Hi all,
just to prove I'm not totally against our old-school friends (2 strokes, bikes from the '70s, riding with leather helmets and so on), here's a suggestion that should make them happy.
On old bikes, the speedo is mechanically linked to the wheel or (more recently) electronically "linked" to it. This means that it measures the wheel's speed, not really the bike's speed.
Now that GPB takes into account the wheel radius change when leaning, if a bike has a speedo linked to the wheel (electronically or mechanically), the speed should change when you lean the bike.
In GPB the speed does not change, because the speedo is using the real bike speed (e.g the GPS-measured speed).
On "old" bikes (pre GPS era likely, pre-electronic at any rate), GPB could offer the option to modders to use the "wheel measured speed" instead of the real bike speed: this would mean that when you lean at corner entry, not only you hear the RPMs go up, but you also see the speedo speed go up (of course your real speed does not go up).
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 23, 2014, 07:38:33 PM
Hi all,
just to prove I'm not totally against our old-school friends (2 strokes, bikes from the '70s, riding with leather helmets and so on), here's a suggestion that should make them happy.
On old bikes, the speedo is mechanically linked to the wheel or (more recently) electronically "linked" to it. This means that it measures the wheel's speed, not really the bike's speed.
Now that GPB takes into account the wheel radius change when leaning, if a bike has a speedo linked to the wheel (electronically or mechanically), the speed should change when you lean the bike.
In GPB the speed does not change, because the speedo is using the real bike speed (e.g the GPS-measured speed).
On "old" bikes (pre GPS era likely, pre-electronic at any rate), GPB could offer the option to modders to use the "wheel measured speed" instead of the real bike speed: this would mean that when you lean at corner entry, not only you hear the RPMs go up, but you also see the speedo speed go up (of course your real speed does not go up).
MaX.
Hi Max.
Speedo's.... SPEEDO'S!! :o
I know I'm getting on a bit Max, but I'm not that old yet. Lol :P ;D
What era you talking about? I can't ever remember GP race bikes having a "Speedo".
Hawk.
I don't want to hear old... and speedo in the same phrase.... ever... :(
lol
Yeah, it's a bit unusual on race bikes, but i'm sure once you'll have had your overdose of rusty gp bikes, you'll ask for rusty road bikes ... just anticipating the need :) :) :)
Ouch, you discovered my real intentions with this post ... damn you ....
MaX.
Yeah I've never seen a speedometer on real race bikes (production racers and factory racers), they were pretty much useless before electronics.
Also I want to point out that GPS systems are forbidden in MotoGP. The speed is still measured by wheel rotation (they have sensors front and rear for traction control purposes) and probably also lean angle and they can extrapolate the actual "GPS" speed of the bike.
As for modern sportbikes, the speed is almost always measured at the gearbox output (pinion). The speed actually becomes wrong if you change sproket sizes and all. And on those bikes, like I said before, the measured speed increases when you lean over of course.
And on MotoGP dashboards, when riding, they usually show RPM, Temp, gear, TCS setting, shift lights and that's about it for the main things.
Thx EdouardB.
Even when I try to be nice to the old school gang, I can't :)
Quote from: EdouardB on June 24, 2014, 08:50:47 AM
Also I want to point out that GPS systems are forbidden in MotoGP.
Oh strange, because I've heard and read that today in MotoGP they can tune different things on the bike (mostly the engine power delivery) depending on where exactly the bike is on the track. How do they know where the bike is on the track then ?
MaX.
I confirm, no GPS (you can find it in the MotoGP reglementation that probably can be found on the net).
They still know exactly where the bikes are on the track though. They are measuring wheel speed, lean angles, all the accelerations with all sorts of sensors and gyros (x,y,z) so with electronics you can calculate exactly where the bike is on the track (which defeats the purpose of having a GPS, but that's another story :P).
Occasionnaly a bike is "confused" on the track, which happened to Nicky Hayden a few years ago on Ducati and ruined his GP...
Extract from the regulation: "15. Only DORNA can supply GPS unit just for entertainments such as TV broadcasting, which can't connect to CPU unit by any kind of system."
Quote from: EdouardB on June 24, 2014, 08:50:47 AM
As for modern sportbikes, the speed is almost always measured at the gearbox output (pinion). The speed actually becomes wrong if you change sproket sizes and all. And on those bikes, like I said before, the measured speed increases when you lean over of course.
<-this is completely right
this is a nice post and i agree with it. ofcourse race bikes didnt have a speedo but all other old road bikes 2 or 4 stroke measured the speed from the front wheel(except from leaning-who wouldnt enjoy doing a wheelie and have a speed indicate of 60km/h[and falling] and when he lands the front wheel the speedo go instantly to the actual speed)
also all the small cc bikes even nowadays measure the speed from the front wheel. it will be a very nice addon if it became available.
