Roadracing back in the day...
Mark Nusbaum
doing some reading, and that's led to some random thinking.
The Cycle News write-up on the recent British GP at Donington says in the
race Rossi broke the lap record there, which dated back to 1989. Gotta be
Schwantz's record, the '89 winner. Anyway, does this makes sense? I couldn't
find anything more on that record, but I did find the '90 qualifying times.
Gardner was on pole with a 1:33.42, and this year Rossi's pole time was a
1:31.56. Val's record race lap was a 1:32.25, so maybe it's true. Anyway,
just amazing that a record could stand for 13 years, with all of the engine,
chassis and tire advancements, and that it took a new 990cc four-stroke to
break that record. Btw, the fastest 500 in qualifying was Harada at 1:31.80.
I also noticed that the WSB pole time at Donington in '90 was a 1:38.27 by
Falappa, more than a second off Kocinski's 1:37.01 250 pole there that year.
Last year's final WSB round there saw Hislop on pole with a 1:32.65, while
the 250 pole two weeks ago was Nieto's 1:33.56. The same weekend saw Bayliss
throw up a 1:24.83 at Laguna, backed by Edwards' SP 1:24.88. There was no SB
race there in '89, '90 or '91, but Doug Polen set the SB lap record in the
'92 SB return with a 1:29.45. Gardner was on pole in '90 at Laguna with a
record 1:25.91 that I believe is still the fastest 500 lap. I wonder if the
current MotoGP guys could put up a 1:24? Certainly not a 1:23, it seems.
While I'm certain SBs have advanced more than 500s over those 12 or 13
years, it's gotta be the riders that have been holding the GP side back.
Schwantz vs. Rainey vs. Gardner vs. Lawson vs. Doohan (and MacKenzie in
there somewhere), and Honda vs. Yamaha vs. Suzuki when they were evenly
matched, seems a bit more inspiring than Rossi and his Honda toying with
Checa, Harada, Barros (13th on the grid in '90 with a 1:37.16!), Biaggi,
teenager Hopkins, geriatric McWilliams...
Btw, there was no pole man in qualifying at Mid-Ohio in '90, as the grid was
determined by heat races, but if there was one it would have been Chandler.
I was reading the prerace stuff at amasuperbike.com this week and was pretty
disappointed with their recitation of the race's history. This is one of the
truly great rounds of the championship, and one of the best-attended as
well. The racing is usually exciting, it often is critical in the
championship, and has had some surprising results. They only went back to
'92 with past winners but the event goes back to at least '83 and they left
out some of the best.
Looking back, Ben Bostrom's smoking Ducati and black flag (and Gobert's
equally hideous race) probably handed that championship to Mladin, but
Chandler won the race. Doug and Miguel had that great battle in '97, while
Mladin's fade to fourth on the FBF Ducati mirrored his fade in that
championship. In '96 Picotte passed Wilson on the Harley in the rain just as
leader Jamie James was crashing (and breaking his leg) to end the race,
giving Suzuki their first AMA win since Duhamel in '90. And Brett Metzger
put his 750SS machine on the box, the last (only?) time that's happened. In
'94 Picotte's and Corser's Ducatis expired, leaving the race to the V&H
Yamahas of first-time SB winner Colin Edwards and James, who was back in the
title hunt with 2nd. All after Duhamel held the early lead on the new
Harley. In '93 it was Dale Quarterley, the last privateer SB winner in the
AMA, that pushed James to 2nd, and 4th place Polen clinched the
championship. In '92 WSB champ Polen dropped by to collect the win, Ducati's
last there, after leader Russell's Kawi went sour and Freddie Spencer
crashed while racing him for the lead. Eventual champ Russell's problems
kept that man James in the title hunt once again, but sadly it was the death
of Larry Schwarzbach, the last factory SB rider to die while racing in the
AMA, that most remember. 1991 saw Thomas Steven's only SB win of his career,
and along with Russell's 5th place it put him in position to win that
championship. Chandler was the '90 winner, his 4th straight on the way to
that championship. He also won in '89, his first SB win. '87 and '88 went to
Yosh boys Schwantz and Polen, but runnerup Honda riders Rainey and Bub
Shobert were well on their way to the championships. It was a crash at
Mid-Ohio that ended Rainey's record five race win streak in '86 and handed
teammate Fred Merkel the win and eventually a third straight title that he
didn't really deserve. Rainey's bad luck there goes back to '83, when he had
his only crash and DNF of his first SB championship season. Anyway, two
decades of great stuff.
Which brings me back to where I started. Sort of. A good
Suzuki/Kawasaki-type track, so I'll take Yates and Bostrom for the wins. Or
is that Mladin and Bostrom? And Hodgeson didn't get that first win at
Laguna, so I'll say he'll split with Bayliss at Brands. Or is that Edwards?
And can Walker do an "E-Boz" this weekend? Or is a "B-Boz" a more realistic
possibility?
* Phil *
news:Mzr09.8070$Kl6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Awful quiet around here this week, so I'll use up a little bandwidth. Been
> doing some reading, and that's led to some random thinking.
>
> The Cycle News write-up on the recent British GP at Donington says in the
> race Rossi broke the lap record there, which dated back to 1989. Gotta be
> Schwantz's record, the '89 winner. Anyway, does this makes sense? I
couldn't
> find anything more on that record, but I did find the '90 qualifying
times.
> Gardner was on pole with a 1:33.42, and this year Rossi's pole time was a
> 1:31.56. Val's record race lap was a 1:32.25, so maybe it's true. Anyway,
> just amazing that a record could stand for 13 years, with all of the
engine,
> chassis and tire advancements, and that it took a new 990cc four-stroke to
> break that record. Btw, the fastest 500 in qualifying was Harada at
1:31.80.
