Stoner to Honda

[kevin 714]

If Dorna et al were so damned good at creating a perfectly balanced formula, why would they go through this expensive change just to make the racing better, if in the end it won't do a damned thing in that regard?

coulda asked the same about the change to 800 as well.

in the end it MAY make better racing, probably in the long run will, but history tells us that the first few years is going to dominated by either one or two manufacturers.

look at 990, it took five years to get anything close to parity and close racing.

 

[House]

coulda asked the same about the change to 800 as well.

Except that no one claimed that was why they were doing it - safety, remember?

in the end it MAY make better racing, probably in the long run will, but history tells us that the first few years is going to dominated by either one or two manufacturers.

look at 990, it took five years to get anything close to parity and close racing.

Except that these aren't totally new bikes to everyone, it'll be like the switch to 800s without the tire twist (which was huge in Stoner's domination). Except that they're mixing bikes, and there's no knowing what that might mean. If anyone makes one and it proves to be better, then the next year they'll all make them. If no one makes one, then Dorna will change the rules to incentivize someone to change - it does no good at all to admit the racing sucks (and it does) and propose a solution that no one complies with, so the racing can continue to suck...

 

[kevin 714]

Except that no one claimed that was why they were doing it - safety, remember?



Except that these aren't totally new bikes to everyone, it'll be like the switch to 800s without the tire twist (which was huge in Stoner's domination). Except that they're mixing bikes, and there's no knowing what that might mean. If anyone makes one and it proves to be better, then the next year they'll all make them. If no one makes one, then Dorna will change the rules to incentivize someone to change - it does no good at all to admit the racing sucks (and it does) and propose a solution that no one complies with, so the racing can continue to suck...

i do and i still dont know why they did it lol but i totally remember all kinds of articles talking about how these 800cc bikes would be more nimble and thus allow for more line choices, more passing ect ect lol

 

[House]

i do and i still dont know why they did it lol

The 20/20 hindsight story is guilt over Katoh, it seems.

but i totally remember all kinds of articles talking about how these 800cc bikes would be more nimble and thus allow for more line choices, more passing ect ect lol

Do you? Really? Totally?

 

[kevin 714]

The 20/20 hindsight story is guilt over Katoh, it seems.



Do you? Really? Totally?

oh im not sayin i or anyone else believed them...but i remember road racer x had some, RRW did as well.

i also remember hopper saying it was f&^%ing stupid and all to help the italioan and spanish teenagers get into motogp lol

 

[Zerox]

How does Stoner wear a napkin when eating? He tucks the front.

 

[kevin 714]

How does Stoner wear a napkin when eating? He tucks the front.

 

[JO EBRMC]

I don't agree with the conclusion you seem to draw from your cited (and uncited) stats, which really just come down to Stoner winning more races over the last three years than Pedrosa. Yes, we all know that, and it's absolutely fine to be of the opinion that Stoner is better than Pedrosa. But to suggest that his greater number of wins is proof of that isn't so fine, because you don't factor in some critical details. Pedrosa may have "had more resources thrown at his effort than Ducati has ever seen", but those didn't include Bridgestone tires over most of that period, did they? Or the 3rd-party electronics that Ducati and Yamaha used?

And you claim that you were "never comparing Pedrosa to Rossi or Doohan", but you were quite willing to offer that Pedrosa was "with a factory that had been dominating the championship and Stoner with a factory that had never one the title". So who won all those Honda championships then?

What I see is the machinery balance being slowly equalized since 2007, and over that time Casey winning fewer races and falling in the points, and now having fallen behind Dani in the championship. As for hypotheticals, would Casey have won the championship and ten races in 2007 had Hayden or Melandri ended up on his Ducati instead? Even if he'd replaced Nick at Repsol? I can't see it, yet those ten wins are pretty critical to your stat pile. Sounds like you can't see that, can't see why it matters, which is pretty much saying the only thing that could have happened is what did happen. And that's definitely something I can't comprehend...

