you that these guys are among the best at
racing 250s (although the very best are probably in MotoGP), and among
the very, very best 120-pound roadracers in the world. Will you then
grant that they uniformly weigh that little because on these machines
weight has proven to trump skill?
>> And I think you're mostly wrong about all that. Interest grows in a more
>> organic manner, and is more complex than that. What seems absolutely
>> clear is that the premier class in GP today is MotoGP, yet the 125
>> lovers always talk about how much closer the racing is there. MotoGP has
>> also mostly rebuffed WSB as a challenger, even when the Phlegminis
>> instituted a spec tire rule to enhance close racing. Seems like all that
>> runs contrary to your "close racing uber alles" notion.
> The WSB spec tire rule still saw a couple of riders dominate each
> season, so I'm not all that sure that example really fits.
Seems like the pro-WSB crowd (well, Julian) here have been touting the
close racing this year. And of course your response doesn't cover 125 or
250. Why isn't 125 the premier class if close racing is the sale closer
with fans?
>> Keep it up, Howard. What you don't answer is my essential question,
>> what's wrong with a rule that adds weight to bikes that have riders
>> below a certain level, in the way I suggest? And "It's not necessary"
>> isn't an answer, it's a dodge, a cop-out.
> Sorry, I think it *is* an answer. It may not be the one that fits
> your agenda, but it's an answer that I like. I'm just not all that
> concerned about the size of the riders like you are.
Okay, so you admit you're in blind denial on the issue because you like
little boys ;) Seriously, if you don't care about size, you're not
concerned about it, is that because the reduction in size has been
driven by the bikes you love, so it has to be okay? Surely you must
admit that the tradeoff, to some extent, is light weight for skill? Or
is your position that small riders somehow are almost by definition more
skillful?
>> Since we're engaging in author
>> analysis here, it's quite obvious from your post here and others this
>> morning that you are one who loves 125s and 250s and will defend those
>> bikes to the end,
> Sure, I agree with that part. However, this part...
>> the larger picture of racing be damned.
>
> ...is wrong.
A bit hard to grasp that. If tiddler two-strokes are so much your thing,
how can you look at the larger picture of racing objectively? If the
best thing for racing is the elimination of these two classes at the GP
level, could you accept that, could you even see the larger picture?
What is your opinion on two-strokes' future in GP? At this point it's
not a question of whether or not two strokes will be killed off, it's
just a matter of when. How do you honestly feel about that?
>> Since you won't just admit that, you engage in a dishonest attack on the
>> opposition, attacking credibility instead of the issue, etc. That's too
>> bad, but not that unusual around here...
> Why should I "admit" to your strawman? There's no "dishonest attack
> of the opposition" at all. In my readings of your posts (on this issue
> and many others), that aspect repeatedly comes up. "Euro trash", "Euro
> God", "Euro etc." If people come to the conclusion that you have a bias,
> it's because you provide ample opportunities to reach that conclusion.
> To me, at least, it comes across as being an integral part of what you
> perceive to be a problem and your arguments about it.
Those comments have almost nothing to do with anything outside of this
group, it's all about the attitude and comments habitually made by some
European or pro-European contributors (and I use that term loosely in
some cases) here. For instance, Julian has said "racing would be better
off without America and Americans", he regularly tries to steer
discussion away from MotoGP and toward series where Europeans dominate
and there are no Americans, and his comments on racing in this country
are uniformly negative. So he's both blatant and exclusionary. My
attitude is not that, it's much more egalitarian. But I have tired of
that crap over the years, and so have become less concerned about
sensitivities and more inclined to call a spade a spade. You can
interpret it as you like, of course, but you may be making a big
miscalculation.
In any case, you could choose to sidestep all that and just address the
issue at hand, which I think I've laid out pretty clearly on my side.
But instead you chose to focus on this, and to try to disarm my argument
with this shit. Pretty weak, Howie.
>> "I love the smell of two-stroke exhaust in the morning. It reminds me
>> of... my long-lost youth..."
> It reminds me of my present...
It's called living in the past, Howard.
Champ
>No one here locks horns with Mark more often than me, but I gotta tell 'ya,
>(somewhat painfully too) he pretty much center punched this particular
>issue...
Oh tosh. Unless you're talking about the AMA, you're practically his
cheerleader.
--
Champ
T3
"Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ki9943h87hscmntrh...@4ax.com...
I guess it just goes to show he's not completely full of shit all of the
time!
Btw, tosh? WTF is that about? I know of Yosh, but no tosh, is that some
"EurofagMed" thing, or somethin'? :-)
Mark N
> "T3" wrote:
> >No one here locks horns with Mark more often than me, but I gotta tell 'ya,
> >(somewhat painfully too) he pretty much center punched this particular
> >issue...
> Oh tosh. Unless you're talking about the AMA, you're practically his
> cheerleader.
So, Champ, do you actually have something of substance to contribute
to the topic of discussion, or just the usual empty Eurocrap shots?
(Howard, this is what I'm talking about - it wears thin...)
Champ
>Champ wrote:
>> "T3" wrote:
>> >No one here locks horns with Mark more often than me, but I gotta tell 'ya,
>> >(somewhat painfully too) he pretty much center punched this particular
>> >issue...
>
>> Oh tosh. Unless you're talking about the AMA, you're practically his
>> cheerleader.
>
>So, Champ, do you actually have something of substance to contribute
>to the topic of discussion, or just the usual empty Eurocrap shots?
By any measure, my posts contain more racing content than yours,
which, while containing many words, can usually be summarised with
three words :
"It's not fair...."
--
Champ
Champ
heh. Given the number of times I have to ask for an explanation of
your use of english, I thought I'd throw in a word or two that has not
strayed from this island :-)
For your education, tosh is an slang term in the uk meaning rubbish,
or nonsense, or, in short, crap.
--
Champ
Mark N
> "T3" wrote:
> >"Champ" wrote
> >> Oh tosh. Unless you're talking about the AMA, you're practically his
> >> cheerleader.
> >I guess it just goes to show he's not completely full of shit all of the
> >time!
> >Btw, tosh? WTF is that about? I know of Yosh, but no tosh, is that some
> >"EurofagMed" thing, or somethin'? :-)
> heh. Given the number of times I have to ask for an explanation of
> your use of english, I thought I'd throw in a word or two that has not
> strayed from this island :-)
>
> For your education, tosh is an slang term in the uk meaning rubbish,
> or nonsense, or, in short, crap.
Sorry, should have used "Eurotosh" then...
T3
I never claimed it was English, maybe a Southern 'Merkan bastardization of
such, though I'm not sure and to be honest with you, don't really care. As
far as tosh goes, I knew, but choose to, well, you know how much I like
jerkin' chains...
T3
"Mark N" <menu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1178918235.7...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> For your education, tosh is an slang term in the uk meaning rubbish,
>> or nonsense, or, in short, crap.
>
> Sorry, should have used "Eurotosh" then...
Heh, you may have just coined a new word!
Mark N
As
> far as tosh goes, you know how much I like
> jerkin'
I think they call that a "Peter Tosh"...
Carl Sundquist
about the sport becoming less about the rider than the bike. Adding weight
just makes it even less about the rider by using the bike to compensate for
rider discrepancies. A rider's physical features should be part of their
makeup just as vision, reflexes, decision making, training, fortitude, and
experience are.
"Every 500/MotoGP champion in at least the last quarter century or so
weighed in somewhere in the range of 65-73kg, so let's call that an optimal
size. My guess is that almost every WSB and AMA SB champion fell in that
same range as well". If they are "optimal size", they have the best
combination of physical features for handling and performance of a GP bike.
