Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on July 18, 2019, 06:09:56 AMQuote from: Hawk on July 18, 2019, 02:08:30 AMI give up on you young ones..... Sometimes I think your a lost cause with no appreciation for what's right and wrong in sport these days???
I mean where has the honor gone from a lot of sports, where has the true sporting spirit gone?
I'm not sure using a motorbike with Traction Control is the same as having no honor, I mean, you don't see the Japanese riders committing seppuku at the end of a race do you...
As for true sporting spirit, the definition of that is:
"If you are ready to compete in a fair manner without favouring yourself or others unjustly and never giving up when things are hard accepting defeat and victory without arrogance or bitterness, that is a sporting spirit"
I don't know, but to me that seems still highly relevant to current sports and motogp, everyone shakes hands at the end, and for the most part it's a fair race. Rossi atm is the epitome of never giving up, and Marquez remains quite humble, considering he's winning everything that exists..
Quote from: Hawk on July 18, 2019, 02:08:30 AMIt seems to me that the younger-gen are only interested in winning at any cost and be-damned with any sense of what true sport is all about.
Sport is about winning. If we don't want to win, what's the point at competing?
There isn't one.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm just going to jog the 100m Olympic finals as winning just isn't honoured. Can you hear what you're saying its ridiculous.
Its a RACE, the goal of a Race is to finish first, fairly of course, which again for the most part, motogp does.
Quote from: Hawk on July 18, 2019, 02:08:30 AMIt's the same attitude with your computer gaming with a lot of youngsters these days.... So long as they win whether it's by hack or crook that's perfectly okay with them.... I just don't understand cause you surely can't get any sort of fulfillment or pride from the direction many sports have gone these days?
I can speak from experience when it comes to hacking, as I did hack Csgo and I did get banned from it, and as a result I know some games are very, very trying of one's patience.
However it's not the right thing to do and I really don't encourage anyone to do it.
I will say, you do get a DIFFERENT enjoyment out of it, owning people, and seeing them get mad, after you've just gone through all those feelings. It's a bit of a satisfying thing oddly, and for me, wasn't to do with winning the game but just releasing my frustration onto someone else, which is a complete low blow yes I know.
Quote from: Hawk on July 18, 2019, 02:08:30 AMModern attitudes..... Phfff!!! PURE MADNESS!!! :o :o :o :P
The problem is the Old 'we have to go back as it was better then' attitudes, unable to accept change, and keeping us stuck 10 years back at least. This isn't 1987, things have changed, accept that move on, and in the immortal words of Disney,
LET IT GO.
That happened, instead of being sad its not around anymore, be happy you got to experience it at the time .
Because I didn't, and I wish I could have.
Everything you answered in your last post to my questions of modern sport and attitudes of winning today, you actually defined how it should be, how it used to be, and then have contradicted it's very definition and justified it as progress and the modern way things are nowadays???? :o :o
That doesn't make it okay to continue down the path of destroying the heart of a sport just because people have got used to the way it is now, what's wrong is wrong, what's right is right no matter what the era we're talking about. You don't just collapse and fall down just because some big corporations decide they want to make it into a big money-spinning project for their businesses and be-damned the actual sport itself.
Typical.... It's all about money, money, money and winning at all costs these days no matter the cost to tearing out the heart of the sport in the process.... It's all very sad to see it happening in such an insidious way.
And by the way.... Motorsport is by its very nature a dangerous life risk sport..... No matter how safe people think they have made the tracks people will still die, often cause of safety implementations in some freak cases..... That's not to say that reasonable safety precautions shouldn't be taken, but to say that riders know the risks involved and should ride accordingly..... If they don't then they know very well they could die for the extra risks they take to win.
People don't need mothering, and these self-righteous, self important do-gooders that think they need to stop the high speed corners just because their isn't enough run off area to stop potential serious injuries need to pull their heads in...... You can die from a 20MPH collision or even less and yet survive another collision at over 100MPH, so no matter what over-zealous mothering safety precautions are implemented, it won't stop accidental deaths from happening and never will do.
As for us oldies just not wanting things to change; what nonsense. Lol. It's about the older generation having the knowledge and experience to know better when they see something changing for the worse. Typical youngsters thinking they are indestructible and know it all for the future they want from life..... There's an old seemingly forgotten saying, "Your elders know better", and as you get older you'll realise that all those elders who were warning you of what's wrong with modern times, etc, etc, turn out to be true, then as you get older you'll start saying the very same thing to your young ones..... Don't you think it's about time the younger generations actually started to listen to the voice of experience and knowledge and act on it? Maybe if they did, the world would be a better place for all of us. ;) ;D
Je vais répondre en français parce-que je manie mieux ma langue , t'es vraiment quelqu'un de pédant c'est assez incroyable. Je comprends pas , tu écris tu écris tu écris , beaucoup , mais c'est vide. Tu trouves les courses de l'époque plus plaisantes ? Bien alors regarde les courses de motos anciennes , il y en a des milliers.
Evidemment que le but est de faire de l'argent & de toujours avancer technologiquement , c'est juste logique , et le spectacle que nous offre le MotoGP actuel est incroyable (Ne me rabache pas que les 500cc c'était mieux , c'est ton avis , j'en ai vu aussi des courses de 2-temps , & non , c'était pas particulièrement bien mieux).
Et cesse d'utiliser ton âge pour te convaincre toi même , dans un débat , c'est clairement pas un argument recevable.
C'est dommage qu'un passionné comme toi soit sans cesse obligé de cracher sur le sport.
Quote from: guigui404 on July 18, 2019, 12:12:34 PMJe vais répondre en français parce-que je manie mieux ma langue , t'es vraiment quelqu'un de pédant c'est assez incroyable. Je comprends pas , tu écris tu écris tu écris , beaucoup , mais c'est vide. Tu trouves les courses de l'époque plus plaisantes ? Bien alors regarde les courses de motos anciennes , il y en a des milliers.
Evidemment que le but est de faire de l'argent & de toujours avancer technologiquement , c'est juste logique , et le spectacle que nous offre le MotoGP actuel est incroyable (Ne me rabache pas que les 500cc c'était mieux , c'est ton avis , j'en ai vu aussi des courses de 2-temps , & non , c'était pas particulièrement bien mieux).
Et cesse d'utiliser ton âge pour te convaincre toi même , dans un débat , c'est clairement pas un argument recevable.
C'est dommage qu'un passionné comme toi soit sans cesse obligé de cracher sur le sport.
Firstly, I ain't no big fan of modern MotoGP.... It's a fake sport now to say the least and a grand spectacle facade of what it used to be..... Only those that didn't experience the greatest era of GP500 motorcycle racing could ever think that this modern era of MotoGP is good for the sport, not that you can really call modern MotoGP a sport anymore after it's been bastardized so much since the forced end of the GP500 era. :P
And yes, this is my opinion and my thread, so if you don't like it then don't participate, but I will say what I think is happening to MotoGP these days as I always have done here when someone brings these issues up, and you have every right to disagree and have your own opinion, that's fair enough too.... Bring it on matey.... Let's debate this! :P ;D
But from what you've just said then I rest my case in justifying my opinion that you've obviously took a disliking to so much. :P
I've re-read my comments and I think I can make some explanations, as it seems a bit all over the place, (Using a phone for something like that, not ideal BTW).
I agree with what I said describing how sportsmanship/racing used to be, but at the same time I also agree that (Certainly in Motorsports) its not actually changed much.
People still care about people and peoples welfare, and despite it being a multi-billion pound 'circus' (which is an appropriate word as there is a lot of 'phaff' compared to track time now a days, I'll give you that Hawk) it still is quite a sporting enterprise.
I'll never forget, in the first year Michelin was the control tyre, at one of the preseason tests in Malaysia, I think it was Rabat had a tyre blowout at 190+ mph (Like Nakano at Mugello), and he came off down the finish straight. Everyone completely stopped what they were doing, and ran to aid where they could. I remember a TV interview was stopped as well. It just took me by surprise, as I had assumed it was all business, and the 'Human' side of MotoGP isn't really shown. (Its why I also loved Cal + Jack Millers commentary promotion thing as its generally light hearted and pure banter, I think Jack Miller went on about going through Cal's wife every night XD)
As much as it pains me to say it, and as much as I don't want to, in my lifetime, the least sporting person I've seen on the grid, especially the last 4-5 years, has to be Rossi. He seems to have gotten more bitter, stubborn and desperate in his old age, and its showing in his mannerisms, and yamaha are beginning to see that as well now. (Jarvis has said he expects no arguments when that time comes, and that he's no longer the main focus of Yamaha's MotoGP efforts, and isn't its future)
While I appreciate you're not a fan of current MotoGP Hawky, as much as you want to believe otherwise it has never been better. You can say the 'back in my day' schpiel, and assists being to much and all, but the stats don't lie..
RECORD Speeds
RECORD Lap Times
RECORD Lean Angles
The CLOSEST racing there has ever been. (Context, With exception to MIR who had a weird Warm-up lap accident, at Le Mans this year all the finishers were within 35 seconds, now regardless of WHY that is, it provides an exciting Race)
And perhaps more importantly to this little debate:
RECORD Crowds (Even compared to ye olde 500s)
RECORD TV Audiences (Granted that's more the modern social media Era but its still a Viewing Record)
Obviously, (And no offence here) you're in the minority thinking its in a bad place at the minute, sure it could be better, and sure there are things that I'd change, as I would with most things, but at the minute.
Money. As, again with all things, it comes down to what my Dad describes as the second biggest evil in the world: Money)
(The other one being Religion, but again a different topic, (However 'I believe in my imaginary friend more so I will kill you now to prove it' is sort of the direction that convo usually takes with him)
Back to topic. Money has ALWAYS been a part of Racing, both on 1,2,3 +4 wheels, for as long as there has been racing. It always will be as well.
Nowadays the money seems to be at a good point, for teams + manufacturers being able to enter, and become competitive with the 'concessions'.
Money, was a much larger problem back in what you described as the golden days of GP Racing..
The 500s.
It was only after (I believe it was the FIM at the time and not DORNA) told manufacturers to sell cheap(er) versions of their machines to privateers that the grids started filling up again, and even then there was a severe distinctive speed difference, between the 'Rich' and the 'Poor' teams.
To put that into context today, I read somewhere that the old Marlboro Yamaha sponsorship with team Roberts was worth several million dollars for the duration it was team Roberts, and Rothman's even hired the film crews to Televise all the Races, to get maximum advertisements. Even into the new millenia, what became known as the 'Marlboro Millions' was still a desire for race teams, (Ducati, Ferrari etc), and it still is today.
In fact, the entire Furore with the Mission Winnow advertising on the Ferrari F1 cars and the Ducati MotoGP bikes, is that Mission Winnow is a company that doesn't actually do anything at the minute, (Their website is just a bunch of Looped, Vague Hyperlinks), yet they are owned by Marlboro, and as a result of them not doing anything, and their owners being the owners or Marlboro, and the fact the 'Logos' are similar, people think its just a sneaky Marlboro/Tobacco Advert.
The thing that ruined MotorSport in General, for me, is the ability to watch the races from everywhere, making sponsorship much more valuable. From the minute Sponsorship became pretty much essential, it completely changed the face of motorcycle racing, and the last 'true' golden age for me was the time period when the TT was still on the bloody calendar, with the big booming singles and twins (50s-60s, possibly very early 70s)
It also makes me believe again that you're looking at the 500 era through 'rose tinted spectacles', seeing only the good parts - the bikes, the rivalries etc, and ignoring the rest of it - the financial troubles, injuries, dwindling grids, horrific safety standards (Even by the early 90s the 500cc engine tech was MASSIVELY ahead of, suspension development, tyre development, frame development, not to mention track safety standards at that time) Ultimately, those were the reasons for scrapping them at the time, and after they did, entries, TV audiences + Trackside crowds, went up, (Argue all you want its a fact), as well as injuries and financial costs coming down. (Except for the 800cc era, but we don't talk about that, as by ANYONE's account, old, young, fetus, or dead, that was a dark era for MotoGP... As low as 15 Riders on the Grid come on)
World Superbikes now is going through what MotoGP/500GP went through in the 90s, and I believe there will be a shake-up there, similar to what happened with the 500cc - 990cc change in GP's
Quote from: guigui404 on July 18, 2019, 12:12:34 PMJe vais répondre en français parce-que je manie mieux ma langue , t'es vraiment quelqu'un de pédant c'est assez incroyable. Je comprends pas , tu écris tu écris tu écris , beaucoup , mais c'est vide. Tu trouves les courses de l'époque plus plaisantes ? Bien alors regarde les courses de motos anciennes , il y en a des milliers.
