Estoril MotoGP

Estoril MotoGP

1. Jorge Lorenzo, Spain (Yamaha), Michelin, 28 laps, 117 km, 45 minutes,
53.089 seconds
2. Dani Pedrosa, Spain (Honda), Michelin, -1.817 seconds
3. Valentino Rossi, Italy (Yamaha), Bridgestone, -12.723
4. Colin Edwards, USA (Yamaha), Michelin, -17.223
5. John Hopkins, USA (Kawasaki), Bridgestone, -23.752
6. Casey Stoner, Australia (Ducati), Bridgestone, -26.688
7. James Toseland, Great Britain (Yamaha), Michelin, -32.631
8. Chris Vermeulen, Australia (Suzuki), Bridgestone, -36.382
9. Lori Capirossi, Italy (Suzuki), Bridgestone, -38.268
10. Shinya Nakano, Japan (Honda), Bridgestone, -39.476
11. Alex de Angelis, San Marino (Honda), Bridgestone, -61.306
12. Toni Elias, Spain (Ducati), Bridgestone, -63.867
13. Marco Melandri, Italy (Ducati), Bridgestone, -69.525
14. Sylvain Guintoli, France (Ducati), Bridgestone, -69.634
15. Randy de Puniet, France (Honda), Michelin, -71.542
16. Anthony West, Australia (Kawasaki), Bridgestone, -83.629
17. Nicky Hayden, USA (Honda), Michelin, -12 laps, DNF, crash
18. Andrea Dovizioso, Italy (Honda), Michelin, -13 laps, DNF, crash

Lorenzo seems to have gotten over his tension problem and delivered on
practice race pace. Start was timed with the arrival of very light rain,
but that wasn't enough to have much obvious impact. Lap times were slow
ealy one, the fast guys in the 38s after the first couple laps until
Hayden did a 37 on lap 8; Lorenzo did his first one on lap 12 but had 15
37s in the last 17 laps, his 2nd-fastest on the last lap (he was not
under real fire then). Rossi took the lead early but lost it to Lorenzo
when he wicked it up on lap 12, then faded almost immediately after
being passed by Pedrosa three laps later. The Rat pulled out on Dani by
a tenth or two each lap until it reached about 2 seconds, then managed
the lead at 1.5 to 2.

Hopkins got a great start and hung just behind the four leaders
(including Dovizioso) until he started his fade and was passed by
Edwards and Hayden, who quickly also got by Colin. Nicky crashed pushing
to reel in the leaders, after apparently getting caught out by the rain
at the start and not pushing hard enough in the first couple laps. Oddly
his crash happened the lap after seeing Dovizioso go out in front of him
for the same reason. By the end of the race Hopkins was 24 seconds back,
having never gotten below a 38.2 he did early in the race. But definite
progress. Edwards finished 4.5 seconds behind Rossi but 17 back of
Lorenzo, and Toseland was 33 seconds back in 7th, the last of the
best-so-far Yamahas.

So which is worse, finishing 6th but 27 seconds back, or 11th after
going off the track twice? Stoner's was never any factor at all,
although his best lap was a 37.972 late in the race, which was best
Bridgestone by a margin of .003 over Rossi's. Suzuki's best was Chris
V's 38.75, and Melandri's best was a dog-slow 39.4. The Spanish Flies
both did 37.4s, then it was back to Hayden's 37.8 and Stoner; Dovi on
Michelins also got into the 37s but by the smallest of margins, a
37.985, while Colin topped out at 38.083. In any case, Casey ultimately
had the speed to hang at the front for half the race, but didn't turn
even a 38 until lap 11 and by then was in 11th and 14 seconds down.
Too-hard tire choice? No confidence in the front in somewhat dodgy
conditions? Something else? He needs at least a podium in China in the
worst way.

And on the rider weight front, this year's winners hold steady at 120
pounds, 12 pounds below last year's record low, while podium finishers
slip ever so slightly to 125 pounds (I really need to calculate what
that was last year, so we can track that as well!). Too bad Dovi crashed
out, because had he beaten Rossi for 3rd we would have had a new record
podium low, beating Qatar's and as low as it can get, given those are
the three lightest riders on the grid. And the numbers will go up once
we hit some Bridgestone tracks - a Stoner-Rossi-Hopkins podium like last
year in China, very possible, would weigh in at an average of 145 pounds...

Re: Estoril MotoGP

the '08 RC211 still looks like a frickin pocket-bike when ridden by a
non-lilliputian!

