Old School Speedo

[HornetMaX]

Oh , that level of precision is definitely doable without GPS, not a big difficulty neither with the sensors they can put on a bike. But me too I'm utterly against it.
For F1, it seems they are discussing again active suspensions: I'm not against, if they don't know where the bike is on the track. Else I'm furiously against.

MaX.

[RBp]

Being a racer im all for electric's, it saves lifes injurys and careers,  I couldn't carless if spectators want no electronic aids im safer my friends are safer. These big bikes will kill you in seconds. people should think about our saftery and not what you find entertaining to watch.

[HornetMaX]

Iw as not arguing against electronics, I was arguing against using positional data to fine tune stuff in real time.

MaX.

[tseklias]

Being a racer im all for electric's, it saves lifes injurys and careers,  I couldn't carless if spectators want no electronic aids im safer my friends are safer. These big bikes will kill you in seconds. people should think about our saftery and not what you find entertaining to watch.

this makes no sense spectator=money. if you dont care for the pocket that feeds your desire then what? and i wont discuss the fact that if spectators wanted to see a "safe" show they would have gone to the church...circuits should be modern worlds colosseum imo.

[Klax75]

Being a racer im all for electric's, it saves lifes injurys and careers,  I couldn't carless if spectators want no electronic aids im safer my friends are safer. These big bikes will kill you in seconds. people should think about our saftery and not what you find entertaining to watch.

this makes no sense spectator=money. if you dont care for the pocket that feeds your desire then what? and i wont discuss the fact that if spectators wanted to see a "safe" show they would have gone to the church...circuits should be modern worlds colosseum imo.

I don't watch racing to see someone crash or get hurt, or even die. I want to see a exciting race where everyone is Ok at the end.

[tseklias]

I don't watch racing to see someone crash or get hurt, or even die. I want to see a exciting race where everyone is Ok at the end.

i dont either maybe you misunderstood me. i meant to say that the danger of the sport is where the honey is. im not against airbags, seatbelts and stuff but im against all the electronics that make the bike/car more easy to control. thats the reason f1 has lost most of its funs today imo,  nobody wants to see cars race on rails. just think of it like that group-b fans vs nascar,motogp,f1&wrc(all modern) who you think got more? and i wont add more to group-b like motogp500, the era of turbo formulas and so many legendary categories of races. all were left today is the tt(where many %$#&*% still shout to ban). i believe theres a difference between hamilton and senna, stoner and doohan, mcrae and vatanen..

[Hawk]

I don't watch racing to see someone crash or get hurt, or even die. I want to see a exciting race where everyone is Ok at the end.

i dont either maybe you misunderstood me. i meant to say that the danger of the sport is where the honey is. im not against airbags, seatbelts and stuff but im against all the electronics that make the bike/car more easy to control. thats the reason f1 has lost most of its funs today imo,  nobody wants to see cars race on rails. just think of it like that group-b fans vs nascar,motogp,f1&wrc(all modern) who you think got more? and i wont add more to group-b like motogp500, the era of turbo formulas and so many legendary categories of races. all were left today is the tt(where many %$#&*% still shout to ban). i believe theres a difference between hamilton and senna, stoner and doohan, mcrae and vatanen..

+1 

As an addition I'd like to state: Motorsport is very dangerous! Everyone who participates and spectates knows it. I'm all for making it sensibly as safe as possible, but were do you draw the line between safety and ripping the heart out of the sport?

Of course no one wants to see people die or get seriously injured..... But a big part of motorsport( as well as watching the competitors race each other) is knowing that your pushing the limits of the bike with your skill and ability knowing that if you make a mistake you could well die for it.
Take the TT races: I personally have a much greater respect for the guys who race the TT than any other motorsports competitors on earth. Yes I think they must be absolutely CRAZY to ride that circuit like they do, the dangers are absolutely HORRENDOUS! But by god, if you ever go and see them flying around that circuit in reality then I'm sure you'd agree they are the real true hero's of motorcycle racing, electronics or not.

Modern purpose built race tracks are as safe as you'll get them in my opinion, they are very safe nowadays, but the riders look like modern knights with all the armour built into their leather suits(now we even have bloody airbags. LOL) and to further insult the sport with the electronic aids they have progressively integrated into MotoGP is a step too far; it's now as bad as the old F1 series used to be when the electronics practically did all the work and all the driver had to do was steer and press the foot pedal. The gov body of F1(FIA) realised the problem and banned the majority of aids and now F1 is far, far better off for that decision. It would be the same if MotoGP went the same way.