Evidemment que le but est de faire de l'argent & de toujours avancer technologiquement , c'est juste logique , et le spectacle que nous offre le MotoGP actuel est incroyable (Ne me rabache pas que les 500cc c'était mieux , c'est ton avis , j'en ai vu aussi des courses de 2-temps , & non , c'était pas particulièrement bien mieux).
Et cesse d'utiliser ton âge pour te convaincre toi même , dans un débat , c'est clairement pas un argument recevable.
C'est dommage qu'un passionné comme toi soit sans cesse obligé de cracher sur le sport.
After using Google translate, (Despite doing french at high-school I. Just. Can't. With. That.) I will say I kind of agree with most of what was said, and in a much more blunt way, (My man guigui doesn't mince those words does he, go on my son), was what I was trying to get at, in that sure its not what it is now, and sure the old days may have had something special, but the new era has something else as well, that, perhaps only the younger ones, who have grown up surrounded by technology will see.
I will however say, that while I prefer Modern MotoGP over older GP Variants (At least to watch), it is the opposite for Superbikes/Supersport/Production Based Classes.
Give me a 916/VTR/750 over a V4r Panigale any-day
No doubt you'll have something to say about this Hawk:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Ghkyq3qL/Screenshot-20190806-093159.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/YhC0SH5Z)
Sourcesb, everything MotoGP, Tulovic, and Keifer Racing
Yep.... But no surprises here.... Just sounds like the continued ruination of a great sport to me.... They'll never learn will they. :o :-X ;D
This would never have happened in my day! Hehe! ;D ;D
The riders had more balls in my day to stand-up to the authorities that be and make the sport into what it was at the time.... Nowadays they're all a bunch of pussies towing the corporate team lines. Not good! :-X :P
Until they bring back the good old 2 strokes I've just lost total interest in what is now called "MotoGP".... It's a tragedy the direction they forced upon this great sport, but not only for the sport, I feel sorry for the riders too having to ride these electronically controlled 4 stroke monstrosities! ;) ;D
And so the saga continues.......... (Sigh) ;D ;D ;)
Quote from: Hawk on August 06, 2019, 02:02:08 PMYep.... But no surprises here.... Just sounds like the continued ruination of a great sport to me.... They'll never learn will they. :o :-X ;D
This would never have happened in my day! Hehe! ;D ;D
The riders had more balls in my day to stand-up to the authorities that be and make the sport into what it was at the time.... Nowadays they're all a bunch of pussies towing the corporate team lines. Not good! :-X :P
Until they bring back the good old 2 strokes I've just lost total interest in what is now called "MotoGP".... It's a tragedy the direction they forced upon this great sport, but not only for the sport, I feel sorry for the riders too having to ride these electronically controlled 4 stroke monstrosities! ;) ;D
And so the saga continues.......... (Sigh) ;D ;D ;)
Aaand there we go 😘
While I do like motogp now a days, and prefer the racing, this is a shit show.
MotoE should be separate to the main paddock, like formula e is with formula 1.
The fact that lower class teams are being refused entries for it is ridiculous.
On another note, if Moto e was like formula e, maybe even in the same paddock as that, imagine it on temp street circuits with things like fan boost etc...
I'd watch it, and others would to. Imagine a motorbike race around Monaco.
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on August 06, 2019, 02:47:56 PMAaand there we go 😘
While I do like motogp now a days, and prefer the racing, this is a shit show.
MotoE should be separate to the main paddock, like formula e is with formula 1.
The fact that lower class teams are being refused entries for it is ridiculous.
On another note, if Moto e was like formula e, maybe even in the same paddock as that, imagine it on temp street circuits with things like fan boost etc...
I'd watch it, and others would to. Imagine a motorbike race around Monaco.
Yeah I'd like to see the street race too but C'mon, be honest, can you ever see any of these corporate teams letting their finest and dearest riders compete in a street race? I think not. Lol!
No, I'm afraid the days when motorcycle sports where at their best has long gone..... Too much money, politics and interference in the sport nowadays.
Now ask the TT riders to take part and I bet they'd jump at the chance to ride around Monaco.... Yeah, I'd like to see it! ;D 8)
Quote from: Hawk on August 06, 2019, 07:26:58 PMYeah I'd like to see the street race too but C'mon, be honest, can you ever see any of these corporate teams letting their finest and dearest riders compete in a street race? I think not. Lol!
I know, and it's quite sad.
Quote from: Hawk on August 06, 2019, 07:26:58 PMNo, I'm afraid the days when motorcycle sports where at their best has long gone..... Too much money, politics and interference in the sport nowadays.
I don't actually think the mo eh and politics have changed too much, its juts that with the rise of social media, and more 'behind the scenes' stuff, it's just become much more prevalent. I mean, Rothmans cigarettes bought the Television rights in the early 90s so they could show only their product, and no competitors...
Quote from: Hawk on August 06, 2019, 07:26:58 PMNow ask the TT riders to take part and I bet they'd jump at the chance to ride around Monaco.... Yeah, I'd like to see it! ;D 8)
I'd love to see a race around Monaco, however I feel thag it's too dangerous, even for our danger loving tt riders.
Its very similar to Macau, and there have been several serious accidents there, on both cars and bikes recently.
Its just full of armco, and get something caught in the armco...
I believe hats what happened to Dan Hegarty. (rip)
(certainly looked that way with how he hit sadly)
But Macau and Monaco would be cool to watch as a spectator, and despite what I just said, attend Macau is a 'bucket list' thing, perhaps a little more than the TT for me.
Quote from: Hawk on August 06, 2019, 07:26:58 PMQuote from: Hawk on August 06, 2019, 07:26:58 PM[
Yeah I'd like to see the street race too but C'mon, be honest, can you ever see any of these corporate teams letting their finest and dearest riders compete in a street race? I think not. Lol!
Thinking about it, I guess that's what the IRRC is for.
(International Road Racing Championship)
Believe ex moto3 rider Danny Webb is doing well there, along with people like Horst Saiger and Davey Todd.
And its 'proper' Road racing, with big(ish) teams if I'm not mistaken.
Like one up from national level superbikes, but one down from world SBKS etc
Things evolve and are remembered with in the context of the moment. History solidifies moments for the future. Nothing can replace the moment live!
That being said, anyone that has never rode a 2 stroke bike has no idea how much of a smile it puts on your face. Its not an old person thing remembering the past, its technology pushed aside because of emissions. If MotoGP came out with 750cc 2 strokes at the same time they introduced the 990 4 stroke, it would be a moot point. The 750 would have eaten it alive no question!
Motocross still run 85cc, 125cc, 250cc 2 strokes.
I can't imagine anyone who has run both would ever disagree? Brrrrrrrrap! :)
Quote from: WALKEN on September 26, 2019, 06:29:23 PMThings evolve and are remembered with in the context of the moment. History solidifies moments for the future. Nothing can replace the moment live!
That being said, anyone that has never rode a 2 stroke bike has no idea how much of a smile it puts on your face. Its not an old person thing remembering the past, its technology pushed aside because of emissions. If MotoGP came out with 750cc 2 strokes at the same time they introduced the 990 4 stroke, it would be a moot point. The 750 would have eaten it alive no question!
Motocross still run 85cc, 125cc, 250cc 2 strokes.
I can't imagine anyone who has run both would ever disagree? Brrrrrrrrap! :)
Totally agree with you mate. ;)
To be honest, I have never believed the "Real" reason for abandoning the two strokes was down to emissions at all, it was simply down to the fact that they wanted to push 4 strokes for the public market rather than the 2 strokes.... I think Honda where greatly behind these business politics; they had been trying to convert everyone to 4 strokes in racing for many years before the 4 strokes actually forcefully took over the sport.... it was all down to business and money and nothing to do with emissions.... Just travel to asia or india and see just how many 2 strokes there are in use in those countries which have far greater populations than Europe.... No mate, there was a more devious surreptitious reason for them dropping the 2 stroke motorcycles.
Have you ever realised that we don't hear them talking about dropping the diesel engine cause of all the masses of air particles and crap they have always pushed out in their exhaust gases, a lot worse than anything 2 strokes ever pushed out.... Something just didn't really make sense about dropping 2 strokes for emission reasons except for the fact that they thought telling everyone they need to drop 2 strokes to help save the planet would be readily accepted as a good enough reason without the public realising they were just pulling the wool over peoples eyes in doing that. :o
Gonna dig up this thread again, as there is one thing I'd like to see in modern motogp, however the extreme high compression engines may make it impossible / extremely hard:
Bump starts.
Green flag goes, race starts
Riders push the bikes to start them
This happens after the official start of the race
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on November 22, 2019, 07:23:20 PMGonna dig up this thread again, as there is one thing I'd like to see in modern motogp, however the extreme high compression engines may make it impossible / extremely hard:
Bump starts.
Green flag goes, race starts
Riders push the bikes to start them
This happens after the official start of the race
Yep.... Totally agree with you mate. It would bring back an added spectacle to the sport.... And if they cannot push start the current bikes cause of compression issues then bring in a max compression rule so they could push start them..... Simply done and sorted. ;D
The do-gooders of this world would not like the idea though, too dangerous for them. Lol! ;D ;D
PS: I'm sure there is somekind of electronic wizardry they could think of to lower compression for a start precedure? At least then the electronics would be of proper use for something. Hehe! ;D
The modern GP Bikes actually get started on the rollers in anywhere from 3rd to 5th gear, due to the nature of them. It would make qualifying a bit of a non issue due to the nature of it, I remember was it Ron Haslam that was a little off pace but made up loads after a bump start as he was good at it, or something similar lol.
So it could be a bit unfair, but certainly interesting. Failing that, a rolling safety car start could be interesting.
I mean the starts as they are have very little electronic interference, as the ECU, by Dorna Spec, Disables antiwheelie, so whenever you see a rider launch they have to manually adjust the throttle to keep front down. (Pre 2015 and Magneti Marelli Control Electronics they were just pin and go Launch Control, Like WSBK)
Im not sure on how electronics could adjust compression, as that, even on today's machines is still a mechanical process. Maybe adjust ignition timing etc IDK
Maybe they could design an electronically controlled compression release valve, maybe via very slightly opening the exhaust valve during initial compression or something just for that fraction of a millisecond to get the engine to fire into life and then it shuts it straight away?
I honestly am not sure. I've never had reason to look into adjustable compression before now. Will be a research point for tonight I feel :D
pretty sure ducati is already doing those kind of shenanigans with their desmodromic valves, hence the power.
not sure it could be used to enable easy bumpstarts, though.
I'm not sure. I've never found any info on electronically adjustable compression in my internet travels, so anything could happen.
Desmo-Dromic Valves have been somewhat negated due to tech advancements, to the point I'm not sure they would even provide an advantage anymore, as valve openings are generally electronic these days, and thus can be timed very accurately.
To my knowledge however Ducati's do use them, but I get the impression that's more for traditions sake than any actual benefit these days.
I suppose you could have a map that changes the valve opening times, as well as the spark and injection timings thus making the engine start more effective, however I'm not entirely sure what changes would have to be made to this system.
Shift-Cam Technology may be of some use in this as well, which is basically the motorcycle equivalent of V-TEC, where above a certain RPM the cam alters itself by picking up an extra part to change something. I have no Idea what, I do know the new S1000RR has it perfect, and that it only really comes into its own when used with the BMW electronics.
(Interesting Tidbit - I read somewhere that the BMW Shift Cam system is electronically controlled, but the electronics that are required to control it are outlawed in BSB, and the 'Control' electronics didn't have an option to use the tech, so the 2019 s1000RR in BSB is actually running an old pre 2019 model engine, or an altered engine to remove the shift-cam, and not benefiting from Shift Cam at all, hence the not great results in BSB, but in Superstock and on the World Stage its doing very well)
Different WHat MotoGP Needs topic:Get Rid of the Gyro Cams. They're cool looking and all, but a static cam just shows so much more bike movement, and makes an onboard feel so much more raw.