Essentially, you have still missed my point.
I didn’t post or defend the stats with the intention of determining who was the better rider – you did that. The responses I made were that Stoner has outperformed Pedrosa and the stats say exactly that. you raised the issues as to why, which is fine, however, disregarding the stats and the context in which they were presented simply doesn’t make sense. If you want to find some way to determine the relative capabilities of the two riders, go ahead but that was not my goal or that of the stats themselves.

The problem with the hypotheticals is that they simply don't end. I can't exclude 2007 simply because the Ducati was somehow "better" than the other 800s - if anyone else was successful on it that might be reasonable. When comparing Stoner to Pedrosa, if you start excluding unfair elements, you have to remove Pedrosa's rookie year since he was on the factory bike while Stoner was on the third string satellite. You also need to exclude 2009 because Stoner was sick for 3 races. So, now we have just removed 2006, 2007 and 2009. Is a single year a fair comparison of overall ability? Go ahead if you feel the need. I had no intention of engaging that argument.

I really get the sense that you will argue minutiae that is only vaguely relevant until the other participants simply give up and get bored.

I think you're oversimplifying things there. Ideally, whatever fuel the bike is carrying shouldn't come back to the box after the race. Fuel control systems have become extremely sophisticated, so they manage that down to a very tight margin. Spies ran out of gas in his 24-liter tank in WSB last year, the same size of tank mandated by the rules there for the last decade, and the same size as they used to run in MotoGP before 2006.

The electronics have become amazingly sophisticated; however, no level of sophistication can generate power from fuel that isn’t there. Of course, a race motor should be able to use all of the fuel it starts a race with. However, in MotoGP (unlike WSBK) riders are regularly complaining about the electronics cutting power late race in order to make sure the bike gets home. Having maximum power when you want it makes for happy riders and fans. Having an extra liter of fuel provides a lot more opportunity to be on the power. There is an optimal amount of fuel that a rider can use during the race, cut this amount by 1L isn’t a big deal but each cut you make further increases the amount of time that the ECU will limit power delivery. I think the issue with understanding the problem is that people tend to look at it like this: going from 24L to 22L is only an 8% difference (if I can do math correctly). Going from 22L to 21L is just 4.5% change not a big deal. But that isn’t the right way to look at it. If we say that 24L is the optimal amount of fuel – essentially, the point where the rider has all the power they want when they want it, dropping it by 2L means the ECU will cut power about 8% (over entire race distance) from that maximum. Cut it by another 1L and you need to reduce power from that optimal level by 12.5% over the entire race. Find me a rider who would willingly give up 12.5% of their maximum.

I am not an engineer or mechanic and don't have that level of understanding of motors at all, but I have to believe that a motor with 25% more displacement, a relatively longer stroke, and turning up to a max rev ceiling maybe 10% lower will make a different sort of power, and not exactly the same power just because they're limited to the same amount of fuel. When I talk about the quality of power I'm talking about the difference between a four-cylinder screamer and long-stroke torquey twin, that sort of thing - it isn't just down to the quantity of power but the quality of power, how much it makes and where. Given that the motors of 2012 don't even exist today, I just don't see how you can claim there is no advantage to be gained in building a 1000. It won't be what it might have been if the rules allowed more fuel and a larger bore, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The reason these motors won’t be any different is because of the electronics controlling them. With limited fuel, the motor cannot produce any more net power than it already does. That means that in order to get more “quality” power, you must give up power somewhere else – put the powerband down low and you have to give up on power up high and peak hp. Of course, at lower RPMs a motor can’t use as much fuel as at high RPMs unless you increase the displacement. That 20% increase in displacement means that at the same RPM, the motor will use 20% more fuel. Yes, these motors haven’t been built yet but motor design is not some black art whose secrets can only be unlocked by the factories, we can draw some solid conclusions from the rules as stated.

If Dorna et al were so damned good at creating a perfectly balanced formula, why would they go through this expensive change just to make the racing better, if in the end it won't do a damned thing in that regard?