Basically what I'm saying is that safety to a point is good in motorsport, but too much safety and passing the skills of racing to the bike instead of the rider is a step too far and very bad for the sport in general as F1 proved many years ago.

Hawk.

[Klax75]

I am with Max on this, I am all about technology. I want to see new and exciting technology. This just goes to the circular argument What I did yesterday was tougher, and tomorrow will be much easier. So when it is tomorrow and I look back at yesterday did in make it tougher? Everyone wants to feel, and wear rose colored glasses for what was done before. For me, I've never been like that, I am excited to see what hasn't been done before. What new things will out there.

The guys back in the 1970-80's for there time they were on the cutting edge of things. Just like the guys now are on cutting edge of stuff.

It still about the rider and driver even if you feel what was done before was better. If it is all easy, then wild card riders would do better. Yes you can say but they aren't on the big teams.

I challenge anyone to go out on there local track days and take part. Go as fast as they feel comfortable with. I'd love to do that if I didn't have O.I. I've broken hundreds of bones already in real life and I don't even race. LOL!

[Hawk]

I am with Max on this, I am all about technology. I want to see new and exciting technology. This just goes to the circular argument What I did yesterday was tougher, and tomorrow will be much easier. So when it is tomorrow and I look back at yesterday did in make it tougher? Everyone wants to feel, and wear rose colored glasses for what was done before. For me, I've never been like that, I am excited to see what hasn't been done before. What new things will out there.

The guys back in the 1970-80's for there time they were on the cutting edge of things. Just like the guys now are on cutting edge of stuff.

It still about the rider and driver even if you feel what was done before was better. If it is all easy, then wild card riders would do better. Yes you can say but they aren't on the big teams.

I challenge anyone to go out on there local track days and take part. Go as fast as they feel comfortable with. I'd love to do that if I didn't have O.I. I've broken hundreds of bones already in real life and I don't even race. LOL!

When your talking about riding aids or no riding aids, which defines the better skill as a rider? The rider who can race and win on a bike with no riding aids, or the rider who wins races only with the aid of these riding aids?

It is well known that if you ride with riding aids then it greatly narrows the gap between the less skilled riders and the very talented riders, the same as it allows the good riders(which all Motogp riders are very good) to ride at the same level as the riders who would normally have that special  extra edge that defines a race champion. The only difference these days is the performance of the bikes that defines whether a rider wins or not(Ooo... That's controversial! Lol). When was the last time you saw a rider win on a greatly inferior bike? I bet you'd have to go back to before the 1990's to tell me that.

Also I think there is a big difference between having the latest technology in tyres/frame construction techniques or light materials/ the latest carbon disc pads or brake discs/even having the advantage of an engine with more horsepower from the old school days than comparing those things with the likes of traction and wheelie control and electronics that automatically adjust the handling and engine power output according to current throttle and grip situations. All these things are supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines the great riders from the middle of the pack riders. So no. I have to disagree with you guys that advocate the progression of riding aids technology and just blindly accept it as part and parcel of the sport moving on with the times. We should open our eyes and get the sport back to being a sport and not just a spectacle soley run for the sponsors benefits(That's another story all together. LOL).

@Klax: Yes the riders of old school were on the cutting edge of technology for their time, agreed. But at which stage do you start to draw the line and say it's gone too far? I think it's when you start to take away the skill of the rider and give it more to the machine to do the job, that to me is when the line has been crossed and starts to make a sport into just a spectacle rather than a true sporting competition.

I'll step off my soapbox now. Hehe 

Hawk.

[Klax75]

I am with Max on this, I am all about technology. I want to see new and exciting technology. This just goes to the circular argument What I did yesterday was tougher, and tomorrow will be much easier. So when it is tomorrow and I look back at yesterday did in make it tougher? Everyone wants to feel, and wear rose colored glasses for what was done before. For me, I've never been like that, I am excited to see what hasn't been done before. What new things will out there.

The guys back in the 1970-80's for there time they were on the cutting edge of things. Just like the guys now are on cutting edge of stuff.

It still about the rider and driver even if you feel what was done before was better. If it is all easy, then wild card riders would do better. Yes you can say but they aren't on the big teams.

I challenge anyone to go out on there local track days and take part. Go as fast as they feel comfortable with. I'd love to do that if I didn't have O.I. I've broken hundreds of bones already in real life and I don't even race. LOL!

When your talking about riding aids or no riding aids, which defines the better skill as a rider? The rider who can race and win on a bike with no riding aids, or the rider who wins races only with the aid of these riding aids?