>
I did a little research and came up with the following :
Poles and fastest laps at Donington :
1989 ; P. K.Schwantz ( 1.34,05 ) FL. E.Lawson ( 1.34,51 )
1990 ; P. W.Gardner ( 1.33,415 ) FL. K.Schwantz ( 1.33,762 )
1991 ; P. K.Schwantz ( 1.32,974 ) FL. K.Schwantz ( 1.33,569 )
1992 ; P. E.Lawson ( 1.33,814 ) FL. W.Rainey ( 1.34,194 )
1993 ; P. K.Schwantz ( 1.33,514 ) FL. L.Cadalora ( 1.37,716 )
1994 ; P. M.Doohan ( 1.33,611 ) FL. K.Schwantz ( 1.34,161 )
1995 ; P. M.Doohan ( 1.33,701 ) FL. M.Doohan ( 1.33,693 )
1996 ; P. M.Doohan ( 1.32,426 ) FL. S.Russell ( 1.33,574 )
1997 ; P. M.Doohan ( 1.32,872 ) FL. M.Doohan ( 1.32,856 )
1998 ; P. S.Crafar ( 1.32,128 ) FL. S.Crafar ( 1.32.661 )
1999 ; P. T.Okada ( 1.32,597 ) FL. A.Criville ( 1.33,348 )
2000 ; P. A.Barros ( 1.32,316 ) FL. G.McCoy ( 1.39.895 )
2001 ; P. M.Biaggi ( 1.31,964 ) FL. V.Rossi ( 1.33,056 )
2002 ; P. V.Rossi ( 1.31,563 ) FL. V.Rossi ( 1.32,247 )
So the lap-record Rossi broke was from 1998.
Grtz, Phil.
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <ahtojg$vlegj$1...@ID-84563.news.dfncis.de>:
Right, because Corser took the outright lap record from the GP
bikes a few years ago in a WSB race, and kept it until the next GP round
at Donington.
--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Eng., Brunel Uni. Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
penno
coverage listed the current "Premier Class" lap record as Crafars but
that the Outright Lap Record as being done by a Superbike but I didn't
catch the riders name. I recall when Corser set that a few years back
on the Ducati but am not sure whether any of the SB's went quicker in
the last couple of years.
Mark Nusbaum
"Dr Ivan D. Reid" <i...@hep.ucl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnak4q8...@ax8.hep.ucl.ac.uk...
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:19:47 +0200, * Phil * <pv1...@msn.com>
> wrote in <ahtojg$vlegj$1...@ID-84563.news.dfncis.de>:
> >"Mark Nusbaum" <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> schreef in bericht
the
> >> race Rossi broke the lap record there, which dated back to 1989. Gotta
be
> >> Schwantz's record, the '89 winner. Anyway, does this makes sense?
> >I did a little research and came up with the following :
> >Poles and fastest laps at Donington :
> >1989 ; P. K.Schwantz ( 1.34,05 ) FL. E.Lawson ( 1.34,51 )
> >1990 ; P. W.Gardner ( 1.33,415 ) FL. K.Schwantz ( 1.33,762 )
> >1991 ; P. K.Schwantz ( 1.32,974 ) FL. K.Schwantz ( 1.33,569 )
> >1996 ; P. M.Doohan ( 1.32,426 ) FL. S.Russell ( 1.33,574 )
> >1998 ; P. S.Crafar ( 1.32,128 ) FL. S.Crafar ( 1.32.661 )
> >2001 ; P. M.Biaggi ( 1.31,964 ) FL. V.Rossi ( 1.33,056 )
> >2002 ; P. V.Rossi ( 1.31,563 ) FL. V.Rossi ( 1.32,247 )
> >So the lap-record Rossi broke was from 1998.
> Right, because Corser took the outright lap record from the GP
> bikes a few years ago in a WSB race, and kept it until the next GP round
> at Donington.
That makes more sense, so it was a typo. But it is interesting that lap
times in 500 improved so slowly. Schwantz sets the record with a 1:32 in
'91, that stands until '96, it's broken again in '98, then again in '01 with
the first 1:31. Ten years to improve the record by one second, while
Schwantz' '89 time was more than a second slower than '91 (although I don't
know that it was a record). A look at some of the pole times in the SB races
there since '90, from what I can piece together:
1990 - Falappa 1:38.27
1991 - Polen 1:36.68
1992 - Fogarty 1.35:74
1993 - Fogarty 1:34.71
1994 - Russell 1:34.96
1995 - Fogarty 1:34.85
1996 - Corser 1:33.00
1997 - ???
1998 - Corser 1:33.71
1999 - Fogarty 1:33.21
2000 - Hodgeson 1:32.82
2001 - Hislop 1:32.54
It was Corser's '96 lap that was said to be faster than the official GP fast
time, although Schwantz' 1991 pole time was faster, so I'm not sure what
that was about. I wish I had the 1997 time, but in lieu of that it appears
SB times stagnated at that point, improving by a mere half second over five
years. But I guess it should be said that this race was run in the spring
often in dodgy weather (Fogarty's '93 time was posted the year Donington was
run in late summer), and SuperPole showed up to take the edge off qualifying
in '98. Another comparison of SB qualifying times in recent years, at
Laguna:
(1990 500) - Gardner 1:25.91*
(1991 500) - Rainey 1:26.46
1992 AMA - Polen 1:29.45
1993 AMA - Polen 1:28.74
(1993 500) - Doohan 1:26.42
1994 AMA - Picotte 1:28.59
(1994 500) - Doohan 1:26.07
1995 AMA - Smith 1:43.85
1995 WSB - Corser 1:26.78
1996 AMA - Duhamel 1:29.12
1996 WSB - Kocinski 1:25.72*
1997 AMA - Chandler 1:26.85
1997 WSB - Chili 1:26.63
1998 AMA - Mladin 1:25.60*
1998 WSB - Chandler 1:26.37
1999 AMA - Gobert 1:25.51*
1999 WSB - Gobert 1:25.19*
2000 AMA - Kocinski 1:26.03
2000 WSB - B. Bostrom 1:25.77
2001 AMA - Mladin 1:26.10
2001 WSB - B. Bostrom 1:25.25
2002 AMA - E. Bostrom 1:25.72
2002 WSB - Bayliss 1:24.83*
*new track record
The GP races were run in the spring in '91 and prior, and late summer in '93
and '94. The AMA races were run in the spring until '00, when they started
being run in conjunction with the WSB races in July and had their
practice/qualifying time reduced significantly. And SuperPole showed up in
WSB in 2000. Anyway, it appears that SB times have continued to drop there,
although over the last six years less than a second. Again, the biggest drop
occurred between the rather primitive, semi-factory days of the Ducati 888,
RC30, etc. and the beginning of the factory era in the mid-'90s and the 916,
RC45, etc. The last SB race run at Laguna prior to 1992 was in 1988, and
race winner Bub Shobert on the VF750F had the fastest lap in the heat races,
a 1:33.46. But that Ducati is still breaking lap records using an evolved
version of the 916 introduced in 1994 indicates that SB maybe held back some
by the base machines themselves. Note that Ducati has had the fastest
qualifying time in WSB every year except '98, and that's with six different
riders.