* pix.crash . net /motorsport/view/427975.jpg

On Apr 13, 1:33 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
> 1. Jorge Lorenzo, Spain (Yamaha), Michelin, 28 laps, 117 km, 45 minutes,
> 53.089 seconds
> 2. Dani Pedrosa, Spain (Honda), Michelin, -1.817 seconds
> 3. Valentino Rossi, Italy (Yamaha), Bridgestone, -12.723
> 4. Colin Edwards, USA (Yamaha), Michelin, -17.223
> 5. John Hopkins, USA (Kawasaki), Bridgestone, -23.752
> 6. Casey Stoner, Australia (Ducati), Bridgestone, -26.688
> 7. James Toseland, Great Britain (Yamaha), Michelin, -32.631
> 8. Chris Vermeulen, Australia (Suzuki), Bridgestone, -36.382
> 9. Lori Capirossi, Italy (Suzuki), Bridgestone, -38.268
> 10. Shinya Nakano, Japan (Honda), Bridgestone, -39.476
> 11. Alex de Angelis, San Marino (Honda), Bridgestone, -61.306
> 12. Toni Elias, Spain (Ducati), Bridgestone, -63.867
> 13. Marco Melandri, Italy (Ducati), Bridgestone, -69.525
> 14. Sylvain Guintoli, France (Ducati), Bridgestone, -69.634
> 15. Randy de Puniet, France (Honda), Michelin, -71.542
> 16. Anthony West, Australia (Kawasaki), Bridgestone, -83.629
> 17. Nicky Hayden, USA (Honda), Michelin, -12 laps, DNF, crash
> 18. Andrea Dovizioso, Italy (Honda), Michelin, -13 laps, DNF, crash
>
> Lorenzo seems to have gotten over his tension problem and delivered on
> practice race pace. Start was timed with the arrival of very light rain,
> but that wasn't enough to have much obvious impact. Lap times were slow
> ealy one, the fast guys in the 38s after the first couple laps until
> Hayden did a 37 on lap 8; Lorenzo did his first one on lap 12 but had 15
> 37s in the last 17 laps, his 2nd-fastest on the last lap (he was not
> under real fire then). Rossi took the lead early but lost it to Lorenzo
> when he wicked it up on lap 12, then faded almost immediately after
> being passed by Pedrosa three laps later. The Rat pulled out on Dani by
> a tenth or two each lap until it reached about 2 seconds, then managed
> the lead at 1.5 to 2.
>
> Hopkins got a great start and hung just behind the four leaders
> (including Dovizioso) until he started his fade and was passed by
> Edwards and Hayden, who quickly also got by Colin. Nicky crashed pushing
> to reel in the leaders, after apparently getting caught out by the rain
> at the start and not pushing hard enough in the first couple laps. Oddly
> his crash happened the lap after seeing Dovizioso go out in front of him
> for the same reason. By the end of the race Hopkins was 24 seconds back,
> having never gotten below a 38.2 he did early in the race. But definite
> progress. Edwards finished 4.5 seconds behind Rossi but 17 back of
> Lorenzo, and Toseland was 33 seconds back in 7th, the last of the
> best-so-far Yamahas.
>
> So which is worse, finishing 6th but 27 seconds back, or 11th after
> going off the track twice? Stoner's was never any factor at all,
> although his best lap was a 37.972 late in the race, which was best
> Bridgestone by a margin of .003 over Rossi's. Suzuki's best was Chris
> V's 38.75, and Melandri's best was a dog-slow 39.4. The Spanish Flies
> both did 37.4s, then it was back to Hayden's 37.8 and Stoner; Dovi on
> Michelins also got into the 37s but by the smallest of margins, a
> 37.985, while Colin topped out at 38.083. In any case, Casey ultimately
> had the speed to hang at the front for half the race, but didn't turn
> even a 38 until lap 11 and by then was in 11th and 14 seconds down.
> Too-hard tire choice? No confidence in the front in somewhat dodgy
> conditions? Something else? He needs at least a podium in China in the
> worst way.
>
> And on the rider weight front, this year's winners hold steady at 120
> pounds, 12 pounds below last year's record low, while podium finishers
> slip ever so slightly to 125 pounds (I really need to calculate what
> that was last year, so we can track that as well!). Too bad Dovi crashed
> out, because had he beaten Rossi for 3rd we would have had a new record
> podium low, beating Qatar's and as low as it can get, given those are
> the three lightest riders on the grid. And the numbers will go up once
> we hit some Bridgestone tracks - a Stoner-Rossi-Hopkins podium like last
> year in China, very possible, would weigh in at an average of 145 pounds...