Quote from: EdouardB on June 24, 2014, 09:07:22 AM
I confirm, no GPS (you can find it in the MotoGP reglementation that probably can be found on the net).
They still know exactly where the bikes are on the track though. They are measuring wheel speed, lean angles, all the accelerations with all sorts of sensors and gyros (x,y,z) so with electronics you can calculate exactly where the bike is on the track (which defeats the purpose of having a GPS, but that's another story :P).
Occasionnaly a bike is "confused" on the track, which happened to Nicky Hayden a few years ago on Ducati and ruined his GP...
Hmm, very interesting and, once again, pretty silly from dorna (but then, that's not a big news).
I'm not sure they know exactly where the bike is: even using gyros and all sort of sensors it's pretty hard to get good precision over a significant lapse of time. But maybe they need only a rough position along the track, so it's ok.
I still hate the concept though, even if it's not GPS based, I hate automagic stuff varying things knowing where you are.
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 24, 2014, 12:11:49 PMI'm not sure they know exactly where the bike is: even using gyros and all sort of sensors it's pretty hard to get good precision over a significant lapse of time. But maybe they need only a rough position along the track, so it's ok.
The thing is, motoGP riders do lap after lap after lap exactly the same way so it becomes very repetitive so I think the system is probably extremely precise. They have processors in there that can calculate all sorts of things and, considering how many sensors they have and how the input is almost always the same I suspect it's very precise.
For example on a lot of tracks you have specific bumps at the apex that the rider always hits and the sensors feel so you have a lot of ways to tell the bike where it is on the track.
All of this research s**t is probably more expensive in ressources than simply putting a GPS on the bike, but viva la dorna :P
Even in World Supersport they have turn by turn tuning with no GPS (and riders say it's surprisingly precise) so, considering MotoGP is even more evolved, I think this is precise stuff :P
But you can still do some unexpected stuff (like go wide for once, take a different line to overtake, etc).
With only bike sensors (including gyros, accelerometers and so on) it's a bit of a nightmare (I played with all this stuff for space applications).
It is definitely possible to know that you are approaching turn 5, 50m away from it, but exact position on track ... sounds hard.
GPS would need these sensors too as it's likely to be not quick enough and probably not even precise enough by itself.
But yes, it would be far easier than doing the same thing without GPS.
MaX.
Yeah I guess when you go wide it becomes less precise but after a few turns you're back to normal again. It's complicated :( I know that in Nicky Hayden's case the bike got completely confused and thought he was all over the track lol.
And when I say "super precise", it's not 10cm. I think "approaching turn 5, 50m from it" is really precise already considering you have no GPS!
And yes, a GPS would be used with the other sensors if it was allowed. They use everything they can...
I don't like the overall concept of knowing where the bike is on the track honestly, it adds so much complexity while the improvement on the lap time is there but not THAT significant.
In Formula 1 I remember that at some point in the 80s the pits could communicate with the F1s to change the setup live without the driver doing anything :P It quickly was forbidden but it's the same sort of electronics non sense.
Oh , that level of precision is definitely doable without GPS, not a big difficulty neither with the sensors they can put on a bike. But me too I'm utterly against it.
For F1, it seems they are discussing again active suspensions: I'm not against, if they don't know where the bike is on the track. Else I'm furiously against.
MaX.
Being a racer im all for electric's, it saves lifes injurys and careers, I couldn't carless if spectators want no electronic aids im safer my friends are safer. These big bikes will kill you in seconds. people should think about our saftery and not what you find entertaining to watch.
Iw as not arguing against electronics, I was arguing against using positional data to fine tune stuff in real time.
MaX.
Quote from: RBp on June 24, 2014, 05:32:52 PM
Being a racer im all for electric's, it saves lifes injurys and careers, I couldn't carless if spectators want no electronic aids im safer my friends are safer. These big bikes will kill you in seconds. people should think about our saftery and not what you find entertaining to watch.
this makes no sense spectator=money. if you dont care for the pocket that feeds your desire then what? and i wont discuss the fact that if spectators wanted to see a "safe" show they would have gone to the church...circuits should be modern worlds colosseum imo.
Quote from: tseklias on June 24, 2014, 11:45:27 PM
Quote from: RBp on June 24, 2014, 05:32:52 PM
Being a racer im all for electric's, it saves lifes injurys and careers, I couldn't carless if spectators want no electronic aids im safer my friends are safer. These big bikes will kill you in seconds. people should think about our saftery and not what you find entertaining to watch.
this makes no sense spectator=money. if you dont care for the pocket that feeds your desire then what? and i wont discuss the fact that if spectators wanted to see a "safe" show they would have gone to the church...circuits should be modern worlds colosseum imo.
