Group: rec.motorcycles.racing
Discussion of all aspects of racing motorcycles.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
motogp: 800s vs 500s
motogp: 800s vs 500s
alot of talk is about how the 800s favour the lilliputian guys.
so i stopped for a second to consider how different the 800s are to
the 500s.
they seem to put out about the same power. not sure about weights,
but i'll assume the 800s are slightly heavier.
physically & aerodynamically, they seem to put out about the same
size. there's no reason the 800s MUST be smaller than 500s.
so that leaves traction-control. is it simply that the trac-control
is now soooo good the 800s are so (relatively) benign to drive that
they require less physical strength than the 500s?
alot of talk is about how the 800s favour the lilliputian guys.
so i stopped for a second to consider how different the 800s are to
the 500s.
they seem to put out about the same power. not sure about weights,
but i'll assume the 800s are slightly heavier.
physically & aerodynamically, they seem to put out about the same
size. there's no reason the 800s MUST be smaller than 500s.
so that leaves traction-control. is it simply that the trac-control
is now soooo good the 800s are so (relatively) benign to drive that
they require less physical strength than the 500s?
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
On Mar 14, 7:49 pm, wamann...@email . com wrote:
> alot of talk is about how the 800s favour the lilliputian guys.
>
> so i stopped for a second to consider how different the 800s are to
> the 500s.
>
> they seem to put out about the same power. not sure about weights,
> but i'll assume the 800s are slightly heavier.
>
> physically & aerodynamically, they seem to put out about the same
> size. there's no reason the 800s MUST be smaller than 500s.
>
> so that leaves traction-control. is it simply that the trac-control
> is now soooo good the 800s are so (relatively) benign to drive that
> they require less physical strength than the 500s?
Yes
On Mar 14, 7:49 pm, wamann...@email . com wrote:
> alot of talk is about how the 800s favour the lilliputian guys.
>
> so i stopped for a second to consider how different the 800s are to
> the 500s.
>
> they seem to put out about the same power. not sure about weights,
> but i'll assume the 800s are slightly heavier.
>
> physically & aerodynamically, they seem to put out about the same
> size. there's no reason the 800s MUST be smaller than 500s.
>
> so that leaves traction-control. is it simply that the trac-control
> is now soooo good the 800s are so (relatively) benign to drive that
> they require less physical strength than the 500s?
Yes
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
wamanning@email . com wrote:
> alot of talk is about how the 800s favour the lilliputian guys.
>
> so i stopped for a second to consider how different the 800s are to
> the 500s.
>
> they seem to put out about the same power. not sure about weights,
> but i'll assume the 800s are slightly heavier.
>
> physically & aerodynamically, they seem to put out about the same
> size. there's no reason the 800s MUST be smaller than 500s.
>
> so that leaves traction-control. is it simply that the trac-control
> is now soooo good the 800s are so (relatively) benign to drive that
> they require less physical strength than the 500s?
The 800s weight about 50 pounds more than 500s did, assuming they are
built down to the minimums, which I believe they generally were/are. The
power delivery, sans electronic controls, would surely be much
different, a peaky, narrow powerband two stroke vs the broader powerband
of a four stroke. My guess is that 800s do make more peak power as well,
perhaps 210 horsepower or more on some today vs. at most maybe 195 on
any 500. Chassis geometry and weight distribution are probably different
as well; I know the Honda 800s have a notably longer wheelbase.
Roberts made the point a couple years ago that he felt it was today's
tires that made the bikes so much easier to rider than the 500s, and
that he'd ridden the Honda-powered 900 with TC off and it wasn't that
tough. Of course that might be quite different for a 120-pound kid just
in from 250, but as always tires must be considered greatly. And the
tire theory would help explain why 250 riders have been getting smaller
as well, even if not by as much.
I think these machines are more sophisticated in almost every way, and
there has been a concerted effort to make them easier to ride fast. That
makes a lot of sense just on the surface, but building a bike that is
physically easier to ride, that doesn't require a lot of muscle to get
around the track, means that the guys that they (the people in MotoGP)
have been trying to make fast, the ex-250 Euros and Japanese, can be
fast. It's sort of a desirable byproduct. Honda for one recognized that
reality and has gone in the direction of marrying machine design with
much smaller riders. This approach gives their machines a free weight
advantage, in Pedrosa's case something like 45-50 pounds less than what
they had been used to - that makes the 800 package weight about what a
500 package used to be. That's huge.
I think MotoGP is about as likely to limit or outlaw traction control as
they are to do something about rider weight - it runs contrary to their
overall desires regarding riders, even if it makes the racing boring.
The Japanese OEMs see this as something with street applicability, so
want to experiment with it, and right now they are more focused on rules
that might allow them to stop using technology that doesn't have any
street application - rev limits to allow valve springs again, other
engine/fuel management controls that aren't likely to ever land on
street bikes, etc. The thorn in their side there is Ducati, of course,
who have their desmodromics and generally seem to be perfectly happy to
be using race-only technology. In some sense MotoGP is a bit like SB -
Japanese streetbike technology vs. Italian race specials.
wamanning@email . com wrote:
> alot of talk is about how the 800s favour the lilliputian guys.