Good question. Dorna doesn’t make the rules though. Dorna saw that the 800s were killing their product so the put pressure on the MSMA to bring back the fan-favorite. However, the MSMA has no direct interest in improving the racing or making riders happy. Their only interest is R&D and marketing. The engine format makes little difference to them and changing it is not in their interest. As a result, the 1000s will be no more competitive than the 800s.

 

[nazgulnarsil]

what is the rationale behind the fuel limits in the first place?

 

[weak_link]

Does anyone globally really give a shit about the imposed fuel restrictions? So it drives r&d to forces OEM's to become more fuel efficient. Being an 'ugly American' I don't give a shit and want to see those motors gulp down as much fuel and air as they possibly can to make the motors as fast and exciting as they can possibly be.

 

[JO EBRMC]

what is the rationale behind the fuel limits in the first place?

The factories are dead-set on it. They believe it pays serious dividends in R&D and that is really their primary reason for participating. As long as the MSMA decides the rules, the fuel limits will remain.

 

[House]

Essentially, you have still missed my point.
I didn’t post or defend the stats with the intention of determining who was the better rider – you did that. The responses I made were that Stoner has outperformed Pedrosa and the stats say exactly that.

Hmm, that sounds rather dubious. It seems to me that you were definitely trying to make a point, and not just presenting some facts and letting others come to their own conclusions. For instance, this litte exchange:

Just for some perspective:

Win/DNF Ratio:

Stoner: 2.0 (2 wins for every crash)
Pedrosa 0.89 (~9 wins for 10 crashes)
Lorenzo: .087 (~9 wins for 10 crashes)

That could be misleading.. How bout podium, or top 5 / DNF?

I'm not really understanding how that could be misleading but anyway...

Podium/DNF Ratios:

Stoner: 3.4
Rossi: 8.7
Pedrosa: 4.3
Lorenzo: 2.6

That changes things.. Pedrosa beats stoner..

What does that change? Pedrosa and Stoner have nearly the same crash percentage but Stoner wins more often...and scores more points.

Just saying that stoner does not blow Ped/Lor a way as the win ratio implies.

Regardless of the stats you use, Stoner has out-performed Pedrosa in nearly every category. The fact is, Stoner is no more of a crasher than Pedrosa and yet, again, he is known as one. Unfairly. Both Pedrosa and Stoner have 11 crashes.

Took you a long time to get to the point, or at least the truth, which is that Stoner and Pedrosa have crashed out equally (you initial stat is somewhat misleading in that regard), but Stoner has won a lot more races. Which is where I came in...

you raised the issues as to why, which is fine, however, disregarding the stats and the context in which they were presented simply doesn’t make sense. If you want to find some way to determine the relative capabilities of the two riders, go ahead but that was not my goal or that of the stats themselves.

The problem with the hypotheticals is that they simply don't end. I can't exclude 2007 simply because the Ducati was somehow "better" than the other 800s - if anyone else was successful on it that might be reasonable. When comparing Stoner to Pedrosa, if you start excluding unfair elements, you have to remove Pedrosa's rookie year since he was on the factory bike while Stoner was on the third string satellite. You also need to exclude 2009 because Stoner was sick for 3 races. So, now we have just removed 2006, 2007 and 2009. Is a single year a fair comparison of overall ability? Go ahead if you feel the need. I had no intention of engaging that argument.

I don't disregard anything, trying to figure out how to evaluate and rank riders takes as much information as one can get, and then making decisions on the relative merits of each part of that. When I look at Stoner I see a guy who won half his 20 race wins in 2007, and didn't crash out of any of them. So what happens to those stats when you drop that year? I'm not saying it doesn't count, I'm just saying he had a numbers-inflating year that year, and there are reasons why - the Ducati had a very material top speed advantage all year, and his tires were usually better than the other good guys on the other good bikes had.

Regarding Stoner and the Ducati, if you look at the relative performances of the other top guys on that team, in particular the advancement of Hayden over the last year, it starts to get very difficult to make the conclusion that the Ducati just hasn't been that good of a bike overall but that Stoner is just so extraordinary that he overcomes that and more. It just doesn't make sense; somehow Stoner has managed to get the most out of that bike from day one, while the others have not been able to, at least until now. But to you it's dismissed out of hand with talk of "magical fairies".