Mark Nusbaum
"Mark Nusbaum" <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Mzr09.8070$Kl6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
'87 and '88 went to
> Yosh boys Schwantz and Polen, but runnerup Honda riders Rainey and Bub
> Shobert were well on their way to the championships.
Wrong-o. Shobert won Mid-Ohio in '88 after Polen crashed on the last lap
while racing for the win, and that pretty much wrapped up the title that
year. Polen did win the 600SS and 750SS races. The 250GP winner was Kocinski
after challenger Rich Oliver had a mechanical, and the Pro Twins winner, on
the Commonwealth Honda RS750-based machine, was... Doug Chandler, who also
finished on the box in SB on the ex-Rainey VF750F.
Julian Bond
quite hard to draw any general conclusions about the state of riders and
machines over the years.
Take Donington first. Goddards and the Melbourne loop are an anomaly in
what is otherwise an almost perfect test. From the entrance to Redgate
all the way round to the exit of the Fogarty Esses the track tests rider
ability, tyres and setup balance rather than power, handling or braking.
Even the Dunlop straight is not long enough for slipstreaming and so is
more of a test of the ability to get the power down on the exit of
Copse. It's a track that rewards riders with No Fear and good throttle
control. Craner Curves, Schwantz curve and the second half of Copse are
the key to fast lap times. None of these really depend on outright power
or handling so much as whether the bike and tyres make it easy or hard
for the rider to surf the edge of adhesion while leaned over at high
speed and with lots of throttle.
Laguna has similar tests. Ignoring the last corner and the acceleration
up the hill, almost the whole of the rest of the lap has the bike on the
edge with no let up. Again, this rewards rider ability, tyres and
balance more than power, light weight and agility.
Assen and Sachensring are more of the same and are great levellers. But
that's about it. You can take pretty much every other track in the world
that gets used by WSB and/or MotoGP and lap times depend on things that
*have* improved over the years. Power, usability of the power, brakes,
quickness of steering, quality of suspension, and so on. And both WSB
and MotoGP have been knocking .5 to 1s a year off the outright lap
record. If all you have (heh!) is straight line, brake, turn, straight
line, brake, turn, then the engineers can make the difference. And they
have.
--
Julian Bond Email&MSM: julia...@voidstar.com
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
CV/Resume: http://www.voidstar.com/cv/
M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Mark Nusbaum
"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
news:$GRgBpCG...@jblaptop.voidstar.com...
> I think Laguna and Donington are unusual tracks and ones that make it
> quite hard to draw any general conclusions about the state of riders and
> machines over the years.
>
> Take Donington first.
> Laguna has similar tests. Ignoring the last corner and the acceleration
> up the hill, almost the whole of the rest of the lap has the bike on the
> edge with no let up. Again, this rewards rider ability, tyres and
> balance more than power, light weight and agility.
I wouldn't quite characterize Laguna that way. I think of it as more of a
point-and-shoot track (certainly feels that way when you're riding on it),
but with corners of varying speed and straights not so long that bikes
blessed with acceleration and top speed have a huge advantage. But for a
track with 11 turns in only 2.2 miles the bikes are straight up-and-down a
fair amount, nothing like Assen. It is a test of set-up compromises, with
the flat infield and the banked corners of the old part of the track. And
it's definitely a rider's track, I think rewarding rider skill more than
most on the world championship calendars. In SB, as in GP before that, you
can't rule out any machine at all, but you can rule out certain riders.
Ducatis can do well there because of the acceleration aspect of the circuit,
so they have been fairly dominant over the years in qualifying and have won
often - 92-95 and again in '99 in the AMA, and half of the races in run so
far in WSB - and the other two twins have each won there in WSB, and the
Honda in the AMA as well. But the fours have done better than at most places
in WSB, winning 6 of the 16 to date and coming closer to the box than
anywhere else this year. They've done okay there in the AMA, winning 5 of
the last 7, but not as well as at certain other tracks like Sears (Nicky's
Honda wins this year are the first ever for a twin) and Mid-Ohio (Nicky won
one last year, but no Ducati win since '92, and that was a gift), which are
twistier and technical as well. I guess the most controversial aspect of the
Laguna WSB experience is what Fogarty's and Slight's sad results at this
rider's track say about them. Fogarty's more traditional riding style did
seem to clash with the track, but I think there was a mental hurdle there as
well and I don't know if he was willing to ride as hard as he had to in
order to beat guys like Gobert, Corser and Kocinski there.
> Assen and Sachensring are more of the same and are great levellers. But
> that's about it. You can take pretty much every other track in the world
> that gets used by WSB and/or MotoGP and lap times depend on things that
> *have* improved over the years. Power, usability of the power, brakes,
> quickness of steering, quality of suspension, and so on. And both WSB
> and MotoGP have been knocking .5 to 1s a year off the outright lap
> record. If all you have (heh!) is straight line, brake, turn, straight
> line, brake, turn, then the engineers can make the difference. And they
> have.
