• Welcome to PiBoSo Official Forum. Please login or sign up.
 
September 26, 2020, 06:09:33 PM

Airbag system

Started by JOACKO172, January 10, 2020, 02:55:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Manu

January 12, 2020, 12:51:30 AM #15 Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 12:58:22 AM by Manu
Quote from: HawkOkay.... I'll give you a single brief example:

Take "Traction Control". Before electronics where brought in to control the traction it was a skill riders had to learn, and just how well a rider could use and control their throttle hand and body weight shifting to control the traction of the rear tyre and use that skill would often mark the difference between great riders and ordinary good riders(their all good riders after all).

You say that so long as it's the same for everyone then what is the problem? Well a rider that without traction control who wouldn't be very good with their throttle hand to control the rear traction is now able to by-pass that skill cause the electronics are doing that job for them, and vice versa in that the riders who do have good throttle control abilities are now in a position where that natural skill has been made useless.... So the sport is in a situation where you have less skilled riders able to now compete with the great riders(given a competitive bike to do so) when in reality they shouldn't be able to cause they haven't the real skill to keep up with them, hence I talk about the falsity and the facade of it in all areas of MotoGP nowadays.

I understand your point of view and it is very respectable but you are comparing completely different times. You compare old riders with modern riders who share the races today but how many of those old legends remain at work? A generational transition is inevitable. The same will happen in the future with current riders. New developments will arrive in 20 years and all this will remain in the past.

The question is that motor sport evolves, we cannot deny the evidence

You are nostalgic, I have no doubt but let's leave the past behind.
It's Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.

Myst1cPrun3

https://www.visordown.com/news/product-news/alpinestars-announce-tech-air-5-standalone-airbag-jacket

Airbags are good, lifesavers even.

While I can understand that more safety measures mean more riders take risks as the is a larger margin, this isn't a bad thing.

More safety is always good. To them it's a job, not a hobby. It's something they're contacted to, and everyone should be able to be as safe as possible at work.

As for it not being a sport anymore and electronics taking away from it I think you've lost the plot saying that.

Sure the focus on where lap times have come from has changed, but the Gp riders are still a cut above everyone else. Look at Redding. He was an average gp rider but win the BSB championship, which is regarded as one of the hardest superbike championships in the world in terms of fuel strength... And they use no electronics.

The focus of the sport had shifted to the machine rather than the man, or even the combination of man and machine at a push.

MotoGP is heading in a great direction, 2016-2018 were amazing seasons, and 2019 was ok to, behind mm93 that is.

I think you need to accept reality that the past is the past, and was not as great as you think... After all, it was the Rainey,doohan,schwantz Gardner and Lawson era that nearly killed gp racing to a degree even those good forsaken 800ccs didn't manage.

Hawk

Well..... It seems I will never understand  the acceptance from the current generation of modern MotoGP fans concerning the implementation of some of the technologies these days that to me go against everything sport as a whole is all about.

Seems to me that if a sport like golf allowed the implementation of laser-aiming devices on putters, or club-heads that electronically adjusted themselves to the golfers swing so that they perfectly strike the ball every time then you guys would say that is quite okay cause everyone is in the same situation and using the technology, that it's just the sport moving forward with the times and doesn't take away from the sport cause all competitors are using the same technologies so why does it make any difference to the result? It's MADNESS! ;D

Another analogy: Who would you rather have flying you to a destination in a failing plane? A pilot that knows how to fly a plane by the seat of his pants or a pilot who has only flown fly-by-wire planes in his life? I know which pilot I'd want to be flying this failing plane to get me safely back to ground.

You've got to realise that we are not talking about only material changes in bike design(that's perfectly acceptable as advancement of a sport with the times), we are talking about technologies that actually replace some major rider skills of the bikes control, handling and engine in real-time and that's apart from the main subject of debate being the over implementation of safety into the sport.

All sounds crazy to me that you guys just sit back and accept it all so easily without questioning what it's doing to the soul of the sport itself...