Regarding hypotheticals, part of the point is to make people look at things differently, to do more than glance at the obvious, to examine the realities a bit closer. Stoner had that great 2007, which is the foundation of his high standing and his career statistical pile. But what happens to that if he doesn't get that ride that year, which could have easily happened? And since 2007 Stoner has looked like a junior-grade pre-1993 Kevin Schwantz at best, right? Not meaning to disparage Schwantz there at all, btw, or even Stoner that much. But Casey does look different when one isolates 2007, I think. Today we have Stoner and Hayden reaching a somewhat similar level after years of apparent massive Stoner superiority, but how would that look had Hayden taken that ride in '07 and Stoner stayed at LCR? It makes one think about the foundation of one's opinion. Might not change it, of course.

I really get the sense that you will argue minutiae that is only vaguely relevant until the other participants simply give up and get bored.

And I think you're the guy who started the hostility here, and is looking for an exit ramp from a losing position as a result...

The electronics have become amazingly sophisticated; however, no level of sophistication can generate power from fuel that isn’t there. Of course, a race motor should be able to use all of the fuel it starts a race with. However, in MotoGP (unlike WSBK) riders are regularly complaining about the electronics cutting power late race in order to make sure the bike gets home.

On the other hand, how many complain about the extra power they have when they get to the end of a race and have managed to get there with extra fuel in the tank? Do they even mention that?

I think the issue with understanding the problem is that people tend to look at it like this: going from 24L to 22L is only an 8% difference (if I can do math correctly). Going from 22L to 21L is just 4.5% change not a big deal. But that isn’t the right way to look at it. If we say that 24L is the optimal amount of fuel – essentially, the point where the rider has all the power they want when they want it, dropping it by 2L means the ECU will cut power about 8% (over entire race distance) from that maximum. Cut it by another 1L and you need to reduce power from that optimal level by 12.5% over the entire race. Find me a rider who would willingly give up 12.5% of their maximum.

The problem with this is that we don't know what the optimal amount of fuel is, it might be 30, 35 liters. And we're pretty sure that fuel management today is much better than it was back when they had 24 liters. Plus, with 800s that extra power is so much more critical, they don't have the excess they had with 990s. And that's not because they reduced the fuel by one liter, it's because they reduced the displacement by 190cc. Which, among other things, means they use that fuel several thousand times per minute more than they used to.

Of course, at lower RPMs a motor can’t use as much fuel as at high RPMs unless you increase the displacement. That 20% increase in displacement means that at the same RPM, the motor will use 20% more fuel.

And make nearly that much more horsepower, right? But the 800s will rev higher, which means they will use more fuel there and will make their power up higher. So you've got a smaller motor revving very hard to make decent peak horsepower, and that bike, because of its powerband and its smaller internals motor's gyroscopic effect, will get through the corners faster, using the classic line. The bigger motor will be torquier, won't get through the corners as quickly, but will jump off of them harder. And it might be less electronically-controlled, in the sense that the TC we have today was said to be critical because of the very peaky nature of the 800s, which might allow the riders to be more creative in how they ride the thing...

Good question. Dorna doesn’t make the rules though. Dorna saw that the 800s were killing their product so the put pressure on the MSMA to bring back the fan-favorite. However, the MSMA has no direct interest in improving the racing or making riders happy. Their only interest is R&D and marketing. The engine format makes little difference to them and changing it is not in their interest. As a result, the 1000s will be no more competitive than the 800s.

Uhh, some very dubious reasoning there. First, I don't see how you get from "the MSMA has no direct interest in improving the racing" to "their only interest is...marketing". Make it compelling and they will come, no ad man intentionally suggests boring ads. Second, Dorna wields huge power in MotoGP - my understanding is that the only way Dorna can be voted down is if the other three parties unite against them, and there's no question that the IRTA and the FIM want compelling racing. I don't think we'd have Moto2 this year if the MSMA totally controlled the equipment.