Why penalize those who are something other than "optimal size"?
What is interesting is that this discussion of weight has only been an issue
since last year when Pedrosa showed that he had the stamina andability to
the big bikes. Prior to that, regardless of the other JIS/IS issues, nobody
seemed threatened by riders of lighter weight.
As I mentioned earlier, generally I am against adding weight, although if
required I find the dynamic weight an interesting solution, just as I do
with minimizing electronic management. However, I don't see the issue as
clearly cut as you do, since your own arguments can be used to support
either side.
Howard Kveck
"T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> news:YOURhoward-8FCE3...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> "I love the smell of two-stroke exhaust in the morning. It reminds me
> >> of... my long-lost youth..."
> >
> > It reminds me of my present...
>
> Well, "presently" and somewhat ironically too, a couple of the most
> intransigent dudes ever are dukin' it out over something, that at least to
> me, is as obvious as the nose on your face. Here's an idea, how about you
> both agree to disagree and let it go?
Gloria sic intransigent (heh). Yes, I know going into that stuff that
I'll never convince him and he'll never convince me. But sometimes an
idea or two floats free, which is fine by me. I'd say a little of the
intransigence thing on my part comes from my dealings with someone in
another group who was described as "If someone posted a billion times,
Tom was programmed to post a billion + 1 followups." [1]
> No one here locks horns with Mark more often than me, but I gotta tell 'ya,
> (somewhat painfully too) he pretty much center punched this particular
> issue...
I know you do and that's fine with me too. I just don't happen to
agree (obviously).
[1] Which was a pretty amusing read:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/af6094280d726db0?d
Mark N
> Here's what bothers me about adding weight: we have lots of discussions
> about the sport becoming less about the rider than the bike. Adding
> weight just makes it even less about the rider by using the bike to
> compensate for rider discrepancies. A rider's physical features should
> be part of their makeup just as vision, reflexes, decision making,
> training, fortitude, and experience are.
I don't follow that at all. If you're in a situation where rider weight
becomes a very material factor in getting around a racetrack, how does
that make racing more about the rider? I grant it makes it more about
the rider's size, but that's not the same thing at all. Perhaps because
you come out of the bicycling world you look at it differently. There it
seems a certain body type predominates, and it's decidedly non-average -
long for leverage, seriously overdeveloped legs, of course, but also
very lean, as little weight as possible, particularly above the waist,
where it's essentially just ballast. Maybe that makes you less concerned
about very small riders where body type decides who can compete and who
can't.
So I assume you are opposed to weight balancing in 250 as well, where
the impact is undeniably apparent? Do you advocate the removal of such
rules in 125? Last year there was an article in RRWorld about the rider
weight issue, and the author talked about 125 before the rule, saying
riders were getting obsessed with losing weight, guys looked gaunt and
drawn, like they were undernurished or maybe even semi-starved. He
mentioned an incident when one overfed journalist looked at one 86-pound
rider and said, "I've taken shits bigger than 'im!". Is that what you
want to see? (the rider, not the shit)
> "Every 500/MotoGP champion in at least the last quarter century or so
> weighed in somewhere in the range of 65-73kg, so let's call that an
> optimal size. My guess is that almost every WSB and AMA SB champion fell
> in that same range as well". If they are "optimal size", they have the
> best combination of physical features for handling and performance of a
> GP bike. Why penalize those who are something other than "optimal size"?
Because of what's changed in racing, and the real-world combination of
effects that are changing the face of MotoGP from this standpoint. Those
would be things like:
1) The ever-shrinking size in the rider pool in 250, which at the front
is probably smaller than it's ever been.
2) The remaining favoritism shown to 250 riders in MotoGP circles,
meaning these little guys will have an easier path to MotoGP than an
"optimum" rider coming from SBs.
3) MotoGP bikes that are evolved more and more toward a 250 style of
riding, probably in large part because of all the ex-250 riders who are
material in developing them. We first heard Edwards say he needed to
develop more of a 250 style in late '05, and then everyone was saying
that once the new 800s hit the test tracks last fall. Means greater
chances that new guys will come from 250, and that the current guys from
there will be in more demand. Strikes me as a bit of a self-fulfilling
prophesy.
4) Honda openly started talking about "more compact riders for the more
compact bikes of the future" in '05 as well, and since we've seen them
acting on that, having employed the smallest riders in MotoGP the last
couple years and shrinking their new 800.
5) The reduced power of the 800s in itself probably makes rider weight
more important.
> What is interesting is that this discussion of weight has only been an
> issue since last year when Pedrosa showed that he had the stamina
> andability to the big bikes. Prior to that, regardless of the other
> JIS/IS issues, nobody seemed threatened by riders of lighter weight.
Again, all this is a very new development, and Pedrosa is just the
poster child for the new 125/250-bred midget of the future, he just
brings the whole thing into sharper focus. But it's fellow grad Stoner
who leads the championship. On the impact to date on MotoGP itself,
let's take a look at the current standings, particularly the guys in the
top ten for clues.
That's an interesting group, made up of 3 Italians and 2 Spaniards on
one side, and 3 Americans and 2 Australians on the other. In terms of
upbringing, 6 come from 125 and 250, and 4 from a street production
background, with Stoner the one guy changing camps. In terms of the hard
parts, the ten are made up of both factory Ducati riders, both factory
Yamaha riders, both Honda factory riders, both Suzuki factory riders,
ans the two riders from the top non-factory team in the series, Gresini
Honda. Three of those teams use Bridgestones, and two Michelins.
It's the GP-bred guys who are at the front in this group, currently 1st,
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, with the SB world guys 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th (the
last two actually tied for 8th in points). So is this just a matter of
better breeding, better training? Of the 6 home-bred guys, Rossi is one,
the "greatest rider ever", and the others shape up this way, using
weights from the GP website and heights from the '06 Laguna program:
average weight is 127 pounds (57.8 kg), running from Pedrosa's 112 to
Melandri's 141, and height average is 5' 4.6", running from Pedrosa's
5-2 to Stoner's 5-7. The four SB world guys look like this: average of
153 pounds (69.5 kg), running from Vermeulen's 150 to Hopkins' 158, and
average height of 5' 9.3", ranging from Hayden's 5-8 to Hopper's and
Colin's 5-10. So a very marked difference, and note that the SB world
guys fall right in that "optimal" range. But compared to the midgets,
they look like they're carrying 26 pounds of ballast.
The third option is the hardware, and as I said, these guys are probably
on the best stuff money can buy in GP, with the possible exception of
the Ducati/Bridgestone combination at D'Antin (but that's an underfunded
team - and the riders average a massive 158 pounds!). The GP guys hold
down the lead rider position on 4 of the 5 teams, with the only
exception, Hopkins, perhaps on the weakest of the machines.
Points-leader Stoner isn't a lead rider, but he's on what looks like the
best combo so far this year, a factory Ducati on Bridgestones, and
probably the best ones out there (given that the switch by Corse has
been of huge benefit to Bridgestone, winning them 6 of the last 10
races).
Anyway, my feeling is that the bikes and tires have more to do with the
current standings than anything else. But rider size is becoming a real
possibility. And as you said, that wasn't even much of a thought two
years ago.
> As I mentioned earlier, generally I am against adding weight, although
> if required I find the dynamic weight an interesting solution, just as I
> do with minimizing electronic management.
