like the article says, a lot more complicated than i ever imagined...a bit too much, Old burgess statement of "the rider is 80%" probably doesn't apply as much now IMO
They said the Yamaha M1 has over 100 sensors on it, and the system is so intuitive that when Edwards went out in a race with the rain map installed by accident the bike was able to adjust itself every lap allowing him to go faster each successive lap.
Oh, and it's going to get a lot more sophisticated. And I hope manufacturers will pour some of what they are learning into production bikes, and not just sportsbikes. Yes, I know "electronics cannot be fixed in a shed with a hammer and spanners" but if it can make life better why not?
And I always like the comments of people who want the pinnacle of racing to be exactly what was in the late '70s. Why don't they grab a case of beer and sit down in front of the TV watching NASCAR and stop complaining?
__________________
Shame on me, my heart is black.
It's gonna be really cool when the rider need not get on the bike at all. Remote control is so much safer and faster. Who needs riders anyway?
Oh wait...it's meant to be the RIDERS championship. (or are we ONLY interested in the MANUFACTURERS championship here?)
bingo.
I want to see riders ride bikes. And want to see the most skilled at getting that bike to go the fastest without spitting him out win.
I could care less about THAT MUCH electronics, they have made Motogp pretty boring lately. Im all for some sort of wheelie control, rain mapping, but they've taken it to a level where a 250gp or Moto2 guy can step right into the motGP class and not have any trouble going around the track at all....used to command SOME respect of the bikes when you first swung a leg over one. I used to say i would never swing a leg over one if they gave a chance, now i wouldn't hesitate one second, just turn up the nanny to 11.
not just my opinion...Rossi, Hayden, Colin, they all say threes too much electronic intervention today.
Agree of course . All the e-aids should be eliminated so a rider's touch becomes paramount once again . The M1 would probably be just as easy to ride .
I want to see riders ride bikes. And want to see the most skilled at getting that bike to go the fastest without spitting him out win.
…
Im all for some sort of wheelie control, rain mapping, but they've taken it to a level where a 250gp or Moto2 guy can step right into the motGP class and not have any trouble going around the track at all....
So where is the border between legitimate electronics and non legitimate electronics?
It used to be that, the ignition retardation was done manually (~1940) by the rider.
And why only electronics why not mechanics as well?
It used to be that the rider was the one responsible of keeping the bike inline entering a corner, now it’s the slipping clutch and the ECU.
For sure banning slipper clutches will make for magnificent slides and racing.
And it’s not that the bikes became too fast regular sport cars can hold higher corner speed then MotoGP bikes, it’s the fact they become too predictable, and changes very little over the course of the race.
Thus I suggest before you that the problem is not the electronics it’s not the bikes and it’s not tires (Rossi blamed all of them in an interview to Bike Magazine a year ago).
I suggest it is the front wheel or the inequality between the front and the rear which today limits racing.
And though limiting the electronics may help, putting limitation on its usage is harmful to improving the breed because unlike many of the technologies used today in the MotoGP electronics is the one we should expect to see the most in our production bikes.
You guys that want everything taken off have to remember that without some of these things these guys would be dead or walking around with a permanent limp. I'm all for TC, anti wheelie and what not but some of it is definitely to much. The computer running simulations based on what happened from one lap would affect the mapping a couple of laps later seems odd. Picture what happened to Jorge in Valencia when he hit Simoncelli. Immediately after that he did nothing but gain on everybody and eventually won the race. Shouldn't that little mishap have played hell with the cpu and it should have played it safe a couple of laps later?????
...Picture what happened to Jorge in Valencia when he hit Simoncelli. Immediately after that he did nothing but gain on everybody and eventually won the race. Shouldn't that little mishap have played hell with the cpu and it should have played it safe a couple of laps later?????
A mishap like a collision or contact between two riders is a foreseeable possibility, any well constructed system will identify a set of samples as being too noisy (differ substantially/high variance etc') and ignore them altogether or treat them with extreme caution while weighing them in.
Also it is the front tire of Jorge which came in contact with Simoncelli's rear, and TC system has very little (if any) to offer to the front.
I suggest it is the front wheel or the inequality between the front and the rear which today limits racing.
No really hear me out, instead of trying to limit technology limit the rear wheel,
Limit how expected the rear wheel is; make life tougher for the TC.
Some suggestion just to serve as an example:
1. Mandate the rear to be grooved (as in F1),
2. Mandate the width of the rear tire limiting outright traction and durability,
3. Guide Bridgestone to stop the development of the rear till the front catches up,
4. Increase capacity and HP so that it will shred the rear faster, yet unlike the 800cc machines lower the corner speed improving safty.