I don't watch racing to see someone crash or get hurt, or even die. I want to see a exciting race where everyone is Ok at the end.
Quote from: Klax75 on June 24, 2014, 11:56:34 PM
I don't watch racing to see someone crash or get hurt, or even die. I want to see a exciting race where everyone is Ok at the end.
i dont either maybe you misunderstood me. i meant to say that the danger of the sport is where the honey is. im not against airbags, seatbelts and stuff but im against all the electronics that make the bike/car more easy to control. thats the reason f1 has lost most of its funs today imo, nobody wants to see cars race on rails. just think of it like that group-b fans vs nascar,motogp,f1&wrc(all modern) who you think got more? and i wont add more to group-b like motogp500, the era of turbo formulas and so many legendary categories of races. all were left today is the tt(where many %$#&*% still shout to ban). i believe theres a difference between hamilton and senna, stoner and doohan, mcrae and vatanen..
Quote from: tseklias on June 25, 2014, 12:26:28 AM
Quote from: Klax75 on June 24, 2014, 11:56:34 PM
I don't watch racing to see someone crash or get hurt, or even die. I want to see a exciting race where everyone is Ok at the end.
i dont either maybe you misunderstood me. i meant to say that the danger of the sport is where the honey is. im not against airbags, seatbelts and stuff but im against all the electronics that make the bike/car more easy to control. thats the reason f1 has lost most of its funs today imo, nobody wants to see cars race on rails. just think of it like that group-b fans vs nascar,motogp,f1&wrc(all modern) who you think got more? and i wont add more to group-b like motogp500, the era of turbo formulas and so many legendary categories of races. all were left today is the tt(where many %$#&*% still shout to ban). i believe theres a difference between hamilton and senna, stoner and doohan, mcrae and vatanen..
+1 ;)
As an addition I'd like to state: Motorsport is very dangerous! Everyone who participates and spectates knows it. I'm all for making it sensibly as safe as possible, but were do you draw the line between safety and ripping the heart out of the sport?
Of course no one wants to see people die or get seriously injured..... But a big part of motorsport( as well as watching the competitors race each other) is knowing that your pushing the limits of the bike with your skill and ability knowing that if you make a mistake you could well die for it.
Take the TT races: I personally have a much greater respect for the guys who race the TT than any other motorsports competitors on earth. Yes I think they must be absolutely CRAZY to ride that circuit like they do, the dangers are absolutely HORRENDOUS! But by god, if you ever go and see them flying around that circuit in reality then I'm sure you'd agree they are the real true hero's of motorcycle racing, electronics or not.
Modern purpose built race tracks are as safe as you'll get them in my opinion, they are very safe nowadays, but the riders look like modern knights with all the armour built into their leather suits(now we even have bloody airbags. LOL) and to further insult the sport with the electronic aids they have progressively integrated into MotoGP is a step too far; it's now as bad as the old F1 series used to be when the electronics practically did all the work and all the driver had to do was steer and press the foot pedal. The gov body of F1(FIA) realised the problem and banned the majority of aids and now F1 is far, far better off for that decision. It would be the same if MotoGP went the same way.
Basically what I'm saying is that safety to a point is good in motorsport, but too much safety and passing the skills of racing to the bike instead of the rider is a step too far and very bad for the sport in general as F1 proved many years ago.
Hawk.
I am with Max on this, I am all about technology. I want to see new and exciting technology. This just goes to the circular argument What I did yesterday was tougher, and tomorrow will be much easier. So when it is tomorrow and I look back at yesterday did in make it tougher? Everyone wants to feel, and wear rose colored glasses for what was done before. For me, I've never been like that, I am excited to see what hasn't been done before. What new things will out there.
The guys back in the 1970-80's for there time they were on the cutting edge of things. Just like the guys now are on cutting edge of stuff.
It still about the rider and driver even if you feel what was done before was better. If it is all easy, then wild card riders would do better. Yes you can say but they aren't on the big teams.
I challenge anyone to go out on there local track days and take part. Go as fast as they feel comfortable with. I'd love to do that if I didn't have O.I. I've broken hundreds of bones already in real life and I don't even race. LOL! :D
Quote from: Klax75 on June 25, 2014, 03:30:50 AM
I am with Max on this, I am all about technology. I want to see new and exciting technology. This just goes to the circular argument What I did yesterday was tougher, and tomorrow will be much easier. So when it is tomorrow and I look back at yesterday did in make it tougher? Everyone wants to feel, and wear rose colored glasses for what was done before. For me, I've never been like that, I am excited to see what hasn't been done before. What new things will out there.