I think the thing that ends up being the measure at many of the other tracks
is horsepower, particularly at places like Hockenheim and Monza. The other
stuff that relates to handling and corner speed is also the stuff that
measures the riders, so it's tougher to make the call between the two. The
problem with comparing the riders and bikes in WSB and 500 over the years
has been the small number of tracks used by both, and how weather effects
the comparison data. Hockenheim was a good measure of horsepower, but that
can be done on a dyno. Both have used Assen, but that is a very unusual
track as you say and weather has impacted results regularly. The best case
might be a track in Spain or Italy, but the two series have mostly been
using different tracks. What would you say is the best track to compare
results? What's the best track to measure GP machine advancement? Anyway,
here are some Assen qualifying times:
1990 500 - Schwantz 2:03.21
1991 500 - Schwantz 2:03.44
1992 500 - Lawson 2:03.68
1993 500 - Doohan 2:03.27
1994 500 - Doohan 2:03.04
1995 500 - Criville 2:03.15
1996 500 - Criville 2:02.26
1997 500 - Doohan 2:02.51
1998 500 - Doohan 2:02.09
1999 500 - Okada 2:01.56
2000 500 - Capirossi 2:02.06
2001 500 - Capirossi 2:00.74
2002 MotoGP - Rossi 2:01.69
1992 WSB - used short circuit
1993 WSB - Fogarty 2:06.20
1994 WSB - Fogarty 2:07.38
1995 WSB - Corser 2:14.99
1996 WSB - Kocinski 2:04.41
1997 WSB - Kocinski 2:04.06
1998 WSB - Slight 2:03.71
1999 WSB - Slight 2:03.64
2000 WSB - Chili 2:02.94
2001 WSB - Xaus 2:02.41
More what you'd expect to see, but the fall weather certainly has effected
the WSB side and the length of a lap at Assen should be factored in when
looking at the time improvements. GP lap times were very flat during the
first half of the last decade, then dropped slowly, with a 2.5 second
improvement over the last 12 years (about the same % as at Donington), and
1.5 since 1996. The '93 WSB time is the only reliable older mark on that
side, but nearly 4 seconds improvement over 8 years and 2 seconds since 1996
(with no 2002 yet), the lap time down every year. But GP is definitely still
faster than SB, although this might well finally be the year that the WSB
pole is faster than in GP. And I note that Assen WSB pole was set by a 750
from '97 through '00, although they've only won four races here (two by
Fogarty in '96, then Kocinski in '97 and Haga in '00).
All which begs an old question - if a five-cylinder prototype 990cc GP bike
isn't really faster around a circuit than a twin-cylinder, street-derived
1000cc SB, why would a 1000cc four-cylinder SB be too fast for those twins?
Unless the SB riders are better or there are serious issues with the design
of the GP machine, that SB shouldn't be as fast as the GP bike. Or is the SB
issue more about corner speed vs. acceleration and top speed (the 500
question revisited)?
Bruce Richmond
Actually a couple of the "improvements" are partially responsible for
the lack of progress on the 500's.
The big bang engines are easier to ride, but are not as fast as the
even fire engines in the hands of the best riders. Doohan usually
went with the screamer because it was potentially faster. The
screamers made more power, but the individual pulses were smaller.
The big bang causes the rear tire to go through slip/grip cycles when
under power. If the tire goes over the edge on the slip, it has time
to recover on the pause between pulses. The screamer's smaller pulses
allow the rider to push nearer to the limit, but it's harder to tell
when he's stepped over the edge.
About the same time the big bang was developed, the tire manufactures
started formulating rubber compounds for the 500's that were biased
toward predictability as opposed to maximum grip. There had been a
lot of crashes due to sudden break away of the tires, often resulting
in high sides. The 250's weren't having the same problem, so their
tires used compounds that favored grip, and they narrowed the
performance gap between them and the 500's. Again, the best riders
would have been faster with more grip.
Julian Bond
>What would you say is the best track to compare
>results?
Philip Island?
>What's the best track to measure GP machine advancement?
Suzuka? Actually that would be interesting anyway given the level of
equipment and riders for the Suzuka 8 hours.
Mark Nusbaum
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:747a5d11.02072...@posting.google.com...
> Actually a couple of the "improvements" are partially responsible for
> the lack of progress on the 500's.
>
> The big bang engines are easier to ride, but are not as fast as the
> even fire engines in the hands of the best riders. Doohan usually
> went with the screamer because it was potentially faster. The
> screamers made more power, but the individual pulses were smaller.
> The big bang causes the rear tire to go through slip/grip cycles when
> under power. If the tire goes over the edge on the slip, it has time
> to recover on the pause between pulses. The screamer's smaller pulses
> allow the rider to push nearer to the limit, but it's harder to tell
> when he's stepped over the edge.
An interesting theory, but a few things counter to it. I think the big bang
was actually designed to do two things, increase tire life and increase
manageable grip under acceleration. Doohan reverted to the screamer several
years after the big bang revolution, after he had been dominating racing
long enough to be getting bored. At that point his main competition was
fellow Honda man Criville, and I think Doohan felt the best way to deal with
him was to sucker him into riding a bike that he couldn't ride as well as
Mick. I don't know that he actually felt the screamer would be faster,
certainly over the course of a race. But he had to be fast enough to psyche
out Criville and the others. Anyway, if the big bang was actually slower in
a good rider's hands, Doohan's qualifying times should have suffered in
early '92, when he was healthy, and Rainey and Schwantz and the others were
still at their primer and still on screamers. So here is his qualifying
performance in pre-Assen '92 vs. '91:
Suzuka: '92 - 5th (2:26.97 - wet) '91 - 2nd (2:12.01)
Eastern Creek: '92 - 1st (1:30.76) '91 - 3rd (1:31.04)
Shah Alam: '92 - 1st (1:25.51) '91 - 3rd (1:25.29)
Jerez: '92 - 1st (1:45.48) '91 - 3rd (1:47.31)
Mugello: '92 - 1st (1:54.05) '91 - 2nd (1:54.57)
Catalunya: '92 - 1st (1:48.55) '91 - no race
Hockenheim: '92 - 1st (1:58.33) '91 - 1st (2:00.36)
So Doohan was on pole at every race in '92 but the wet opener in Japan, and
was faster than in '91 in qualifying everywhere except for Malaysia. His
only '91 pole was on the "Honda lanes" in Germany, and he was nearly two
seconds faster there in '92. So I see no evidence here that supports your
theory. In fact, I see the big bang making him Superman even more in
qualifying than the races (he won five of these seven). I think what you're
talking about was more the issue in the late '90s, when Mick was getting
challenged (to some degree, anyway) by a bunch of "slow ex-250 guys" that
really weren't in his league. That was in part because the manufacturers had
been working on finding ways to make those guys more competitive for nearly
a decade, to keep the financial supporters of GP happy. Mick tried to shake
that up by insisting Honda give him a new screamer to ride.