Love the Pramac Youtube channel, they stick Non-Gyro GoPros on the bikes in interesting positions, and the quality is far beyond anything 'official MotoGP' have come out with, except the non Gyro Go Pro laps done by Crafar and Hodgy and co.
I mean come on look at the comparisons (yes IK these aren't the same rider but they still illustrate the point):
Found this on fb, and immediately thought of you @Hawk
(https://i.postimg.cc/htPJWpzf/FB-IMG-1575841446847.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/3dVr2jZT)
(https://i.ibb.co/qyBnj4p/hawk.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGs3mWNd/FB-IMG-1575849757652.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/bGtRzjzt)
It looks like he looks better on a YAMAHA R1 4 STROKE
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on January 15, 2020, 03:35:15 PMQuote from: Docfumi on January 15, 2020, 10:26:15 AMI think all the rider aids are hurting the sport a bit because now it's like watching arcade racing when we all want to see REAL racing. I mean think about it, as far as MotoGP goes we see a lot fewer high-sides and a lot less tank slappers which are a true thing of the past, and I feel these are good things but it makes racing look boring to the point I have to think why even have gears, oh wait! MotoE is here already. I want to see guys work the bike around the track for 26 laps, I want to see riders come from nine seconds back and win the race (not just Marquez). It was nice to see Fabio20 fight up the front but much like Zarco5 he could not get the job done and I started thinking this is really BS! Everyone is screaming that the ECU and other rider aids are killing the sport. I think it all comes down to the tyres and how good you set your bike up around them. Sure some bikes work better than others depending on the track and even the rider sometimes but most of it is that all bikes are on tyres and they only have two days to test them before the race, for F*ck sake every weekend a new compound. Again I call BULLSH*T! It's one thing to make a sport safe and another thing to castrate it.
Highsides: last year MotoGP had more than bsb. BSB has no TC/aids, MotoGP does, and this highside pattern has been seen for the past few years.
So I'd say that's not really a valid point.
As for MotoE, I don't know if you've seen it, but the racing is superb despite the lack of gears. Close, and often rough. High stakes too as a bike of that weight hitting s Leg is gonna hurt.
Bike setup is a vital part of MotoGP now, and to be fair, I am not a big fan of how 'finnicky' they are. You're either on the perfect setup, or you're off the pace significantly.
(Or your Marc Marquez but he's a different entity all on his own)
That being said, I appreciate the talent the engineers and riders have for diagnosis and applying squiggly lines to actual mechanical parts.
I find that awe inspiring to be honest.
As for safety elements, I agree with Manu. They are aids, to help the rider not to keep him (or her) safe. They make the bikes faster, and push technology to the edge. As that is what grand Prix racing is about. PUSHING TECHNOLOGY. Pushing the rider to new heights mentally and physically, by holding on to something seemingly breaking the laws of physics, and mentally by everything going by quicker than ever.
As mentioned with BSB and highsides, you could actually argue that TC and AW is making the sport More unsafe due to the riders relying on them. However this argument is short-lived, because, as Manu, rightly said, GP bikes would be unusable without them. And that's even more unsafe.
I believe that to keep the essence of GP Racing, which is pushing technology,(as all top level Motorsport has always been) then these aids are essential, and if you have to limit power to remove this, you're losing the very foundation of Motorsport.
As for Hawks point of the 'whole point of sport' the actual equipment seems to be neglected in all your arguments.. it's not all about the person you know. You don't see a high jumper in jeans and flip flops? No they have the very best TECHNOLOGY available to them, to AID them in jumping as Efficiently and as high as possible.
There is no difference here with GP racing, except the fact the technology available is different.
What are you talking about with a high-jumper? What electronically controlled computer aided technology does a high-jumper use? More importantly, what technology aid as such does a high jumper use to aid them in actually jumping higher that they couldn't jump as high if they were not using it? :o
I can see why there is such a difference in our arguments as to what sport is all about and the subsequent debates about electronic aids or no electronics aids.... It's cause the advocates for electronic aids think that the sport of MotoGP revolves all around technology and it's advances and implementations to keep pushing the technological limits of machine and rider alike, whereas the advocates for having no electronic aids in sport are more towards a sport being a competition just between the competitors(riders) natural skills on a machine that cannot be by-passed or aided in those skills via electronically controlled devices that are not controlled in real-time by solely the rider himself.
It's either Cricket or not Cricket..... In other words, you either play fair or cheat to win at all costs. Which is it?
Quote from: Hawk on January 15, 2020, 04:10:56 PMQuote from: Myst1cPrun3 on January 15, 2020, 03:35:15 PMQuote from: Docfumi on January 15, 2020, 10:26:15 AMI think all the rider aids are hurting the sport a bit because now it's like watching arcade racing when we all want to see REAL racing. I mean think about it, as far as MotoGP goes we see a lot fewer high-sides and a lot less tank slappers which are a true thing of the past, and I feel these are good things but it makes racing look boring to the point I have to think why even have gears, oh wait! MotoE is here already. I want to see guys work the bike around the track for 26 laps, I want to see riders come from nine seconds back and win the race (not just Marquez). It was nice to see Fabio20 fight up the front but much like Zarco5 he could not get the job done and I started thinking this is really BS! Everyone is screaming that the ECU and other rider aids are killing the sport. I think it all comes down to the tyres and how good you set your bike up around them. Sure some bikes work better than others depending on the track and even the rider sometimes but most of it is that all bikes are on tyres and they only have two days to test them before the race, for F*ck sake every weekend a new compound. Again I call BULLSH*T! It's one thing to make a sport safe and another thing to castrate it.
Highsides: last year MotoGP had more than bsb. BSB has no TC/aids, MotoGP does, and this highside pattern has been seen for the past few years.
So I'd say that's not really a valid point.
As for MotoE, I don't know if you've seen it, but the racing is superb despite the lack of gears. Close, and often rough. High stakes too as a bike of that weight hitting s Leg is gonna hurt.
Bike setup is a vital part of MotoGP now, and to be fair, I am not a big fan of how 'finnicky' they are. You're either on the perfect setup, or you're off the pace significantly.
(Or your Marc Marquez but he's a different entity all on his own)
That being said, I appreciate the talent the engineers and riders have for diagnosis and applying squiggly lines to actual mechanical parts.
I find that awe inspiring to be honest.
As for safety elements, I agree with Manu. They are aids, to help the rider not to keep him (or her) safe. They make the bikes faster, and push technology to the edge. As that is what grand Prix racing is about. PUSHING TECHNOLOGY. Pushing the rider to new heights mentally and physically, by holding on to something seemingly breaking the laws of physics, and mentally by everything going by quicker than ever.
As mentioned with BSB and highsides, you could actually argue that TC and AW is making the sport More unsafe due to the riders relying on them. However this argument is short-lived, because, as Manu, rightly said, GP bikes would be unusable without them. And that's even more unsafe.
I believe that to keep the essence of GP Racing, which is pushing technology,(as all top level Motorsport has always been) then these aids are essential, and if you have to limit power to remove this, you're losing the very foundation of Motorsport.
As for Hawks point of the 'whole point of sport' the actual equipment seems to be neglected in all your arguments.. it's not all about the person you know. You don't see a high jumper in jeans and flip flops? No they have the very best TECHNOLOGY available to them, to AID them in jumping as Efficiently and as high as possible.
There is no difference here with GP racing, except the fact the technology available is different.
What are you talking about with a high-jumper? What electronically controlled computer aided technology does a high-jumper use? More importantly, what technology aid as such does a high jumper use to aid them in actually jumping higher that they couldn't jump as high if they were not using it? :o
I can see why there is such a difference in our arguments as to what sport is all about and the subsequent debates about electronic aids or no electronics aids.... It's cause the advocates for electronic aids think that the sport of MotoGP revolves all around technology and it's advances and implementations to keep pushing the technological limits of machine and rider alike, whereas the advocates for having no electronic aids in sport are more towards a sport being a competition just between the competitors(riders) natural skills on a machine that cannot be by-passed or aided in those skills via electronically controlled devices that are not controlled in real-time by solely the rider himself.
It's either Cricket or not Cricket..... In other words, you either play fair or cheat to win at all costs. Which is it?
High jumping was relevant as there is a fair amount of tech in their clothing, the materials used and the processes to make it.
Not only that, but the shoes are specially designed as well to have optimal performance, and naturally each jumper wants the best and is using the manufacturer's to push the clothing as far as possible for their needs.
Now, the lack of electronic aids would increase the gaps between the machines, making being on the best machine even more important than now, and thus, you could still have the best rider on the grid on the worst bike, and him, or her, still be last.
If you were so set on having equal rider competition, then, although it may go against your programming, I strongly recommend MotoE.
Those are the same bikes, all reliant on corner speed, (much like the old 250s) and have a very aggressive power delivery to match. As well as this, they weigh a lot, so braking distances are increased, and rider strength for muscling the bike around the circuit is much more important.
And despite the fact they are electric bikes, the motor mapping is controlled and limited by the organisers, (get a few maps set already I believe but don't quote me on that) and there are no aids like TC or AW.
For the actual MotoGP class, I will repeat, you do not seem to be realising that MotoGP is a team sport. It is more than just the riders, and the rules have to cater to this as well.
This rule set, and electronic aids allow the bikes to go faster than theyve ever gone before, and that is EQUALLY, if not MORE important than the riders for sales and figures. I know I actually pay more attention to the bikes than the riders these days, and I suspect I'm not the only one.
After all, you can't go to a dealership and buy a Marc Marquez, but you can buy a Honda RC213V - S.
As for it being cricket or not, as long as the rules permit it, it's legal. Just because they're not YOUR rules doesn't make it cheating or wrong
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on January 15, 2020, 04:27:26 PMQuote from: Hawk on January 15, 2020, 04:10:56 PMQuote from: Myst1cPrun3 on January 15, 2020, 03:35:15 PMQuote from: Docfumi on January 15, 2020, 10:26:15 AMI think all the rider aids are hurting the sport a bit because now it's like watching arcade racing when we all want to see REAL racing. I mean think about it, as far as MotoGP goes we see a lot fewer high-sides and a lot less tank slappers which are a true thing of the past, and I feel these are good things but it makes racing look boring to the point I have to think why even have gears, oh wait! MotoE is here already. I want to see guys work the bike around the track for 26 laps, I want to see riders come from nine seconds back and win the race (not just Marquez). It was nice to see Fabio20 fight up the front but much like Zarco5 he could not get the job done and I started thinking this is really BS! Everyone is screaming that the ECU and other rider aids are killing the sport. I think it all comes down to the tyres and how good you set your bike up around them. Sure some bikes work better than others depending on the track and even the rider sometimes but most of it is that all bikes are on tyres and they only have two days to test them before the race, for F*ck sake every weekend a new compound. Again I call BULLSH*T! It's one thing to make a sport safe and another thing to castrate it.
Highsides: last year MotoGP had more than bsb. BSB has no TC/aids, MotoGP does, and this highside pattern has been seen for the past few years.
So I'd say that's not really a valid point.
As for MotoE, I don't know if you've seen it, but the racing is superb despite the lack of gears. Close, and often rough. High stakes too as a bike of that weight hitting s Leg is gonna hurt.
Bike setup is a vital part of MotoGP now, and to be fair, I am not a big fan of how 'finnicky' they are. You're either on the perfect setup, or you're off the pace significantly.
(Or your Marc Marquez but he's a different entity all on his own)
That being said, I appreciate the talent the engineers and riders have for diagnosis and applying squiggly lines to actual mechanical parts.
I find that awe inspiring to be honest.
As for safety elements, I agree with Manu. They are aids, to help the rider not to keep him (or her) safe. They make the bikes faster, and push technology to the edge. As that is what grand Prix racing is about. PUSHING TECHNOLOGY. Pushing the rider to new heights mentally and physically, by holding on to something seemingly breaking the laws of physics, and mentally by everything going by quicker than ever.
As mentioned with BSB and highsides, you could actually argue that TC and AW is making the sport More unsafe due to the riders relying on them. However this argument is short-lived, because, as Manu, rightly said, GP bikes would be unusable without them. And that's even more unsafe.
I believe that to keep the essence of GP Racing, which is pushing technology,(as all top level Motorsport has always been) then these aids are essential, and if you have to limit power to remove this, you're losing the very foundation of Motorsport.
