MotoGP Off-Season Thread

[squidworth]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows how much abuse he gave his tires in the race.........

How many of the other (more experienced) drivers tires exploded ? Just bad luck ?

I just watched the race and the post race interview Casey said he flat spotted the front right tire and it kept getting worse and worse and popped, and putting him into the wall

 

[firstbuell]

if it was his own car, he'd've pitted.....

 

[kelsodeez]

His tire exploded, not his fault.

In an unrelated story, CRT's are embarrassingly slow.

actually it was his fault. even stoner admits its his fault for crashing. he kept locking up his brakes and put flat spots in his tires. bad tire management.

edit: nvm, you guys already went through that discussion

 

[firstbuell]

here's something interesting:

approx. 475 lbs

http://www.motogp.com/en/news/2013/Teams+and+riders+discuss+Moto2+215kg+combined+weight

 

[kelsodeez]

stoner started race 2 in 30th place, finished the race in 14th place. not bad.

 

[JO EBRMC]

however, theres no way i think the engine rule should be voluntary. without it, we wouldnt have the up coming development freeze, which i cant find any fault in. also, satellite teams would either have to spend more or be left further behind as the factory teams went through engine after engine. theres no way Bradl and Bautista would be on factory engines without the engine rule.

rly, the GP paddock is 3 for 4 for successfully producing engines that last the distance, and all the successful ones are diff designs, so it cant be THAT hard. rumor was that Suzuki only failed because they were unable to perform some standard maintenance because of where they placed the seals. i doubt thats the whole story. but Dorna should have just allowed them to fix that, making sure they didnt improve anything else, and not given them 9 engines.

My concern with the engine limits is the privateers who aren't building their own motors. they face a number of challenges that weren't a consideration when the rule was put in place.

Fuel restrictions are as much about power as they are fuel mileage, by reducing fuel the top teams lose a bit of their power edge. Going down to 20l may be what will help the CRT's edge a little closer.

The original intent for the 800s was to slow the bikes because they were getting too fast to be safe on the existing tracks. The fuel limit wasn't about hurting other manufacturers, but safety. Fuel limits are common in motorsports for safety reasons. Dorna allowed the CRTs to have extra fuel as an incentive to get people like Aprilia and BMW to supply engines and get into the game. Apparently it worked. Too bad the bikes are still too slow. Right, Mr. Z?

Completely untrue. The factories used the safety argument but it was bullshit. Their reason for the fuel limits was R&D to justify their budgets to the bean-counters. They wanted to research fuel economy.

You are going to have to explain how the CRTs will benefit from less fuel. Right now the factories have a significant hp advantage even with less fuel. Drop the limit further and that gap increases because the CRTs are using motors and electronics that cannot lean the mixture any more without destroying the motor. The factories can simply go back to engineering and dump money into even greater efficiency.

 

[clutchslip]

Completely untrue. The factories used the safety argument but it was bullshit. Their reason for the fuel limits was R&D to justify their budgets to the bean-counters. They wanted to research fuel economy.

You are going to have to explain how the CRTs will benefit from less fuel. Right now the factories have a significant hp advantage even with less fuel. Drop the limit further and that gap increases because the CRTs are using motors and electronics that cannot lean the mixture any more without destroying the motor. The factories can simply go back to engineering and dump money into even greater efficiency.

Please site ONE, just ONE piece of evidence for your speculation. You are the know-it-all of MotoGP, surely you must have ONE piece of information to back any of your claims. I have yet to see anything to support that the fuel rules initiation by Dorma, NOT MSMA, were to benefit a handful of engineers. Prove it, or STFU.

 

[cencalballer]

The factories all say it and look at how they decide t spend money. Winning MotoGP doesn;t really sell bikes like it used to. Ducati hasn;t won shit in 2 years and they're selling more than ever.

 

[Kurosaki]

Please site ONE, just ONE piece of evidence for your speculation. You are the know-it-all of MotoGP, surely you must have ONE piece of information to back any of your claims. I have yet to see anything to support that the fuel rules initiation by Dorma, NOT MSMA, were to benefit a handful of engineers. Prove it, or STFU.

Q: Is it important to Honda to have the fuel capacity limits, to have the 21 liters.

Nakamoto: Yes, because for even 20 liter, we are against, because if we go to 20 liters, engineer has to try something different. If engineer try different, he can find another new technology. Anyway, good fuel consumption is better for worldwide, not only the racing engine.



It's my understanding (and I'm in agreement with) that the fuel limits in MotoGP are a means for the factories to develop their tech.

If everything goes to spec ECU or lessened fuel limits, the engineers have less of a challenge and less to work on, nullifying a main reason for them (mainly Honda and Yamaha) to even bother racing GP.