> About the same time the big bang was developed, the tire manufactures
> started formulating rubber compounds for the 500's that were biased
> toward predictability as opposed to maximum grip. There had been a
> lot of crashes due to sudden break away of the tires, often resulting
> in high sides. The 250's weren't having the same problem, so their
> tires used compounds that favored grip, and they narrowed the
> performance gap between them and the 500's. Again, the best riders
> would have been faster with more grip.
I think the fact that almost all of the lap times we're talking about were
done on qualifiers makes this kind of shaky as well. I do think Michelin was
having a problem with their lightswitch grip, but that's continued to be a
characteristic of their rubber. And it became a serious problem when even
the best riders were getting flicked, so I suspect the riders themselves
were managing the issue after getting burned by not pushing the tires as
hard. That in itself may have made them slower. Michelin may well have used
"slower" rubber when they weren't under fire from Dunlop, but the only time
Dunlop has really been a serious player in 500 was in '91, when Michelin
were trying to phase out their GP involvement and weren't doing much serious
R&D on their GP tires.
Mark Nusbaum
> Mark Nusbaum <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >What would you say is the best track to compare
> >results?
>
> Philip Island?
Okay, Julian, you asked for it...
1989 500 - Schwantz 1:34.99
1990 500 - Doohan 1:34.79
1991 WSB - Polen 1:37.94
1992 WSB - Polen 1:37.23
1993 - no race
1994 - no race
1995 WSB - Gobert 1:35.51
1996 WSB - Edwards 1:34.62
1997 WSB - Slight 1:34.68
1997 500 - Doohan 1:33.14
1998 WSB - Corser 1:34.62
1998 500 - Doohan 1:33.16
1999 WSB - Corser 1:32.62
1999 500 - Roberts 1:32.32
2000 WSB - Fogarty 1:33.16
2000 500 - McWilliams 1:32.55
2001 WSB - Bayliss 1:33.58
2001 500 - Biaggi 1:31.98
2002 WSB - Bayliss 1:32.66
I'm not so sure this is a very good comparison, because of the lack of data
points early on and the bad weather encountered there on a regular basis.
Not to mention the unusual nature of the circuit (although that in itself
doesn't disqualify it). Or did you select this track because a SB held the
record for a while in '99? Anyway, the pattern seems similar to the other
tracks - SB way off the pace in the early '90s, closing in during the
mid-'90s, but still just a bit behind today.
> >What's the best track to measure GP machine advancement?
>
> Suzuka? Actually that would be interesting anyway given the level of
> equipment and riders for the Suzuka 8 hours.
1987 - MacKenzie 2:14.43
1989 - Taira 2:11.87
1990 - Rainey 2:09.59
1991 - Schwantz 2:11.95
1992 - Schwantz 2:20.32 (wet)
1993 - Schwantz 2:09.24
1994 - Cadalora 2:08.34
1995 - Doohan 2:08.57
1996 - Criville 2:08.65
1997 - Okada 2:07.95
1998 - Biaggi 2:05.77
1999 - no race
2000 - Roberts 2:06.68
2001 - Capirossi 2:04.78
2002 - Rossi 2:04.23
Weather has been a bit of an issue here, of course, as well as its position
right at the beginning of the year. What this shows was a steady drop over
the first few years in the late '80s, then stagnation from '90 through '96,
then more improvement around a big drop in '98. A massive ten seconds off in
the 15-year history of the event. But is this really an accurate reflection
of the machines' improvement or something else? Why doesn't it show
elsewhere? Why have only three seconds come off Schwantz' '89 time at Philip
Island?
Julian Bond
>> Suzuka? Actually that would be interesting anyway given the level of
>> equipment and riders for the Suzuka 8 hours.
Here's some Suzuka 8 hour fastest times. Some qualifying, some race. Now
these are better than SBK spec because the factories want to win so
much, but de-tuned a little to last 8 hours.
>1987 - MacKenzie 2:14.43
1987 - Gardner RVF750 2:17.4
>1989 - Taira 2:11.87
>1990 - Rainey 2:09.59
>1991 - Schwantz 2:11.95
1991 - Doohan RVF750 2:13.9
>1992 - Schwantz 2:20.32 (wet)
>1993 - Schwantz 2:09.24
>1994 - Cadalora 2:08.34
1994 - Russel ZXR7 2:11.9
>1995 - Doohan 2:08.57
1995 - Gobert ZXR7 2:11.2
>1996 - Criville 2:08.65
1996 - Slight RC45 2:10.38
>1997 - Okada 2:07.95
1997 - Katoh, RC45 2:09.88
>1998 - Biaggi 2:05.77
1998 - Itoh Honda RC45 2:10.1
>1999 - no race
1999 - Katoh - RC45 2:08.8
>2000 - Roberts 2:06.68
2000 - Haga, Yamaha 2:07.8
>2001 - Capirossi 2:04.78
2001 - Okada-Barros Honda SP1 2:07.812
>2002 - Rossi 2:04.23
I guess that's a similar pattern, Suzuka 8 hour bikes are about 4-5
years behind MotoGP. And there's that man Katoh who clearly knows how to
ride a big 4 stroke just as much as he did a 250 two stroke. And
somewhere around 98-99 they both started taking big chunks out of the
times.
http://www2.motoracing-japan.com/result/spl/998h.html
Mark Nusbaum
> Mark Nusbaum <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >What's the best track to measure GP machine advancement?
>
> Suzuka? Actually that would be interesting anyway given the level of
> equipment and riders for the Suzuka 8 hours.
My choice is Jerez. I know, it's not all that interesting, not that
memorable, not that fast, not that sexy. But my thinking is this - it has
been around since '87, it's one of the early versions of the sterile,
F1-inspired tracks that a GP bike has to be able to handle, the weather is
almost always good there, it's not usually run at the very beginning or very
end of the season. In other words, terribly average, which is about what we
need. The problem with Suzuka is that it's the very track that GP bikes are
built to run on, since the Japanese spend so damned much time testing there.