It is well known that if you ride with riding aids then it greatly narrows the gap between the less skilled riders and the very talented riders, the same as it allows the good riders(which all Motogp riders are very good) to ride at the same level as the riders who would normally have that special  extra edge that defines a race champion. The only difference these days is the performance of the bikes that defines whether a rider wins or not(Ooo... That's controversial! Lol). When was the last time you saw a rider win on a greatly inferior bike? I bet you'd have to go back to before the 1990's to tell me that.

Also I think there is a big difference between having the latest technology in tyres/frame construction techniques or light materials/ the latest carbon disc pads or brake discs/even having the advantage of an engine with more horsepower from the old school days than comparing those things with the likes of traction and wheelie control and electronics that automatically adjust the handling and engine power output according to current throttle and grip situations. All these things are supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines the great riders from the middle of the pack riders. So no. I have to disagree with you guys that advocate the progression of riding aids technology and just blindly accept it as part and parcel of the sport moving on with the times. We should open our eyes and get the sport back to being a sport and not just a spectacle soley run for the sponsors benefits(That's another story all together. LOL).

@Klax: Yes the riders of old school were on the cutting edge of technology for their time, agreed. But at which stage do you start to draw the line and say it's gone too far? I think it's when you start to take away the skill of the rider and give it more to the machine to do the job, that to me is when the line has been crossed and starts to make a sport into just a spectacle rather than a true sporting competition.

I'll step off my soapbox now. Hehe 

Hawk.

I disagree. I'm just going to leave it at that, because this will never be a answer since it's just all opinion.

[HornetMaX]

W00t! A topic I didn't send off topic !

I go with a simple rule: I'm happy for the top category of a given motorsport (e.g. MotoGP and F1) to have whichever technology have a practical and technical interest, provided that it does not spoil the show and it is not too dangerous.

For example, I'm against launch control, especially for bikes (where the safety justification is weaker than for cars).
I'm OK for active suspensions for both cars and bikes (likely semi-active for bikes), but definitely not something that auto-tunes knowing where you are on the track.

When your talking about riding aids or no riding aids, which defines the better skill as a rider? The rider who can race and win on a bike with no riding aids, or the rider who wins races only with the aid of these riding aids?

Most of that reasoning is a myth. Same identical bikes, Marquez 7 - Pedrosa 0. It's not by chance.

The only difference these days is the performance of the bikes that defines whether a rider wins or not(Ooo... That's controversial! Lol).

It's not controversial, it's wrong.  Marc 7 - Dani 0. Wait, did I say that twice ?

Also I think there is a big difference between having the latest technology in tyres/frame construction techniques or light materials/ the latest carbon disc pads or brake discs/even having the advantage of an engine with more horsepower from the old school days than comparing those things with the likes of traction and wheelie control and electronics that automatically adjust the handling and engine power output according to current throttle and grip situations. All these things are supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines the great riders from the middle of the pack riders.

All these things are were supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines defined the great riders from the middle of the pack riders.

Same in cars: a long tim ago, you had a gearbox lever, a clutch, heavy steering wheel ...

Motorsport evolves, by nature.

Let me ask you this: you like the '80s bikes and you think they were really separating the good riders from the average ones, better show, more gutsy etc. Now I could argue: no way, the '70s were much better, with carbs, frames that were very flexible so a real rider had to compensate for that.
Then somebody else argues: you silly kids, the '60s were the real deal. Shitty tires, ridiculous brakes ...that was brave.

Where does it stop ? Where is the line ?

The answer is: there's no line.

@Klax: Yes the riders of old school were on the cutting edge of technology for their time, agreed. But at which stage do you start to draw the line and say it's gone too far? I think it's when you start to take away the skill of the rider and give it more to the machine to do the job, that to me is when the line has been crossed and starts to make a sport into just a spectacle rather than a true sporting competition.

If you want a true true true sporting competition you have to have all the riders on same bike (and compensate for mechanical problems, after all it's not the rider's fault if the engine blows up).

If you want a championship that is at the same time a riders championship and a constructors championship, then you have to allow evolution: that;s what the constructors want (and what later on is beneficial to consumers, at least some times).

MaX.

[Hawk]

Also I think there is a big difference between having the latest technology in tyres/frame construction techniques or light materials/ the latest carbon disc pads or brake discs/even having the advantage of an engine with more horsepower from the old school days than comparing those things with the likes of traction and wheelie control and electronics that automatically adjust the handling and engine power output according to current throttle and grip situations. All these things are supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines the great riders from the middle of the pack riders.