The guys back in the 1970-80's for there time they were on the cutting edge of things. Just like the guys now are on cutting edge of stuff.
It still about the rider and driver even if you feel what was done before was better. If it is all easy, then wild card riders would do better. Yes you can say but they aren't on the big teams.
I challenge anyone to go out on there local track days and take part. Go as fast as they feel comfortable with. I'd love to do that if I didn't have O.I. I've broken hundreds of bones already in real life and I don't even race. LOL! :D
When your talking about riding aids or no riding aids, which defines the better skill as a rider? The rider who can race and win on a bike with no riding aids, or the rider who wins races only with the aid of these riding aids?
It is well known that if you ride with riding aids then it greatly narrows the gap between the less skilled riders and the very talented riders, the same as it allows the good riders(which all Motogp riders are very good) to ride at the same level as the riders who would normally have that special extra edge that defines a race champion. The only difference these days is the performance of the bikes that defines whether a rider wins or not(Ooo... That's controversial! Lol). When was the last time you saw a rider win on a greatly inferior bike? I bet you'd have to go back to before the 1990's to tell me that.
Also I think there is a big difference between having the latest technology in tyres/frame construction techniques or light materials/ the latest carbon disc pads or brake discs/even having the advantage of an engine with more horsepower from the old school days than comparing those things with the likes of traction and wheelie control and electronics that automatically adjust the handling and engine power output according to current throttle and grip situations. All these things are supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines the great riders from the middle of the pack riders. So no. I have to disagree with you guys that advocate the progression of riding aids technology and just blindly accept it as part and parcel of the sport moving on with the times. We should open our eyes and get the sport back to being a sport and not just a spectacle soley run for the sponsors benefits(That's another story all together. LOL).
@Klax: Yes the riders of old school were on the cutting edge of technology for their time, agreed. But at which stage do you start to draw the line and say it's gone too far? I think it's when you start to take away the skill of the rider and give it more to the machine to do the job, that to me is when the line has been crossed and starts to make a sport into just a spectacle rather than a true sporting competition.
I'll step off my soapbox now. Hehe ;D
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 06:14:28 AM
Quote from: Klax75 on June 25, 2014, 03:30:50 AM
I am with Max on this, I am all about technology. I want to see new and exciting technology. This just goes to the circular argument What I did yesterday was tougher, and tomorrow will be much easier. So when it is tomorrow and I look back at yesterday did in make it tougher? Everyone wants to feel, and wear rose colored glasses for what was done before. For me, I've never been like that, I am excited to see what hasn't been done before. What new things will out there.
The guys back in the 1970-80's for there time they were on the cutting edge of things. Just like the guys now are on cutting edge of stuff.
It still about the rider and driver even if you feel what was done before was better. If it is all easy, then wild card riders would do better. Yes you can say but they aren't on the big teams.
I challenge anyone to go out on there local track days and take part. Go as fast as they feel comfortable with. I'd love to do that if I didn't have O.I. I've broken hundreds of bones already in real life and I don't even race. LOL! :D
When your talking about riding aids or no riding aids, which defines the better skill as a rider? The rider who can race and win on a bike with no riding aids, or the rider who wins races only with the aid of these riding aids?
It is well known that if you ride with riding aids then it greatly narrows the gap between the less skilled riders and the very talented riders, the same as it allows the good riders(which all Motogp riders are very good) to ride at the same level as the riders who would normally have that special extra edge that defines a race champion. The only difference these days is the performance of the bikes that defines whether a rider wins or not(Ooo... That's controversial! Lol). When was the last time you saw a rider win on a greatly inferior bike? I bet you'd have to go back to before the 1990's to tell me that.
Also I think there is a big difference between having the latest technology in tyres/frame construction techniques or light materials/ the latest carbon disc pads or brake discs/even having the advantage of an engine with more horsepower from the old school days than comparing those things with the likes of traction and wheelie control and electronics that automatically adjust the handling and engine power output according to current throttle and grip situations. All these things are supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines the great riders from the middle of the pack riders. So no. I have to disagree with you guys that advocate the progression of riding aids technology and just blindly accept it as part and parcel of the sport moving on with the times. We should open our eyes and get the sport back to being a sport and not just a spectacle soley run for the sponsors benefits(That's another story all together. LOL).
@Klax: Yes the riders of old school were on the cutting edge of technology for their time, agreed. But at which stage do you start to draw the line and say it's gone too far? I think it's when you start to take away the skill of the rider and give it more to the machine to do the job, that to me is when the line has been crossed and starts to make a sport into just a spectacle rather than a true sporting competition.