 

[JO EBRMC]

Please site ONE, just ONE piece of evidence for your speculation. You are the know-it-all of MotoGP, surely you must have ONE piece of information to back any of your claims. I have yet to see anything to support that the fuel rules initiation by Dorma, NOT MSMA, were to benefit a handful of engineers. Prove it, or STFU.

It doesn't take any evidence. All you need to do is look at lap times and top speeds. Or you could look at corner speed because that is where the real danger is.

The fuel limits had zero effect on the safety of the bikes and you are going to have to provide evidence to the contrary if you expect anyone to believe it was anything other than horseshit.

More important, the idea that fuel limits will increase safety in motorcycle racing is absurd. If you want to slow things down, there are a shit ton of easier and cheaper ways to do so: 5 gears instead of 6, Change in tire spec, rev limits, etc.

You can check with either David Emmett or Dennis Noyes if you need an expert opinion. Or really any GP journalist worth their salt. I'm not alone in this opinion, in fact, it isn't even controversial opinion if you've been paying any attention for the past 7 years.

I have yet to see anything to support that the fuel rules initiation by Dorma, NOT MSMA, were to benefit a handful of engineers.

You are going to have to explain this statement. Are you suggesting that the fuel limits were created by Dorna? I can't believe that is what you are suggesting so I'm going to have to wait for clarification on what your real point is.

 

[Foxhole Atheist]

It doesn't take any evidence. All you need to do is look at lap times and top speeds. Or you could look at corner speed because that is where the real danger is.

"We make a lot of work, especially me, for more safety in our sport. Now the bikes are very fast and we try to improve the safety of the circuit with a lot of run-off area everywhere. But every clever rider, I think, is scared. This is because our sport is dangerous and fear is important to understand the limit - to stay quite near the limit but never go too much. For me, this development - to make the four-stroke 800 - is a good idea because if not the bikes will become too fast. Every year the bikes become faster and faster - the development between 2002 and now is incredible. Speed, acceleration, power - the four-stroke development is never ending - it's not like the two-strokes. (link)

I found the 990cc change a good idea, but the change was made to 800cc for safety reasons and for the top speed. Although now they are already going faster, in spite of the fact that maybe on straights they are not so fast. (link)

Sure, within a few seasons, the 800s were as fast as the 990s, but left to develop, the 990s would have required wholesale track redesigns to keep up with top speeds (e.g. Assen).

I agree there are cheaper and simpler ways of reducing speed, but the MSMA is not interested in them. Dorna can barely get a conversation going about rev limits as it is.

 

[stangmx13]

Sure, within a few seasons, the 800s were as fast as the 990s, but left to develop, the 990s would have required wholesale track redesigns to keep up with top speeds (e.g. Assen).

I agree there are cheaper and simpler ways of reducing speed, but the MSMA is not interested in them. Dorna can barely get a conversation going about rev limits as it is.

you are at least a year too late with those ^^ ideas and the current ruleset makes them reasonably invalid.

 

[Foxhole Atheist]

you are at least a year too late with those ^^ ideas and the current ruleset makes them reasonably invalid.

Can you expand a bit? No idea what you're trying to say.

 

[stangmx13]

the current bikes, which have performed awesomely in their first year, are ridiculously faster than the 800s and have gone faster than the 990s as well.

Assen did receive a safety improvement and that had nothing to do w/ top speeds. all it did was prevent riders from unsafely cutting the track. the Silverstone improvements were undoubtedly designed w/ GP top speeds in mind, but really, current standards will sustain improving top speeds for a while. no one really crashes before the braking marker for turn 1 and an extra 10kph wont make it any less safe.

the current rules, ie moving back to 1000s and enjoying 350kph top speeds, shows that no one cares about top speed and its false effect on safety.

the conversation about rev limits, which i agree would be the most effective way to limit top speed (if there actually is an effective way), was started because Carmelo needed a way to slow down the factories in relation to the CRTs OR scare them into selling prototype hardware. IMO, Carmelo got the most fruitful outcome, prototype hardware for sale, so he doesnt need the rev limit anymore.

 

[sidewazzz]

Is anyone else totally let down by spies? From AMA to wsbk to now has been just a shitty decline into basically a backmarker. I thought he had so much promising talent.

No, he has shown us he can be up there. He's one of a few guys to lead a race for more than just a lap or two and get front row starts. I really hope things turn around for him but he's on a Ducati so that's more than likely not going to happen soon.

Indeed, but I hate to say it - Spies may be in an unusual position to be too good on a superbike, but not enough for a GP bike.