As for Hawks point of the 'whole point of sport' the actual equipment seems to be neglected in all your arguments.. it's not all about the person you know. You don't see a high jumper in jeans and flip flops? No they have the very best TECHNOLOGY available to them, to AID them in jumping as Efficiently and as high as possible.
There is no difference here with GP racing, except the fact the technology available is different.
What are you talking about with a high-jumper? What electronically controlled computer aided technology does a high-jumper use? More importantly, what technology aid as such does a high jumper use to aid them in actually jumping higher that they couldn't jump as high if they were not using it? :o
I can see why there is such a difference in our arguments as to what sport is all about and the subsequent debates about electronic aids or no electronics aids.... It's cause the advocates for electronic aids think that the sport of MotoGP revolves all around technology and it's advances and implementations to keep pushing the technological limits of machine and rider alike, whereas the advocates for having no electronic aids in sport are more towards a sport being a competition just between the competitors(riders) natural skills on a machine that cannot be by-passed or aided in those skills via electronically controlled devices that are not controlled in real-time by solely the rider himself.
It's either Cricket or not Cricket..... In other words, you either play fair or cheat to win at all costs. Which is it?
High jumping was relevant as there is a fair amount of tech in their clothing, the materials used and the processes to make it.
Not only that, but the shoes are specially designed as well to have optimal performance, and naturally each jumper wants the best and is using the manufacturer's to push the clothing as far as possible for their needs.
Now, the lack of electronic aids would increase the gaps between the machines, making being on the best machine even more important than now, and thus, you could still have the best rider on the grid on the worst bike, and him, or her, still be last.
If you were so set on having equal rider competition, then, although it may go against your programming, I strongly recommend MotoE.
Those are the same bikes, all reliant on corner speed, (much like the old 250s) and have a very aggressive power delivery to match. As well as this, they weigh a lot, so braking distances are increased, and rider strength for muscling the bike around the circuit is much more important.
And despite the fact they are electric bikes, the motor mapping is controlled and limited by the organisers, (get a few maps set already I believe but don't quote me on that) and there are no aids like TC or AW.
For the actual MotoGP class, I will repeat, you do not seem to be realising that MotoGP is a team sport. It is more than just the riders, and the rules have to cater to this as well.
This rule set, and electronic aids allow the bikes to go faster than theyve ever gone before, and that is EQUALLY, if not MORE important than the riders for sales and figures. I know I actually pay more attention to the bikes than the riders these days, and I suspect I'm not the only one.
After all, you can't go to a dealership and buy a Marc Marquez, but you can buy a Honda RC213V - S.
As for it being cricket or not, as long as the rules permit it, it's legal. Just because they're not YOUR rules doesn't make it cheating or wrong
What are you on about?
What technology in clothing on a high jumper allows them to jump higher? What technology in footwear allows a high jumper to jump higher? The only technology in their footwear is to provide comfort and safety against injury for the high jumpers foot, the footwear does not give the high jumper any extra ability to jump higher at all! That cannot be said about electronic aids for riders in MotoGP allowing riders to ride faster than they otherwise would be able to without them. Lol! ;D
SideNote: Oh... By-the-way, Your going off topic talking about "high jumping", this is a thread about "the state of modern motoGP, past and future", please respect and stick to it. Thank you. Phffff!!! :P ;D ;D I'm just pulling your chain mate, but I think I've made my point. Hahaha! ;D ;D ;) So you are saying that without electronic aids the bikes would be further apart in the race, and with electronic aids it allows a rider to ride better than he would without them allowing them to ride closer together? Good luck with being proud about shouting that one out. Your looking through your technology goggles alone again mate. Lol! ;D
Maybe you should take a closer look at all the old GP500 races.... There where many closely fought GP500 races of that era, and more exciting to watch too.
Who said anything about equal rider competition?
I did point out that MotoGP is a team effort when talking about winning championships in a previous post, so no, I'm not forgetting that at all. :P ;)
Obviously you have a differing opinion on this, but I'd probably be more likely to buy a product that was used by one of my sporting heroes than not. Of course it helps if that product is also well established and highly rated as being the best, but having a sporting icon sponsored by that company is a great asset for sales to the sporting public, more so than any other reason I would say. The fact that you've stated you are somewhat of a techno-freak probably puts you in the minority category for reasons to just why the public buy a product.
The whole meaning of the "It's Not Cricket" saying is about fair play and sticking to the rules of the game..... All I'm saying is that in MotoGP they have let the manufacturers have too much influence on the rules.... They have basically sold the soul of MotoGP to the devil... Gutless they are and have ruined the sport from what it was in the process! We either want fair play in sport(as any decent person would have it) or anything goes so long as you win(as the manufacturers/techno-geeks would have it), which sporting stance do you want as the norm?
In response to that, a high jumpers clothing is specialised to allow maximum flexibility and support, and the shoes are designed in much the same way. All while being light and comfortable.
But anyway,
I have watched a load of gp 500 races, and I must say, while there are some good ones, I personally don't get as excited about it as modern races (by modern I mean 4 stroke era so 03-present), and the good close races are certainly harder to come by.
And it's not that I hate that era, or am a technology rider assist freak, (I do like computers and so on, and enjoy the data side of gp racing) but this opinion, is just GPs.
When it comes to Superbike and Production based machinery, I'd take a late 80s to late 90s sbk any day over the current shite, but being more of a superbike fan anyway than a GP fan, I guess that's expected.
In reality MotoGP is a sport designed to push the limits of technology, the limits of physics, the limits of the riders, and go as fast as possible, while putting on a show.
This for me is what has currently been achieved. A MotoGP machine should be as fast as a motorcycle can physically go and, the electronics help achieve that. It's not called the 'pinnacle of motorcycle technology' for nothing.
As for how much the teams play in the rules of MotoGP I cannot say, as I've not really looked into it. However I would hazard a guess it's less input than the f1 teams. Now there is a sport where the teams rule.
As for fair play, the rules are the same for everyone. It's about as fair as it can get. Just because the rules aren't what you would pick doesn't make them bad, or incorrect, or kill the sport.
Intact the electronic aids actually make the sport FAIRER as they even out the field, due to their ability to work with theme bike and help remove some problems with the setup/handling. Thus putting the bikes, and by extension the riders, on a more equal playing field, and therefore making it more competitive
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on January 17, 2020, 12:05:38 AMIn response to that, a high jumpers clothing is specialised to allow maximum flexibility and support, and the shoes are designed in much the same way. All while being light and comfortable.
But anyway,
I have watched a load of gp 500 races, and I must say, while there are some good ones, I personally don't get as excited about it as modern races (by modern I mean 4 stroke era so 03-present), and the good close races are certainly harder to come by.
And it's not that I hate that era, or am a technology rider assist freak, (I do like computers and so on, and enjoy the data side of gp racing) but this opinion, is just GPs.
When it comes to Superbike and Production based machinery, I'd take a late 80s to late 90s sbk any day over the current shite, but being more of a superbike fan anyway than a GP fan, I guess that's expected.
In reality MotoGP is a sport designed to push the limits of technology, the limits of physics, the limits of the riders, and go as fast as possible, while putting on a show.
This for me is what has currently been achieved. A MotoGP machine should be as fast as a motorcycle can physically go and, the electronics help achieve that. It's not called the 'pinnacle of motorcycle technology' for nothing.
As for how much the teams play in the rules of MotoGP I cannot say, as I've not really looked into it. However I would hazard a guess it's less input than the f1 teams. Now there is a sport where the teams rule.
As for fair play, the rules are the same for everyone. It's about as fair as it can get. Just because the rules aren't what you would pick doesn't make them bad, or incorrect, or kill the sport.
Intact the electronic aids actually make the sport FAIRER as they even out the field, due to their ability to work with theme bike and help remove some problems with the setup/handling. Thus putting the bikes, and by extension the riders, on a more equal playing field, and therefore making it more competitive
Okay..... I hear what your saying, but let me ask you this question:
If we had one rider that was very skilled at controlling his throttle hand to control the traction of the rear tyre manually, and another rider who was good but not as good as the first rider controlling his throttle hand for the TC manually, then they bring in electronic computer controlled TC so that the traction of the rear tyre was always at an optimum synchronised with the riders throttle setting etc, etc, would you agree that it's taking away from the first riders skill-set and allowing the second rider an advantage against the first better skilled rider cause the second rider can now easily match the first riders previous manually applied throttle hand skills with the help of the electronic aided TC control that he now has available to him?
Then ask yourself if that second rider can now justifiably say that he is able to match the first riders lap times(due to the TC aided controls) that he genuinely thinks he deserves to be matching the first riders lap times cause of that new electronic aided TC device he now uses when previously he couldn't keep up with the first riders lap times cause he honestly didn't have the same talent to control the TC manually like the first rider could do? Do you really think that is fair in anyway shape or form to the first rider?
In F1, the teams don't have as much power over the rules as many people seem to think.
Yes the governing body does take note of any concerns and what time frame the teams would need to bring in any major rule changes, but there are many rules the teams would want scrapping straight away too.
It's like right now with those major changes coming in, in 2021, the teams screamed blue-murder so to speak to not have those rules implemented, it was the governing body together with Ross Brawn talking to the actual drivers that came up with those new major changes, not the teams themselves.
Then on the other-hand, their is the fact that most of the drivers would jump at the chance to go back to the old V12 pure combustion engines, but due to political correctness by the governing bodies and also the manufacturers wishes I guess that will never happen now.
So there are different attitudes with the teams and drivers.... The team tend not to want any major changes in rulings and yet the drivers seem to relish any major changes, especially if it's going back towards the fully manual glory days of Grand Prix Racing, it excites them.
I personally think that F1 are now heading in the right direction away from electronic controls and very much more a manually driven car, which they very much are today..... If they banned the teams from having access to engine mapping while the cars where racing then the F1 cars would actually now be a manually driven car; they have gotten rid of most of the electronic driver aids they used to use not so many years ago now.... And a lot of people still don't realise that fact.
Having said that, there can be bias decisions made still in F1.... What I'd call F1 politics. Like when Charles(Ferrari) ran Hamilton(Merc) off the road at Monza(Italy) and didn't even get a penalty, it was suspected that they didn't penalise Charles cause he was driving the Ferrari for the win at the time and the organisers probably thought the Italians would end up rioting if he'd have directly lost the GP cause they penalised him.
But when it comes down to Dorna, I don't think they have real control over what goes or happens in MotoGP, I personally think the MotoGP Teams do have much greater say and control in MotoGP than teams do in F1 these days.
First point about the skills.
#1
As I've already said various times now, setting the electronics up to get the most out of the bike is a skill in itself, so, while it may mean there is slightly less of a focus on throttle control,
(there still is quite a large focus on it as there is a huge misconception on how good go electronics actually are... It's reported that the new S1000RR electronics are 'better' and can do more than the Magneti marelli gp ones, not saying mmnis bad, but still not quite as good as people think)
...slightly less focus on throttle control, but more focus on being able to understand the bike and the electronics.
You can ride around the electronics, Marc Marquez is famous for this, as he under-rotates the rear wheel using the rear brake,to overcome the Honda's engine braking, which is a known issue with the Honda's.
So in that regard understanding what's going on and adapting to the electronics is just today's version of adapting to suspension deficiencies.
In short, no I don't agree with the fact it's unfair, as obviously the second rider is able to make up for a potential lack of talent using setup, and therefore, the first rider is obviously lacking in that area, as well as their ability to read the bike and set it up correctly.
#2
F1 teams have a committee to suggest and implement rule changes. It was more powerful before with Bernie 'in charge' as they believed he didn't know what he was doing with modern technology. (Rightly so as well)
As for Brawn, a former, legendary designer of highly successful modern cars, there is more trust there, that he'll do right by F1 so they feel there is less need to intervene.
I will say, that F1s needs are different drastically to MotoGP, both in terms of fan base, tech, and how they actually get their speed, so there are different decisions to be decided.
Also, the 2 stroke in F1 thread, that was being looked into by the teams I believe, and I think it was even suggested by a team. So was the halo.
They still have some substantial control. Even if they don't make it as public.
I will also say, I haven't watched an F1 race since the halo was introduced, and since I got access to bt sport and MotoGP.