>
> so i stopped for a second to consider how different the 800s are to
> the 500s.
>
> they seem to put out about the same power. not sure about weights,
> but i'll assume the 800s are slightly heavier.
>
> physically & aerodynamically, they seem to put out about the same
> size. there's no reason the 800s MUST be smaller than 500s.
>
> so that leaves traction-control. is it simply that the trac-control
> is now soooo good the 800s are so (relatively) benign to drive that
> they require less physical strength than the 500s?
The 800s weight about 50 pounds more than 500s did, assuming they are
built down to the minimums, which I believe they generally were/are. The
power delivery, sans electronic controls, would surely be much
different, a peaky, narrow powerband two stroke vs the broader powerband
of a four stroke. My guess is that 800s do make more peak power as well,
perhaps 210 horsepower or more on some today vs. at most maybe 195 on
any 500. Chassis geometry and weight distribution are probably different
as well; I know the Honda 800s have a notably longer wheelbase.
Roberts made the point a couple years ago that he felt it was today's
tires that made the bikes so much easier to rider than the 500s, and
that he'd ridden the Honda-powered 900 with TC off and it wasn't that
tough. Of course that might be quite different for a 120-pound kid just
in from 250, but as always tires must be considered greatly. And the
tire theory would help explain why 250 riders have been getting smaller
as well, even if not by as much.
I think these machines are more sophisticated in almost every way, and
there has been a concerted effort to make them easier to ride fast. That
makes a lot of sense just on the surface, but building a bike that is
physically easier to ride, that doesn't require a lot of muscle to get
around the track, means that the guys that they (the people in MotoGP)
have been trying to make fast, the ex-250 Euros and Japanese, can be
fast. It's sort of a desirable byproduct. Honda for one recognized that
reality and has gone in the direction of marrying machine design with
much smaller riders. This approach gives their machines a free weight
advantage, in Pedrosa's case something like 45-50 pounds less than what
they had been used to - that makes the 800 package weight about what a
500 package used to be. That's huge.
I think MotoGP is about as likely to limit or outlaw traction control as
they are to do something about rider weight - it runs contrary to their
overall desires regarding riders, even if it makes the racing boring.
The Japanese OEMs see this as something with street applicability, so
want to experiment with it, and right now they are more focused on rules
that might allow them to stop using technology that doesn't have any
street application - rev limits to allow valve springs again, other
engine/fuel management controls that aren't likely to ever land on
street bikes, etc. The thorn in their side there is Ducati, of course,
who have their desmodromics and generally seem to be perfectly happy to
be using race-only technology. In some sense MotoGP is a bit like SB -
Japanese streetbike technology vs. Italian race specials.
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
$5 says that in 5 years or less, motogp will limit TC in some
fashion...perhaps eliminating it altogether.
look at F1 this season. the "TC development in racing helps
production cars" argument still applies to cars, but TC has been
banned in F1 given how freaking boring it had become. with cars never
getting upset.. . it became largely a contest for engineers.
to get back to better racing, and give drivers a chance to make an
impact TC has been banned. heck, even in qualifying in OZ this
weekend, the cars were all over the place...allowing a skilled driver
to make a bigger difference in the success of the car.
once TC becomes more fully developed and widespread in the 2-wheeled
world, motogp will go the way of F1 in this area.
i hope it's sooner rather than later!
w
On Mar 15, 12:35 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
...snip...
> I think MotoGP is about as likely to limit or outlaw traction control as
> they are to do something about rider weight - it runs contrary to their
> overall desires regarding riders, even if it makes the racing boring.
> The Japanese OEMs see this as something with street applicability, so
> want to experiment with it, and right now they are more focused on rules
> that might allow them to stop using technology that doesn't have any
> street application - rev limits to allow valve springs again, other
> engine/fuel management controls that aren't likely to ever land on
> street bikes, etc. The thorn in their side there is Ducati, of course,
> who have their desmodromics and generally seem to be perfectly happy to
> be using race-only technology. In some sense MotoGP is a bit like SB -
> Japanese streetbike technology vs. Italian race specials.
$5 says that in 5 years or less, motogp will limit TC in some
fashion...perhaps eliminating it altogether.
look at F1 this season. the "TC development in racing helps
production cars" argument still applies to cars, but TC has been
banned in F1 given how freaking boring it had become. with cars never
getting upset.. . it became largely a contest for engineers.
to get back to better racing, and give drivers a chance to make an
impact TC has been banned. heck, even in qualifying in OZ this
weekend, the cars were all over the place...allowing a skilled driver
to make a bigger difference in the success of the car.
once TC becomes more fully developed and widespread in the 2-wheeled
world, motogp will go the way of F1 in this area.
i hope it's sooner rather than later!
w
On Mar 15, 12:35 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
...snip...
> I think MotoGP is about as likely to limit or outlaw traction control as
> they are to do something about rider weight - it runs contrary to their
> overall desires regarding riders, even if it makes the racing boring.