There's a lot they can do with the weight, I think. By simply increasing
the minimum of the bike, they can just build it into the machine,
perhaps substituting exotics with cheaper materials. Or weights can be
added to the bike, and the factories/teams could have that weight made
somewhat mobile, to move kind of as the rider moves under acceleration
and braking. Or they could make the rider wear it, which would be the
most dynamic of all!
The other thing not mentioned about this, and which is probably in play
now, is that the little guys can afford to bulk up, put on more muscle
mass to increase their strength, now perceived as something of a
weakness. Under my proposed rules, that costs them nothing, they are
just swapping out some ballast. Heavier guys don't have that option,
every pound of muscle is a tradeoff.
However, I don't see the issue
> as clearly cut as you do, since your own arguments can be used to
> support either side.
Well, maybe, if you distort them beyond all recognition...
Howard Kveck
Mark N <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Mark N wrote:
> > That still ignores the skill those guys have to put them in that
> > position.
>
> Oh, I happily will grant you that these guys are among the best at
> racing 250s (although the very best are probably in MotoGP), and among
> the very, very best 120-pound roadracers in the world. Will you then
> grant that they uniformly weigh that little because on these machines
> weight has proven to trump skill?
Never? Is never good enough for you? Seriously, I don't buy that
"weight has proven to trump skill." Again, reading what you wrote above,
you simply trivialize those riders.
> > The WSB spec tire rule still saw a couple of riders dominate each
> > season, so I'm not all that sure that example really fits.
>
> Seems like the pro-WSB crowd (well, Julian) here have been touting the
> close racing this year. And of course your response doesn't cover 125 or
> 250. Why isn't 125 the premier class if close racing is the sale closer
> with fans?
Oh, I don't deny that MGP deservedly gets the most attention. And as
such it gets the most hype. I'd say that the attention the public pays
to support classes across the board drops off. No matter the quality.
> Okay, so you admit you're in blind denial on the issue because you like
> little boys ;) Seriously, if you don't care about size, you're not
> concerned about it, is that because the reduction in size has been
> driven by the bikes you love, so it has to be okay? Surely you must
> admit that the tradeoff, to some extent, is light weight for skill? Or
> is your position that small riders somehow are almost by definition more
> skillful?
Try seeing things in a less black and white manner, Mark. I don't see
it as a tradeoff of skill vs. weight. You *can* have both, you know. I'd
say that many of those riders *do* have both, in spades.
> >> Since we're engaging in author
> >> analysis here, it's quite obvious from your post here and others this
> >> morning that you are one who loves 125s and 250s and will defend those
> >> bikes to the end,
>
> > Sure, I agree with that part. However, this part...
>
> >> the larger picture of racing be damned.
> >
> > ...is wrong.
>
> A bit hard to grasp that. If tiddler two-strokes are so much your thing,
> how can you look at the larger picture of racing objectively? If the
> best thing for racing is the elimination of these two classes at the GP
> level, could you accept that, could you even see the larger picture?
> What is your opinion on two-strokes' future in GP? At this point it's
> not a question of whether or not two strokes will be killed off, it's
> just a matter of when. How do you honestly feel about that?
I like 2 strokes for the simplicity of them. However, I have no real
issue with them going away, as I know they will, just like the 50s, 80s
and 350s did. I like the idea of simple, pure race bikes in a graduated
sequence (i.e. 125 / 250 / 500 or MGP), so I like the concept of 200
singles / 400 twins and then MGP. As for my liking one element of the
racing more than others, I don't see that limits my ability to look at
the whole picture at all. I pay attention to all of the levels. You have
plainly stated that you don't.
As for the whole adding weight to address an "inequality" thing, I'd
say that Carl put it more eloquently than I have when he said: "Adding
weight just makes it even less about the rider by using the bike to
compensate for rider discrepancies. A rider's physical features should
be part of their makeup just as vision, reflexes, decision making,
training, fortitude, and experience are." [1] The idea of dynamic weight
is a big can of worms to me. An extra complication and something that is
sure to get complaints about it being used in an "unfair" manner down
the road.
> >> Since you won't just admit that, you engage in a dishonest attack on the
> >> opposition, attacking credibility instead of the issue, etc. That's too
> >> bad, but not that unusual around here...
>
> > Why should I "admit" to your strawman? There's no "dishonest attack
> > of the opposition" at all. In my readings of your posts (on this issue
> > and many others), that aspect repeatedly comes up. "Euro trash", "Euro
> > God", "Euro etc." If people come to the conclusion that you have a bias,
> > it's because you provide ample opportunities to reach that conclusion.
> > To me, at least, it comes across as being an integral part of what you
> > perceive to be a problem and your arguments about it.
>
> Those comments have almost nothing to do with anything outside of this
> group, it's all about the attitude and comments habitually made by some
> European or pro-European contributors (and I use that term loosely in
> some cases) here. For instance, Julian has said "racing would be better
> off without America and Americans", he regularly tries to steer
> discussion away from MotoGP and toward series where Europeans dominate
> and there are no Americans, and his comments on racing in this country
> are uniformly negative. So he's both blatant and exclusionary. My
> attitude is not that, it's much more egalitarian. But I have tired of
> that crap over the years, and so have become less concerned about
> sensitivities and more inclined to call a spade a spade. You can
> interpret it as you like, of course, but you may be making a big
> miscalculation.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear at the outset. My comments
aren't intended to be taken maliciously or to piss you off. First, I
don't see Julian trying to "steer discussion away from MGP and toward
series where Europeans dominate and there are no Americans." As for his
comments about racing in America being "uniformly negative," well, I
don't think they're nearly as uniformly bad as you see them. It seems
to me that you often look for reasons to be offended. I'm not a
mind-reader, but I've been reading this group a long time. Whether you
like to acknowledge it or not, you've pretty much always tried to
dominate this group, with a habit of browbeating people who disagree
with you. As Tom mentioned in another post, "intransigent" is a key
word. And always having to "win" every discussion. What can I say,
people get tired of that. Plus the rhetorical gambit you often use of
grossly mischaracterizing someone's postion while declaring your
position to be "the facts" and then implying that you win.
As for the jabs that you say you get tired of, well, firstly, they
may result from some or all of the above. Secondly, this is a public
forum, where opinions are offered. That means there may be some
criticism. You aren't above offering criticism of others - therefore,
you better be prepared to take criticism. Saying "call a spade a spade"
is the same as saying "I know it's politically incorrect, but..." Saying
that stuff isn't a free pass to be as rude or asinine as you want.
And please don't think that sticking a 'smiley' on a snide comment
makes it something you can say "just kidding" about.
j doll
"Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> In article <2JCdnb8j9fBS4tnb...@giganews.com>,
> Mark N <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> A bit hard to grasp that. If tiddler two-strokes are so much your thing,
>> how can you look at the larger picture of racing objectively? If the
>> best thing for racing is the elimination of these two classes at the GP
>> level, could you accept that, could you even see the larger picture?
>> What is your opinion on two-strokes' future in GP? At this point it's
>> not a question of whether or not two strokes will be killed off, it's
>> just a matter of when. How do you honestly feel about that?
>
> I like 2 strokes for the simplicity of them. However, I have no real
> issue with them going away, as I know they will, just like the 50s, 80s
> and 350s did. I like the idea of simple, pure race bikes in a graduated
> sequence (i.e. 125 / 250 / 500 or MGP), so I like the concept of 200
> singles / 400 twins and then MGP. As for my liking one element of the
> racing more than others, I don't see that limits my ability to look at
> the whole picture at all. I pay attention to all of the levels. You have
> plainly stated that you don't.