As for it being manually driven, I don't believe that for a second. The f1 cars have adaptive electronics in themselves that is constantly learning and changing to get the most out of all it's systems. It can be overridden with stuff like the over take buttons etc but it's still not near a manually driven car.
If you want to watch some good open wheel, equal fair racing in full manually operated cars, watch indycar.Its 10x better, and the racing is better too.
Bias decisions are everywhere, look at dorna and mm93. Rossi hit him and got a grid penalty. Fensti grabbed manzis brake and got a ban.
Mm93 being the Spanish guy he is has done much worse, more often, and most I've seen is at Argentina with a ride through
To put the rider skills in something I expect you'll have an opinion on, I believe Kevin Schwantz was a 10x better rider than rainey, he just lacked the ability to set the bike up when compared to Rainey.
Rainey had the best understand of the bikes behaviour, the telemetry, he was receiving on the data logger, and how to go quick to the bikes strengths. He used this to make up with the speed and what your saying is the rider skill deficiency compared to KS.
He also had arguably better equipment, better tech, and better staff.
Intact until Stuart shenton went to Suzuki they were jamming the thing up with shims instead of using thrust bearings 😂
Which further shows Schwantz ability to ride around issues, and the ability of Rainey to set the bike up.
If they started on the same equipment, I believe Rainey wouldn't have been champion. Certainly not 3 times.
The result of his knowledge of setup was Rainey getting three WC compared to Schwantz 1, despite him being arguably the worse rider.
(Not bad by any stretch but u get what I mean)
@Myst1cPrun3:
I cannot agree with you about the rider skills today of setup of the bike and electronics equalling the natural manual skills of a rider of the past era at all, and you seem to be suggesting that the riders of the past manual skills are lacking cause they still cannot ride any faster with electronics than they could without them? You can only ride a bike so fast with or without electronic aids, so if a lesser skilled rider is only able to make up their short-comings by electronic aids to match the more manually skilled riders performances then that doesn't mean that the manually skilled rider is less skilled in the use of the electronic aids cause as I said a bike can only go so fast whether ridden with or without electronic aids, the electronic aids just allow the lesser skilled riders to greatly narrow or even equal that skills gap to the truly talented manual riders performances, hence your getting the tighter racing we see today. So no, I personally think you have deduced the reasons for that wrongly.
As for the KS and WR era battles: Again, I have to disagree with your reasoning about their talents and reasons for the different amount of championship wins between them.
I do agree with you on one point, that KS was the more naturally gifted rider of the two. But the reason he lost out to WR on championships wasn't anything to do with setup ability of himself or team Suzuki, it was simply that in most seasons KS was on slightly inferior machinery and had to push harder than WR to keep up the pace. When you have to push hard all the time then it's only a matter of time before mistakes are made and if you remember, KS's career was riddled with occasions where people were just expecting him to crash.
WR was the more consistent rider by a country mile, able to be so mainly cause he didn't have to push so hard in the races due to his slightly better machinery, but they were both more or less as equally talented as each other in my opinion, just in different skill-sets, KS was the naturally gifted rider whereas WR was gifted in his ability to be constantly consistent, and it's consistence in performances that win championships.... It's no good being brilliant in a few races only to end up sliding down the track on your arse for the rest of the season, that won't win you anything except maybe a lot of fan-base support for your spectacular riding.
KS has always said that it's a shame they never got to ride on equal machinery cause it would've been very interesting to see if WR could've still been as consistent in his performances having someone who could've pushed him even harder at less risk of crashing. That would've been very interesting to have seen the outcome. So I can agree with you again(all this agreement is shocking!! LOL! ;D ) that I also think WR wouldn't have won so many championships if KS was on equal machinery, but it would've still been a very close battle between them and also close on the total championships won for each of them.... But it was definitely a brilliant era to witness nonetheless. ;D
I wasn't comparing skills of modern an past, I just used it as a way of trying to get a point across, using a time you're clearly more comfortable talking in.
What I was trying to say, is that a rider who doesn't have as precise of a throttle control, but is good at setting the bike up with the electronics can close the gap to a very naturally gifted rider.
This naturally gifted rider may even be running electronics, but if it's set up is slightly out, it can be more of a handicap than an aid.
That's why I deem it a skill, as the set ups for these electronics have to be so precise, translating rider feedback into the graphs, and then translating all those into a physical change that benefits the motorcycle to a degree of precision that we can't even comprehend.
To me that judgement and level of interpretation is a skill required of a modern Grand Prix Rider. Sure it may not be THE skill so to speak, but anyone who can master this, and then ride at a decent pace, is deserving.
GP Bikes setup screen is just enough for me. I did try maxTM to setup my bikes. It is a cool app, but my brain was just going blank 😂
As for KS, he himself has admitted that WR was better at setups, and that the Suzuki always had some sort of setup issue, up until about '93, which, WR remarked was a different KS. (He started to adopt WRs approach and became more consistent)
All this is in the book by Mat Oxely called, rather hilariously considering the topic of talk we're in,
'An Age Of Superheroes: A time before traction control'
If you haven't picked it up, I strongly recommend you do, it's right up your street. Season reviews from '89 to '93 with behind the scenes interviews with all the main protagonists and a lot of in depth talk about things going on. On and off track. Like when Wayne gardener parked his mirrored motorhome across from the Suzuki pit and then the HRC staff went inside and used it as cover to take pictures of the RGV without fairings on. (Once honda overlayed the pics in their bike they found that they had the engine too low which was affecting handling btw)
I do believe if they were in the same machinery Schwantz would have had more titles, and would have been more successful. Be won more races than rainey over the same period, which should say it all really.
He either had mechanicals or crashes due to deficiencies in the bike or setup. But rainey was second or third when he didn't win most of the time
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Age-Superheroes-Sideways-Through-Schwantz/dp/1844255832
I didn't really realise how expensive this thing was, it being a Christmas present and all. But we'll with it imo
You may find this interesting @Hawk.
While it's only gonna be noticeable at the peak performance of a GP machine, it does seem to make a difference apparently.
I've never heard SO MUCH trollop in all my life! LOLS!!!!! Hahaha! ;D ;D ;D
A good example of a rider who needs to convince himself that there is a need for copying what Rossi started by mistake all those years ago! Hahaha! ;D ;D
Absolute bullsh*t! LOL! ;D
I guarantee any rider that their lap times would be no different if they rode with dangling their leg compared to not dangling their leg..... If I was the one doing the demonstration, I'd bet my life on it!! ;D ;D
Truth is Rossi, all those years ago, shit himself going into a corner and put his leg down cause he thought the bike was going to wash away from him, that is the Gods honest truth of this whole leg-dangle crap..... And knowing Rossi, he's probably getting a big kick from leaving the leg-dangle as a piss-take legacy to Modern MotoGP, and I wouldn't mind betting that once he retires he'll come out and tell everyone the real truth behind it all. LOLS!! ;D ;D :P
I will say the man did win a WSBK championship...
Quote from: matty0l215 on April 07, 2020, 10:06:44 PMI will say the man did win a WSBK championship...
That doesn't mean anything..... Anyone can talk bullshit no matter what they've achieved. Just cause someone has a Masters Degree doesn't mean they are not an idiot with it, does it. Lol. ;D
Quote from: Hawk on April 07, 2020, 10:12:11 PMAnyone can talk bullshit no matter what they've achieved.
And indeed they are doing
;)
Na in all seriousness, after, accidentally, doing it at my race school last year, can confirm it does provide more support.
But even without that, the man's raced everything under the sun, had some very smart people helping him, and has won at the top level, so I'd bet that he's got at least some factual reason for doing so....
Also, he did state that it only affects performance at the very top of rider and bike performance, so we on our little pointers will likely never even get to the point it's necessary.
Unless you get a false neutral at 130 going into the foggy esses... Then you flap everything, arse crack included
I mean, each leg weighs something like 20% of your total body weight, so moving that about, particularly on a GP bike, being less than 140 kg wet, it's gonna make a difference.
He also stated that it makes very little difference, the excuse being that at the very top performance every little bit helps; well it only helps if you can be sock-on consistant enough that little difference actual could make a difference..... I doubt even MM is that consistent that the little difference it could make would give him an advantage.... I doubt whether your talking a 1000th of a second difference if any, and that sort of diffrence could almost certainly be gone each lap by braking an inch or two too late or simliar. Lol! So no, I absolutely don't beleave any of this rubbish about leg dangling at all.... There is no one alive who could be consistent enough in their performance throughout a whole GP for such a minute gain(if any)to make that much difference..... It's a Rossi joke, I bet ya. Lol! ;D ;D
Only helps if you're consistent? Not really. It can help a rider be more consistent on the edge, and in a world where wins and losses are measured in thousandths of seconds, this little bit of consistency and confidence that may be gotten could be a win or anything else.
After all, if you're not winning you're losing.
Anything that makes a rider more comfortable on the bike is a win, even if lap times aren't affected. As being comfortable and confident on it is 1/2 the battle.
As for no-one being consistent enough for it to make a difference...
Are you forgetting the numerous times Lorenzo's completed entire GPS with lap times being no more than 1 tenth of a second in variation?
And he's not the only rider doing this.. hell even mm has done it to within a tenth or two...
And the Rossi joke... Itay have been a mistake, but he made the apex of the turn, and didn't even run wide, so he obviously had the confidence in the bike to carry on the maneuver.
So maybe it started off as a mistake, but he found it to help in braking later for his consistency. I mean after Jerez '05 he became known for his late braking, and he was the only one dangling at the time... Now he's not even the latest and everyone doest it.... Why is that then?
As for believing its effectiveness, I'm never going to be fast enough for this to really affect my riding, but, based off evidence, I'm gonna have to believe a wsbk champion who has not only done it and won it, at the highest level, but has literally no reason to lie about this.
Disclaimer:
While I can understand it would make a, minute, difference to the highest level, and those that are capable of getting to this level, I too despise it.
Certainly at anything less than BSB/British Supersports level there isn't a need for it. So when I see some newcomer on a 400 at my local waving a leg like it's falling off, I feel a little bit sad. :'D
I mean, like I said above one leg can weigh up to 20% of a man's total body mass, combined the average male has close to half his mass in legs...
Now you go stand in your living room on one leg and swing the other about, and tell me it doesn't make a difference to your balance?
This wouldn't change on a motorcycle, just because there's extra variables the originals don't disappear.
What the actual results of this are are likely only noticeable on a top spec machine, at the top level of performance which it's unlikely we'll get to. Ever.
So while we can put our tinfoil hats on and ignore facts and physics and say it's a joke blah blah blah, this is the closest to an accurate explanation we'll get.
Can I ask, have you ever tried dangling a leg on a track under hard braking?
No mate.... I'm 57 years old! :o ;D I come from the era of real bike racers not these namby-pamby leg-dangling riders we have these days(fishing for a big bite here. Lol! ;D )..... No, seriously & sadly, my bike racing days have long been over. Lol! ;D :'(
But I do disagree with the premise that leg dangling, if it was beneficial to gaining in lap times, could only be demonstrated and beneficial on an elite top end racing bike, or just the elite MotoGP categories. If leg dangling was of any benefit in racing lap times then it would be beneficial in any category of bike racing, be that production to the elite MotoGP bike racing; it would be the rider and their style of riding that would be the benefit not the bike itself that predisposes that benefit from the leg dangling. This in itself demonstrates that these people are talking rubbish when they say it would only be of benefit on elite racing bikes or categories. Absolute rubbish.
Yes, shifting body-weight around on a bike does make big differences if it's applied in the right circumstances. A really good visual representation of the effects of shifting a riders body-weight around on a bike can be very much seen when you see "Speedway" bike riders racing around a dirt-track, or MXBike riders racing; and the principle for road racing is the same in generating that feeling for how to shift body-weight to control a bike in slides, etc, etc. That's why many road racers do a lot of MXBike riding to hone that natural feeling of shifting the body-weight to control a bike.....
But no.... Leg dangling in itself won't make any beneficial differences to a road-racing riders lap times that couldn't be achieved by keeping ones foot on the pedals and shifting the body weight around without sticking the leg out. Lol!