Re: Estoril MotoGP

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, wamann...@email . com wrote:
> the '08 RC211 still looks like a frickin pocket-bike when ridden by a
> non-lilliputian!

Have you gone to a showroom to check out Honda's latest Fireblade in
the flesh? Being 6'1, there is no way on the planet I could go for
one. More comfy than an R1, but still. They're making them tiny for
the road as well, that weight and mass centralization leads to it.

And I don't think it's a misguided. The 1000cc sportsbikes are
supposed to be an extreme expression. People don't buy Lotus Elises as
daily drivers.

Interstingly, they were showing a lot of MX and Supermoto in ESPN over
the weekend, and the commentators were mentioning that all the younger
guys getting into the sport in the US seem to average 140lbs these
days. So it is a global trend. Fair? No. But it happens in sports as
they mature and become more and more competitive. It's not like people
that are 5ft can dream about playing in the NBA, no matter how gifted
they are with the ball.

Motorcycling has never, ever been a sport that favored rider size
anyhow.

Re: Estoril MotoGP

On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, pablo <pa...@simplyhombre . net > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 6:44 am, wamann...@email . com wrote:
>
> > the '08 RC211 still looks like a frickin pocket-bike when ridden by a
> > non-lilliputian!
>
> Have you gone to a showroom to check out Honda's latest Fireblade in
> the flesh? Being 6'1, there is no way on the planet I could go for
> one. More comfy than an R1, but still. They're making them tiny for
> the road as well, that weight and mass centralization leads to it.

Mass centralization does not have to affect the relationship between
the seat, bars and foot pegs. It can be done by moving the engine,
radiator, battery and other components closer too the center of mass.
If they want to limit the market for their bikes by making them too
small for the average person I guess that's their business. I know
that at 6' 3" I'm not going to buy a bike built for someone 5' 3".


> And I don't think it's a misguided. The 1000cc sportsbikes are
> supposed to be an extreme expression. People don't buy Lotus Elises as
> daily drivers.
>
> Interstingly, they were showing a lot of MX and Supermoto in ESPN over
> the weekend, and the commentators were mentioning that all the younger
> guys getting into the sport in the US seem to average 140lbs these
> days. So it is a global trend. Fair? No. But it happens in sports as
> they mature and become more and more competitive. It's not like people
> that are 5ft can dream about playing in the NBA, no matter how gifted
> they are with the ball.
>
> Motorcycling has never, ever been a sport that favored rider size
> anyhow.

Re: Estoril MotoGP

On Apr 14, 5:24 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja . com " <bsr3...@my-deja . com > wrote:
>
> Mass centralization does not have to affect the relationship between
> the seat, bars and foot pegs.

You are woefully wrong in that, and I speak as an engineer rather than
a passionate motorcycle rider for nearly 30 years. As a motorcycle
engineer, if I was designing the bike that was to get the baddest
reviews around, I would design it to be a light, compact package. In
which case light, compact riders would have a natural advantage. And I
know because I raced 125cc two strokes as a teenager.

Note I am not saying at all you *have* to be wrong, commercially
speaking. I just think we're going through a pendulum swing that goes
that way. The corporate world isn't that smart all in all: it keeps
catering to teenager audiences even though baby boomer have the
disposable incomes, and in motorcycling it goes towards an ever less
rideable top performance value proposition.

I am not saying I enjoy smaller rider holding an advantage, just that
is hypocritical to try to swing the pendulum now without looking at
the history that brought us here. Roberts Sr was a midget in the late
80s 500 rooster, and no one complained or claimed an unfair advantage.
Nor did anyone when Mamola (who I still regard as the most brilliant
rider to never win the world championship) came along.

I just think that given motorcycle natural physics it is natural that
eventually small guys win out, provided they bring equal riding skills
to the table.

...pablo

Re: Estoril MotoGP

On Apr 14, 9:07 pm, pablo <pa...@simplyhombre . net > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:24 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja . com " <bsr3...@my-deja . com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mass centralization does not have to affect the relationship between
> > the seat, bars and foot pegs.
>
> You are woefully wrong in that, and I speak as an engineer rather than
> a passionate motorcycle rider for nearly 30 years. As a motorcycle
> engineer, if I was designing the bike that was to get the baddest
> reviews around, I would design it to be a light, compact package. In
> which case light, compact riders would have a natural advantage. And I
> know because I raced 125cc two strokes as a teenager.