I think that you're both missing the point on 125/250GP.
They only exist as a relatively cheap support class.
Going 4 stroke is going to make it very expensive unless some very
restrictive rules are instituted.
200 singles revving to 22-23000 RPM are going to the name of that game
Think of the lifetime of that engine.
A more appropriate point to start from would be production based motors, but
as long as the Flamini Group controls that, I doubt that will happen...
<snip>
T3
"j doll" <jd...@jvlnet.com> wrote in message
news:1OqdnZWDR7BWX9jb...@jvlnet.com...
> A more appropriate point to start from would be production based motors,
> but as long as the Flamini Group controls that, I doubt that will
> happen...
That's interesting, just how do they control production based motors in
racing? Did Dorna sign away those rights, or something of the sort?
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <4644e044$0$27092$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
I believe there'll be a lot of it on TV tonight!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/eurovision/2007/
(I heard they even pre-empted an episode of Dr Who!)
--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Mark N
> "Howard Kvetch" wrote
>> Mark N wrote:
>>> A bit hard to grasp that. If tiddler two-strokes are so much your thing,
>>> how can you look at the larger picture of racing objectively? If the
>>> best thing for racing is the elimination of these two classes at the GP
>>> level, could you accept that, could you even see the larger picture?
>>> What is your opinion on two-strokes' future in GP? At this point it's
>>> not a question of whether or not two strokes will be killed off, it's
>>> just a matter of when. How do you honestly feel about that?
>> I like 2 strokes for the simplicity of them. However, I have no real
>> issue with them going away, as I know they will, just like the 50s, 80s
>> and 350s did. I like the idea of simple, pure race bikes in a graduated
>> sequence (i.e. 125 / 250 / 500 or MGP), so I like the concept of 200
>> singles / 400 twins and then MGP. As for my liking one element of the
>> racing more than others, I don't see that limits my ability to look at
>> the whole picture at all. I pay attention to all of the levels. You have
>> plainly stated that you don't.
> I think that you're both missing the point on 125/250GP.
> They only exist as a relatively cheap support class.
Well, what is the point in 125 and 250? That has changed radically over
the years, with only the displacement cap a constant. In the old four
stroke days the smaller bikes were often multis, just as 500s were often
singles. The FIM finally mandated that 125s would be singles in the late
'80s, and at that time the manufacturers in the class were folks like
Garelli, Derbi, MBA, (Antonio) Cobas, (Harold) Bartol, Tunturi, Zanella,
etc. A class that had been dominated by MV Agusta in the '50s, by
Honda four-strokes in the early '60s and then Suzuki, Yamaha and
Kawasaki two-strokes in the late '60s and early '70s had become the
playground of small European shops for the next 15 years or so -
Morbidelli, Minarelli, MBA, Garelli, Derbi. Honda reentered with the new
singles-only rules, and became the production base of the class, and
they dominated until Aprilia began to seriously challenge in the mid-90s.
If you look at the rider side of the equation, the small classes used to
be the specialty of a different breed of rider than 500, and there
wasn't very much crossover. Here is a list of all the riders who won
even one race in 125 and in 500/MotoGP (with the year of their first
wins, 125/500):
Pagani (1949/1949)
Graham (1953/1949)
Hailwood (1961/1961)
Read (1965/1964)
Mortimer (1971/1972)
Sheene (1971/1975)
Cadalora (1986/1993)
Criville (1989/1992)
Capirossi (1990/1996)
McCoy (1995/2000)
Rossi (1996/2000)
Melandri (1998/2005)
Elias (2001/2006)
Pedrosa (2002/2006)
Stoner (2003/2007)
So you can see that 125 didn't serve as a development class at all in
the old days, Sheene really the only guy to go that route in a
successful way until the current definition of the class was being
formed. In the early-mid '90s the FIM officially tried to define the
class as a development class, instituting a four-year cap on the number
of years one could compete in it. Now we see the production line effect,
and the only guy in the top eight in 250 today who doesn't have a 125
win on his record is De Angelis (who did have 7 podiums before moving up).
So I think it exists for a reason beyond cost, it's just that
continuation of the class required a capping on cost, and making it
defined as two-stroke singles did that. But then it also needed a
purpose, the old EuroMed garage builders specialty class gone, and
making it a trainer class (largely for teenagers) did that. What it has
retained is its EuroMed focus. So a bit of a bastardization today.
250 isn't quite the same thing, although the flow from 250 success to
500/MotoGP success hasn't always been there either. Surtees, Hocking,
Hailwood, Read, Saarenin won races in 250 and 500, but then the "dark
period" of the late '70s until the early '90s, when other than Sarron
the only guys winning in both were Roberts and Spencer and Kocinski, who
slummed it in 250 for one year each, give or take. The came Cadalora,
Biaggi, Capirossi, Okada, Rossi, Melandri, Elias, Pedrosa, Stoner as
well as lesser lights. Like 125 it's been dominated by Honda and Aprilia
for over a decade, but the Japanese had pretty much a continuous
presence from the early '60s until today. And the bikes are more
sophisticated, true factory machines entering the class with Spencer in
'85 and staying there. But how much real development do we see today?
Are they just buying time? There's no 500 class to borrow technology from.
> Going 4 stroke is going to make it very expensive unless some very
> restrictive rules are instituted.
> 200 singles revving to 22-23000 RPM are going to the name of that game
> Think of the lifetime of that engine.
> A more appropriate point to start from would be production based motors, but
> as long as the Flamini Group controls that, I doubt that will happen...
Agreed, which is why talk of 600s at the highest level is so
interesting. I can't believe they'd be prototypes, so my guess would be
at most something like the old F1 class, heavily hot-rodded street
motors in racing chassis. Or they could well be FX/WSS-level mods, power
isn't really the issue. It would seem street chassis are unlikely, given
the situation relative to WSB/WSS.
The driver on this, besides cost, should be intent. If the smaller
classes are really there to develop MotoGP riders, then the bikes should
get somewhat bigger, heavier and more powerful somehow, as well as being
four strokes. If they really try to stay with this traditional
displacement model, running 400 twins and 200 singles as Howie suggests,
they have to do something about this rider size issue, because that will
not help the situation at all. If they want to somehow reestablish this
notion of separate, distict intent, standalone classes, I don't have any
idea how they do that in the current age.
To me, replacing 250 with a class based on middleweight street motors
and replacing 125 with something like a 450 twin makes the most sense.
Although, frankly, I'd really prefer that they just drop this third,
teenage development class, as I don't really see the point. Today it
really only serves as a path for allowing young EuroMeds a leg up in the
route to MotoGP, and that seems counterproductive in the larger picture.
I'd rather see the series embrace running a domestic series race or
two, sort of the Laguna model, instead of this. And these EuroMed
teenagers can race in the domestic Spanish and Italian championships
instead, improving the talent in those series.
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>> So, Champ, do you actually have something of substance to contribute
>> to the topic of discussion, or just the usual empty Eurocrap shots?
> By any measure, my posts contain more racing content than yours,
> which, while containing many words, can usually be summarised with
> three words :
>
> "It's not fair...."
And here is your "racing" conribution over the last few days:
"Well, it is obviously a terrible troll, but I dunno quite how you work
out he's a limey... If I saw the surname of Pasturi on an English
language newsgroup, my first assumption would be that he was American,
and my second Australian."
"Firstly, you're
genes have now been passed on, so genetically your bodies job is done.