Leg dangling is just an adopted style of riding which looks so ridiculous that riders feel the need to justify it by pinning bullsh*t physics excuses for it's uses..... It's a bit like tattoos becoming fashionable so you get the trible effect coming into play. There's no particular benefit to having a tattoo except that it makes certain individuals feel better for having it at the time, and in that respect identifies probably the biggest benefit of all in this leg-dangling nonsense in that it provides the rider with a psychological comforter and makes them feel better which naturally translates into a more confident rider which would further translate into possibly better lap times. This is more likely to be the real benefits of leg-dangling rather than any nonsense physics advantages.
Leg makes up 20% of rider weight.
Taking that off peg WILL lower center of gravity, WILL move weight closer to the rear, WILL move weight further into the inside, and it WILL increase aero drag.
That is simple science, it doesn't care what you believe, it's just there and is just a fact.
As for it being only felt on a GP bike/high performance bike, I only say this as they're so light and so 'finicky' they'll likely be very sensitive to weight influences, that being said if you're going fast enough
(or have messed up bad enough like I did when I did a dangle on accident) you can feel it help with slowing down. (Both in comfort and aero)
I don't quite understand how you can compare something with genuine physical proof to tattoos, which are purely cosmetic....
It's like I said before, science doesn't care what you believe, if it's right it's right, regardless of what you think.
Wnd I've seen only opinions in anything you've ever said on the forums. No facts I can find sources for.
I was relating the tattoo reference as an example of the psychological and therefore the possible positive effects on a riders mind that may be going on with these riders not any perceived physical effect that may be down to the actual leg dangling. A rider who is very positive about their abilities will usually put in better performances than a negative or a mind full of doubts in their abilities, right? The tattoo reference was there to demonstrate that not everything you believe in at the time, no matter how you twist physics laws to back them-up, can ultimately result in a bad decision in having the tattoo in the first place years later. :)
The fact remains that any of these riders could put in just as fast a lap time without dangling their legs in comparison to lap times when they do dangle their legs, I guarantee it, the difference is such a minute amount that leg dangling is a pointless action and more of a fashionable tribe mentality than anything seriously useful to a riders lap-times ..... Let's hope that one day an actual test will be done to demonstrate this.
But hey..... If you believe all this nonsense then fair enough mate, I'm not going to try and change your belief's if your inclined to be fooled by these people. :P ;)
You can't twist physics its just there.
The average male weighs roughly 197.9 pounds or 89.7kg, of which 20% is
40 pounds or 18kg PER LEG.
You strap 18kg on one side of the bike and move it around, tell me that doesn't make a difference.
There is one, the facts support that, as do the physics.
It's go nothing to do with twisting physics, it's merely accepting that it's a gas, or what I believe, it's just science, which is always right, no matter what you think/believe.
It's thinking like that, where beliefs overturn the ability to think logically, and look at facts, that have ruined the world today.
Moving 20kg around will make a difference to the weight transfer, the earth is round, vaccines do not cause autism, and the EU is a doomed shitshow.
Facts, Money, and physics.
They make the world go round.
Hey, I'm not saying that your 20KG leg weight doesn't do anything when moved around, your correct, that is physics, but what I'm saying is that dangling your leg out while braking and entering a corner makes little to no difference to lap-times than a rider who who keeps his feet on the foot-rests, simple as that.
But like I said, if you want to believe that it will make that much difference to a riders lap times then fair enough I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. ;) 8)
You guys can go round robin about this stuff forever, the bottom line is-
Everyone has their go around and will always remember how great their moment was regardless.
Quote from: WALKEN on April 13, 2020, 05:50:47 PMYou guys can go round robin about this stuff forever, the bottom line is-
Everyone has their go around and will always remember how great their moment was regardless.
This, 100%
Quote from: WALKEN on April 13, 2020, 05:50:47 PMYou guys can go round robin about this stuff forever, the bottom line is-
Everyone has their go around and will always remember how great their moment was regardless.
There are many MotoGP fans who would love it if we had the 2 strokes back in action who have lived through both era's..... It's only the ones who've never experienced the 2 stroke era that tend to snub-off any going back to the 2 stroke classes and think the 4 strokes are great in MotoGP, plus the brain-washed nutcases who bang-on about the 2 strokes being banned due to air quality reasons. Lol! ;) :P ;D
Thank you Hawk, once again all of what you say is based on strong arguments
Quote from: guigui404 on April 14, 2020, 11:56:47 AMThank you Hawk, once again all of what you say is based on strong arguments
Well I'm glad you agree mate! ;D
its almost like valve amps vs solid state, lol it just never ends.
I had a 500cc 2 stroke and I have owned many Marshall tube amps, now I have a custom built 4stroke mini bike and a couple hybrid 12ax7 preamp with a 420watt solid state amps. I also had a Polaris xcr600 triple 2stroke snowmobile that would just about rip your arms off. But I have never rode a modern MotoGP bike :)
Quote from: WALKEN on April 14, 2020, 09:02:52 PMits almost like valve amps vs solid state, lol it just never ends.
I had a 500cc 2 stroke and I have owned many Marshall tube amps, now I have a custom built 4stroke mini bike and a couple hybrid 12ax7 preamp with a 420watt solid state amps. I also had a Polaris xcr600 triple 2stroke snowmobile that would just about rip your arms off. But I have never rode a modern MotoGP bike :)
Great to hear Walken, keep up the good support! ;D ;D 8)
PS: We desperately need a more extensive choice of expressive emoti's on this forum.... How's about it? ;) ;D
Should point out, while I believe it can provide an advantage, I too absolutely HATE it. Looks like crap, and where possible, (GP bikes and MotoGP etc I don't use it)
As for 2 strokes being banned because of air quality at the time that was correct. It's why most cars went to diesel too.
However the advancement of technology has made people realise that petrol responds better to the exhaust treatments, and 2 strokes (with the fancy pants injection etc) are viable again due to their weight and fuel use, and the emissions going down.
It's why we're seeing some companies relaunch 2'smokers'
Personally, I also love 2 strokes, but the smaller capacity ones. (250, 125, and even some 50s. I bout a candle that smells like premix fgs (hawk I highly recommend btw :'D) I also looked at buying 2stroke racer before I got my cbr, just the (lack of)spare parts that put me off)
But I do see tech changes for the times. Sometimes for the right and sometimes for the wrong. Who knows, wish I did. I'd make a fortune :'D
Nice to hear your a 2 stroke fan Mystic..... In my day we used to put Castrol 'R' into the fuel, smells gorgeous(I can smell it now. Lol! ;D )
Yeah I remember when they told us that diesel cars where the cleanest, that was until we all found out that the manufacturers had chipped the cars to fool the MOT exhaust emission test. Sneaky b*stards, eh. LOL! So probably it turns out that all these years they finally got rid of the 2 stroke bikes only to chuck-out a lot more pollution from these dodgy diesel cars. LOL! I always said it was a bullsh*t political excuse to get rid of the 2 stroke bikes in favour of the 4 strokes under the guise of helping to cut pollution..... I wonder what fools actually believed them. Lol! :o ;D
Anyway I do hope the 2 strokes do actually make a comeback.... Exciting times ahead[Maybe?]. ;D 8)
I dont mind a 2 smoker. Love them at club events.
But I do think their time has passed, certainly at the top level or Motorsport, as the electric tech is much more advanced, and more likely to be introduced fully.
(That being said the 'petrol ban' for new vehicles the UK is introducing excludes motorcycles, but I doubt manufacturers will make special just for us. :( )
As for them being dirty/cleaner etc, I think at the time it was correct and that was the case.
As we didn't have all this tech available to us at the time, and as a result diesels took center stage, so I'm not sure it was a conspiracy or anything, just what was right at the time. I also wouldn't say they threw out more pollution. It was less, just not by as much as people promised. Cough VW cough.
But now it seems petrol at least is returning to be the prominent efficiency fuel.
I'd love to see 2 strokes back in production models, like road 250s or 125s, but I don't think they'll have much more use than that.
Nothing smells quite like Cam2:)
Quote from: WALKEN on April 18, 2020, 03:15:19 AMNothing smells quite like Cam2:)
True :'D
In response to 2 strokes the only thing I see them useful for in racing these days is one off events.
I'd love to see a Field of suters running a renewed transatlantic trophy race, but alas
You know something Mystic....... There is no reason they couldn't resurrect the 500cc 2 stroke championships now unless they are scared that the 500cc events would get more support than the MotoGP 4 strokes and end up killing off the 4 stroke class for good.
At the minute, I'd say the current emissions technology is not optimised enough for 2 stroke use, or petrol, as it's primary designed for diesel, and as a result is not ready for a top level racing series.
That being said it is getting there, and by the end of the decade it could be there. However by that time electric will be the way forward.
I do think cost would come into it, as developing a technology that'll be obsolete, (already as the laws and regulations are passed already) would drive the costs up to much just to develop another avenue.
If this came about in 2010, just before the 250s/125s left GP racing then I think it would hold more merit.
But they left it to late for it to be used in racing certainly. It's a shame as in the UK, it's the only way we tend to get blue skies, except for this weather now in lockdown and no one can ride :')
Been following this from my dark office and enjoying reading all arguments :D
As a racer myself i also have my opinions and experiences, also on leg dangle, but as far as leg dangle goes, i won't comment on it :)
For the talk about 2smokers vs. 4 strokes i have been racing both (european championship and a wildcard at Valencia as well) so i would consider myself as a decent racer.
Money stopped me from going further, as i had options in Spain.
But as far as it goes, i am now riding a Moto3 and been doing that since 2012 when they came. Before that i was racing 125GP Honda RS125RR 2smoker from 2009-2011.
Both bikes are amazing bikes and a huge amount of fun. Big difference on the way your work with the bike and also, even it is very small bike and basically same frame, a bit of a difference in the way you ride them and the personality of the bikes.
125GP bikes, especially with kit-engines, was BEASTS. The short range of where you would have power (my bike was between 9-14k rpm) was amazing, when you knew how to ride it, the feeling and kick that came, when you slammed on the throttle in the right rpm and the sound and smell was GREAT! such a lovely bike to ride but ready to kill, if you didn't know how to ride it. I can only imagine how the 500cc bikes were. The way you had to be able to fiddle with throttle all through a corner to hit the right register and to get the needed drive also meant, a more fluent and clean riding was needed, as you had to keep up the speed to go fast and stay witing 9-14k rpm.
Moto3 bikes to me, seem a bit easier to ride. A little mistake with gear, is not as problematic, as the register for power is much bigger. The bike is also around 10kg heavier and the engine brake also effects how you ride the bike. For Moto3, the corner speed might not be as important, as you can easier do like the big bikes and square of the corners a little more, as the power just comes when you want it, more or less from 6k rpm. That said, corner speed as it is a small powered bike, still means the world if you want to go fast. Especially in rain, these bikes are easier to ride, as the power is much smoother all the way from 6-13k rpm, which means risk of highside is smaller.
So for me the 2smokers has much more character, but the Moto3 bikes is still a lot of fun and a bit easier to ride and a hell of a lot less mechanic work needed. NOT ANY CHEAPER!
No better or worse, just different.
Personally dirt bikes should all be 2 strokes. I can see the benefit of 4 strokes in track/tarmac due to engine breaking and smooth response of transitioning.
2 strokes can be silly on tar and spit you off without a care. The whole point of MotoGP is grip, 2 strokes spin and slide where as 4 strokes grip, or have roll on power. On dirt being able to snap the throttle at the lip of a jump is much more satisfying oppose to rolling over the jump hence 2 strokes fare better for dirt IMO.
With higher revs and gearing a 4 stroke can feel exciting they just lack that out of nowhere powerband that rips your arms off, hold on! But then again a 4 stroke pulls your arms off from the get go.
Take your pick and enjoy either or!
Spot on Walken!
Difference but not better or worse is a good statement.
First time i went from 4-stroke NSF100 to a 125GP it didn't feel like a big difference until i actually hit the powerband of the 2-smoker first time, almost fell of the bike :D
A tiny boy being only 13 it was quite some power going from the 9hp 4 stroke to 40hp 2smoker :D
Yeah, but c'mon guys..... You gotta admit, 2 strokes are much more exciting than fuddy-duddy 4 strokes and fans can really appreciate the skill involved in riding the 2 strokes..... 4 strokes are just too lame, then on top of that they go and make them lamer by introducing electronic riding aids. You didn't see the old 2 stroke riders needing electronic traction control or fly-by-wire throttles to spin-up the rears through the corners.... What are ya these days, men or mice! Lol!! ;D ;D
The bait's flowing tonight guys.... C'mon fishy fishy.... Hehe! ;D ;D ;)
It's like I said earlier (like 3 months ago)
Sill hasn't been reduced, just moved to a more technical standpoint rather than a touch the throttle point.