I'm interested to know what would you guys say if someone asked you to define what best describes sport?





Myst1cPrun3

I don't think you quite understand what the sport is about.and I think that's the underlying issue.

You think, like many fans of a different time, believe the sport is about the riders 'taming' machines that are trying to cause them actual bodily harm,and like many fans are drawn to these riders.

However you are completely missing the point of grand Prix racing, which I should mention, hasn't changed since it's inception:

For MANUFACTURERS to show off their skills and make the fastest machinery possible. It always has been this way, from racings very inception it was always about the manufacturer's and the engineering. Only as mainstream media and sponsors started becoming prevalent in the 60s did the riders and drivers even get close to as much recognition as their machines.

You've completely overlooked this part, obviously,or else you'd realise that the actual rider, or driver, was never the focus of Motorsport initially. And to say the machines are taking over,and taking away from GPs as a sport,then you've clearly overlooked the origins and goals of Motorsport.

As for the sportsperson, while these days,with global media and what not, there is more of a focus on them I will grant you, however to say the technology is taking away the skill is quite disrespectful to them.

As I've already said, Redding owned on the No Electronics BSB championship. And he was an average gp rider all the way through his career, so the fact he could adapt says a lot.

As for the actual skills being reduced I'd disagree wholeheartedly with that statement, for several reasons.the first one being most support classes, such as moto2 don't use and electronic assistance, so again, to win at that is, one semblance of a riders skill.

Secondly, I would argue that at the very most,, the skill set has moved slightly, but I would argue that it requires more skill now than it did before.

The riding skill is less about controlling the throttle, and much more about being adaptable to the situation you find yourself in, and solving issues while under huge pressure not to crash and lose positions. It's a whole skill in itself.

Combine that with the relatively new skill of electronic understanding, which the riders have to be technologically savvy as well as have great communication skills to be able to communicate with the race engineer about the electronic side. So that's a new skill there.

As for modern gp bikes being easier to ride, I think that's again a gross understatememt. I again think the skill is now in precision, and getting the Electronics to kick in at the correct time and the correct manner, as well as being precise on the racing line to optimise the speed.
Man handling the bike has been replaced with holding on and precision riding.
A different skill, but again, still a valuable skill.

Also, that pilot analysis is wrong on so many levels, as planes were landing themselves since the 60s.. as well as fly by wore throttles being used on passenger planes since Concorde, also known as the late 60s.

The likelihood is if you've ever been on a large jet airliner since the mid 70s you've not had a pilot land manually, and if you haven't noticed the difference then the tech is clearly doing its job.

If you feel like questioning what this tech is doing to the soul of the sport itself then as I said above I'm not sure you realise the origins of Motorsport is mechanically centered, and in trying to take that away and make it about the riders, you opinion is the type that is taking the soul of Grand Prix racing away, as the mechanicals were the origins. The pilot had something to do with it yes, duh, but I'm the headlines and news clippings the mechanicals and engineers/company always got more praise.

I myself believe it lies in the rider and bike being in perfect harmony together, a balance.

Now, where this harmony is and how it's achieved is shifted from the olden, obsolete days,where people didn't walk away from their Job, where Grand Prix racing had a about 8-10 full time entries, those rose tinted spectacle days. Days where Grand Prix racing nearly died, such was the crap financial position that it found itself in because of the very reasons you want to go back to.. those days...

That being said, this harmony still exists, and a great rider is still essential to being successful in motorcycle sport, it's as I said.. the skill set has shifted at most. Not been taken away.


The official definition of a Sport is:

'An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.'

And I believe this is accurate to most things, except snooker, golf, darts, eSports, and chess. they to me are not sports, as they require no physical exertion. Skill yes, no doubt, having tried all of them. What I will say with those is the exertion is a mental one instead,which as you can see doesn't qualify for being a sport.

Motorsport is still a physical sport, there are several cases of modern riders having arm pump, broken bones, sores on their hands, to the point some riders wear specialist padded under gloves to allow them to grip the bars and prevent their hands from falling apart, as the forces of the bikes, that these electronics allow, have been drastically increased.