And secondly, now there's a mouth to feed you better get out there and
bring home the bacon. Mark will be along shortly with a statistical
analysis of top riders results pre- and post- fatherhood over the last
25 years."
"Given the number of times I have to ask for an explanation of
your use of english, I thought I'd throw in a word or two that has not
strayed from this island :-) For your education, tosh is an slang term
in the uk meaning rubbish, or nonsense, or, in short, crap."
"Oh tosh. Unless you're talking about the AMA, you're practically his
cheerleader."
""Pro-Rossi whiners"? Who's that then?"
"Should short basketball players get to wear platform shoes? Should
skinny marathon runners have to carry a weight belt?"
"You're completely wrong. Not only have I not followed Toseland for
many years (I was completely unaware of him before he went to WSB, and
paid little attention to him when he first got there), I don't recall
*ever* "following" a British rider... When England are in a football
tournament, I always hope they're knocked out as soon as possible (so
that the saturation coverage here ends)... Being fallible and human -
sure it can make someone popular. It's why Doohan was never the fans
choice, and Schwantz was."
"Ah, in that case I've got it wrong. I was away all weekend, so didn't
see any of the practice sessions, or, more importantly, the times. Of
course, Rossi pulled something amazing out of the bag on Q tyres, but
I didn't realise he'd been slower on race tyres."
"No, I was asking what the phrase "DT style" means."
So the most racing focused stuff there is that you missed the boat on
what was happening in MotoGP in China, and that you never even heard of
Toseland until he went to WSB. Yeah, you're a heavyweight on-topic
contributor alright, sorry for even suggesting anything else...
Champ
<menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>And here is your "racing" conribution over the last few days:
<mega snip>
At last, after all these years, I've got my own internet stalker. I'm
so proud.
--
Champ
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>
>> And here is your "racing" conribution over the last few days:
>
> <mega snip>
> At last, after all these years, I've got my own internet stalker. I'm
> so proud.
Don't get too full of yourself - I didn't even have to go back a week...
j doll
"T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4645cdf3$0$16689$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>rightholders.
Dorna starts intruding in production racing and the lawyers will start
working.
With all the grief Dorna gave WCM at the start of the MotoGP class they'd
have a shaky position
lolsson
> 250 isn't quite the same thing, although the flow from 250 success to
> 500/MotoGP success hasn't always been there either. Surtees, Hocking,
> Hailwood, Read, Saarenin won races in 250 and 500, but then the "dark
At the beginning of his career, _Saarinen_ was running a team on his
own, both fixing and riding the bike. From what I've gathered, back then
it was usual of the riders to compete in multiple classes during a
season. I highly doubt 250 was only a simple supporting class.
I find the historical perspective irrelevant. For example Saarinen and
Kallio have nothing in common on their routes to 250, besides their
nationality. Saarinen started in 250. Kallio made it to 250 through 125,
but will not be able to jump into MotoGP, unless KTM starts throwing
insane amounts of money around.
The 125 and 250 of today are way different in both professionalism and
competitiveness. With the shoelace level budget Saarinen had, you cannot
even buy tickets to the GP events today. The times have changed radically.
> period" of the late '70s until the early '90s, when other than Sarron
> the only guys winning in both were Roberts and Spencer and Kocinski, who
> slummed it in 250 for one year each, give or take. The came Cadalora,
> Biaggi, Capirossi, Okada, Rossi, Melandri, Elias, Pedrosa, Stoner as
> well as lesser lights.
So there *has* to be something wrong with the support classes, because
as of late they are growing talent to MotoGP like they are supposed to... ?
T3
>> That's interesting, just how do they control production based motors in
>> racing? Did Dorna sign away those rights, or something of the sort?
>>Dorna holds the rights to GP while Flamini are the production class
>>rightholders.
> Dorna starts intruding in production racing and the lawyers will start
> working.
So, who exactly has, or had the authority to tender those "rights," whatever
that means, to the Phlegminni's to begin with? Selling the rights to
"production racing" is tantamount to selling flying, or bathing rights.
Maybe it's all different over there, but here those kind of rights are
pretty much determined by the fans and they vote with their wallets, if it's
good, cool, if not, somebody else will prolly step in..
> With all the grief Dorna gave WCM at the start of the MotoGP class they'd
> have a shaky position
I guess that got by me as well, please explain...
Mark N
> "j doll" wrote
>> working.
> So, who exactly has, or had the authority to tender those "rights," whatever
> that means, to the Phlegminni's to begin with? Selling the rights to
> "production racing" is tantamount to selling flying, or bathing rights.
> Maybe it's all different over there, but here those kind of rights are
> pretty much determined by the fans and they vote with their wallets, if it's
> good, cool, if not, somebody else will prolly step in..
The FIM is the body charged with rules and rules enforcement for both
series, that's what they have left after being thrown out of the
business side of racing. I think the initial dispute was between
Thunderbike and the formative WSS back in the '90s and some agreement
was reached in this area. It may have all come up again when MotoGP was
started, but I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure if there is any sort
of formal agreement between Donra and the Phlegminis, or if it's a
gentlemen's peace monitored by the FIM. I have to believe that if Dorna
decided to start using some level of proddy stuff, it wouldn't threaten
their very existence. There would be lawyers, of course, but if the
class structure was pretty far from what WSB runs, it would likely end
relatively amicably with some cash changing hands.
>> With all the grief Dorna gave WCM at the start of the MotoGP class they'd
>> have a shaky position
> I guess that got by me as well, please explain...
In 2003 when WCM switched to building their own four stroke prototype
then used Ymaha R1 cases at the start of the year and the FIM cried
foul, and to the bench they went until they could build their own. But
that was just a rules enforcement issue, it was pretty clear that they
were in violation.
j doll
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h42dnRQYsJHtotvb...@giganews.com...
>
> The FIM is the body charged with rules and rules enforcement for both
> series, that's what they have left after being thrown out of the business
> side of racing. I think the initial dispute was between Thunderbike and
> the formative WSS back in the '90s and some agreement was reached in this
> area. It may have all come up again when MotoGP was started, but I'm not
> sure about that. I'm not sure if there is any sort of formal agreement
> between Donra and the Phlegminis, or if it's a gentlemen's peace monitored
> by the FIM. I have to believe that if Dorna decided to start using some
> level of proddy stuff, it wouldn't threaten their very existence. There
> would be lawyers, of course, but if the class structure was pretty far
> from what WSB runs, it would likely end relatively amicably with some cash
> changing hands.
Don't forget that where there is money, the legal people will be there like
remoras.
Bike racing is big business in Europe.It isn't a fringe sport like the US.
There might be a handshake agreement between the two, but it's based on each
guy staying out of the other guy's backyard.
The most logical support classes for MotoGP are the WSBK/WSS series. But the
political/business realities prevent that...
Fans aren'e going to see 125/250, they are there for MotoGP. But they expect
to see more than just that.
What it is isn't that critical. But they do expect bang for their ticket
bucks...
Howard Kveck
"j doll" <jd...@jvlnet.com> wrote:
> I think that you're both missing the point on 125/250GP.
> They only exist as a relatively cheap support class.
> Going 4 stroke is going to make it very expensive unless some very
> restrictive rules are instituted.
> 200 singles revving to 22-23000 RPM are going to the name of that game
> Think of the lifetime of that engine.
> A more appropriate point to start from would be production based motors, but
> as long as the Flamini Group controls that, I doubt that will happen...