As for electronics, I understand why they are there. On the road it can save a 'lesser skilled' rider in a wet patch or oil etc, and in the track there's no doubt that it makes the bikes quicker.
And in go Racing I think it should be as quick as possible.
Now SUPERBIKE racing, that's a whole different subject. And I hate them there.
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2020, 11:23:36 PMThe bait's flowing tonight guys.... C'mon fishy fishy.... Hehe! ;D ;D ;)
:'D
Fair play welcome to my life on the internet. Do more fishing on the internet than irl
Someone knows how many engine maps did MotoGP had from 2007?
Quote from: VSMaster on April 28, 2020, 06:51:39 PMSomeone knows how many engine maps did MotoGP had from 2007?
Not quite the right thread to ask that my friend.
However the answer would be somewhere along the lines of, as many as they want.
Back in the early 90s Rainey was running with 2 engine maps controllable by a switch on the handlebars, so anything is possible 20 ish years after that
Ok
lol, sry, I thought it was the right place :D
Hey guys...... Don't let anyone tell you that modern MotoGP is any more exciting to watch than the old "Classic" GP500 races..... They were just as close as todays modern races. :P ;D
Just look at the way those amazing 500cc 2-stroke machines needed to be ridden with class and skillfull talented raw seat of their pants riding.... Unlike todays monstrosity 4-strokes with their computer controlled nonsense.....
Todays riders wouldn't know what hit them if they rode one of these machines....
What a hey-day and a sheer exciting spectacle Motorcycle Road Racing was in this era..... No wonder they always called the GP500cc class, "The Blue Ribbon" event! It sure was and always will be the one and only "Blue Ribbon" event of World Championship Motorcycle Road Racing! ;D 8)
Mr. Hawk back on track 8)
Quote from: Manu on June 10, 2020, 01:58:44 AMMr. Hawk back on track 8)
Lol! Just call me "Mr Controversy" Manu........! I love casting my fishing hook into the mix once in the a while, for a good cause...... "2-Strokes Matter!!!"[Holding my fist in the air] Hehe! ;) ;D 8)
There's also a reason why it nearly financially killed grand Prix racing :o
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on June 10, 2020, 03:54:05 PMThere's also a reason why it nearly financially killed grand Prix racing :o
But they didn't, did they..... In fact they came back stronger when the factories started to sell their engines alone to privateer teams.
The time your talking about was just a period of bad management by the governing bodies of the world championships series..... In fact it was Kenney Roberts who helped a great deal in getting the changes through to right the wrongs at the time and get the 500's back in business again.
So no. It wasn't 2 strokes that nearly financially killed GP racing at all, it was just bad management by the governing bodies and lack of thought from the factories at the time towards privateer teams.
Up until 2002 when the MotoGP era started grids were shrinking and costs skyrocketing.
Granted the early 90s was worse, and they did use factory teams to sell engines and bikes to privateers, but it was very much a temporary plaster rather than a permanent operation, which is what was needed.
And what it got in the switch to 4 strokes.
I'm not saying there was no external factors such as management, sponsorships and manufacturer decisions etc, but overall the 2 stroke engines and motorcycles were too expensive to keep developing.
And there road application was limited even then, with 750s and 1000 twins taking over, so all that rnd money wasn't being returned to the manufacturers.
I do however wonder what 2 strokes would be like with todays rules, and what MotoGP would be like if we stuck to 2t
Granted we have the suter, but that's very much a compromise, (I imagine a perfect bike for you hawk) with no aids but modern fueling etc, but I don't believe it to be where MotoGP would have been.
Huh
That could be an idea for a GP Bikes mod.... ;)
I'll look into that
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on June 11, 2020, 12:26:30 AMUp until 2002 when the MotoGP era started grids were shrinking and costs skyrocketing.
Granted the early 90s was worse, and they did use factory teams to sell engines and bikes to privateers, but it was very much a temporary plaster rather than a permanent operation, which is what was needed.
And what it got in the switch to 4 strokes.
I'm not saying there was no external factors such as management, sponsorships and manufacturer decisions etc, but overall the 2 stroke engines and motorcycles were too expensive to keep developing.
And there road application was limited even then, with 750s and 1000 twins taking over, so all that rnd money wasn't being returned to the manufacturers.
I do however wonder what 2 strokes would be like with todays rules, and what MotoGP would be like if we stuck to 2t
Granted we have the suter, but that's very much a compromise, (I imagine a perfect bike for you hawk) with no aids but modern fueling etc, but I don't believe it to be where MotoGP would have been.
Huh
That could be an idea for a GP Bikes mod.... ;)
I'll look into that
Well in theory, 2-strokes should be a lot cheaper to produce than 4-strokes(a lot less parts to design and build). ;)
Besides, at the time(you probably won't remember this cause your too young), the public roads were full of 2-stroke bikes being ridden for everyday use by people..... Right from 50cc for the school leavers, right up to 750cc bikes.
It was the 4-strokes that were few and far between; they were considered just a touring bike ridden by the old generations who only brought them out on hot sunny days for road trips. And the funny thing is it's still the same today except all the 2-strokes have disappeared, we hardly see any bikers on the roads these days except for race days and the odd person on a sunny day posing around...... Virtually banning 2-strokes from the bike market killed the bike market in the UK.... People started to by-pass getting a bike and went to getting cars instead. The only bikers left(if you can really call them bikers anymore? More like Sunday riders out on sunny days. Lol!),they only buy bikes as a type of extra mode of transport that they only use in summer and nice days out for posing and road trips..... It's all changed for the worse.... Just a totally different attitude and era, I'm afraid..... Very sad state of affairs for the bike market. :( :(
As for the MOD idea: That would be great mate..... Love to see it.... Get on it mate, make it a beast!! ;D ;D 8)
I will say the reduction of 2t on the road did change the market somewhat, but I wouldn't say it killed the market.
Stalled it maybe as manufacturers alter rnd and tech to accommodate.
In-fact in the past few years (5-10) the amount of license passes and bike sales has risen showing a bright future for bikes. I don't know how many people can be classed as bikers but still. I would have had one if I was allowed. ;D
The future is Even more bright looking at it, now bikes are exempt from the 'electronic vehicle requirement' that's being introduced.
There is also rumour of the 600cc SSP market being replaced with 750cc bikes to combat the catalytic converter power saps which I find interesting, and I hope it happens. Love 750s
And the mod:
Can't promise it'll be any good, or done any time soon, but I'll give it a go. I'll aim for a release with GP Bikes version one. ;)
lol come on. Today's 4t MotoGP bikes are much more expensive than the 500s.
What killed 2T is that there was no impact on sales of two-stroke bikes while four-stroke dominated the streets.
Quote from: Manu on June 11, 2020, 04:15:41 PMWhat killed 2T is that there was no impact on sales of two-stroke bikes while four-stroke dominated the streets.
Not so in the UK Manu.....
I'd say it was simply to do with the new laws the UK gov brought in at the time..... I personally suspect it being an economic plot to get people to buy 4t's instead of 2t's.... But the general reaction at the time was to not buy a bike at all and buy a car instead. That's what a cock-up the UK Gov made of the transition from 2t to 4t bikes in the UK market..... It would be different in other countries of course. ;)
A talk with Eddie Lawson..... A very interesting watch for those of us that were around during the glory blue-ribbon years of GP500cc racing.
He specifically taks about the differences between MotoGP bikes of today compared with the GP500's.... I think he proves my point for this thread, don't you? :P ;D
https://www.44teeth.com/modern-motorcycle-tech-is-it-worth-it/?_thumbnail_id=23756
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on February 05, 2021, 01:43:17 PMhttps://www.44teeth.com/modern-motorcycle-tech-is-it-worth-it/?_thumbnail_id=23756
All gimmicks we don't really need on a road bike at all, and extra costs to produce and buy for a rider, yes? ;)
If the rider is fat and slow and the bike is light and fast the mean value should be good. In theory.
My 2c. What I have on my Tuono 1100 RR (2018):
- ABS: must have. On any bike, even 50cc scooters if possible.
- TCS: must have above a given power (I'd say 80cv)
- Cruise control: I was really not convinced, until I had to do 150Km highway with the Tuono. If you're at 130Kmh (limit here) and you get a bit distracted, in the blink of an eye you are at 160Kmh. So yeah, I like Cruise control. Don't want it, don't use it.
- Power modes: must have above a given power (I'd say 80cv). You *want* to use this when it's wet: typically one of the modes is rain/wet, with limited engine power. But not for Aprilia, that decided that on the Tuono all 3 modes (sport, track and race) are full power, because ... well, I don't know. Looks dumb to me.
- Shifter: if you have a good one, it's just a pleasure to use. If it does downshifting too then even better. Anyway, most of the time if you dont like it you can switch it off / just use the clutch.
- Launch control: this is stupid on *any* road bike. I have it, I haven't even tried it.
Can't say a word on electronic supsensions, never tried. What I've heard from realiable sources (testers), when they are done properly they are nice to have. Mostly good on touring bikes & the likes.
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 21, 2021, 02:36:40 PMMy 2c. What I have on my Tuono 1100 RR (2018):
- ABS: must have. On any bike, even 50cc scooters if possible.
- TCS: must have above a given power (I'd say 80cv)
- Cruise control: I was really not convinced, until I had to do 150Km highway with the Tuono. If you're at 130Kmh (limit here) and you get a bit distracted, in the blink of an eye you are at 160Kmh. So yeah, I like Cruise control. Don't want it, don't use it.
- Power modes: must have above a given power (I'd say 80cv). You *want* to use this when it's wet: typically one of the modes is rain/wet, with limited engine power. But not for Aprilia, that decided that on the Tuono all 3 modes (sport, track and race) are full power, because ... well, I don't know. Looks dumb to me.
- Shifter: if you have a good one, it's just a pleasure to use. If it does downshifting too then even better. Anyway, most of the time if you don't like it you can switch it off / just use the clutch.
- Launch control: this is stupid on *any* road bike. I have it, I haven't even tried it.
Can't say a word on electronic suspensions, never tried. What I've heard from reliable sources (testers), when they are done properly they are nice to have. Mostly good on touring bikes & the likes.
- ABS: It was always said that "ABS" is for "Rabbits" - People who panic and freeze in difficult situations and slam on the brakes.
- TCS: We used to say that using a "TCS" on any bike no matter what the power is for people who really have no idea how to ride a motorcycle properly and is only for old men touring a bike.
- Cruise control: I can understand some people finding it useful on a long tour especially on motorways, but with the amount of traffic around nowadays it's probably becoming a nonsense feature on any vehicle, in my opinion, with all the stopping starting slowing down speeding up that goes on these days with the sheer amount of traffic on roads that needs taking into consideration.
- Power Modes: Again, riding a motorcycle without power-modes, it's part of the excitement of riding a bike, especially a powerful bike, to learn how to use your throttle-hand properly in any given situation..... In my opinion, Power-Modes just take that excitement & fear element away from the rider and are just for lazy people who haven't got a clue how to ride a bike properly or just want to take the easy way out and not have to learn how to apply power correctly in given situations.... Takes all the fun & fear out of it.... A sign of the times I guess - so many pussies around it seems nowadays. Lol! ;D ;D
- Shifter: Yeah maybe a pleasure to use, but again, it takes away from the real pleasure of riding a motorcycle, in my opinion.
- Launch Control: Now this is a total nonsense feature on a road bike, absolutely not needed at all, and given the skill required in racing to get off the line fast, to have it on a race bike is just a cheat device in my opinion, but again, the powers that be in MotoGP don't seem to see any rider-aid-device that takes away from a riders skillset as being a cheat these days, so.....
@hawk, you definitely born in the wrong time, but i bet that even if you were in the 2stroke hard core riding time, you will probably argue about an older way to ride bike, but anyway, you know you can just deactivate all this aid, and ride the most kamikazy way you want. It's not because you don't like it that manufacterer don't need to put it on modern bike, again until you can desactivate it !
ABS: This is perhaps the only thing I disagree with. It is perhaps more unsafe as it removes feel from the brakes and upsets the bike, as well as reducing the available braking force.