> The Japanese OEMs see this as something with street applicability, so
> want to experiment with it, and right now they are more focused on rules
> that might allow them to stop using technology that doesn't have any
> street application - rev limits to allow valve springs again, other
> engine/fuel management controls that aren't likely to ever land on
> street bikes, etc. The thorn in their side there is Ducati, of course,
> who have their desmodromics and generally seem to be perfectly happy to
> be using race-only technology. In some sense MotoGP is a bit like SB -
> Japanese streetbike technology vs. Italian race specials.
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
I disagree. TC in cars and TC in bikes are similar in theory, but
very different in practice. Motorcycles are notoriously difficult to
describe in theoretical models. Not impossible, of course, but much
more complicated than cars, in no small part because of the rider's
contribution to the handling. In car, you strap the driver down so
tight they can barely move their head, slam the center of mass down to
the ground and suddenly the whole thing lends itself very well to
physical models even a high school graduate can start to comprehend.
Now look at bikes. We still don't fully understand why and when big
bang engines provide advantage. That's something that's been
"discovered" over 10 years ago, and while we know how to implement it,
we don't really understand why it works when it does. Ever look at
the oscillation patterns for motorcycles? My goodness. A traction
control designer has to take these things into account. A bike is so
much shorter and taller than a car, with its CoM not completely
determined due to the rider being allowed a great freedom of
movement. And the results aren't the same as what we saw in F1. If
you look at Stoner's riding, the bike is not at all always composed.
It still slides the rear, gets controlled headshakes, and wheelies.
Watching his riding is absolutely fantastic. I don't like runaway
wins, but some people (Stoner, Rossi, some others) still make it
enjoyable to watch. Maybe it takes a bit closer watching to
appreciate it, but I don't mind.
On Mar 15, 10:03 pm, wamann...@email . com wrote:
> $5 says that in 5 years or less, motogp will limit TC in some
> fashion...perhaps eliminating it altogether.
>
> look at F1 this season. the "TC development in racing helps
> production cars" argument still applies to cars, but TC has been
> banned in F1 given how freaking boring it had become. with cars never
> getting upset.. . it became largely a contest for engineers.
>
> to get back to better racing, and give drivers a chance to make an
> impact TC has been banned. heck, even in qualifying in OZ this
> weekend, the cars were all over the place...allowing a skilled driver
> to make a bigger difference in the success of the car.
>
> once TC becomes more fully developed and widespread in the 2-wheeled
> world, motogp will go the way of F1 in this area.
>
> i hope it's sooner rather than later!
>
> w
>
> On Mar 15, 12:35 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> > I think MotoGP is about as likely to limit or outlaw traction control as
> > they are to do something about rider weight - it runs contrary to their
> > overall desires regarding riders, even if it makes the racing boring.
> > The Japanese OEMs see this as something with street applicability, so
> > want to experiment with it, and right now they are more focused on rules
> > that might allow them to stop using technology that doesn't have any
> > street application - rev limits to allow valve springs again, other
> > engine/fuel management controls that aren't likely to ever land on
> > street bikes, etc. The thorn in their side there is Ducati, of course,
> > who have their desmodromics and generally seem to be perfectly happy to
> > be using race-only technology. In some sense MotoGP is a bit like SB -
> > Japanese streetbike technology vs. Italian race specials.
I disagree. TC in cars and TC in bikes are similar in theory, but
very different in practice. Motorcycles are notoriously difficult to
describe in theoretical models. Not impossible, of course, but much
more complicated than cars, in no small part because of the rider's
contribution to the handling. In car, you strap the driver down so
tight they can barely move their head, slam the center of mass down to
the ground and suddenly the whole thing lends itself very well to
physical models even a high school graduate can start to comprehend.
Now look at bikes. We still don't fully understand why and when big
bang engines provide advantage. That's something that's been
"discovered" over 10 years ago, and while we know how to implement it,
we don't really understand why it works when it does. Ever look at
the oscillation patterns for motorcycles? My goodness. A traction
control designer has to take these things into account. A bike is so
much shorter and taller than a car, with its CoM not completely
determined due to the rider being allowed a great freedom of
movement. And the results aren't the same as what we saw in F1. If
you look at Stoner's riding, the bike is not at all always composed.
It still slides the rear, gets controlled headshakes, and wheelies.
Watching his riding is absolutely fantastic. I don't like runaway
wins, but some people (Stoner, Rossi, some others) still make it
enjoyable to watch. Maybe it takes a bit closer watching to
appreciate it, but I don't mind.
On Mar 15, 10:03 pm, wamann...@email . com wrote:
> $5 says that in 5 years or less, motogp will limit TC in some
> fashion...perhaps eliminating it altogether.
>
> look at F1 this season. the "TC development in racing helps
> production cars" argument still applies to cars, but TC has been
> banned in F1 given how freaking boring it had become. with cars never
> getting upset.. . it became largely a contest for engineers.
>
> to get back to better racing, and give drivers a chance to make an
> impact TC has been banned. heck, even in qualifying in OZ this
> weekend, the cars were all over the place...allowing a skilled driver
> to make a bigger difference in the success of the car.
>
> once TC becomes more fully developed and widespread in the 2-wheeled
> world, motogp will go the way of F1 in this area.
>
> i hope it's sooner rather than later!
>
> w
>
> On Mar 15, 12:35 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> > I think MotoGP is about as likely to limit or outlaw traction control as
> > they are to do something about rider weight - it runs contrary to their
> > overall desires regarding riders, even if it makes the racing boring.