Dorna wanted 1000s and they got them. The factories balked at having to build a grid full of new bikes in a recession, so Dorna allowed the 800s to stay. They had already decided on the bore limitation, to save costs and to slow the bikes on top, so the balancing tweak was the fuel and weight. But the outside threat perhaps are the homologation bikes, non-factory machines allowed the full 24 liters of fuel, which incentivizes the factories to build their best or potentially come under attack from a top private team or an Aprilia or BMW. Again, that sounds like a Dorna Moto2-like decision and not one driven by the MSMA.

 

[EastBayDave]

Do you think Nicky would lend him his tweezers? I'm thinking not...

I'm thinking you right; unless it was to measure Dani's wennie size?

 

[JO EBRMC]

Hmm, that sounds rather dubious. It seems to me that you were definitely trying to make a point, and not just presenting some facts and letting others come to their own conclusions. For instance, this litte exchange:
Took you a long time to get to the point, or at least the truth, which is that Stoner and Pedrosa have crashed out equally (you initial stat is somewhat misleading in that regard), but Stoner has won a lot more races. Which is where I came in...

I was making a point: Stoner’s results are better than Pedrosa’s. What I wasn’t doing was stating that Stoner was a better rider. Looking through all of that you quoted, there is absolutely nothing that suggests I was ranking riders on anything but their results. What you read into it, I can’t control.

Dubious? Not even a little.

I don't disregard anything…

Except, the context in which the stats were presented.

…trying to figure out how to evaluate and rank riders takes as much information as one can get, and then making decisions on the relative merits of each part of that. When I look at Stoner I see a guy who won half his 20 race wins in 2007, and didn't crash out of any of them. So what happens to those stats when you drop that year? I'm not saying it doesn't count, I'm just saying he had a numbers-inflating year that year, and there are reasons why - the Ducati had a very material top speed advantage all year, and his tires were usually better than the other good guys on the other good bikes had.

Evaluating and ranking riders. I was evaluating and ranking stats. If you want to engage a discussion on the relative ability and skill of the riders, that is fine. Ask for the stats and if the data is available I’ll provide it. However, I typically, do not engage in “Rider X is better than Rider Y” discussions except to try to present data that might make those involved make better evaluations. That is not to say I won’t comment but usually, the discussion is pointless and boring.

And I think you're the guy who started the hostility here, and is looking for an exit ramp from a losing position as a result...

See, House, the problem you are always going to face is that you don’t even realize how condescending you are. The reason many have left the discussion here is because you treat others as though their opinion is based on ignorance and stupidity. Wanting an exit? Not really, just trying to keep you from twisting the points I make.

On the other hand, how many complain about the extra power they have when they get to the end of a race and have managed to get there with extra fuel in the tank? Do they even mention that?

Does that actually happen?

And make nearly that much more horsepower, right?

Not really. Because of the bore limits, the 1000s will be limited to probably 15,500-16,000 RPM. There might be a slight increase in hp but that is arguable and it certainly won’t be anywhere near 20%.

But the 800s will rev higher, which means they will use more fuel there and will make their power up higher. So you've got a smaller motor revving very hard to make decent peak horsepower, and that bike, because of its powerband and its smaller internals motor's gyroscopic effect, will get through the corners faster, using the classic line. The bigger motor will be torquier, won't get through the corners as quickly, but will jump off of them harder. And it might be less electronically-controlled, in the sense that the TC we have today was said to be critical because of the very peaky nature of the 800s, which might allow the riders to be more creative in how they ride the thing...

I think there is a valid argument for the idea that the gyroscopic effects will allow the 800s to get through corners faster but I have absolutely no technical expertise to be able to evaluate this. Will 1000s require less electronics? I’m not really seeing much to prove that they will. The 800s have become so refined at getting out of corners that I’m not convinced that 1000s will out do them. The fact is, there is a limited amount of grip available when exiting and the 800s are capable of producing far more torque than the grip can manage. Any additional torque that 200cc will produce can’t be used any more than the additional torque the 800 is already over-producing.