You snipped it but just above my statement was written, "Have you gone
to a showroom to check out Honda's latest Fireblade ", so I was
talking about bikes sold to the general public. Your plan may work
fine for building a race bike, but it doesn't make sense for an
average sized person to buy a little bike that doesn't fit him any
more than it would for him to buy a pair of boots that are too small.
I stand by my statement, mass centralization does not have to affect
the relationship between the seat, bars and foot pegs. If you can't
see that then you aren't the engineer that you think you are.

> Note I am not saying at all you *have* to be wrong, commercially
> speaking. I just think we're going through a pendulum swing that goes
> that way. The corporate world isn't that smart all in all: it keeps
> catering to teenager audiences even though baby boomer have the
> disposable incomes, and in motorcycling it goes towards an ever less
> rideable top performance value proposition.
>
> I am not saying I enjoy smaller rider holding an advantage, just that
> is hypocritical to try to swing the pendulum now without looking at
> the history that brought us here. Roberts Sr was a midget in the late
> 80s 500 rooster, and no one complained or claimed an unfair advantage.
> Nor did anyone when Mamola (who I still regard as the most brilliant
> rider to never win the world championship) came along.

The discussion was about street bikes. The street is not a race
track. There is no advantage in being small on the street.

> I just think that given motorcycle natural physics it is natural that
> eventually small guys win out, provided they bring equal riding skills
> to the table.

If a manufacturer wants to sell bikes they need to make them at the
size that fits the most people correctly, or make multiple sizes.

> ...pablo

Re: Estoril MotoGP

On Apr 15, 9:32 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja . com " <bsr3...@my-deja . com > wrote:
> ...

I agree with everything you say on this.

The discussion started with (as you say)...

> You snipped it but just above my statement was written, "Have you gone
> to a showroom to check out Honda's latest Fireblade ", so I was
> talking about bikes sold to the general public.  ...

So was I, though - my point is that unfortunately the racebike trend
is making it to several last generation street machines. The new
Fireblade is tiny, as is the Kawasaki. It used to be that 600s felt
like 1000s with a smaller engine and some cost cutting thrown in. The
Blade and the Kaw feel like small 600 bikes purpose built to be small.

As I said, I would not buy one. All I can do as a consumer is pass and
spend my money elsewhere, engineerin achievements aside. And as
someone who has seen motorcycle fads cme and go over the years, I
think the very narrow orientation of these last generation 1000s may
makde them shortlived. We shall see. There is a thing as too much.

Again, I agree with your point, I don't want an ever smaller bike.

Re: Estoril MotoGP

bsr3997@my-deja . com wrote:

> If they want to limit the market for their bikes by making them too
> small for the average person I guess that's their business. I know
> that at 6' 3" I'm not going to buy a bike built for someone 5' 3".

6'3" is above average in every country in the world. The European
average is closer to 5'10", while the worldwide average is closer
to 5'5".

But your whining did bring a tear to my eye...

Re: Estoril MotoGP

In article <1p-dnQuNnI-cnZnVnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@speakeasy . net >,
Michael Sierchio <kudzu-usenet2@tenebras . com > wrote:

> bsr3997@my-deja . com wrote:
>
> > If they want to limit the market for their bikes by making them too
> > small for the average person I guess that's their business. I know
> > that at 6' 3" I'm not going to buy a bike built for someone 5' 3".
>
> 6'3" is above average in every country in the world. The European
> average is closer to 5'10", while the worldwide average is closer
> to 5'5".

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

> But your whining did bring a tear to my eye...

(I'm grinning here...)

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Re: Estoril MotoGP

On Apr 14, 9:08 pm, Michael Sierchio <kudzu-usen...@tenebras . com >
wrote:
> bsr3...@my-deja . com wrote:
> > If they want to limit the market for their bikes by making them too
> > small for the average person I guess that's their business.  I know
> > that at 6' 3" I'm not going to buy a bike built for someone 5' 3".
>
> 6'3" is above average in every country in the world.  The European
> average is closer to 5'10", while the worldwide average is closer
> to 5'5".

I'm well aware that 6'3" is above average. But it is a lot easier for
me to fit on a bike that was made for your average 5'10" rider than it
would be to fit on one made for a 5'3" rider. If they aren't going to
make different sized versions of the same bike it would make sense to
make them fit an average size rider best. Then it is up to us at the
edges of the bell curve to fit ourselves to the bikes the best we can.