> > The Japanese OEMs see this as something with street applicability, so
> > want to experiment with it, and right now they are more focused on rules
> > that might allow them to stop using technology that doesn't have any
> > street application - rev limits to allow valve springs again, other
> > engine/fuel management controls that aren't likely to ever land on
> > street bikes, etc. The thorn in their side there is Ducati, of course,
> > who have their desmodromics and generally seem to be perfectly happy to
> > be using race-only technology. In some sense MotoGP is a bit like SB -
> > Japanese streetbike technology vs. Italian race specials.
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
Alexey wrote:
> I disagree.
With what?
TC in cars and TC in bikes are similar in theory, but
> very different in practice. Motorcycles are notoriously difficult to
> describe in theoretical models. Not impossible, of course, but much
> more complicated than cars, in no small part because of the rider's
> contribution to the handling. In car, you strap the driver down so
> tight they can barely move their head, slam the center of mass down to
> the ground and suddenly the whole thing lends itself very well to
> physical models even a high school graduate can start to comprehend.
>
> Now look at bikes. We still don't fully understand why and when big
> bang engines provide advantage. That's something that's been
> "discovered" over 10 years ago, and while we know how to implement it,
> we don't really understand why it works when it does. Ever look at
> the oscillation patterns for motorcycles? My goodness. A traction
> control designer has to take these things into account. A bike is so
> much shorter and taller than a car, with its CoM not completely
> determined due to the rider being allowed a great freedom of
> movement. And the results aren't the same as what we saw in F1.
But there is functional traction control on race bikes, it's hardly
rudimentary, and we're only a few years into its use - how good will it
be in another 4, 5 years?
If
> you look at Stoner's riding, the bike is not at all always composed.
> It still slides the rear, gets controlled headshakes, and wheelies.
> Watching his riding is absolutely fantastic. I don't like runaway
> wins, but some people (Stoner, Rossi, some others) still make it
> enjoyable to watch. Maybe it takes a bit closer watching to
> appreciate it, but I don't mind.
And yet Stoner is universally said to use more TC than anyone on the
grid, Ducati having the most comprehensive system and Stoner ratcheting
it up more than the others. If I was going to compare Stoner to someone
it might be Gardner, who used to just whack the throttle open on that
NSR and hold on for dear life. It may in fact be Stoner is entirely
dependent on that system and without it he'd be parking that thing in
the gravel like he used to. I doubt it's all that simple, but I also
don't think you can assume TC doesn't do that much for anyone yet - when
Stoner twists the throttle to the stop while mid-turn and he doesn't go
airborne, it's probably not his skilled throttle hand that's preventing
it. What Stoner may be very good at is keeping it all together as the
bike does its not-yet-perfect thing while largely under its own control.
Alexey wrote:
> I disagree.
With what?
TC in cars and TC in bikes are similar in theory, but
> very different in practice. Motorcycles are notoriously difficult to
> describe in theoretical models. Not impossible, of course, but much
> more complicated than cars, in no small part because of the rider's
> contribution to the handling. In car, you strap the driver down so
> tight they can barely move their head, slam the center of mass down to
> the ground and suddenly the whole thing lends itself very well to
> physical models even a high school graduate can start to comprehend.
>
> Now look at bikes. We still don't fully understand why and when big
> bang engines provide advantage. That's something that's been
> "discovered" over 10 years ago, and while we know how to implement it,
> we don't really understand why it works when it does. Ever look at
> the oscillation patterns for motorcycles? My goodness. A traction
> control designer has to take these things into account. A bike is so
> much shorter and taller than a car, with its CoM not completely
> determined due to the rider being allowed a great freedom of
> movement. And the results aren't the same as what we saw in F1.
But there is functional traction control on race bikes, it's hardly
rudimentary, and we're only a few years into its use - how good will it
be in another 4, 5 years?
If
> you look at Stoner's riding, the bike is not at all always composed.
> It still slides the rear, gets controlled headshakes, and wheelies.
> Watching his riding is absolutely fantastic. I don't like runaway
> wins, but some people (Stoner, Rossi, some others) still make it
> enjoyable to watch. Maybe it takes a bit closer watching to
> appreciate it, but I don't mind.
And yet Stoner is universally said to use more TC than anyone on the
grid, Ducati having the most comprehensive system and Stoner ratcheting
it up more than the others. If I was going to compare Stoner to someone
it might be Gardner, who used to just whack the throttle open on that
NSR and hold on for dear life. It may in fact be Stoner is entirely
dependent on that system and without it he'd be parking that thing in
the gravel like he used to. I doubt it's all that simple, but I also
don't think you can assume TC doesn't do that much for anyone yet - when
Stoner twists the throttle to the stop while mid-turn and he doesn't go
airborne, it's probably not his skilled throttle hand that's preventing
it. What Stoner may be very good at is keeping it all together as the
bike does its not-yet-perfect thing while largely under its own control.
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:23:30 -0700, Mark N wrote:
> What Stoner may be very good at is keeping it all together as the
> bike does its not-yet-perfect thing while largely under its own control.