The misconception is that there is some shortage of power in the 800s and that is forcing them to run like the 250s. This simply isn’t true. The fastest way through a corner is nearly always wheels in line and maximum corner speed. The electronics allow over-powered bikes to behave this way. They’ll do the same on 1000s. the days of squaring it off and shooting out are over.

Uhh, some very dubious reasoning there. First, I don't see how you get from "the MSMA has no direct interest in improving the racing" to "their only interest is...marketing". Make it compelling and they will come, no ad man intentionally suggests boring ads. Second, Dorna wields huge power in MotoGP - my understanding is that the only way Dorna can be voted down is if the other three parties unite against them, and there's no question that the IRTA and the FIM want compelling racing. I don't think we'd have Moto2 this year if the MSMA totally controlled the equipment.

Dorna doesn’t get a vote in the technical regulations. The MSMA owns them entirely per its contract with Dorna. Dorna can ask but the MSMA can’t be forced to do anything. IRTA and FIM have even less leverage than Dorna in deciding technical rules. There is no voting except perhaps within the MSMA itself.

As for Moto2, the answer is simple: the MSMA have no interest in the class whatsoever. It doesn’t provide the marketing or R&D value that they are looking for. Since only one MSMA member would actually oppose the Moto2 rules why wouldn’t they go through? Dorna asked, the MSMA had no reason or interest in saying no so Dorna was granted a favor.

Dorna wanted 1000s and they got them. The factories balked at having to build a grid full of new bikes in a recession, so Dorna allowed the 800s to stay. They had already decided on the bore limitation, to save costs and to slow the bikes on top, so the balancing tweak was the fuel and weight. But the outside threat perhaps are the homologation bikes, non-factory machines allowed the full 24 liters of fuel, which incentivizes the factories to build their best or potentially come under attack from a top private team or an Aprilia or BMW. Again, that sounds like a Dorna Moto2-like decision and not one driven by the MSMA.

Correction: the bore limits came after the announcement about the move to 1000cc. Yes, Dorna wanted it because they believe it makes a better product. However, the factories, in the interest of avoiding a total redesign nerfed the 1000s to the point of being no better or even different than the 800s. The Claiming Rule Teams do have some advantages but I don’t believe that the MSMA is worried about being beaten there. In order to actually compete with the factories, the budget of a factory will be need. BWN and Aprilia could bring this but the MSMA have an out – they get to decide what is a CRT and when is a factory. I’m not seeing any similarities to Moto2.

 

[kevin 714]

The misconception is that there is some shortage of power in the 800s and that is forcing them to run like the 250s. This simply isn’t true. The fastest way through a corner is nearly always wheels in line and maximum corner speed. The electronics allow over-powered bikes to behave this way. They’ll do the same on 1000s. the days of squaring it off and shooting out are over.

this

 

[House]

Does that actually happen?

I'm pretty sure it does. The riders have choices on fuel mapping and use, and, as I understand it, they can change that up in real time. The bike's computer also monitors the fuel use, and kicks in if the bike is going to run short and not finish. If a rider has extra fuel at the end of a race they could select a power map at a critical stage and throw down a flier to get away or make a pass, in the same way a guy might drift back because his fuel is running low. I think it cuts both ways, which is what one would expect given the technology level now.

Not really. Because of the bore limits, the 1000s will be limited to probably 15,500-16,000 RPM. There might be a slight increase in hp but that is arguable and it certainly won’t be anywhere near 20%.

But you were talking about two bikes running at the same RPM, the larger one using more fuel than the smaller one. But at the same RPM the larger one is also making notably more power, right?

In terms of peak horsepower, that's an important question. I'd be somewhat surprised if a bore-restricted 1000 would be making 4000rpm less than an 800 on top, and if it's actually less than that, 3000 or less, I would think the 1000 would be making more power. But it would also make more power all the way up there, I'd think, so that would be a meterial advantage.