Until the motor-sport becomes like remote control racing with no rider/driver, then I believe it will be a sport. A that rider/driver, as long as they are present on/in the machine, will be subjected to physical exertion, of some form.

Hawk

@Myst1cPrun3:

Well, well, well..... Indeed you have answered just why many these days just easily accept the changes manufacturers like to bring into sports, for the worst in my opinion.

I can only believe that your a relatively young man from your attitude of the 60's/70's as being a long time ago? Would also explain just why you hold your opinion of the current state of MotoGP today.

Also, your opinion of what is a sport is very disrespectful of those sports you easily dismiss as a sport just cause they seemingly have little physical exertion involved, which I beg to differ if you have ever cared to participate in any of those sports in a serious competitive manner and not just as a way to enjoy or pass the time with friends, even for a seemingly sedatory activity like esports or chess you'd find are either very mentally tiring or do indeed require the participant to be physically fit to compete at the highest levels of today.

A lot of the skills you say are new and added to this modern era have always been skills riders needed to possess except for the electronics management side of things, so nothing much new there.

As for Motorsport being mainly for manufacturers: I would disagree by saying that there has always been two championships and intentions involved in sports - The manufacturers title/prestige, and the competitors title/prestige, both of which are equally as important to both.
I would also state that in the past motor manufacturers involved in sports were pretty quickly stopped from continuing any development that was thought to bring sport into disrepute. The difference nowadays seems to be where that red line of bringing disrespect to a sport is drawn these days, and I think a lot of the relaxing of attitudes in that respect comes down to sponsors and their big money dominating the direction of sports and how and what is allowed to be overlooked where technology implementations are concerned...... All will lead to no good things happening in these sports if it's allowed to continue, it will be the big corporations that run sport, if indeed they already don't; again not a good situation for the way sport should be run.

So it comes down to just having to disagree with the younger generation yet again and if they are not going to learn from the experience of the older more experienced generation then we just have to let you carry on, make the mistakes and then hope that sports involved in their bad management can be rescued by people who know what they are talking about and let them live & thrive honourably again. ;D ;)

Myst1cPrun3

Above, what I said in response to 'what is a sport' is not an opinion. That is pure fact,as it is in response the Oxford English Dictionary definition of a sport, and then looking quite simply at the characteristics of those activities. Nowhere did I say they were easy, just that they do not meet the official definition for being an actual sport.

You can disagree all you like but that is just a simple FACT.

As for when I think the 60s and 70s were, that, is quite irrelevant to be honest. As with the definition of sports that I showed, my opinion of MotoGP today when compared to yester year is again based off facts. Injuries were ripe, costs were high, and grid numbers were low. That again is fact.

If you'd have actually read what I said, you'd have seen that I said the origins of Motorsport come from engineers and manufacturers pitting their machines against each other. Not initially the pilots/riders/drivers.


Again if you'd have actually read what I said, instead of looking through those rose tinted spectacles and reading what you wanted to read, you'd see that I said the skill set was not changed, or added to, just moved around. As priorities on manually handling the machines around the track for laptimes is less, but focus on electrical competence is increased. It balances out as I said.

You seem to have no concept of the facts of the very racing you want to see back.

As if you took off your rose tinted glasses, you'd realise that the corporations ruled grand Prix racing during the 500cc days you admire, even more so than today's GPs.

Rothmans spent millions to access the TV rights just so they could show their own adverts.

Not only that, but the sponsors and costs required to race GPs made the grids shrink to a level that even club racing hasn't seen, ever.

The money aspect has been in Motorsport since the very beginning, since the first automobile races, where the most money got the best engineers to get the best machinery.(riders and drivers were hired generally with whatever money was left, or often an in-house engineer to make repairs on the fly, showing again the emphasis on machinery rather than manpower.)

The final point, about the disagreeing with the younger generation... Again, looking at facts, that's just wrong. Again.

As like I've said, the older generation you think know it all, nearly killed GP racing, with spiralling costs, and bad management.

