I'm not saying the RC45 was a bad bike. I was stoked when JK won the title in '97. It just never delivered an equitable return on its cost/investment as compared to the Ducatis of that era which were less powerful and less sophisticated.
Honda's investment in the RC45 paid off as equity in the RC211V V5...
Ducati sat out the first year of MotoGp buying into Piero Ferrari's
High Performance Engineering concern because they had 0.0
invested in a V4 design... Suzuki also struggled because they also had
0.0 invested in a V4 design... Kenny Roberts thought he could whip out
a V5 with the help of some very talented Formula One veterans but
without any prior V4 investment their design suffered high internal
friction... you have to put your dues in MotoGp engine design and that
is where Honda's RC45 paid dividends...
So why then wasn't Edwards able to win the title in 1999 (or any other year for that matter) on the RC45? Was is because Fogarty was so much better a rider that he was able to beat Edwards and the superior Honda on the inferior Ducati? Its also interesting that Colin was only able to finally win his titles on a V-twin.
Colin Edwards struggled because he didn't get on the ground floor of
RVF homologation development... he was basically riding the bike that
Aaron Slight developed... but when the RC51 came along Colin was there
from the git go and the homologation was developed around him...
called the SP1... next Honda developed and homologated a second RC51
called the SP2... so of course he won more on the two homologated
specials that he born...
I never realized the RC45 faithful were also the Rossi faithful but it makes sense now, aged racer well past its prime still defended by the faithful with endless comparisons to the modern superior ...
Just joking BLS.
If you can't kid... you can't live... thats my motto...
No matter what your opinion is on the subject of Rossi's grumbling you have to accept the current facts.
1. Even though he's the most successful rider in this era, Rossi has lost his impression of invincibility.
2. The M1 vs. the rest of the field debate passes the time but ultimately its frivolous. If the teams in the pit are chasing their tails then we have no idea and can only conject.
3. Bridgestone had better tires this season, however Michelin dominated the sport since the Doohan era. So my question is why is this an issue now? Maybe I'am missing somthing but I thought that competition was to further developement?
4. Both Rossi and Doohan were the greatest of their time for what ever rack of variables, but the racing was bland and predictable and the only way to appreciate the sport in those times was to accept the fact that there was no competition and it was a one man show. This did little to encourage growth in the sport.
5. No matter how you feel about the current champion ("Kicky") 2006 was the most dramatic and eventful season in many years.
Disagree on the journo assessments. Obviously they are not capapble of being test riders, but their comments about stability, turn-in and engine characteristics, including HP are valid.
Agree completely about the merits of the 2004 and 2005 M1. The 2005 was very, very good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsess
Its not that I disagree with Rossi as much as I agree more with Doohan in forming the basis of my opinion which is that journalistic types are not capable of making relevant assessments of top race bikes simply because they are not capable of exploring the limits of the equipment.
In 2004 I do believe that the Honda was a better overall package than the Yamaha but the M1 also possessed some undeniable strengths over the Honda which Rossi, together with his superior abilities, was able to successfully take advantage of.
Any discussion of the M1 being inferior to the Honda in 2005 is pure nonsense and fantasy worship. Rossi is truly great but anyone who believes his M1 was "inferior" to the Hondas that year is deluding themselves.
It was very close. I don't see any reason to believe otherwise, there wasn't a whole lot of evolution going on, why wouldn't the LCR bike have the same parts as Dani's bike?
Nicky's bike was much different, for better or worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodKnight
Are you suggesting the LCR Honda was on par with the FACTORY repsol honda?
This is an issue now because three of the top riders in the championship are (apparently) not being allowed access to those tires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macchiato
3. Bridgestone had better tires this season, however Michelin dominated the sport since the Doohan era. So my question is why is this an issue now? Maybe I'm missing somthing but I thought that competition was to further developement?
Disagree on the journo assessments. Obviously they are not capapble of being test riders, but their comments about stability, turn-in and engine characteristics, including HP are valid.