A bike might well go faster there, but that doesn't mean it'll go much
faster anywhere else. Anyway, here's Jerez, backed up by similar Catalunya:
1989 - Schwantz 1:48.79
1990 - Doohan 1:47.89
1991 - Rainey 1:46.88
1992 - Doohan 1:45.48
1993 - Schwantz 1:44.46
1994 - Schwantz 1:43.94
1995 - Doohan 1:44.07
1996 - Doohan 1:43.86
1997 - Okada 1:43.40
1998 - Checa 1:43.47
1999 - Criville 1:43.67
2000 - Biaggi 1:42.94
2001 - Rossi 1:42.74
2002 - Rossi 1:42.19
1992 - Doohan 1:48.55
1993 - Doohan 1:48.95
1994 - Cadalora 1:47.92
1995 - Cadalora 1:46.34
1996 - Doohan 1:46.20
1997 - Doohan 1:45.99
1998 - Criville 1:45.58
1999 - VDGoorbergh 1:46.08
2000 - Barros 1:45.91
2001 - Rossi 1:45.51
2002 - Biaggi 1:44.52
Well, there are the numbers I've been looking for! At Jerez, lap times
dropped by a full second every year until '94, then only a half second in
the transitional year from the old guard to the new, and then flat as a
pancake - only a bit over a second off over the next seven years. Another
half second off this year on the four-stroke literbikes, though, but the
fastest two-stroke was Barros at 1:44.50, and the track was resurfaced this
year. Catalunya doesn't go back as far, but a similar pattern. A whole
second off this year, but the fastest two-stroke, Capirossi, posted a
1:45.13. So maybe we finally have a record of the impact of the JIS invasion
on 500? And right in the middle of their home, too...
Champ
<mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My choice is Jerez. I know, it's not all that interesting, not that
>memorable, not that fast, not that sexy. But my thinking is this - it has
>been around since '87,
>1989 - Schwantz 1:48.79
>1990 - Doohan 1:47.89
>1991 - Rainey 1:46.88
>1992 - Doohan 1:45.48
>1993 - Schwantz 1:44.46
>1994 - Schwantz 1:43.94
>1995 - Doohan 1:44.07
>1996 - Doohan 1:43.86
>1997 - Okada 1:43.40
>1998 - Checa 1:43.47
>1999 - Criville 1:43.67
>2000 - Biaggi 1:42.94
>2001 - Rossi 1:42.74
>2002 - Rossi 1:42.19
>Well, there are the numbers I've been looking for! At Jerez, lap times
>dropped by a full second every year until '94, then only a half second in
>the transitional year from the old guard to the new, and then flat as a
>pancake - only a bit over a second off over the next seven years.
Well, you win first prize in the world jumping to conclusions event.
You do realise that Jerez has had several sets of modification over
that period, don't you? Certainly the jump from 91 to 92 can be
explained by the extensive work in early 1992, which made the track
wider.
I don't think fastest laps are that useful, either. The old school
guys on the screamers used to put in a few fast laps, then slide
around on shot tyres. The new generation have to run fast laps for
the whole race - it was noted that last year, during Robert's title
defense, he was going faster than the year he won the title, but only
for a few laps - while everybody else was going faster for the whole
race.
Mark Nusbaum
"Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
news:jh6dku4nv95evidm7...@4ax.com...
> >Well, there are the numbers I've been looking for! At Jerez, lap times
> >dropped by a full second every year until '94, then only a half second in
> >the transitional year from the old guard to the new, and then flat as a
> >pancake - only a bit over a second off over the next seven years.
> Well, you win first prize in the world jumping to conclusions event.
> You do realise that Jerez has had several sets of modification over
> that period, don't you? Certainly the jump from 91 to 92 can be
> explained by the extensive work in early 1992, which made the track
> wider.
And the '92 revisions actually made the track longer, although the main
revision to the track made that section faster as well. And if that was the
reason for the increase, it would be the only year in those first six that
didn't see an increase in speed otherwise - two years later Schwantz was 1.5
seconds faster, and two years before '91 he was 2 seconds slower.
> I don't think fastest laps are that useful, either. The old school
> guys on the screamers used to put in a few fast laps, then slide
> around on shot tyres. The new generation have to run fast laps for
> the whole race - it was noted that last year, during Robert's title
> defense, he was going faster than the year he won the title, but only
> for a few laps - while everybody else was going faster for the whole
> race.
I'll give you my theory on the whole thing. First, the fastest qualifying
laps by the JIS riders 90-96, before they took over the pole:
1990 - Chili (5th) 1:48.99 +1.10
1991 - Garriga (6th) 1:48.68 +1.80
1992 - Criville (7th) 1:46.88 +1.40
1993 - Cadalora (4th) 1:45.67 +1.21
1994 - Puig (5th) 1:44.44 +0.50
1995 - Puig (2nd) 1:44.78 +0.71
1996 - Criville (2nd) 1:43.96 +0.10
...and the 250 poles and the difference between them and their 500cc JIS
brethren (and 500 pole):
1990 - Bradl 1:49.42 +0.43 (+1.53)
1991 - Bradl 1:49.11 +0.43 (+2.23)
1992 - Cadalora 1:47.73 +0.85 (+2.25)
1993 - Harada 1:45.76 +0.09 (+1.30)
1994 - Capirossi 1:44.93 +0.49 (+0.99)
1995 - Harada 1:45.46 +0.68 (+1.39)
1996 - Biaggi 1:45.02 +1.06 (+1.16)
1997 - Waldmann 1:44.77 +1.37
1998 - Capirossi 1:44.43 +0.96
1999 - Nakano 1:44.74 +1.07
2000 - Waldmann 1:44.03 +1.09
2001 - Katoh 1:43.96 +1.22
So what's going on here? 250s slow down the same time 500s do, so is it that
the Japanese manufacturers (and Aprilia) stopped developing all their GP
bikes? Could be. The demands of a 500 and 250 are very different on the
tires, and the tires are different anyway, so it's unlikely that. I doubt
it's the track. My theory on all this is what I'll call the Criville theory.