Absolutely, IMO that's what Rossi was alluding to when he talked about
Stoner *really* using the TC. I think Rossi really was complimenting Stoner
on his ability to exploit TC to the maximum, not merely dissing him for
being reliant on it.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:23:30 -0700, Mark N wrote:
> What Stoner may be very good at is keeping it all together as the
> bike does its not-yet-perfect thing while largely under its own control.
Absolutely, IMO that's what Rossi was alluding to when he talked about
Stoner *really* using the TC. I think Rossi really was complimenting Stoner
on his ability to exploit TC to the maximum, not merely dissing him for
being reliant on it.
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
> But there is functional traction control on race bikes, it's hardly
> rudimentary, and we're only a few years into its use - how good will it
> be in another 4, 5 years?
I don't know. Do you?
> If
>
> > you look at Stoner's riding, the bike is not at all always composed.
> > It still slides the rear, gets controlled headshakes, and wheelies.
> > Watching his riding is absolutely fantastic. I don't like runaway
> > wins, but some people (Stoner, Rossi, some others) still make it
> > enjoyable to watch. Maybe it takes a bit closer watching to
> > appreciate it, but I don't mind.
>
> And yet Stoner is universally said to use more TC than anyone on the
> grid, Ducati having the most comprehensive system and Stoner ratcheting
> it up more than the others. If I was going to compare Stoner to someone
> it might be Gardner, who used to just whack the throttle open on that
> NSR and hold on for dear life. It may in fact be Stoner is entirely
> dependent on that system and without it he'd be parking that thing in
> the gravel like he used to. I doubt it's all that simple, but I also
> don't think you can assume TC doesn't do that much for anyone yet - when
> Stoner twists the throttle to the stop while mid-turn and he doesn't go
> airborne, it's probably not his skilled throttle hand that's preventing
> it. What Stoner may be very good at is keeping it all together as the
> bike does its not-yet-perfect thing while largely under its own control.
The problem I have with this assertion is the notion of using "more"
TC. Knowing what we know about suspension, do we talk about using
"more" or "less" suspension and chassis technology? Of course not.
We talk about specifics: more or less high speed damping, ride height,
trail, etc. Similarly, fuel maps are multidimensional and allow us
many degrees of adjustability. I suspect the same is true with
advanced TC systems. I agree with Allen here. I think that Stoner
and his team have a very good understanding of the tools they're
using. Now, it may very well be that the factory and/or Magno Mirelli
helps them along by withholding certain pertinent intel from other
teams, but in theory anybody can engineer their own TC that at least
mimics what Stoner's does and then provide the same rider input while
on the bike. The fact that others have not been able to do it so far
is an indicator that TC is not simple and, at least for now, provides
an interesting challenge in the paddock and a good show on the
sidelines.
On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
> But there is functional traction control on race bikes, it's hardly
> rudimentary, and we're only a few years into its use - how good will it
> be in another 4, 5 years?
I don't know. Do you?
> If
>
> > you look at Stoner's riding, the bike is not at all always composed.
> > It still slides the rear, gets controlled headshakes, and wheelies.
> > Watching his riding is absolutely fantastic. I don't like runaway
> > wins, but some people (Stoner, Rossi, some others) still make it
> > enjoyable to watch. Maybe it takes a bit closer watching to
> > appreciate it, but I don't mind.
>
> And yet Stoner is universally said to use more TC than anyone on the
> grid, Ducati having the most comprehensive system and Stoner ratcheting
> it up more than the others. If I was going to compare Stoner to someone
> it might be Gardner, who used to just whack the throttle open on that
> NSR and hold on for dear life. It may in fact be Stoner is entirely
> dependent on that system and without it he'd be parking that thing in
> the gravel like he used to. I doubt it's all that simple, but I also
> don't think you can assume TC doesn't do that much for anyone yet - when
> Stoner twists the throttle to the stop while mid-turn and he doesn't go
> airborne, it's probably not his skilled throttle hand that's preventing
> it. What Stoner may be very good at is keeping it all together as the
> bike does its not-yet-perfect thing while largely under its own control.
The problem I have with this assertion is the notion of using "more"
TC. Knowing what we know about suspension, do we talk about using
"more" or "less" suspension and chassis technology? Of course not.
We talk about specifics: more or less high speed damping, ride height,
trail, etc. Similarly, fuel maps are multidimensional and allow us
many degrees of adjustability. I suspect the same is true with
advanced TC systems. I agree with Allen here. I think that Stoner
and his team have a very good understanding of the tools they're
using. Now, it may very well be that the factory and/or Magno Mirelli
helps them along by withholding certain pertinent intel from other
teams, but in theory anybody can engineer their own TC that at least
mimics what Stoner's does and then provide the same rider input while
on the bike. The fact that others have not been able to do it so far
is an indicator that TC is not simple and, at least for now, provides
an interesting challenge in the paddock and a good show on the
sidelines.
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
Alexey wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> If
>>> you look at Stoner's riding, the bike is not at all always composed.
>>> It still slides the rear, gets controlled headshakes, and wheelies.
>>> Watching his riding is absolutely fantastic. I don't like runaway
>>> wins, but some people (Stoner, Rossi, some others) still make it
>>> enjoyable to watch. Maybe it takes a bit closer watching to
>>> appreciate it, but I don't mind.