Their assessments are valid but to what extent and in what realm in terms of performance capabilities? Let's say, for example, that a bunch of journalists are testing the M1 and RCV at Phillip Island and the assessment of each of the bike's characteristics and performance is based on the journos' abilities to run laps not slower than 1:45.00 but no faster than 1:36.00. Are the evaluations they make within these parameter valid? Yes and no. They are certainly valid within the context of the lap times achieved but not in terms of what the bikes might be like when running laps in the 1:29.00-1:31.00 range where the characteristics and performance traits for each of the bikes may be radically different. A Honda that is stable on the brakes, turns in sweetly, holds its line and gets good drive off the corners at the Journos pace may be squirmy on the brakes, difficult to turn in, struggle with edge grip mid corner, and push the front wide when trying to generate drive off the exit when trying to circulate at a sub 1:31.00 pace. But the Journos will have no way of knowing this because they are nowhere near these limits and thus are not able to explore how the bike behaves at the more extreme ends of the performance spectrum. Since this discussion is about how the bikes compare to each other at the MotoGP level, how can journos possibly make a fair assessment of the same if they're going nowhere near as fast?
But the point I've been trying (largely unsuccessfully) to make goes even beyond this. There's the jouno level of ability, the general MotoGP level of ability and then the Rossi level of ability. The Rossi level of feel and ability resides on a plateau which is essentially unreachable for the majority of MotoGP racers and perhaps closely touched/approached at various times (but with nowhere near the consistency) by riders such as Pedrosa, Stoner, Melandri and even Hayden. A bike tuned to operate/respond with the delicate precision and acuity of someone with Rossi's tremendous reflexes, skill and feel could (and has largely shown itself to be the case) be extremely difficult to manage for everyone else. If Rossi's ears were as sensitive as his throttle control hand and feel for traction, he'd howl when someone blew a dog whistle. Therefore, ANYONE who would deign to evaluate the characteristics of a bike tuned to someone with Rossi's superhuman abilities can only do so within the starkly contrasting limits of their own abilities. Comparing the two is like comparing the motor skills of a toddler to a great neurosurgeon. (They don't call him the doctor for nuthin'.)
What's silly is the perception by more than a few that during his championship years with Yamaha, Rossi had been struggling with a deficient, slow, poor handling piece of equipment that he had to override and whose shortcomings he had to compensate for in order to prevail when in reality, the M1 was an extraordinarily fine tuned instrument that only someone with Rossi's uncanny ability was able to play and succeed on. Certainly the Honda was the better overall bike for the rest of the MotoGP world and I believe Rossi would have continued to win titles in 2004 and 2005 had he remained with Honda but I don't believe that the M1, in the hands of someone with Rossi's talent, was an inferior bike. In fact, I think it was better than the Honda in several important areas which only someone like Rossi could capitalize on. Just like Stoner and the Ducati this year........
Their assessments are valid but to what extent and in what realm in terms of performance capabilities? Let's say, for example, that a bunch of journalists are testing the M1 and RCV at Phillip Island and the assessment of each of the bike's characteristics and performance is based on the journos' abilities to run laps not slower than 1:45.00 but no faster than 1:36.00. Are the evaluations they make within these parameter valid? Yes and no. They are certainly valid within the context of the lap times achieved but not in terms of what the bikes might be like when running laps in the 1:29.00-1:31.00 range where the characteristics and performance traits for each of the bikes may be radically different. A Honda that is stable on the brakes, turns in sweetly, holds its line and gets good drive off the corners at the Journos pace may be squirmy on the brakes, difficult to turn in, struggle with edge grip mid corner, and push the front wide when trying to generate drive off the exit when trying to circulate at a sub 1:31.00 pace. But the Journos will have no way of knowing this because they are nowhere near these limits and thus are not able to explore how the bike behaves at the more extreme ends of the performance spectrum. Since this discussion is about how the bikes compare to each other at the MotoGP level, how can journos possibly make a fair assessment of the same if they're going nowhere near as fast?
This is by FAR the greatest post of ALL time regarding comparos!!! Kudos!!!!
In fact, I think it was better than the Honda in several important areas which only someone like Rossi could capitalize on.
Rossi has to work harder in several important areas because the M1's
long and ponderous crankshaft has more distance to travel than the
Honda's short and sassy V4 crankshaft... the more physical effort
spent the more it burns up concentration... and a racer only has so
much concentration during their career... the faster it's spent the
sooner it's gone... as concentration wanes mistakes are made risking
permanent injury...
From my engineers perspective this is why I believe Yamaha will eventually
build Rossi a V4... this move may distance the street rider from Yamaha's
product line but it would lower Rossi's work load and reserve more
concentration to last his career...