I'll step off my soapbox now. Hehe ;D
Hawk.
I disagree. :) I'm just going to leave it at that, because this will never be a answer since it's just all opinion.
W00t! A topic
I didn't send off topic ! :)
I go with a simple rule: I'm happy for the top category of a given motorsport (e.g. MotoGP and F1) to have whichever technology have a practical and technical interest, provided that it does not spoil the show and it is not too dangerous.
For example, I'm against launch control, especially for bikes (where the safety justification is weaker than for cars).
I'm OK for active suspensions for both cars and bikes (likely semi-active for bikes), but definitely not something that auto-tunes knowing where you are on the track.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 06:14:28 AM
When your talking about riding aids or no riding aids, which defines the better skill as a rider? The rider who can race and win on a bike with no riding aids, or the rider who wins races only with the aid of these riding aids?
Most of that reasoning is a myth. Same identical bikes, Marquez 7 - Pedrosa 0. It's not by chance.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 06:14:28 AM
The only difference these days is the performance of the bikes that defines whether a rider wins or not(Ooo... That's controversial! Lol).
It's not controversial, it's wrong. Marc 7 - Dani 0. Wait, did I say that twice ? :)
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 06:14:28 AM
Also I think there is a big difference between having the latest technology in tyres/frame construction techniques or light materials/ the latest carbon disc pads or brake discs/even having the advantage of an engine with more horsepower from the old school days than comparing those things with the likes of traction and wheelie control and electronics that automatically adjust the handling and engine power output according to current throttle and grip situations. All these things are supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines the great riders from the middle of the pack riders.
All these things
are were supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what
defines defined the great riders from the middle of the pack riders.
Same in cars: a long tim ago, you had a gearbox lever, a clutch, heavy steering wheel ...
Motorsport evolves, by nature.
Let me ask you this: you like the '80s bikes and you think they were really separating the good riders from the average ones, better show, more gutsy etc. Now I could argue: no way, the '70s were much better, with carbs, frames that were very flexible so a real rider had to compensate for that.
Then somebody else argues: you silly kids, the '60s were the real deal. Shitty tires, ridiculous brakes ...that was brave.
Where does it stop ? Where is the line ?
The answer is: there's no line.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 06:14:28 AM
@Klax: Yes the riders of old school were on the cutting edge of technology for their time, agreed. But at which stage do you start to draw the line and say it's gone too far? I think it's when you start to take away the skill of the rider and give it more to the machine to do the job, that to me is when the line has been crossed and starts to make a sport into just a spectacle rather than a true sporting competition.
If you want a true true true sporting competition you have to have all the riders on same bike (and compensate for mechanical problems, after all it's not the rider's fault if the engine blows up).
If you want a championship that is at the same time a riders championship and a constructors championship, then you have to allow evolution: that;s what the constructors want (and what later on is beneficial to consumers, at least some times).
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 25, 2014, 10:37:54 AM
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 06:14:28 AM
Also I think there is a big difference between having the latest technology in tyres/frame construction techniques or light materials/ the latest carbon disc pads or brake discs/even having the advantage of an engine with more horsepower from the old school days than comparing those things with the likes of traction and wheelie control and electronics that automatically adjust the handling and engine power output according to current throttle and grip situations. All these things are supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines the great riders from the middle of the pack riders.
All these things are were supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines defined the great riders from the middle of the pack riders.
Same in cars: a long tim ago, you had a gearbox lever, a clutch, heavy steering wheel ...
Motorsport evolves, by nature.
Let me ask you this: you like the '80s bikes and you think they were really separating the good riders from the average ones, better show, more gutsy etc. Now I could argue: no way, the '70s were much better, with carbs, frames that were very flexible so a real rider had to compensate for that.
Then somebody else argues: you silly kids, the '60s were the real deal. Shitty tires, ridiculous brakes ...that was brave.
Where does it stop ? Where is the line ?
The answer is: there's no line.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 25, 2014, 10:37:54 AM
Same in cars: a long tim ago, you had a gearbox lever, a clutch, heavy steering wheel ...
Motorsport evolves, by nature.
Let me ask you this: you like the '80s bikes and you think they were really separating the good riders from the average ones, better show, more gutsy etc. Now I could argue: no way, the '70s were much better, with carbs, frames that were very flexible so a real rider had to compensate for that.
Then somebody else argues: you silly kids, the '60s were the real deal. Shitty tires, ridiculous brakes ...that was brave.
Where does it stop ? Where is the line ?
The answer is: there's no line.
Hi Max...