>> And yet Stoner is universally said to use more TC than anyone on the
>> grid, Ducati having the most comprehensive system and Stoner ratcheting
>> it up more than the others. If I was going to compare Stoner to someone
>> it might be Gardner, who used to just whack the throttle open on that
>> NSR and hold on for dear life. It may in fact be Stoner is entirely
>> dependent on that system and without it he'd be parking that thing in
>> the gravel like he used to. I doubt it's all that simple, but I also
>> don't think you can assume TC doesn't do that much for anyone yet - when
>> Stoner twists the throttle to the stop while mid-turn and he doesn't go
>> airborne, it's probably not his skilled throttle hand that's preventing
>> it. What Stoner may be very good at is keeping it all together as the
>> bike does its not-yet-perfect thing while largely under its own control.
> The problem I have with this assertion is the notion of using "more"
> TC. Knowing what we know about suspension, do we talk about using
> "more" or "less" suspension and chassis technology? Of course not.
> We talk about specifics: more or less high speed damping, ride height,
> trail, etc. Similarly, fuel maps are multidimensional and allow us
> many degrees of adjustability. I suspect the same is true with
> advanced TC systems. I agree with Allen here. I think that Stoner
> and his team have a very good understanding of the tools they're
> using. Now, it may very well be that the factory and/or Magno Mirelli
> helps them along by withholding certain pertinent intel from other
> teams, but in theory anybody can engineer their own TC that at least
> mimics what Stoner's does and then provide the same rider input while
> on the bike. The fact that others have not been able to do it so far
> is an indicator that TC is not simple and, at least for now, provides
> an interesting challenge in the paddock and a good show on the
> sidelines.
Well, I don't know that much about traction control, but my guess is
that there are a number of different variables that operate in different
ways. When I say Stoner cranks it up what I mean is that he has it set
so the bike has maximum or close to max control over the bike, relative
to the rider. That's based on what people have written about Stoner and
the way he is totally reliant on the system managing traction out of a
corner, essentially twisting it to the stop at the apex or even earlier.
Now a less sophisticated system would just be slow at maximum usage, you
wouldn't have to worry about spinning the tire or slipping into a
highside, but it's hardly the fastest way around the track. But the
system on the Ducatis seems much better than that, able to be set where
grip really is optimized for the best effect in those situations. Now
Stoner has to be able to get it tuned to that level, and he has seemed
quite comfortable working to get it there, even if that means leaning on
it when it isn't set right and the consequences are potentially... very bad.
Melandri, he doesn't seem so comfortable with it all, and as a result he
says he just can't ride the thing with it close to cranked up. Maybe
he's not comfortable working on the settings to get it there, maybe he
just can't get himself to lean so heavily on the machine to do something
that the very best riders had to do for themselves and very well, or
maybe he just doesn't like the way the bike works when that system is
working at its best. The latter is what I'm talking about, that Stoner
is quite good at riding a bike that does an awful lot of the work itself
but that does it in a particular way, and that means you have to like
the way its working. Maybe that's a new riding skill we haven't seen
before, or maybe it's just part of Stoner's luck, that he naturally
mates up very well with the machine under those working conditions.
I don't quite believe it comes down to some sort of intellectual
understanding of the system and its potential, though. Stoner was new to
the team and the system last year after only one season on a MotoGP
machine, and was only 21 years old (and had spent much of '06 pulling
himself out of gravel traps). That isn't really the profile of someone
who figures something out with his new guys that no one else on the grid
can figure out, and does so almost immediately. To me it seems more
likely that he's willing to do what the team says and to trust in it,
and it has ended up working very well for him.
Alexey wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> If
>>> you look at Stoner's riding, the bike is not at all always composed.
>>> It still slides the rear, gets controlled headshakes, and wheelies.
>>> Watching his riding is absolutely fantastic. I don't like runaway
>>> wins, but some people (Stoner, Rossi, some others) still make it
>>> enjoyable to watch. Maybe it takes a bit closer watching to
>>> appreciate it, but I don't mind.
>> And yet Stoner is universally said to use more TC than anyone on the
>> grid, Ducati having the most comprehensive system and Stoner ratcheting
>> it up more than the others. If I was going to compare Stoner to someone
>> it might be Gardner, who used to just whack the throttle open on that
>> NSR and hold on for dear life. It may in fact be Stoner is entirely
>> dependent on that system and without it he'd be parking that thing in
>> the gravel like he used to. I doubt it's all that simple, but I also
>> don't think you can assume TC doesn't do that much for anyone yet - when
>> Stoner twists the throttle to the stop while mid-turn and he doesn't go
>> airborne, it's probably not his skilled throttle hand that's preventing
>> it. What Stoner may be very good at is keeping it all together as the
>> bike does its not-yet-perfect thing while largely under its own control.
> The problem I have with this assertion is the notion of using "more"
> TC. Knowing what we know about suspension, do we talk about using
> "more" or "less" suspension and chassis technology? Of course not.