Oh, I'm well aware of the points you made here and thoroughly agree with you. I
didn't bother to mention it in my post, sorry (it was getting wordy enough...). The
relatively low cost (certainly compared to MGP) are why the fields are so big,
particularly in 125s. It'd be a good thing if the manufacturers (including engine
makers like Rotax) and the FIM got together and sorted out some guidelines for this
so as to keep the cost of the engine and maintenance down. I mentioned engine makers
too so as to open it up to more variety in the choices a team could put on the track.
Like in the late '80s and early '90s, you could find things like a Spondon-Rotax bike
in AMA 250s. It'd be kind of good if these engines could be shoehorned into the
existing frames relatively easily.
T3
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h42dnRQYsJHtotvb...@giganews.com...
>> whatever that means, to the Phlegminni's to begin with? Selling the
>> rights to "production racing" is tantamount to selling flying, or bathing
>> rights. Maybe it's all different over there, but here those kind of
>> rights are pretty much determined by the fans and they vote with their
>> wallets, if it's good, cool, if not, somebody else will prolly step in..
>
> The FIM is the body charged with rules and rules enforcement for both
> series, that's what they have left after being thrown out of the business
> area. It may have all come up again when MotoGP was started, but I'm not
> sure about that. I'm not sure if there is any sort of formal agreement
> between Donra and the Phlegminis, or if it's a gentlemen's peace monitored
> by the FIM. I have to believe that if Dorna decided to start using some
> level of proddy stuff, it wouldn't threaten their very existence. There
> would be lawyers, of course, but if the class structure was pretty far
> from what WSB runs, it would likely end relatively amicably with some cash
> changing hands.
I gotcha, typical political/corporate, or in this case multi-national
corporate bullshit, ala the UK a hundred years ago, they agreed how to cut
the pie and who eats what. I'm sooo surprised! If recent history says
anything, international MC racing is sooo fuk'd, oh well..
>
>>> With all the grief Dorna gave WCM at the start of the MotoGP class
>>> they'd have a shaky position
>
>> I guess that got by me as well, please explain...
>
> In 2003 when WCM switched to building their own four stroke prototype then
> used Ymaha R1 cases at the start of the year and the FIM cried foul, and
> to the bench they went until they could build their own. But that was just
> a rules enforcement issue, it was pretty clear that they were in
> violation.
Yeah, yeah, now I remember, the wanted to GP an R1..
Mark N
> "Mark N" wrote
>> The FIM is the body charged with rules and rules enforcement for both
>> series, that's what they have left after being thrown out of the business
>> side of racing.I think the initial dispute was between Thunderbike and the
>> formative WSS back in the '90s and some agreement was reached in this
>> area. It may have all come up again when MotoGP was started, but I'm not
>> sure about that. I'm not sure if there is any sort of formal agreement
>> between Donra and the Phlegminis, or if it's a gentlemen's peace monitored
>> by the FIM. I have to believe that if Dorna decided to start using some
>> level of proddy stuff, it wouldn't threaten their very existence. There
>> would be lawyers, of course, but if the class structure was pretty far
>> from what WSB runs, it would likely end relatively amicably with some cash
>> changing hands.
> I gotcha, typical political/corporate, or in this case multi-national
> corporate bullshit, ala the UK a hundred years ago, they agreed how to cut
> the pie and who eats what. I'm sooo surprised! If recent history says
> anything, international MC racing is sooo fuk'd, oh well..
On the political/business front, I found reading about that sponsorship
summit kind of interesting. When I first read the bit about the biggest
thing to come out of it being designating separate paddocks for MotoGP
and 125/250, I thought, "Wtf, talk about rearranging the deck chairs on
the Titanic...". But reading on it started to make some sense. By
creating a MotoGP-only paddock, all the hospitality for those teams will
be together, and in the prime locales. So the sponsor bigwigs will be
duly impressed and will want to be there. By concentrating all the big
money it will be upgrading the scene in that sense, and who wants to be
off in the two-stroke ghetto? So one expected impact will be movement of
some sponsors out of the support classes and into MotoGP - will, say,
the Fortuna suits want to be across the tracks with Amatriain and
Aprilia, or where the action is with, say, D'Antin Ducati? It seems a
bit silly, but that's how a lot of decisions get made in the corporate
world. Of course, the 'strokers are having a stroke over this one...
T3
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> On the political/business front, I found reading about that sponsorship
> summit kind of interesting. When I first read the bit about the biggest
> thing to come out of it being designating separate paddocks for MotoGP and
> 125/250, I thought, "Wtf, talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the
> Titanic...". But reading on it started to make some sense. By creating a
> MotoGP-only paddock, all the hospitality for those teams will be together,
> and in the prime locales. So the sponsor bigwigs will be duly impressed
> and will want to be there. By concentrating all the big money it will be
> upgrading the scene in that sense, and who wants to be off in the
> two-stroke ghetto? So one expected impact will be movement of some
> sponsors out of the support classes and into MotoGP - will, say, the
> Fortuna suits want to be across the tracks with Amatriain and Aprilia, or
> where the action is with, say, D'Antin Ducati? It seems a bit silly, but
> that's how a lot of decisions get made in the corporate world. Of course,
> the 'strokers are having a stroke over this one...
Wasn't there some Press release a while back to the tune they were planning
to keep the ring-dings around till 2012, or something? At the time I thought
that was not only a bit narrow, but telling as well, hopefully there's been
a change of heart in that regard..
The deal on separating the 2 strokes is almost as if the MGP guys are just
doing their natural condescending/elitism thing again, only this time within
themselves, or maybe the ball of wax is getting so big they realize the need
to partition. Myself, being use to AMA and NHRA I find their pits stand
offish, if not completely fan unfriendly, I understand the need for order
and security, but what I experienced at 'Guna was over the top in many
regards, given it's the fans who make it all possible...
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>> Oh, I happily will grant you that these guys are among the best at
>> racing 250s (although the very best are probably in MotoGP), and among
>> the very, very best 120-pound roadracers in the world. Will you then
>> grant that they uniformly weigh that little because on these machines
>> weight has proven to trump skill?
> Never? Is never good enough for you? Seriously, I don't buy that
> "weight has proven to trump skill."
So why do the top six guys in 250 average only 120 pounds? Is that a
totally random occurrence, do you think they could just as easily
average 150 pounds? Or do you think little guys are just more skilled
and the impact of weight on the bike really has no part in it? Is it
because smaller riders have an advantage in 125, and the guys who win
there end up with the best bikes in 250? Or is it that smaller, lighter
riders simply have a built-in advantage on 250s today? Gotta be
something, Howard, even as hard as you try not to answer the question
directly.
Again, reading what you wrote above,
> you simply trivialize those riders.
No, that's just your take on it, as you think I should be bowing down to
them. They are very good at riding 250s, obviously, and operating in a
world where riders are smaller and lighter, they are coming out on top.
But that's as far as I will go, because, while I don't know how much of
an edge it is, I know these guys are being advantaged by their size. If
you went into an AMA or WSB paddock and pulled out all the 120-pound
guys, would that be a high-level group, remotely equal to the factory SB
guys? Also, the historical performance of 250-bred Euros in 500/MotoGP
hasn't been all that great, lots of guys have moved up after being race
and championship winners and haven't had all that much success - look at
Cadalora, Capirossi, Biaggi, Jacque. Just because a guy is a
front-runner in 250 doesn't mean he'll be the same at the top level.
Rossi is the only one who has proven to be - and he's no midget, his
success in 125/250 was despite and not because.
> Oh, I don't deny that MGP deservedly gets the most attention. And as
> such it gets the most hype. I'd say that the attention the public pays
> to support classes across the board drops off. No matter the quality.