Lol.... Your a picky old bugger today Max! Did someone pull your spark plugs out or something? LOL ;D
Okay.....
Quote: "Same in cars: a long tim ago, you had a gearbox lever, a clutch, heavy steering wheel ..."
Correction: "
It's the same
with regards to cars: a long
time ago,
one had a gearbox lever, a clutch,
a heavy steering wheel ..."
Btw: I was talking in the present tense not the past tense in that part of my sentence, so your grammatical corrections in my post are incorrect. :P
But anyway, as Klax rightly pointed out it's all a matter of ones own point of view and opinion. So I think we'll all agree to disagree on this subject. ;) 8)
Touché Max! :P ;D 8)
Hawk.
PS: I bet you're a cracking chess player Max? ;)
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 11:49:31 AM
Btw: I was talking in the present tense not the past tense in that part of my sentence, so your grammatical corrections in my post are incorrect. :P
You misunderstood their meaning: they weren't grammatical corrections (your grammar was absolutely fine, at least to me), they were correction in the meaning of the sentence, in the message the sentence carries. What you were saying at present tense, I disagree on: I think it is only true at past tense.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 11:49:31 AM
PS: I bet you're a cracking chess player Max? ;)
Nope, learnt to play but didn't liked it. I was decent at backgammon though.
And I'm almost always a picky old bugger, nothing special today :) :)
MaX.
I feel like I should clarify something because everytime I hear people talk about the "safety" side of electronics in MotoGP, it really annoys me (even makes me rage :P).
In MotoGP, electronics are NOT used for safety. At all. It's purely a performance tool.
What I mean by that is that the only reason that MotoGP riders use traction control is because nowadays it actually improves the lap times.
If the lap times were better without traction control, no one would use it. Even if it implies 10 times more crashes (which it does not - more below).
In the French Superstock championship for example, all the people I know who ride a kawasaki ZX10RR or BMW S1000RR never use TC on a dry track. Because they tested it and it doesn't make them faster, so they don't bother. In the Superbike championship they use it but only because it improves tyre wear and actually makes them slightly faster. It's not at all a safety concern.
Having said that, it does improve safety but only as a consequence and not nearly as much as people think. People still high side even with very advanced electronics (that costs millions of R&D in MotoGP). Riders of 250GP and WSS who have tried bikes with TCS have told me that it doesn't make them crash much less at all.
Also, the problem is that the arrival (or, I should say, the improvement, because the last 500 actually had some electronics) of electronics coincided with the arrival of the 4 strokes in MotoGP and people associated the smaller number of high sides with electronics but it's just wrong. It's mostly a matter of 4 stroke vs 2 stroke. The number of crashes in MotoGP also hasn't been significantly reduced while the electronics improved between 2003 and 2013: in 2003, Haga had the biggest number of crashes with 17 crashes during the season. In 2013, Marc Marquez crashed the most with 15 crashes. Much improved safety? BULLSHIT. IT'S NOT TRUE ON THE RACETRACK. DAMN. JESUS (I'm not actually mad don't worry)
However on the road, TCS can probably be a big plus for safety as there are a lot of surprises such as crack in the road, an unexpected bump, oil, etc... I'm all for it on the road honestly (same goes for ABS).
I +1 all the above, including the CAPITALS :P
I also think most of the ones that "dislaike" electronic aids overestimate a lot what electronic can do. You still need a damn good rider to go fast.
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 25, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 11:49:31 AM
Btw: I was talking in the present tense not the past tense in that part of my sentence, so your grammatical corrections in my post are incorrect. :P
You misunderstood their meaning: they weren't grammatical corrections (your grammar was absolutely fine, at least to me), they were correction in the meaning of the sentence, in the message the sentence carries. What you were saying at present tense, I disagree on: I think it is only true at past tense.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 11:49:31 AM
PS: I bet you're a cracking chess player Max? ;)
Nope, learnt to play but didn't liked it. I was decent at backgammon though.
And I'm almost always a picky old bugger, nothing special today :) :)
MaX.
Hi Max.
Lol... no probs..... My mistake for the misunderstanding. Hope no offence was taken by my reply post, just a little light banter I thought. ;)
Though I do feel that todays riders should be made to rely on their seat of the pants skills rather than be aided by electronics, and if the current bikes are just too dangerous to ride without the aids then they should go back to the good old 2 stroke 500's(I wish!! ;D ). :P
Hawk:
PS: Have you unpacked your PC yet? Thought you might like to test "Hawk Park" for me? It has terrain now so no falling off the track into the twilight zone. Hehe. ;D
I just want to add (to be precise) that there were 18 GPs in 2013 vs 16 GPs in 2003 so the gap is perhaps bigger than it seems - however Haga was riding an Aprilia which had mechanical problems that induced crashes so it's complicated. In 2004, Ruben Xaus was the rider who had the most crashes and he had 15 crashes over 16 Gps (vs Marquez with 15 in 18 races in 2013). I feel like my point is still valid.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 01:10:33 PM
Hi Max.