The numbers above show that 250 guys only go a bit faster on a 500 than on a
250, although there was a more pronounced difference to the fastest 500 guys
(non-250 guys) in the early '90s. The 500 JIS were well behind those guys
until '94, when things in 500 had started changing. So why did times stop
falling when they finally got to the front?
It's all about the 250 racing style, which in turn probably comes from 125s.
In those classes there usually was a pack of guys battling for the lead all
the way, then it was balls out on the last couple laps, and someone won and
often someone crashed. Considerably less strategic than what was going on in
500, or at least a different strategy. There bike development and set-up was
more important, and race strategy was much more apparent. So these guys go
to 500 and what do they do? At first they chased the fast guys and tried to
keep up. Criville was the classic, eventually getting fast enough to chase
Doohan and then try anything to get by on the last couple laps, sometimes
winning, sometimes crashing. Doohan dealt with it in the old way, trying to
develop and set up the bike to make it better, but his team just handed all
that stuff to Criville, and later Okada. So then he went back to the
screamer. Anyway, once the old guard was gone, these guys just continued to
do what they always had - get comfortable and reasonably fast on the track,
try to hang in over the race, then see what happens in the last couple laps.
So lap times stagnated, but the racing got very close and there were lots of
guys qualifying within a second or so of pole. They only went as fast as
they did because a bunch of other guys were there with them, just as fast
and not crashing, the old adage.
I think what you're talking about, the fast all race long thing, is more an
issue of not pushing the bike as far and not being as strategic - you ride
around for 28 laps and then push with what you have left. Other than that,
it's a product of the big bangs and the riding style they encouraged, and
tire development. Roberts' problem was that he could only be as fast as the
best Hondas and Yamahas for a few laps because of the inferiority of his
bike. His only chance often was to get away early and hope the others
wouldn't be able to catch him (or maybe even try to). Didn't work too often.
Anyway, just a theory...
Champ
Agreed
>Roberts' problem was that he could only be as fast as the
>best Hondas and Yamahas for a few laps because of the inferiority of his
>bike. His only chance often was to get away early and hope the others
>wouldn't be able to catch him (or maybe even try to). Didn't work too often.
Also agreed
>Anyway, just a theory...
And one that I'll go along with :-)
Julian Bond
>So lap times stagnated, but the racing got very close and there were lots of
>guys qualifying within a second or so of pole. They only went as fast as
>they did because a bunch of other guys were there with them, just as fast
>and not crashing, the old adage.
>
>I think what you're talking about, the fast all race long thing, is more an
>issue of not pushing the bike as far and not being as strategic - you ride
>around for 28 laps and then push with what you have left.
Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed and
smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the second
half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
The one who's impressed me this year and last is Barros. For years the
only way he seemed to be able to ride a 500 was to out-brake people and
park it in the corners. But these last two years he's been as fast as
anyone has ever been on a 500 two stroke. Not every race and track but
often enough to be worth noting.
Mark Nusbaum
> Mark Nusbaum <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed and
> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the second
> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their ability
to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time after
time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
> The one who's impressed me this year and last is Barros. For years the
> only way he seemed to be able to ride a 500 was to out-brake people and
> park it in the corners. But these last two years he's been as fast as
> anyone has ever been on a 500 two stroke. Not every race and track but
> often enough to be worth noting.
What's impressive to me is that he's still doing it after all these years,
thirteen and counting in 500. Most riders seem to hit the wall after about
ten years of professional racing. Anyway, consistent with this storm of
qualifying numbers, here's Barros at Jerez:
1990 - Cagiva 11th 1:50.97 (+3.08)
1991 - Cagiva DNS
1992 - Cagiva 12th 1:47.40 (+1.92)
1993 - Suzuki 2nd 1:44.97 (+0.51)
1994 - Suzuki 4th 1:44.37 (+0.43)
1995 - Honda NSR 7th 1:45.45 (+1.38)
1996 - Honda NSR 12th 1:45.28 (+1.42)
1997 - Honda NSR-V 12th 1:44.90 (+1.50)
1998 - Honda NSR 8th 1:44.16 (+0.69)
1999 - Honda NSR 6th 1:44.20 (+0.53)
2000 - Honda NSR 8th 1:43.74 (+0.80)
2001 - Honda NSR 7th 1:43.59 (+0.85)
2002 - Honda NSR 2nd 1:42.50 (+0.31)
Like all of GP, Jerez kind of sums up Barros. He had that brief moment in
the sun on the Lucky Strike Suzuki, fast but often stepping over the line,
then the long, lost years on various second-tier teams, only still in 500
because of the money that he brought to the table, and now at the end of his
career a bit of a rebirth on the Pons team. But, like the GP's polesitters,
he was only about a second faster here in '01 that he had been seven years
earlier. So does that reflect the limited progress the hardware has made, or
has he really been a tired old man not able to run as hard as in his youth,
but still able to compete with the weaker field of current GP? His '02 fast
lap - more than a second faster than he's ever been, the second-fastest lap
ever at Jerez, on an obsolete bike - seems to support the latter more than
the former, but hard to say...
Champ
<mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
>news:QGprBbBi...@jblaptop.voidstar.com...
>> Mark Nusbaum <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
>> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed and
>> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the second
>> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
>
>If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their ability
>to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time after
>time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
Mark Nusbaum
> On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:20:11 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"
> <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
> >> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> >> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed and
> >> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the second
> >> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
> >
> >If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their
ability
> >to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time after
> >time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
>
> I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
> wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
I think not, although it's tough to draw the line between man and machine
when it comes to responsibility for results. If you look at Doohan, he spent
his entire GP career on the NSR, started getting great results in '92 when
the bike almost coincidentally became the dominant machine in GP, lasting as
that after he was gone. The bike was good enough to allow Criville a
championship and quite a few wins, more wins for the likes of Puig, Okada,
Checa and Barros, 500 rookie year wins for Criville, Beattie, Biaggi, Rossi.
There's little doubting he was the best guy in GP from '94 on, but there
wasn't much about Doohan that separates him from Lawson, Rainey, Schwantz in
my mind - except a better bike and lesser competition much of his career.