Does a V-Twin turn in with less "physical effort" in this scenario?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop
Rossi has to work harder in several important areas because the M1's
long and ponderous crankshaft has more distance to travel than the
Honda's short and sassy V4 crankshaft... the more physical effort
spent the more it burns up concentration... and a racer only has so
much concentration during their career... the faster it's spent the
sooner it's gone... as concentration wanes mistakes are made risking
permanent injury...
From my engineers perspective this is why I believe Yamaha will eventually
build Rossi a V4... this move may distance the street rider from Yamaha's
product line but it would lower Rossi's work load and reserve more
concentration to last his career...
Does a V-Twin turn in with less "physical effort" in this scenario?
The V2 has less distance to travel but it weights more than a V4
crankshaft and the long and ponderous cylinders dictate that it spin
further aft than a V4 crankshaft... so the amount of physical effort
to move a short and heavy crank may feel the same moving a longer
lighter crankshaft...
Weight on the front means the back end will slide predictably...
weight to the rear means the back will slide unpredictably and it's
prone to snapping into the dreaded high side... this is why you don't
slide a Ducati with more success than the 4 cylinder competition...
Rossi has to work harder in several important areas because the M1's
long and ponderous crankshaft has more distance to travel than the
Honda's short and sassy V4 crankshaft... the more physical effort
spent the more it burns up concentration... and a racer only has so
much concentration during their career... the faster it's spent the
sooner it's gone... as concentration wanes mistakes are made risking
permanent injury...
From my engineers perspective this is why I believe Yamaha will eventually
build Rossi a V4... this move may distance the street rider from Yamaha's
product line but it would lower Rossi's work load and reserve more
concentration to last his career...
While the higher centripetal forces generated by a larger crankshaft rotation circumference can typically result in the need for greater energy to be expended in order to effect any changes in direction, do you really believe that the amount of of this additional energy expenditure requirement is significant enough to be of any measurable consequence to a.) a rider's level of stamina and concentration, and b.) a trait whose effects can't be easily mitigated by alterations to chassis geometry, front/rear ride height and suspension set-up?
Seeing how Yamaha has only until next season to develop a competitive package for Rossi in order to prevent his defection, I'm guessing that the Piano manufacturer will focus and apply all its tuning fork energy and know-how to improve the performance of its I4 while taking the current developmental path of trying to better exploit the pneumatic valve technology it introduced earlier this year.
While the higher centripetal forces generated by a larger crankshaft rotation circumference can typically result in the need for greater energy to be expended in order to effect any changes in direction, do you really believe that the amount of of this additional energy expenditure requirement is significant enough to be of any measurable consequence to a.) a rider's level of stamina and concentration, and b.) a trait whose effects can't be easily mitigated by alterations to chassis geometry, front/rear ride height and suspension set-up technology it introduced earlier this year.
Yes I do believe force is significant... so much so that Yamaha spins the
M1's heavy and ponderous crankshaft backwards in order to cancel some
it's higher centripetal energy... but that tactic necessitates and extra shaft
and gears which cost Rossi 5 hp... so that's another reason why the M1 will
never equal the V4 in rear wheel output...
Yes I do believe force is significant... so much so that Yamaha spins the
M1's heavy and ponderous crankshaft backwards in order to cancel some
it's higher centripetal energy... but that tactic necessitates and extra shaft
and gears which cost Rossi 5 hp... so that's another reason why the M1 will
never equal the V4 in rear wheel output...
From my engineers perspective this is why I believe Yamaha will eventually
build Rossi a V4...
Seeing how only they have approximately three months to come up with one, I don't see it happening (with Rossi and Yamaha at least) unless Yamaha wins a title with their improved I4 in 2008 in which case they'll be less motivated to make the change.
Also, someone here said something recently that further reinforced the notion in my mind that a Yamaha switch to V4 technology was unlikely to happen in the near future:
Ducati sat out the first year of MotoGp buying into Piero Ferrari's
High Performance Engineering concern because they had 0.0
invested in a V4 design... Suzuki also struggled because they also had
0.0 invested in a V4 design... Kenny Roberts thought he could whip out a V5 with the help of some very talented Formula One veterans but without any prior V4 investment their design suffered high internal friction... you have to put your dues in MotoGp engine design and that is where Honda's RC45 paid dividends...
What ever compromises Yamaha does to their I4 it seems to never equal
what the V4 already does naturally... so I think Rossi is right... a whole new
direction is called for on Yamahas part...
I believe MotoGp is the battle of engine architects and one shall win
favor with the engineers... after all... they seek the same wininng advantages
in a racing motorcycle...
Cool
Linear Mode