5. Maybe prevent tire technology improvement altogether as Rossi explained tires traction hardly changes over the course of the race making tire management obsolete.
No really hear me out, instead of trying to limit technology limit the rear wheel,
Limit how expected the rear wheel is; make life tougher for the TC.
Some suggestion just to serve as an example:
1. Mandate the rear to be grooved (as in F1),
2. Mandate the width of the rear tire limiting outright traction and durability,
3. Guide Bridgestone to stop the development of the rear till the front catches up,
4. Increase capacity and HP so that it will shred the rear faster, yet unlike the 800cc machines lower the corner speed improving safty.
5. Maybe prevent tire technology improvement altogether as Rossi explained tires traction hardly changes over the course of the race making tire management obsolete.
I thought you were suggesting putting a rear on the front.
"1. Mandate the rear to be grooved (as in F1),"
meh, race bikes belong on slicks(opinion) but I feel like they would do the same thing the F1 guys did and make it so the grooves wore off quickly and became slicks again.
"2. Mandate the width of the rear tire limiting outright traction and durability,"
I believe they already do this
"3. Guide Bridgestone to stop the development of the rear till the front catches up,"
one of the first things that always comes out in interviews from first time riders is how spectacular the grip is especially in the front and on the brakes.
"4. Increase capacity and HP so that it will shred the rear faster, yet unlike the 800cc machines lower the corner speed improving safty."
I love this idea but I think the days of lower corner speeds may be gone. which doesn't hurt my feelings a bit. again this is something that could be taken care of by eliminating the nanny on fuel consumption. give them more fuel capacity and then there is no need for the bike to reduce power on its own and then there will be power in reserve for somebody to pull a "rossi" and make up a shit ton of time on sheer testicular fortitude.
"5. Maybe prevent tire technology improvement altogether as Rossi explained tires traction hardly changes over the course of the race making tire management obsolete."
I don't even know where to go with this as it could be fixed easily by limiting gadgetry and I don't believe for a sec that this is a true statement.
on the subject of electronics, I think the adaptive stuff is really neat. BUT, it seems completely useless on the street and against what the manufacturers say about using MotoGP as a testbed to develop relevant technologies for street bikes.
I guess I am therefore against it. It does nothing for developing better streetbikes, and ruins the show in some ways as well.
I don't see why it's so difficult to control the scope and spread of TC, rider aides, etc. Simply provide a standard spec, sealed, highly configurable ECU that does not contain any rider aide functions within it. How difficult can that be? It's done in car motorsports, and works well.
It can still be configured for custom firing sequence/engine/crank configurations and all the other variables needed to run the engine. A predetermined and built-in set of maps and parameters would be allowed to be tweaked, but that's it. The rest is for the rider to control.
And yeah....there will likely be an increase in the number of high-sides and other safety issues for riders to work through....just as they've done for decades. The bottom line is that even the riders themselves are suggesting this needs to be done.
It increases the value of the rider in the overall performance of the package, which is only good for riders (at least, the GOOD riders). It widens the gap between the riders - as their skill, courage and experience plays a greater role in their performance, and allows truly exceptional riders to pass and overtake others. The amount of passing will increase, as there will be a greater disparity between the riders.
Whether that means that the field will be more spread out and thus more processional in the race in the last half of the race, is obviously a concern, but I have the feeling that the days of a truly dominant racer are past us, with the natural competitiveness of the top 5 or so racers on the grid these days.
We're unlikely to see such major dominance as we saw with Agostini and Rossi again, ever.....because riders there days are so well trained, so professional, so dedicated to their craft, that it makes such clear dominance by one individual much less likely to occur.
(but of course we can never say "never!")
The techno geek in me wants to say...let the manufacturers build the very best they can, and showcase their abilities....but realistically, we need to consider whether the sheer capability of the bike and speed of the bike around the track is what racing is all about for us as spectators, or whether is the human aspect (rider skills) that we truly admire and want to see. I know which it is for me.
__________________ Old Baldy
Ducati 996 with hot 999 motor
Triumph Tiger 955i
Kawasaki KLR650 OB's Ride Reports
baldy, I like your thinkin. so here is what I suggest to keep it from becoming too processional.
start the grid backwards.
no really, make qualifying a bigger part of the points. you qualify on pole you get say 10 points, but you hafta start at the back. this satiates the strategy junkies, makes for a lot of passing and riders really fighting for every last point they can muster.
secondary thought, maybe even award a single point for every pass executed.
Fascinating article on MotoGP electronics
.
06 rc51 banzai/Simons, pcIII,ohlins... the usual
Linear Mode