> But your whining did bring a tear to my eye...

Re: Estoril MotoGP

pablo wrote:

> Interstingly, they were showing a lot of MX and Supermoto in ESPN over
> the weekend, and the commentators were mentioning that all the younger
> guys getting into the sport in the US seem to average 140lbs these
> days. So it is a global trend. Fair? No. But it happens in sports as
> they mature and become more and more competitive. It's not like people
> that are 5ft can dream about playing in the NBA, no matter how gifted
> they are with the ball.
>
> Motorcycling has never, ever been a sport that favored rider size
> anyhow.

Possible translations:

#1 - Concedes that small riders have the advantage, but this has always
been the case and premier class riders today are no smaller than in the
past. This is the "Roberts and Mamola were no taller or heavier than
Pedrosa and Elias are" assertion, also known as the "no man in his right
mind" theory.

#2 - Concedes that small riders have the advantage and that they are
somewhat smaller today, but this is driven by advancing technology,
physically smaller bikes and contemporary construction materials. Does
not concede that 500s were considerably lighter, had shorter wheelbases
and more compact motors than today's 800s.

#3 - Concedes that small riders have the advantage and that they are
somewhat smaller today, but this is driven by the advancing nature of
the sport, that as bike racing gets more popular there is a larger pool
of small racers to choose from. Denies that this impact also means that
there is a correspondingly larger pool of larger riders and might lead
one to the conclusion that the mix shouldn't change.

#4 - Concedes that small riders have the advantage and that they are
somewhat smaller today, doesn't really explain that, but also does not
concede that this has anything to do with the institutionalization of
the 125/250 promotional path, everyone knowing that 125s have always
materially favored smaller riders.

#5 - Concedes that small riders have the advantage and that they are
somewhat smaller today, and contends that this is due to the technical
advancement and the change in machinery, which has changed the optimum
riding style to that best developed in 125/250. This is the "best
contemporary riders are developed on GP bikes, there's no place left for
dirttrack/Superbike Neanderthals" theory.

#6 - Concedes that small riders have the advantage and that they are
somewhat smaller today and that they aren't any more talented than
larger riders, but there shouldn't be anything done in the rules to
offset this advantage and to provide for a larger pool of talent, it's
every man for himself. This is the "natural selection" notion of racing,
also know as the "Pedrosa and Lorenzo are leading the championship -
what could possibly be wrong with the world?" theory.

You make the call...

Re: Estoril MotoGP

On Apr 14, 8:05 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:

> You make the call...

I shall then. You are wrong with all the narrow minded
interpretations, as usual, which is the reason as a rule I don't waste
my time exchanging opinions with you.

How about #7 the sport is more competitive than ever and thus small
advantages have big effects. Of course smaller riders have an
advantage. No one in their right mind has ever denied that. All in all
motorcycling has always benefitted the lighter guy, all other things
(talent, machine, team) being equal. It's a no brainer, really.

It's a side effect of the sport becoming bigger and more competitive.

If there was a genetic lab in Spain somewhere where they were cloning
Angel Nieto's and Randy Mamola's DNA, and mixing it with Vern
Troyer's, maybe you'd have a point. They aren't. It's a gradual change
happening out of natural competitive forces in the sport.

Am I for traction control? Am I for the 800cc limit? Hell no. Make the
machines limitless. But also invest in safety then. factories can't
keep on making machines faster in the same circuits with the same
safety measures. That will not make the sort more popular, people
aren't that bloodthirsty.

Now it's back to ignoring MN.

Re: Estoril MotoGP

pablo wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>
>> You make the call...
>
> I shall then. You are wrong with all the narrow minded
> interpretations, as usual, which is the reason as a rule I don't waste
> my time exchanging opinions with you.
>
> How about #7 the sport is more competitive than ever and thus small
> advantages have big effects. Of course smaller riders have an
> advantage. No one in their right mind has ever denied that. All in all
> motorcycling has always benefitted the lighter guy, all other things
> (talent, machine, team) being equal. It's a no brainer, really.

So you just called at least half the regulars in this group crazy. And I
mean that seriously, Pablo - how many people here have grimly stuck to
that strength-offsets-weight line, or the
superior-skill-development-on-125s line, or have come up with something,
anything, to deny the net positive effect of small size?

> It's a side effect of the sport becoming bigger and more competitive.