TCS: For road bikes, (above a 125) it is almost a MUST HAVE. especially in the UK where our roads are utter b*****s, and there is oil/diesel everywhere, it can be a life saver. I'm all for the thrill of riding the bike, but I'd actually like to ride the bike, not fall over on oil a 1993 diesel bus dropped as it's an old PoS... On the road this is an absolute MUST, to say people are less of a biker, or old farts because of it, is incredibly naive, horrendously detached from reality, and frankly... Stupid.
Cruise Control: I get the appeal, and in a van or car it's great. Not sure how it would work on a motorcycle however. I'd have to try it I guess.
Power Modes: Not so much necessary, but it allows much more choice when riding. It means the same bike can be calm and tame on a commute to work, but then still put up a good show on the track, with minimal fuss. It opens up so much more for fuel economy as well, making it useful for those adventure/off road bikes.When combined with a flyby wire throttle that can have curves mapped to it rather than just a cable, it really enables customisation for a rider, and allows them to get the most out of a bike 100% suited to them.
Extremely useful it they're new to either riding, or the bike, or both.
Quick Shifter: A really satisfying piece of equipment to use. Once one is used, it is very unlikely the rider will go back to without, given the choice.
Combined with reverse GP shifting it is a hugely enjoyable feeling, and really adds to the feeling of riding the bike. And sometimes they make a cool noise as it cuts the ignition not the fuel ;) ;D
(My Dad is a perfect example of quick Shifter changes, 40 years riding, adamant it isn't needed, got a new bike with one fitted. After weeks of persuasion to not take it off like he wanted, and to try it once, he now is on about flipping his shift pattern to GP to better use it. Says it's a game changer and enjoyed riding more as he could focus on the riding and not worrying about missed shifts)
Auto Blip: I haven't used one so I don't know about it. However I imagine the feeling to be very comparable to a quick-shifter.
Launch control: on road bikes this is just a willy waving tool. On race bikes it's almost essential. Depends what it's wanted for.
Quote from: poumpouny on February 23, 2021, 11:28:09 AM@hawk, you definitely born in the wrong time, but i bet that even if you were in the 2stroke hard core riding time, you will probably argue about an older way to ride bike, but anyway, you know you can just deactivate all this aid, and ride the most kamikazy way you want. It's not because you don't like it that manufacterer don't need to put it on modern bike, again until you can desactivate it !
Actually I was born in the right time..... Been privileged to have witnessed and experienced both eras first hand. ;) :P
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on February 23, 2021, 01:08:50 PMABS: This is perhaps the only thing I disagree with. It is perhaps more unsafe as it removes feel from the brakes and upsets the bike, as well as reducing the available braking force.
We're talking road bikes here, not race ones. Wet road, emergency braking: I take even a half-decent ABS, you take your brake feeling and we see who comes out alive ?
Even on a dry road, if you're braking so hard the ABS is kicking in, you're probably pushing too much for a public road. So either don't, or just lower the ABS setting. If you're on a track with your bike, of course you can switch it off.
Quote from: HornetMaX on February 25, 2021, 10:50:50 AMQuote from: Myst1cPrun3 on February 23, 2021, 01:08:50 PMABS: This is perhaps the only thing I disagree with. It is perhaps more unsafe as it removes feel from the brakes and upsets the bike, as well as reducing the available braking force.
We're talking road bikes here, not race ones. Wet road, emergency braking: I take even a half-decent ABS, you take your brake feeling and we see who comes out alive ?
Even on a dry road, if you're braking so hard the ABS is kicking in, you're probably pushing too much for a public road. So either don't, or just lower the ABS setting. If you're on a track with your bike, of course you can switch it off.
I'm on about road bikes here too.
They add considerable distance to stopping should you need to stop quickly (emergency stop).
And should you make a mistake into a turn they judder can upset the bike and cause a crash.
Also, EU law prevents manufacturers from allowing their systems to be turned 100% off, meaning that no matter what, all new bikes have it on all the time. It can be turned down but (depending on manufacturer) it usuallt still cuts in even at 'country' road riding speed/style
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 01, 2021, 08:00:33 AMAlso, EU law prevents manufacturers from allowing their systems to be turned 100% off, meaning that no matter what, all new bikes have it on all the time. It can be turned down but (depending on manufacturer) it usuallt still cuts in even at 'country' road riding speed/style
And they do this because, as everybody knows, ABS is bad for safety, of course.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 01, 2021, 11:01:38 PMQuote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 01, 2021, 08:00:33 AMAlso, EU law prevents manufacturers from allowing their systems to be turned 100% off, meaning that no matter what, all new bikes have it on all the time. It can be turned down but (depending on manufacturer) it usuallt still cuts in even at 'country' road riding speed/style
And they do this because, as everybody knows, ABS is bad for safety, of course.
ABS is a safety feature, no doubt about that, no one is arguing that is a fact, but it's a feature that should be a personal option for each individual rider.
What I personally have an issue with is the fact that it's forced upon the rider. It's just another example of a mothering state taking away personal choice, telling one how one will do things rather than allowing one to make a choice.
For many riders who have little experience and don't ride a bike regularly, riders we used to call "Sunday Riders" not bikers I can understand that ABS would be a sensible option for them to have in operation as those kind of riders are more likely to get themselves into trouble, but for the experienced regular rider, the daily rider, it takes away from their skills and experience as a rider, simple as that.
The mothering state needs to stop!
Quote from: Hawk on March 03, 2021, 12:19:54 PMQuote from: HornetMaX on March 01, 2021, 11:01:38 PMQuote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 01, 2021, 08:00:33 AMAlso, EU law prevents manufacturers from allowing their systems to be turned 100% off, meaning that no matter what, all new bikes have it on all the time. It can be turned down but (depending on manufacturer) it usuallt still cuts in even at 'country' road riding speed/style
And they do this because, as everybody knows, ABS is bad for safety, of course.
ABS is a safety feature, no doubt about that, no one is arguing that is a fact, but it's a feature that should be a personal option for each individual rider.
What I personally have an issue with is the fact that it's forced upon the rider. It's just another example of a mothering state taking away personal choice, telling one how one will do things rather than allowing one to make a choice.
For many riders who have little experience and don't ride a bike regularly, riders we used to call "Sunday Riders" not bikers I can understand that ABS would be a sensible option for them to have in operation as those kind of riders are more likely to get themselves into trouble, but for the experienced regular rider, the daily rider, it takes away from their skills and experience as a rider, simple as that.
The mothering state needs to stop!
I agree with most tbh, and perhaps I worded badly. (More than likely)
ABS was introduced for safety, it's just that in practice this isn't the case, as it is juddering and (at the minute) not smooth in its application.
A new rider, (like me) would find this very 'unnerving' (I do) as the suspension on anything that's not a superbike is not what you'd call good for providing feedback. Add that into bad road conditions like in the UK, and then add constantly releasing and reapplying the brakes into that.... It simply isn't safe.
It's funny really the only one that isn't developed for speed, but is developed for safety turns out to be the one that is perhaps the most unsafe ;D ::)
Quote from: Hawk on March 03, 2021, 12:19:54 PMABS is a safety feature, no doubt about that, no one is arguing that is a fact
Well, no one except MysticPrune, apparently.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 04, 2021, 04:41:17 PMQuote from: Hawk on March 03, 2021, 12:19:54 PMABS is a safety feature, no doubt about that, no one is arguing that is a fact
Well, no one except MysticPrune, apparently.
Designed for safety. Doesn't actually make the bikes safer. (At least from the manufacturer I rode, I imagine it varies) on each system.
(But from my, albeit, 'limited' experience of road bike ABS, and also In cars, it didn't help one bit and was a massive hinderence into the control I had over the motorcycle. I don't know if that was the setting it was on or what, but it wasn't good)
At the very least the ability to turn it off would be nice.
If you ask me I'd force people to learn with no aids whatsoever, and attend an 'advanced riding course' before they go past the 'CBT' level but different topic.
Also, If you're going to make childish sarcastic replies, that's fine, you do you, but at least do yourself the favour of spelling a name right.
Especially as it's written both above and below the messages. Lol
:o ::)
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 04, 2021, 08:13:47 PMDesigned for safety. Doesn't actually make the bikes safer.
I'm really unsure about what that means.
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 04, 2021, 03:24:35 PMA new rider, (like me) would find this very 'unnerving' (I do) as the suspension on anything that's not a superbike is not what you'd call good for providing feedback. Add that into bad road conditions like in the UK, and then add constantly releasing and reapplying the brakes into that.... It simply isn't safe.
It's funny really the only one that isn't developed for speed, but is developed for safety turns out to be the one that is perhaps the most unsafe ;D ::)
What is funny is that bad road conditions (like in the UK) are
exactly the situations in which ABS is needed more: uneven surface, wet, suddent change of grip (puddle, gravel, etc). Same for below-par suspensions, ABS will help even more.
I don't know which kind of ABS you base your judgment on, maybe you've tried something from 30 years ago and concluded there. There are very few situations in which not having ABS is better and they all involve some pretty unlikly combination of prefectly smooth surface and extremely skilled (and focused) rider.
If you think you're better off without ABS, it's OK, it's your opinion. Saying ABS as safety feature doesn't work is something else. And is wrong.
But as I feel that you think I'm some sort of an idiot (which again, you're obviuously free to do), then I'll point you to others that surely have more authority. Juyst a couple, but I'm sure you'll find more if you want:
https://www.motorcycle.com/features/why-you-need-abs-on-your-next-motorcycle.html (https://www.motorcycle.com/features/why-you-need-abs-on-your-next-motorcycle.html)
https://www.rideapart.com/features/361866/ask-rideapart-abs-worth-it/ (https://www.rideapart.com/features/361866/ask-rideapart-abs-worth-it/)
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 04, 2021, 08:13:47 PMAlso, If you're going to make childish sarcastic replies, that's fine, you do you
Childish ?! Where ?!
Hawk said nobody argues with ABS being a safety feature, not even him. But you do (or at least it seems you do) and I pointed this out: where's the problem ?
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 04, 2021, 08:13:47 PMbut at least do yourself the favour of spelling a name right.
Especially as it's written both above and below the messages. Lol
Yeah, sorry for not spelling Myst1cPrun3 right. That was rude from me. Hope you'll recover.
Bad road conditions are exactly what ABS is designed for.
And it's exactly where it should shine.
However the systems that I have seen, (and the 2019 CBR650r system I tried) is currently not advanced enough for it to function, certainly at its full capabilities. It was juddery, rough, and provided 0 feel from the bike as to what the front end was doing.
Again other systems may vary in their capabilities, but it's not 'advanced' enough to be usable in a realistic situation.
When I say 'Designed for safety, but doesn't make bikes safer,' it's not supposed to be a contradiction, and it's not me saying it doesn't work as a safety feature, (it does on cars), that's my crappy typing, it's supposed to mean more the actual abs operation isn't optimised enough to actually be feasible. (ABS in general is a safety feature)
It upset the bike and the front end was vague in what it was doing. And in real riding that was not ideal, especially for new riders to be learning on.
If it can be implemented to it's 'full capabilities', like we see in cars where it's quite smooth and still keeps the feeling, (mostly) then I see it becoming more of an option.
As for my name, it's going to take years of therapy for me to recover... Don't know how I'll survive. :o
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 05, 2021, 01:59:43 AMBad road conditions are exactly what ABS is designed for.
And it's exactly where it should shine.
And it's exactly where it shines.
Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on March 05, 2021, 01:59:43 AMHowever the systems that I have seen, (and the 2019 CBR650r system I tried) is currently not advanced enough for it to function, certainly at its full capabilities. It was juddery, rough, and provided 0 feel from the bike as to what the front end was doing.
When it kicks in, it's thinking you're about to lock the front: what the rider feels (or not) when it kicks in is essentially irrelevant because when you lose te front, most of the times you're going down. It just tries to prevent that.
Now, if riding the cbr the abs kicks in so often that it becomes annoying then there are 2 possibilities: either you're riding like a mad man on public roads / bad grip conditions or there's a problem on the bike (any decent dealer can check this).
But again, if it kicks in on very heavy breaking, it's just doing its job.
BTW, I think on the CBR650R the ABS has 2 settings (sport, circuit): did you play with that ? EDIT: nah, it's the CBR1000RR that has that, my bad.