Now, regardless of whichever way you look at it, MotoGP is more popular than it's ever been, safer than it's ever been, faster than it's ever been, and has more entries full time than there has aver been.

Just looking at facts Grand Prix racing is in a 10x better position, at least, than it was when the 'older' generation were managing it.

So in that regard, we, the younger generation, have learned from what the predecessors have done, and their mistakes, and improved upon it.

Whenever you look at Grand Prix racing, and sports in general, I'd set personal feelings aside and look at the facts.

Once you do this, you'll realise that the old days weren't as perhaps as good as you remember. And until people like you can accept that the old ways aren't always the best, this country will always be behind the times.

JohnnoNinja

Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on January 12, 2020, 02:38:21 PMThe likelihood is if you've ever been on a large jet airliner since the mid 70s you've not had a pilot land manually, and if you haven't noticed the difference then the tech is clearly doing its job.


What are you saying? That pilots don't land manually? Because in that case I don't agree with you... For the rest I do:) MotoGP is nowadays just as much a sport as it was back in the days.. :)


Myst1cPrun3

@JohnnoNinja

Pilots do not land manually, unless conditions are close to perfect

Planes have an auto land system these days. Its common place these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland


JohnnoNinja

Although policies may differ between airlines, pilots make auto landings in low visibility conditions, either being in fog or low cloud ceiling.

Sry for being off topic;)

Myst1cPrun3

Quote from: JohnnoNinja on January 12, 2020, 09:46:43 PMAlthough policies may differ between airlines, pilots make auto landings in low visibility conditions, either being in fog or low cloud ceiling.

Sry for being off topic;)
no worries this entire thing should have been about airbags for suits,but some people seem to not like to look at actual messages... 😉😘

As for the auto land, I am aware for some airlines it's procedure to use at least an automatic approach, but the pilot gains control on short final.

But the point is really irrelevant, as the point was the tech already exists for planes to fly them selves, and the likelihood is if you've been on a passenger airliner in the last 30-40 years, you've experienced the plane landing itself.

Which in the messages above was a point that was made against technology

Hawk

@Myst1cPrun3:
Funny how when one disagrees with another that the excuse is often accusing the reader of not reading what they said, isn't it.....

Like I said.... We'll leave it agreeing to disagree with each other on these issues in a major way....

Let's just wait and see what history brings shall we. Lol. :P  ;D  ;)

Myst1cPrun3

January 13, 2020, 09:59:08 AM #26 Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 10:07:06 AM by Myst1cPrun3
Quote from: Hawk on January 13, 2020, 09:48:03 AM@Myst1cPrun3:
Funny how when one disagrees with another that the excuse is often accusing the reader of not reading what they said, isn't it.....

Like I said.... We'll leave it agreeing to disagree with each other on these issues in a major way....

Let's just wait and see what history brings shall we. Lol. :P  ;D  ;)


Agreeing and disagreeing. And there in lies the UK/world's issues.

People disagree with Simple, obvious facts.
The earth is round. GMOS are safe.
Vaccinations work. Global warming is an issue.

And.

Grand Prix racing is still a sport, one that is way more successful now than it ever was.

However each to their own I guess. Free speech and all. It'll be the death of the human race.

Hawk

Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on January 13, 2020, 09:59:08 AMAgreeing and disagreeing. And there in lies the world's issues.


Well, well, well.... At least we can agree on this mate, something that while people have differing points of view will never change, and why should it.... But it's the majority point of view that counts, right? ;D  ;)

Myst1cPrun3

On a broad perspective yeah disagreements cause issues lol.

But for me any point of view, majority or not, of its not fact then it's irrelevant 😉

Hawk

Quote from: Myst1cPrun3 on January 13, 2020, 04:07:24 PMOn a broad perspective yeah disagreements cause issues lol.

But for me any point of view, majority or not, of its not fact then it's irrelevant 😉

Facts don't always make sense in that it maybe a fact that someone has a degree but that doesn't stop that person being an idiot. ;)