Oh, so you're claiming the "quality" is higher in 125 and 250? Your bias
is showing again, Howard. You think race fans are just a bunch of sheep
whole blindly follow what their programs say?
>> Seriously, if you don't care about size, you're not
>> concerned about it, is that because the reduction in size has been
>> driven by the bikes you love, so it has to be okay? Surely you must
>> admit that the tradeoff, to some extent, is light weight for skill? Or
>> is your position that small riders somehow are almost by definition more
>> skillful?
> Try seeing things in a less black and white manner, Mark. I don't see
> it as a tradeoff of skill vs. weight. You *can* have both, you know. I'd
> say that many of those riders *do* have both, in spades.
No one is saying these guys aren't talented. But you continue avoiding
the real issue, you refuse to admit that these guys are advantaged by
their size, that size really matters in 250, to the point where the top
guys in the class are the size of a bunch of 7th-graders. There has to
be a tradeoff working here, it's not like every kid who gets into racing
in Spain and Italy will "grow up" to be under 130 pounds. Somewhere
along the line the larger guys are selected against, at least for GP.
> I like 2 strokes for the simplicity of them. However, I have no real
> issue with them going away, as I know they will, just like the 50s, 80s
> and 350s did. I like the idea of simple, pure race bikes in a graduated
> sequence (i.e. 125 / 250 / 500 or MGP), so I like the concept of 200
> singles / 400 twins and then MGP.
Nobody is questioning your likes and dislikes, Howard. It's totally
obvious that you like the current structure, at least at the bottom,
that you're a real 125 and 250 fan. [Were you opposed to replacing 500
with MotoGP? my guess is "yes", based on "simplicity and purity"] What
I'm talking about is what is good for GP, what will grow the sport, what
structure will ensure that the best riders make it to the top with the
right set of skills. My opinion is that MotoGP would be the best if it
was where the best around the world meet to determine on the fastest
bikes who is the very best.
The current 125/250 assembly line is totally contrary to that, it is by
all appearances intended to fill the MotoGP seats with guys who can get
into GP as teenagers (the situs/status test - keep it European,
particularly EuroMed, with a smattering of Japanese), and the victors in
that competition are the guys who are the smallest and have the best
ability to race tiny two-strokes. I think that's a big problem; you
don't, you apparently think it's ideal, you're a True Believer. I guess
that's where we leave it.
Mark N
> "Mark N" wrote
>> summit kind of interesting. When I first read the bit about the biggest
>> thing to come out of it being designating separate paddocks for MotoGP and
>> 125/250, I thought, "Wtf, talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the
>> Titanic...". But reading on it started to make some sense. By creating a
>> MotoGP-only paddock, all the hospitality for those teams will be together,
>> and in the prime locales. So the sponsor bigwigs will be duly impressed
>> and will want to be there. By concentrating all the big money it will be
>> upgrading the scene in that sense, and who wants to be off in the
>> two-stroke ghetto? So one expected impact will be movement of some
>> sponsors out of the support classes and into MotoGP - will, say, the
>> Fortuna suits want to be across the tracks with Amatriain and Aprilia, or
>> where the action is with, say, D'Antin Ducati? It seems a bit silly, but
>> that's how a lot of decisions get made in the corporate world. Of course,
>> the 'strokers are having a stroke over this one...
> Wasn't there some Press release a while back to the tune they were planning
> to keep the ring-dings around till 2012, or something? At the time I thought
> that was not only a bit narrow, but telling as well, hopefully there's been
> a change of heart in that regard..
I don't recall the specifics, but it seems like 2011 comes to mind, and
they've been talking extended life for a number of years. But now
they're talking about an earlier switch, as if that's not carved in
stone. I've kind of thought the whole thing may be impacted by their
deal with WSB, like they agreed to stay out of their backyard, but only
for so long. Those kind of arrangements are rarely extended into
perpetuity. Even Hong Kong had to be given up eventually...
> The deal on separating the 2 strokes is almost as if the MGP guys are just
> doing their natural condescending/elitism thing again, only this time within
> themselves, or maybe the ball of wax is getting so big they realize the need
> to partition. Myself, being use to AMA and NHRA I find their pits stand
> offish, if not completely fan unfriendly, I understand the need for order
> and security, but what I experienced at 'Guna was over the top in many
> regards, given it's the fans who make it all possible...
Yes, lots of egos in that paddock, thinking they are better than us
unwashed masses. Of course, it's mostly a Euro scene, and they have a
fine history of class distinctions. Regarding the fans, in the larger
picture it's really not about them, it's about the sponsors, who bring
the real money, and the television audience, who know nothing about what
goes on in the paddock. The promoters depend on the gate, but I suspect
MotoGP mostly looks upon them as just a necessary evil as well...
pablo
> ...
> The deal on separating the 2 strokes is almost as if the MGP guys are just
> doing their natural condescending/elitism thing again, only this time
The fact the sport has outgrown -at least in some parts of the world- the
greasy fingered do-it-yourself-in-a-tent scene should be a cause for
celebration. Let's hear you talk about the condescending nature of NBA or
NFL or top baseball then. Yeah, you'll be able to rub elbows with Derek
Jeter at your local bar after the game. And have his security guys taser
your ass.
So your point is full of it, honestly. MotoGP is in the big sport leagues
now. Thank God. At least *one* motorcycle racing series is getting there.
Why the hell not? Who in their right mind would want to keep it small and
grubby and backward?
I am the first one to say that I think sports are way too big in society,
and that it's an idiotic that we're all guilty off that guys with barely a
high school education that just happen to be good at handling some ball are
pulling $25M contracts and crap like that. Whether they drop dead tomorrow
wouldn't make an ounce of a difference in the history books, this is all
trivial stuff. But since stuff are so out of whack when it comes to the
position of sports, I think it's great that at least MotoGP is getting
there. Not even close to other sports still, though.
It's got nothing to do with "natural condescending", and a lot to do with
the series being a multi-million dollar business now. Begrudge that all you
want, but that's what a professional sports operation is about these days.
...pablo
T3
"pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
news:zfednWIofd_0ztrb...@comcast.com...
>
> "T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4647275d$0$15140$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> ...
>> The deal on separating the 2 strokes is almost as if the MGP guys are
>> just doing their natural condescending/elitism thing again, only this
>> time within themselves, ...
>
> The fact the sport has outgrown -at least in some parts of the world- the
> greasy fingered do-it-yourself-in-a-tent scene should be a cause for
> celebration. Let's hear you talk about the condescending nature of NBA or
> NFL or top baseball then. Yeah, you'll be able to rub elbows with Derek
> Jeter at your local bar after the game. And have his security guys taser
> your ass.
Apples and oranges Pab, not even a hand grenade close analogy..
>
> So your point is full of it, honestly. MotoGP is in the big sport leagues
> now. Thank God. At least *one* motorcycle racing series is getting there.
> Why the hell not? Who in their right mind would want to keep it small and
> grubby and backward?
Who said anything about keeping it grubby, however the class/condesention
thing they(MGP) seem to relish I find obscene, if not outright vulgar..
And btw, you want bigtime? Try the NHRA, every single ticket bought has a
pit pass built in, so explain to me why MGP takes such a draconian stance
when it comes to rider and paddock access...