All these things are were supposed to be done via the riders skill... this is what defines defined the great riders from the middle of the pack riders.

Same in cars: a long tim ago, you had a gearbox lever, a clutch, heavy steering wheel ...

Motorsport evolves, by nature.

Let me ask you this: you like the '80s bikes and you think they were really separating the good riders from the average ones, better show, more gutsy etc. Now I could argue: no way, the '70s were much better, with carbs, frames that were very flexible so a real rider had to compensate for that.
Then somebody else argues: you silly kids, the '60s were the real deal. Shitty tires, ridiculous brakes ...that was brave.

Where does it stop ? Where is the line ?

The answer is: there's no line.

Same in cars: a long tim ago, you had a gearbox lever, a clutch, heavy steering wheel ...

Motorsport evolves, by nature.

Let me ask you this: you like the '80s bikes and you think they were really separating the good riders from the average ones, better show, more gutsy etc. Now I could argue: no way, the '70s were much better, with carbs, frames that were very flexible so a real rider had to compensate for that.
Then somebody else argues: you silly kids, the '60s were the real deal. Shitty tires, ridiculous brakes ...that was brave.

Where does it stop ? Where is the line ?

The answer is: there's no line.

Hi Max...

Lol.... Your a picky old bugger today Max! Did someone pull your spark plugs out or something? LOL 

Okay.....

Quote: "Same in cars: a long tim ago, you had a gearbox lever, a clutch, heavy steering wheel ..."

Correction: "It's the same with regards to cars: a long time ago, one had a gearbox lever, a clutch, a heavy steering wheel ..."


Btw: I was talking in the present tense not the past tense in that part of my sentence, so your grammatical corrections in my post are incorrect.

But anyway, as Klax rightly pointed out it's all a matter of ones own point of view and opinion. So I think we'll all agree to disagree on this subject. 


Touché Max!

Hawk.

PS: I bet you're a cracking chess player Max?

[HornetMaX]

Btw: I was talking in the present tense not the past tense in that part of my sentence, so your grammatical corrections in my post are incorrect.

You misunderstood their meaning: they weren't grammatical corrections (your grammar was absolutely fine, at least to me), they were correction in the meaning of the sentence, in the message the sentence carries. What you were saying at present tense, I disagree on: I think it is only true at past tense.

PS: I bet you're a cracking chess player Max?

Nope, learnt to play but didn't liked it. I was decent at backgammon though.

And I'm almost always a picky old bugger, nothing special today

MaX.

[EdouardB]

I feel like I should clarify something because everytime I hear people talk about the "safety" side of electronics in MotoGP, it really annoys me (even makes me rage ).

In MotoGP, electronics are NOT used for safety. At all. It's purely a performance tool.
What I mean by that is that the only reason that MotoGP riders use traction control is because nowadays it actually improves the lap times.

If the lap times were better without traction control, no one would use it. Even if it implies 10 times more crashes (which it does not - more below).

In the French Superstock championship for example, all the people I know who ride a kawasaki ZX10RR or BMW S1000RR never use TC on a dry track. Because they tested it and it doesn't make them faster, so they don't bother. In the Superbike championship they use it but only because it improves tyre wear and actually makes them slightly faster. It's not at all a safety concern.

Having said that, it does improve safety but only as a consequence and not nearly as much as people think. People still high side even with very advanced electronics (that costs millions of R&D in MotoGP). Riders of 250GP and WSS who have tried bikes with TCS have told me that it doesn't make them crash much less at all.

Also, the problem is that the arrival (or, I should say, the improvement, because the last 500 actually had some electronics) of electronics coincided with the arrival of the 4 strokes in MotoGP and people associated the smaller number of high sides with electronics but it's just wrong. It's mostly a matter of 4 stroke vs 2 stroke. The number of crashes in MotoGP also hasn't been significantly reduced while the electronics improved between 2003 and 2013: in 2003, Haga had the biggest number of crashes with 17 crashes during the season. In 2013, Marc Marquez crashed the most with 15 crashes. Much improved safety? BULLSHIT. IT'S NOT TRUE ON THE RACETRACK. DAMN. JESUS (I'm not actually mad don't worry)

However on the road, TCS can probably be a big plus for safety as there are a lot of surprises such as crack in the road, an unexpected bump, oil, etc... I'm all for it on the road honestly (same goes for ABS).

[HornetMaX]

I +1 all the above, including the CAPITALS

I also think most of the ones that "dislaike" electronic aids overestimate a lot what electronic can do. You still need a damn good rider to go fast.

MaX.