You could say that but he does show us some promise at times during the season. Last season was a bad dream and it's probably only going to continue.

Please site ONE, just ONE piece of evidence for your speculation. You are the know-it-all of MotoGP, surely you must have ONE piece of information to back any of your claims. I have yet to see anything to support that the fuel rules initiation by Dorma, NOT MSMA, were to benefit a handful of engineers. Prove it, or STFU.

Good luck with that

 

[Spec-ECU]

You could say that but he does show us some promise at times during the season. Last season was a bad dream and it's probably only going to continue.

Agreed. He has shown flashes of promise, which serves to highlight my conjecture even more; on a superbike, he was brilliant virtually all the time.

 

[JO EBRMC]

Sure, within a few seasons, the 800s were as fast as the 990s, but left to develop, the 990s would have required wholesale track redesigns to keep up with top speeds (e.g. Assen).

I agree there are cheaper and simpler ways of reducing speed, but the MSMA is not interested in them. Dorna can barely get a conversation going about rev limits as it is.

My argument though is that safety was never a real concern of the factories. If it were, they would never have gone back to 1000cc.

Think about it: if you were a factory and being forced to give in on one of two things to improve the show, would you really take a 200cc increase - and the complete motor redesign that goes with it - over 3 liters of fuel if your interest was safety?

Good luck with that

You seem so self-righteous in your ignorance. If you hadn't noticed, Kurosaki provided pretty pointed (and not very difficult to find) proof.

But you (and perhaps clutchlip) will continue to deny readily available information and conclusions simply because they come from me. You'd really be better served questioning your own conclusions. They've misled you more than once.

 

[Foxhole Atheist]

My argument though is that safety was never a real concern of the factories. If it were, they would never have gone back to 1000cc.

Think about it: if you were a factory and being forced to give in on one of two things to improve the show, would you really take a 200cc increase - and the complete motor redesign that goes with it - over 3 liters of fuel if your interest was safety?

Obviously safety isn't the primary reason anyone participates in motor sports. But a fuel reduction is going to help slow things down regardless of capacity; how much is debatable. Disingenuous motivations aside, factories are going to spend the racing budget anyway; if they blow a lot of it with expensive explorations of mileage, there are worse things they can spend the money on. Probably the best way to improve safety in MotoGP isn't fuel limits or rev limits or control ECUs, but getting the factories out of the series altogether -- not very likely.

One problem for the factories is that even if they really wanted to reduce speeds, they could not have SBK bikes going faster than the premier class.

 

[stangmx13]

Obviously safety isn't the primary reason anyone participates in motor sports. But a fuel reduction is going to help slow things down regardless of capacity; how much is debatable. Disingenuous motivations aside, factories are going to spend the racing budget anyway; if they blow a lot of it with expensive explorations of mileage, there are worse things they can spend the money on. Probably the best way to improve safety in MotoGP isn't fuel limits or rev limits or control ECUs, but getting the factories out of the series altogether -- not very likely.

One problem for the factories is that even if they really wanted to reduce speeds, they could not have SBK bikes going faster than the premier class.

apart from a dramatic change in the fuel limit... no, a fuel reduction is not going to "slow things down". the factories have improved their fuel efficiency every single year and the fuel limit has changed only once since its introduction in 2007. IIRC, Yamaha's figures were something on the order of 3-8% improvement per year. given that the rule was just reduced by only 5%, the factories are not pressured at all by the fuel limit anymore. they go as fast as they want as long as the correct parameters are input before the race.

no one ever volunteers for or suggests a reduction in performance; the 20L fuel limit is a farce.

i bet a reduction to 18L (a 15% decrease from last year) would only see performance stagnate for one year... ie chassis improvements would offset performance losses due to less fuel. the bikes would be a little more wild on corner entry and might be a tiny bit slower out of the corners. but after one year, everyone would go faster again.

with the current ruleset, i agree that if the factories left the series would slow down... for 2-3 yrs at most (assuming they leave prototype machinery for sale in their wake). after that, laptimes would come down as they always do. perhaps the rate of development would be slower so laptimes would reduce less each year, but we'll never know.

theres only one entity here that could force the bikes to go slower... Bridgestone.

 

[Foxhole Atheist]

no, a fuel reduction is not going to "slow things down".

If the scare quotes mean slow things down enough so that bikes are NEVER in danger of hitting a fence, then you're right. But less fuel means less speed, all else being equal; if you add chassis and tire improvements (and more talented riders, and a tail wind, etc.), then sure, the real-world difference is not so substantial.

theres only one entity here that could force the bikes to go slower... Bridgestone.

They could make less sticky, less durable tires, but that sort of defeats the purpose of why they signed up.