> We talk about specifics: more or less high speed damping, ride height,
> trail, etc. Similarly, fuel maps are multidimensional and allow us
> many degrees of adjustability. I suspect the same is true with
> advanced TC systems. I agree with Allen here. I think that Stoner
> and his team have a very good understanding of the tools they're
> using. Now, it may very well be that the factory and/or Magno Mirelli
> helps them along by withholding certain pertinent intel from other
> teams, but in theory anybody can engineer their own TC that at least
> mimics what Stoner's does and then provide the same rider input while
> on the bike. The fact that others have not been able to do it so far
> is an indicator that TC is not simple and, at least for now, provides
> an interesting challenge in the paddock and a good show on the
> sidelines.
Well, I don't know that much about traction control, but my guess is
that there are a number of different variables that operate in different
ways. When I say Stoner cranks it up what I mean is that he has it set
so the bike has maximum or close to max control over the bike, relative
to the rider. That's based on what people have written about Stoner and
the way he is totally reliant on the system managing traction out of a
corner, essentially twisting it to the stop at the apex or even earlier.
Now a less sophisticated system would just be slow at maximum usage, you
wouldn't have to worry about spinning the tire or slipping into a
highside, but it's hardly the fastest way around the track. But the
system on the Ducatis seems much better than that, able to be set where
grip really is optimized for the best effect in those situations. Now
Stoner has to be able to get it tuned to that level, and he has seemed
quite comfortable working to get it there, even if that means leaning on
it when it isn't set right and the consequences are potentially... very bad.
Melandri, he doesn't seem so comfortable with it all, and as a result he
says he just can't ride the thing with it close to cranked up. Maybe
he's not comfortable working on the settings to get it there, maybe he
just can't get himself to lean so heavily on the machine to do something
that the very best riders had to do for themselves and very well, or
maybe he just doesn't like the way the bike works when that system is
working at its best. The latter is what I'm talking about, that Stoner
is quite good at riding a bike that does an awful lot of the work itself
but that does it in a particular way, and that means you have to like
the way its working. Maybe that's a new riding skill we haven't seen
before, or maybe it's just part of Stoner's luck, that he naturally
mates up very well with the machine under those working conditions.
I don't quite believe it comes down to some sort of intellectual
understanding of the system and its potential, though. Stoner was new to
the team and the system last year after only one season on a MotoGP
machine, and was only 21 years old (and had spent much of '06 pulling
himself out of gravel traps). That isn't really the profile of someone
who figures something out with his new guys that no one else on the grid
can figure out, and does so almost immediately. To me it seems more
likely that he's willing to do what the team says and to trust in it,
and it has ended up working very well for him.
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
> I don't quite believe it comes down to some sort of intellectual
> understanding of the system and its potential, though. Stoner was new to
> the team and the system last year after only one season on a MotoGP
> machine, and was only 21 years old (and had spent much of '06 pulling
> himself out of gravel traps). That isn't really the profile of someone
> who figures something out with his new guys that no one else on the grid
> can figure out, and does so almost immediately. To me it seems more
> likely that he's willing to do what the team says and to trust in it,
> and it has ended up working very well for him.
I think it must be because he is so young (with the talent and balls)
and TC is something he is comfortable with. I couldn't imagine riding
well into your 20s or more and then having TC dropped in your lap. I
think it would give you less feel for what is happening with the bike,
which is really what racing at this level has always been about, and
suddenly there is this other "invisible rider" helping you out, and
that could be very scary. It might be simply impossible for the old
crowd to trust it enough to effectively exploit it.
Byron
> I don't quite believe it comes down to some sort of intellectual
> understanding of the system and its potential, though. Stoner was new to
> the team and the system last year after only one season on a MotoGP
> machine, and was only 21 years old (and had spent much of '06 pulling
> himself out of gravel traps). That isn't really the profile of someone
> who figures something out with his new guys that no one else on the grid
> can figure out, and does so almost immediately. To me it seems more
> likely that he's willing to do what the team says and to trust in it,
> and it has ended up working very well for him.
I think it must be because he is so young (with the talent and balls)
and TC is something he is comfortable with. I couldn't imagine riding
well into your 20s or more and then having TC dropped in your lap. I
think it would give you less feel for what is happening with the bike,
which is really what racing at this level has always been about, and
suddenly there is this other "invisible rider" helping you out, and
that could be very scary. It might be simply impossible for the old
crowd to trust it enough to effectively exploit it.
Byron
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
byronsspam@gmail . com Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:47:24
>I think it must be because he is so young (with the talent and balls)
>and TC is something he is comfortable with. I couldn't imagine riding
>well into your 20s or more and then having TC dropped in your lap. I
>think it would give you less feel for what is happening with the bike,
>which is really what racing at this level has always been about, and
>suddenly there is this other "invisible rider" helping you out, and
>that could be very scary. It might be simply impossible for the old
>crowd to trust it enough to effectively exploit it.
Like, say, Bayliss. Or Mladin for that matter.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar . com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: * w w w .ecademy . com / T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: * w w w .voidstar . com / skype:julian.bond?chat
Tastes Like Milk
byronsspam@gmail . com Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:47:24
>I think it must be because he is so young (with the talent and balls)
>and TC is something he is comfortable with. I couldn't imagine riding
>well into your 20s or more and then having TC dropped in your lap. I
>think it would give you less feel for what is happening with the bike,
>which is really what racing at this level has always been about, and
>suddenly there is this other "invisible rider" helping you out, and
>that could be very scary. It might be simply impossible for the old
>crowd to trust it enough to effectively exploit it.