Rossi rode the Aprilia in 125 and 250, and those bikes were pretty clearly
the best in those classes. Then on to be handed Doohan's mantle on the NSR,
and now the dominant RC211V. Bayliss rode the GSE Ducati to that BSB
championship, and it's hard to claim any other bike in that series was
better, good enough to make Hodgeson the champion the following year. Then
he lands on the ex-Gobert/Bostrom V&H Ducati, the fastest bike in the AMA,
winner of half the races in that series the year before plus both legs at
the Laguna WSB round, but barely gets acquainted before inheriting Fogarty's
#1 Ducati in WSB. And he's around when they update the machine notably while
all of the other manufacturers in WSB are withdrawing or pulling back to
focus on GP. He may not have had the best bikes back in ARRC, but then he
never was champion, was he?
Throw Fogarty into the mix and it's pretty clear that the best guys at
winning in GP and WSB in the '90s and today have a lot more going for them
than just their talent. I'm not saying they weren't or aren't as good as any
of the guys they raced against, but I won't say they're better. At least
Fogarty tried for a year on the Honda, and also dominant-on-the-Aprilia
Biaggi in 250, who abandoned the NSR in 500 as well, and you have to give
them credit for that but you also have to say they didn't look quite so good
as a result.
If Biaggi had stayed at Honda with all that Marlboro money in '99 he might
well have won that championship instead of Criville, and then GP might well
have looked different from then on - maybe Rossi goes to Yamaha in '00, and
maybe it's Biaggi that's out front every race now. Or in '00 Fogarty doesn't
get hurt and/or Bayliss doesn't crash at Daytona or Sears doesn't get
cancelled, so he stays in the AMA, wins a few, loses a few, maybe the bike
breaks once or twice, and no championship in the end, Bostrom gets his
no-pressure learning year in WSB and adopts to the Michelins, maybe Fogarty
comes back again in '01, and now maybe Troy's on the Yamaha SB in the AMA
instead of Gobert, and no WSB championship or even a ride there. And I might
be saying Troy's as good as anyone in the world championships today, and
that might get scoffed at as much as those sorts of comments about Mladin
were a couple years ago...
Luck and circumstances are huge in this sport, and I think they can make all
the difference.
Champ
<mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<mega snip>
Boy you write some long posts :-)
>Luck and circumstances are huge in this sport, and I think they can make all
>the difference.
True enough - as you say, it is very difficult to separate man and
machine. One of the reasons why Lawson is my all time hero is that he
won back to back championships on different bikes.
Will Hartung
>
> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:cdthkuc4rgqpojqf5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:20:11 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"
> > <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> > >> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed
and
> > >> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the
second
> > >> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
> > >
> > >If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their
> ability
> > >to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time
after
> > >time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
> >
> > I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
> > wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
>
> I think not, although it's tough to draw the line between man and machine
> when it comes to responsibility for results.
To me, that's one of the things that made Eddie Lawson's back-to-back
championships in '88 and '89 particularly notable. Lawson jumped from Yamaha
to Honda, and won it on both bikes. (Then, as I recall, he then bounced back
to Yamaha...)
So, points to the hardware, but there's no question the rider is part of the
equation as well.
Will Hartung
>
> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:cdthkuc4rgqpojqf5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:20:11 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"
> > <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> > >> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed
and
> > >> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the
second
> > >> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
> > >
> > >If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their
> ability
> > >to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time
after
> > >time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
> >
> > I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
> > wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
>
> I think not, although it's tough to draw the line between man and machine
> when it comes to responsibility for results.
To me, that's one of the things that made Eddie Lawson's back-to-back
Will Hartung
>
> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:cdthkuc4rgqpojqf5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:20:11 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"
> > <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> > >> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed
and
> > >> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the
second
> > >> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
> > >
> > >If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their
> ability
> > >to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time
after
> > >time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
> >
> > I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
> > wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
>
> I think not, although it's tough to draw the line between man and machine
> when it comes to responsibility for results.
To me, that's one of the things that made Eddie Lawson's back-to-back
Will Hartung
>
> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:cdthkuc4rgqpojqf5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:20:11 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"
> > <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> > >> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed
and
> > >> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the
second
> > >> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
> > >
> > >If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their
> ability
> > >to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time
after
> > >time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
> >
> > I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
> > wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
>
> I think not, although it's tough to draw the line between man and machine
> when it comes to responsibility for results.
To me, that's one of the things that made Eddie Lawson's back-to-back
Will Hartung
>
> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:cdthkuc4rgqpojqf5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:20:11 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"
> > <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> > >> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed
and
> > >> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the
second
> > >> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
> > >
> > >If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their
> ability
> > >to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time
after
> > >time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
> >
> > I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
> > wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
>
> I think not, although it's tough to draw the line between man and machine
> when it comes to responsibility for results.
To me, that's one of the things that made Eddie Lawson's back-to-back
Will Hartung
>
> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:cdthkuc4rgqpojqf5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:20:11 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"
> > <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> > >> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed
and
> > >> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the
second
> > >> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
> > >
> > >If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their
> ability
> > >to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time
after
> > >time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
> >
> > I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
> > wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
>
> I think not, although it's tough to draw the line between man and machine
> when it comes to responsibility for results.
To me, that's one of the things that made Eddie Lawson's back-to-back
Will Hartung
>
> "Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:cdthkuc4rgqpojqf5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:20:11 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"
> > <mark.n...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >"Julian Bond" <julia...@voidstar.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Then every once in a while a rider comes along (like Doohan, Rossi,
> > >> Bayliss, heh!) who seems to be able to do it all. High corner speed
and
> > >> smooth on qualifiers; square it off and rear wheel steer in the
second
> > >> half of the race; the ability to improvise race lines to pass people.
> > >
> > >If you're talking about these three, you should also mention their
> ability
> > >to land the very best rides in the series they're contesting, time
after
> > >time. A great bike can make almost anyone look very good...
> >
> > I think perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. And I'm sure *I*
> > wouldn't lok particularly good on, say, Doohan's 500...
>
> I think not, although it's tough to draw the line between man and machine
> when it comes to responsibility for results.
To me, that's one of the things that made Eddie Lawson's back-to-back