Lol... no probs..... My mistake for the misunderstanding. Hope no offence was taken by my reply post, just a little light banter I thought. ;)
I'm not sure I've ever taken offence a single time on this (or the past) forum. And for sure not from you :)
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 01:10:33 PM
PS: Have you unpacked your PC yet? Thought you might like to test "Hawk Park" for me? It has terrain now so no falling off the track into the twilight zone. Hehe. ;D
Unpacked ? That's gonna happen in more than a month from now, they took it this morning :(
I'm writing from a Mac laptop, hope you can understand my condition :)
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 25, 2014, 01:06:27 PM
I +1 all the above, including the CAPITALS :P
I also think most of the ones that "dislaike" electronic aids overestimate a lot what electronic can do. You still need a damn good rider to go fast.
MaX.
I too +1 on what Edouard has stated.
Also agree that, "You still need a damn good rider to go fast.", Max.
It's just a case of wanting to see rider and machine racing rather than rider through electronic aids racing around. As Edouard stated,
"In MotoGP, electronics are NOT used for safety. At all. It's purely a performance tool."
"What I mean by that is that the only reason that MotoGP riders use traction control is because nowadays it actually improves the lap times."This is just what I've been arguing; an increase in performance from what they could achieve without electronic aids. They should cut out the electronics. Lets see who would be top dog without them. :D
Hawk
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 01:27:18 PMThey should cut out the electronics. Lets see who would be top dog without them. :D
Ironically I think the championships standings would probably be pretty much identical to what it is now. Let's not forget that the top MotoGP racers, before being in MotoGP, won everything in 250 or Moto2, that have no electronics, and were better than their rivals who are now behind in the grid in MotoGP... Inside the top 4 though, some things could change, but I'm not sure honestly. Marquez is doing great and so did he in Moto2, 125, CEV, you name it...
Quote from: EdouardB on June 25, 2014, 01:46:26 PM
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 01:27:18 PMThey should cut out the electronics. Lets see who would be top dog without them. :D
Ironically I think the championships standings would probably be pretty much identical to what it is now. Let's not forget that the top MotoGP racers, before being in MotoGP, won everything in 250 or Moto2, that have no electronics, and were better than their rivals who are now behind in the grid in MotoGP... Inside the top 4 though, some things could change, but I'm not sure honestly. Marquez is doing great and so did he in Moto2, 125, CEV, you name it...
You could well be correct, but it would be interesting to see which riders could consistently ride very well without the aids compared to the ones that could possibly be relying more on the aids to keep up there performances throughout the season?
Hawk.
Maybe, I have no clue :P
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
This is just what I've been arguing; an increase in performance from what they could achieve without electronic aids.
Hmm .... nobody could do manually what a TC or anti-wheeling does.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
They should cut out the electronics. Lets see who would be top dog without them. :D
But why ? Why not then "they should put the weight limit to 200Kg (or 100Kg) and see who is the top dog with that" ?
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 25, 2014, 02:51:34 PM
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
This is just what I've been arguing; an increase in performance from what they could achieve without electronic aids.
Hmm .... nobody could do manually what a TC or anti-wheeling does.
Exactly. Then the performance would be totally down to the rider and bike alone. Which is what I'd like to see happen.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
They should cut out the electronics. Lets see who would be top dog without them. :D
But why ? Why not then "they should put the weight limit to 200Kg (or 100Kg) and see who is the top dog with that" ?
MaX.
[/quote]
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to explain?
If you allowed 100 meter sprinters to use spring loaded running shoes, then of course they would run the 100 meters faster than they normally could, right? Now in sporting terms that is cheating in my mind. The same with regards to when swimmers started to wear those shark skin swim suits which aided their gliding through the water quicker(which they have now banned); it's just not true sport to do that sort of thing. I mean motorsport is a test of man and machine against the competition, it shouldn't be about man, machine + a box of electronic aids which allows a rider to get faster times than they normally would do without those aids?