Like, say, Bayliss. Or Mladin for that matter.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar . com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: * w w w .ecademy . com / T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: * w w w .voidstar . com / skype:julian.bond?chat
Tastes Like Milk
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
On Apr 10, 3:48 pm, Julian Bond <julian b...@voidstar . com > wrote:
> byronss...@gmail . com Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:47:24
>
> >I think it must be because he is so young (with the talent and balls)
> >and TC is something he is comfortable with. I couldn't imagine riding
> >well into your 20s or more and then having TC dropped in your lap. I
> >think it would give you less feel for what is happening with the bike,
> >which is really what racing at this level has always been about, and
> >suddenly there is this other "invisible rider" helping you out, and
> >that could be very scary. It might be simply impossible for the old
> >crowd to trust it enough to effectively exploit it.
>
> Like, say, Bayliss. Or Mladin for that matter.
Does WSBK use TC?? I''ve always loved watching Bayliss ride because
the bike is so frequently out-of-shape. Is this because the WSBK
Ducati team is using some sort of TC system that is similar to the
MotoGP Ducati system? Or would you simply attribute this to Bayliss'
riding style?
On Apr 10, 3:48 pm, Julian Bond <julian b...@voidstar . com > wrote:
> byronss...@gmail . com Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:47:24
>
> >I think it must be because he is so young (with the talent and balls)
> >and TC is something he is comfortable with. I couldn't imagine riding
> >well into your 20s or more and then having TC dropped in your lap. I
> >think it would give you less feel for what is happening with the bike,
> >which is really what racing at this level has always been about, and
> >suddenly there is this other "invisible rider" helping you out, and
> >that could be very scary. It might be simply impossible for the old
> >crowd to trust it enough to effectively exploit it.
>
> Like, say, Bayliss. Or Mladin for that matter.
Does WSBK use TC?? I''ve always loved watching Bayliss ride because
the bike is so frequently out-of-shape. Is this because the WSBK
Ducati team is using some sort of TC system that is similar to the
MotoGP Ducati system? Or would you simply attribute this to Bayliss'
riding style?
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
Kyle <kyle.edmonds@gmail . com > Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:29:04
>Does WSBK use TC?? I''ve always loved watching Bayliss ride because
>the bike is so frequently out-of-shape. Is this because the WSBK
>Ducati team is using some sort of TC system that is similar to the
>MotoGP Ducati system? Or would you simply attribute this to Bayliss'
>riding style?
The game, and his riding style, is changing. TC has been common in WSBK
for a couple of years now. And it does seem that there's quite a bit of
cross over between the Ducati MotoGP and WSBK teams on electronics.
Ducati are very close to the Magnetti Marelli guys and their hardware
and software is used by both teams. And of course the new 1098R road
bike has another variation with an 8(?) level TC as stock.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar . com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: * w w w .ecademy . com / T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: * w w w .voidstar . com / skype:julian.bond?chat
Tastes Like Milk
Kyle <kyle.edmonds@gmail . com > Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:29:04
>Does WSBK use TC?? I''ve always loved watching Bayliss ride because
>the bike is so frequently out-of-shape. Is this because the WSBK
>Ducati team is using some sort of TC system that is similar to the
>MotoGP Ducati system? Or would you simply attribute this to Bayliss'
>riding style?
The game, and his riding style, is changing. TC has been common in WSBK
for a couple of years now. And it does seem that there's quite a bit of
cross over between the Ducati MotoGP and WSBK teams on electronics.
Ducati are very close to the Magnetti Marelli guys and their hardware
and software is used by both teams. And of course the new 1098R road
bike has another variation with an 8(?) level TC as stock.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar . com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: * w w w .ecademy . com / T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: * w w w .voidstar . com / skype:julian.bond?chat
Tastes Like Milk
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Alexey
<inline_four@yahoo . com > wrote:
>Now look at bikes. We still don't fully understand why and when big
>bang engines provide advantage. That's something that's been
>"discovered" over 10 years ago, and while we know how to implement it,
>we don't really understand why it works when it does.
You don't? I thought it was pretty straightforward.
--
Champ
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Alexey
<inline_four@yahoo . com > wrote:
>Now look at bikes. We still don't fully understand why and when big
>bang engines provide advantage. That's something that's been
>"discovered" over 10 years ago, and while we know how to implement it,
>we don't really understand why it works when it does.
You don't? I thought it was pretty straightforward.
--
Champ
Re: motogp: 800s vs 500s
Champ says:
> You don't? I thought it was pretty straightforward.
* w w w .superbikeplanet . com /2007/Dec/071217b.htm
I think, Furusawa at Yamaha seems to agree, it's not
that straightforward at all.
Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.
Champ says:
> You don't? I thought it was pretty straightforward.
* w w w .superbikeplanet . com /2007/Dec/071217b.htm
I think, Furusawa at Yamaha seems to agree, it's not
that straightforward at all.
Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.