But that doesn't make logical sense. The flip side of what you're saying
is that big guys (and I use that characterization very loosely - someone
like Hayden is hardly big) won because racing wasn't very competitive
previously, which I guess means Hailwood through Rossi. More
competitive, less competitive, it shouldn't matter. What might matter is
if anyone of fairly high talent can get 99% of the speed out of a bike,
meaning the bike is the governing factor, then some other factor besides
talent is necessary to create an edge. I would argue that is something
of the case with today's bikes, although I might define it somewhat
differently.

> If there was a genetic lab in Spain somewhere where they were cloning
> Angel Nieto's and Randy Mamola's DNA, and mixing it with Vern
> Troyer's, maybe you'd have a point. They aren't. It's a gradual change
> happening out of natural competitive forces in the sport.

But there is somewhere in Spain where they are trying to determine what
makes the most economical sense for the series, and that's at Dorna
headquarters. It's natural that they'd want to develop riders from their
support classes rather than having to poach them from WSB or elsewhere.
That's why they designated 125 a development class nearly 15 years ago.
It also makes sense that they'd want to have the biggest stars from
their core markets. That 125 and 250 have been dominated by Spanish and
Italian riders and teams for 20 years or more makes both goals dovetail
nicely. And then we've had Puig doing his thing, making it all work,
while the factories complied by making the bikes easier to ride, and
particularly for smaller riders with a 125/250-derived style.

If you look at the 10-15 years before the Dorna takeover, you'd see 125
dominated by Spaniards and Italians (every champ from '75 thru '92), 250
more broadly European and also the most worldly class, but 500 dominated
by guys from outside the series and outside Europe. It's easy enough to
understand why a commercial operation would want to change that.

> Am I for traction control? Am I for the 800cc limit? Hell no. Make the
> machines limitless. But also invest in safety then. factories can't
> keep on making machines faster in the same circuits with the same
> safety measures. That will not make the sort more popular, people
> aren't that bloodthirsty.

My guess is that if you got rid of traction control (which I don't
really advocate) and went back to 1000s, then we'd see the old school
riders doing better very quickly, bigger guys with dirt backgrounds or
more used to dealing with power and sliding. We'd also see more
injuries, but not because of the circuits, rather because of guys
pushing too hard and high-siding, the old problem of 20 years ago. Lap
times probably wouldn't go down much, but corner speed probably would.

My preferred alternative is not to go back, rather is to replace 125 and
250 with machines which are more relevant to MotoGP, and I particularly
like the idea of replacing 250 with modified production middleweight
motors in (probably homologated) racing chassis. I'd also like to
immediately see ballasting the bikes of riders under 65kg (143 pounds)
in both MotoGP and 250, and an increase in the combined minimum in 125
by maybe 10kg. At worst that reduces the impact of differences in rider
size, no matter the exact impact, and stops the flow of very tiny riders
out of the support classes. Or more accurately, increases the chances
that a normal-sized rider can come up through that route. And I'd also
increase the minimum age in all classes.

>> Now it's back to ignoring MN.

Pablo, I respond the way I do because you have consistently mocked the
issue. Not so much here, so I respond more seriously. That's how it can
work...

Re: Estoril MotoGP

pablo <pablo@simplyhombre . net > Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:34:37
>Am I for traction control? Am I for the 800cc limit? Hell no. Make the
>machines limitless. But also invest in safety then. factories can't
>keep on making machines faster in the same circuits with the same
>safety measures. That will not make the sort more popular, people
>aren't that bloodthirsty.

I'd like to see the fuel limit relaxed. Even one extra litre per race
would make the bikes radically easier to ride. But then we'd see another
0.5s off race lap times and yet more corner speed.

--
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
Makes About 1 1/4 Cups Sauce

Re: Estoril MotoGP

Julian Bond wrote:

> I'd like to see the fuel limit relaxed. Even one extra litre per race
> would make the bikes radically easier to ride. But then we'd see another
> 0.5s off race lap times and yet more corner speed.

More corner speed, or is it more acceleration? I definitely think this
should be loosened up, it's having a definite effect on who's winning
and who isn't, and with the drop to 800s limiting power this way should
have become irrelevant. Not only have certain factories (read: Ducati)
done this better than others, but I think it's also the small man's
advantage again - how much more fuel usage would someone like Hayden
have to sacrifice in order to match Pedrosa's acceleration? Can't do
that over an entire race, of course. The power is there, he just can't
afford to use it.