I think I'm getting were your coming from..... In that you feel that what does it matter if(for instance) they all have electronically controlled kinetic drives powering their bikes/cars which allow them to zoom around the tracks at full throttle without ever falling off/crashing so long as they all have them then what does it matter if that is current technical progress? Of course that is taking things to the extreme, but I think this is your basic argument on technical progress in sports? All I can say if that is your thinking is, "What a boring sport motor racing will become". I cannot believe that is the sort of advancement you pro-e/aids guys would want in this sport, is it? Because if they continue to allow these advancements in electronics aids then for sure they will continue down that line until the rider is literally not really needed anymore accept to twist the throttle and lean the bike then the computers will take care of the rest, he'll just be there for the spectacle. Similar to what F1 used to be like.
Another analogy: What if golfers were allowed to use a pendulum putter, would that be fair sport? Would that deter from the skill needed to putt a golf ball? Of course it would. This is why they are banning those long handles putters now, and about time too! :)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 03:36:46 PMit's just not true sport to do that sort of thing. I mean motorsport is a test of man and machine against the competition, it shouldn't be about man, machine + a box of electronic aids which allows a rider to get faster times than they normally would do without those aids?
I think this sentence is interesting because if you think about it, it's quite subjective:
- electronics are not true to the sport: it's an opinion (that I somewhat share, I honestly try not to think about it too much as I'm very conflicted), if you ask Honda, they will tell you it is just like when electronic ignition appeared in the 80s, it's part of the sport for them.
- everyone agrees it's about man+machine, but is the electronics part of the machine? For you it's not really (more of an addition), but I'm pretty sure if you ask Honda they will tell you it's part of the machine.
Overall I'm very conflicted about this because I dislike any kind of filter between me and the throttle, and at the same time it's just part of technology and it's hard to say "let's ban a whole side of technology from the most technological racing category there is"...
Also, there has always been some "unfair" advantages in racing and it's part of the competition. The way the companies see it, when a rider wins a championship, the company wins with the rider too. It's a 2 people team.
What I mean by that is that to them, electronics are OK: it's not unfair to them, it's just work they put in to get the championship.
Having said that, I wish we could have no traction control in MotoGP, but it's just an opinion and I'm still confused about it.
Quote from: Hawk_UK on June 25, 2014, 03:36:46 PM
I mean motorsport is a test of man and machine against the competition, it shouldn't be about man, machine + a box of electronic aids which allows a rider to get faster times than they normally would do without those aids?
Oh well, thats your definition of motorsport Hawk. For you motorsport = no electronics. That's arguable at best.
I do understand what you're trying to say, I just don't agree. You think that electronics help are bad because they help the rider.
Well, then a better suspension helps the rider too: what should we do ? Ban good suspensions and stick to 20 years old ones ?
We all agree there's a limit somewhere on what you should and what you should not allow in terms of electronics.
But the limit you ark for (zero electronics) is nowadays not acceptable. You can't ask Honda, Yamaha and the others to do "Old School Racing" .... this only works here on this forum :)
As a side note, I don't think races with less electronics would be a better (or worse) show: last season and this season MotoGp races have been very enjoyable "despite" the aids.
MaX.
P.S.
Ach Edouard has been faster :)
Quote from: tseklias on June 24, 2014, 11:45:27 PM
this makes no sense spectator=money. if you dont care for the pocket that feeds your desire then what?
You think we get a % of the profit from a motorsport event or have to pay to enter the event? only the top few guys make money from spectators
As for electronics being developed for lap times and not safty I would agree but some electrics are developed for safty reason alone. Electronic aids make riding safer for those of us that don't have motogp riders skills, that evident just walking down a pitlane and watching how how the rider walk comparded to riders of yestadays.
BTW it not easy to lean on the electrics corner after corner lap after lap,
The safer I feel the faster I go
the faster I go the more competive I am
the more competive I am the better the race
Quote from: RBp on June 25, 2014, 05:56:47 PM
You think we get a % of the profit from a motorsport event or have to pay to enter the event?
first of all who is we? and yes the more funs a sport have the more likely is to be established-evolve. someone asks someone else offers this is the oldest tactic of marketing, a percent of the percent still goes to the pocket of the riders i dont think this is something to argue. this is like it is.
We is motorcycle racer, Marc get money, rossi get money from..... 99% of racer don't mate, we pay for it ourself's, Try booking into a local round and see how much they pay you?
Quote from: RBp on June 26, 2014, 05:38:28 AM
We is motorcycle racer, Marc get money, rossi get money from..... 99% of racer don't mate, we pay for it ourself's, Try booking into a local round and see how much they pay you?
well i dont have any experience on that so you may be right, but i cant really figure out any other way that this can occure. i cant book into any local round since i live in greece and we have only kart, mini-bike circuits and drag strips not a long circuit. and i wont book on any of these cause im not really a fun of spectate, i dont like karting and i cant race with minibikes cause the competition is at a whole different level and im a little bit old and much taller than those riders.