T3
"Mark N" <menu...@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> Yes, lots of egos in that paddock, thinking they are better than us
> unwashed masses. Of course, it's mostly a Euro scene, and they have a fine
> history of class distinctions. Regarding the fans, in the larger picture
> it's really not about them, it's about the sponsors, who bring the real
> money, and the television audience, who know nothing about what goes on in
> the paddock. The promoters depend on the gate, but I suspect MotoGP mostly
> looks upon them as just a necessary evil as well...
Correct, but it's those same promoters that gamble their $'s to make the
whole thing viable. Which I think may open another avenue of thought as to
one of the reasons bike racing is so over the top popular in some (EuroMed)
countries. One reason might be (note, I said might) the lack of other things
to do and when the circus comes to town everybody just has to go. Case and
point Mid-Ohio, ever been to Ohio in the summer? Not much happenin' for
sure, so they flock to the track in droves and say what you want about
Nastycar, or for that matter the NHRA, those guys pack the stands in places
like Florida and California where there's a boatload of other things to do
on raceday. So, yeah I think promotion and promoters are a very critical
piece of the puzzle, though more so in some place than others__and it sure
would seem easier to promote(especially here) if MGP wasn't so stingy with
it's access...
Mark N
> "T3" wrote
Nice post, Pablo. I do like the nature of the paddock in the AMA (just
as I like that bike racing is done by guys that look like you and me,
and not guys who are quite obviously athletes, on the very edge of the
human bell curve), but it's only like that because it's small-time
stuff. One has to accept that it's all different at a truly professional
level. But of course I have stopped following all the big-time team
sports in this country, exactly because of the absurd amounts of money
involved, so...
Champ
>thing they(MGP) seem to relish I find obscene, if not outright vulgar..
>And btw, you want bigtime? Try the NHRA, every single ticket bought has a
>pit pass built in, so explain to me why MGP takes such a draconian stance
>when it comes to rider and paddock access...
I know enough about drag-racing to actually know what NHRA actually
stands for, but outside the US it is the smallest of minority sports,
so I really don't think you can claim that it is "bigtime". As a
measure - how many viewers does it get on TV, and what do the top
stars get paid?
--
Champ
T3
"Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8ote43deh51uapmob...@4ax.com...
I'd have to check, but I'd almost bet real money the NHRA has more paying
fans and their top pro drivers make comparable money,(outside of Rossi) not
to mention, the series itself easily costs the same, or more money than GP
to put on. As far as TV, every qualifying and elimination round are on ESPN
HD taped delay, but always same day coverage (Sat. and Sun., primetime too)
and on top of that, their commentators actually know what the fuk they're
talking about. Bigtime? You betcha!
j doll
><SNIP>
> Who said anything about keeping it grubby, however the class/condesention
> thing they(MGP) seem to relish I find obscene, if not outright vulgar..
> And btw, you want bigtime? Try the NHRA, every single ticket bought has a
> pit pass built in, so explain to me why MGP takes such a draconian stance
> when it comes to rider and paddock access...
>
> The closed paddock dates back to the late 80's
It was institued to get the teams a relatively safe working environment.
Hooligan European fans got things to the point where the teams said enough
is enough...
In Italy it got to the point where anything that wasn't locked down was
stolen by the fans. And I mean anything...
The real capper was Spa. The Honda mechanics came to blows with a bunch of
drunken yahoos who thought they had the right to sit on Spencer's race bike
so their friends could take pictures. Never mind that the bike is in the
back of the pit and not up front...
>So in goes the rule...
That was something that got negotiated about when MotoGP returned to the US.
You can get a pass into the MotoGP section of the paddock, but they are very
limited and pricey
It helps to have connections. And to be quite honest, rubbing elbows with
Rossi ain't gonna happen. But you like to stand groupiesque in a crowd you
might get a glimpse of some action.
Champ
Yebbut (and here we go back to deja-vu-land) *only* in the US.
MotoGP, on the other hand is shown on *prime* national TV in most
countries *except* the US.
--
Champ
j doll
You seem to think "Only in the US" is a major league put down
Well pal the US/Canada market is the world's largest single language
economy.
Europe is about as big but there are only about a couple dozen languages you
must market in...
California alone in the 4th largest economy on the planet
Just because it's not on your radar screen doesn't make it inconsequencial.
The numbers here are so large, millions are a fringe activity.
Why do you think that Dorna is trying to develop a presence here?
A tiny silver of the action is big bucks...
> --
> Champ
T3
Yebbut you questioned it's bigtimeness and it very definitely is, maybe only
here, but drag racing is a very American thing and always has been. The
bottom line and where this got started was about access and promotion, two
real obstacles MGP will have to hurdle in order to be successful in this
country for the long term. As has been said many times by you and others,
it's different here and in this case I can say it's better too...
pablo
>
> "pablo" <pab...@simplyhombreDOT.net> wrote in message
> news:zfednWIofd_0ztrb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "T3" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:4647275d$0$15140$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>> ...
>>> The deal on separating the 2 strokes is almost as if the MGP guys are
>>> just doing their natural condescending/elitism thing again, only this
>>> time within themselves, ...
>>
>> The fact the sport has outgrown -at least in some parts of the world- the
>> greasy fingered do-it-yourself-in-a-tent scene should be a cause for
>> celebration. Let's hear you talk about the condescending nature of NBA or
>> NFL or top baseball then. Yeah, you'll be able to rub elbows with Derek
>> Jeter at your local bar after the game. And have his security guys taser
>> your ass.
>
> Apples and oranges Pab, not even a hand grenade close analogy..
It's absolutely not. You were talking about the fact a sport starts to limit
its fandom access to its stars. That's what's happened to MotoGP, and it is
no different than any bigtime sport. Oh, it is different. Actually a MotoGP
racer once replied to me in email about an observation I had made online
once.
The simple fact is that sports that attract over 100k people to an event can
not afford to allow them all access to the inner sanctum, because it would
be very disruptive to the operation of them team, and given the irrational
nature of some fans it would be dangerous. think about someone like Mark N,
he'd be liable to try to grease tries and what not given the outright hatred
and desire for injury he has expressed about some of his most hated riders.
No wonder they have security.
> Who said anything about keeping it grubby, however the class/condesention
> thing they(MGP) seem to relish I find obscene, if not outright vulgar..
*What* is the condescention exactly about. Other than the fact that MotoGP
is a sport that happens to attract the hundred-thousand live gates when it
is not outside of Europe, and therefore needs to establish the type of
safety standard that is, well, standard for such sports?
> And btw, you want bigtime? Try the NHRA, ...
The *what*?
Oh yeah, it's real bigtime, I have no idea who you're talking about. And
with that I am not putting whatever it is down as a sport, it may be more
entertaining than MotoGP is these days for all I know, but obviously has not
breaken the popularity levels that require special, uhm, arrangements.
Oh, by the way, you should have tried get to Kenny Roberts Sr pit in the
early 1981. I did as a teenager. Only pit that turned us Euro fans off, with
some guy telling us to f* ourselves. And we respected it, Roberts was a
superstar and in another realm at the time. All the while, Rich Schlachter
talked to us for half an hour, Wil Hartog let us into his garage, Marco
Lucchinelli had a glass of sangria at our table, and Barry Sheene made a
point to announce when he'd be available for at least a couple of hours a
day to sign stuff and chat with fans. There was always someone in his pit
charged with making nice with the fans. I still have 2 ancient signed
helmets by Sheene, Hartog, Lucchinelli, Mamola and Nieto. Not Roberts Sr,
nor Spencer, because they were the ones that were most averse to fan
contqact at the time. They were and made to feel like superstars, you know.
It was no big deal to us - we could not have gotten close to Maradona,
either.
...pablo