I think there is a valid argument for the idea that the gyroscopic effects will allow the 800s to get through corners faster but I have absolutely no technical expertise to be able to evaluate this. Will 1000s require less electronics? I’m not really seeing much to prove that they will. The 800s have become so refined at getting out of corners that I’m not convinced that 1000s will out do them. The fact is, there is a limited amount of grip available when exiting and the 800s are capable of producing far more torque than the grip can manage. Any additional torque that 200cc will produce can’t be used any more than the additional torque the 800 is already over-producing.

I don't see it that way. From the beginning it seemed the riders were surprised with the way the 800s worked, that they could run through the corners so quickly (the gyro effect) but that they had to be ridden on that "ideal" line, because anything else would just slow them down - they just don't have the power coming out to make up for anything less than ideal going in and through. Passing became difficult because they brake so late (top straightline speed is lower and corner speed is higher, less braking needed), and passing on a line with a sub-optimal exit wouldn't do it unless it was a block pass. Because of these lines it's grip on the edge of the tire that really matters now, as opposed to the grip more on the center of the tire than a 1000 might be able to utilize, in the way the 990s used to.

The misconception is that there is some shortage of power in the 800s and that is forcing them to run like the 250s. This simply isn’t true. The fastest way through a corner is nearly always wheels in line and maximum corner speed. The electronics allow over-powered bikes to behave this way. They’ll do the same on 1000s. the days of squaring it off and shooting out are over.

Yet that's what the the riders have been saying, and pretty universally. That's the fastest line only if you have an excess of side grip, relative to everything else. But an excess of power can overwhelm that, and also open up opportunities elsewhere, especially more power down low. This hasn't been a slow, evolutionary change, there was a watershed moment when MotoGP went to 800s, and everything had already changed when they were first testing those things in the fall of 2006. The electronics and the tires have further developed since then, of course, but that doesn't mean things can't swing back the other way, this is not an absolute anymore than it was 35 years ago.

And you have to remember that this is all in the context of actual racing, this isn't some Stoneristic fastest lap deal. In a race an 800 can't really use that ideal high corner speed approach if a slow-in-midcorner 1000 is in front of him, and getting off line will still present the same problem, except that the torquey 1000 will be even tougher coming off the corner. A Pedrosa or Stoner might be able to get away if they lead off the line and hammer out their ideal laps against 1000s which don't make more peak hiorsepower or perhaps even less, but even getting off the line will be harder against the 1000s, I'd think. And I don't know that those 1000s aren't going to make more power, I'm not convinced by your fuel uber alles argument.

 

[Zerox]

Do u people know how difficult it is to scroll through these giant globs of text using an iPhone?

 

[House]

Dorna doesn’t get a vote in the technical regulations. The MSMA owns them entirely per its contract with Dorna. Dorna can ask but the MSMA can’t be forced to do anything. IRTA and FIM have even less leverage than Dorna in deciding technical rules. There is no voting except perhaps within the MSMA itself.

My understanding is that the GP Commission essentially decides everything. That's made up of Dorna, the FIM, the IRTA and the MSMA. Dorna has the tie-breaking vote, which means the only way they don't get what they want is when the other three unite against them. The MSMA has responsibility for the technical rules and their development, but the decisions are ultimately made or ratified by the Commission. The one exception to that is if the members of the MSMA are unanimous in what they want or don't want, then they have veto power. So from a practical standpoint, Dorna has the power - how often are the factories all united and standing in opposition to majority of the others?

In reality, they all want to work together, so this stuff probably gets decided more informally and without a lot of visible confrontation. I found this article by Noyes tonight, and I think it probably describes the politics fairly well: http://moto-racing.speedtv.com/article/motogp-noyes-notebook-msmas-cloudy-vision/

As for Moto2, the answer is simple: the MSMA have no interest in the class whatsoever. It doesn’t provide the marketing or R&D value that they are looking for. Since only one MSMA member would actually oppose the Moto2 rules why wouldn’t they go through? Dorna asked, the MSMA had no reason or interest in saying no so Dorna was granted a favor.

My take is a bit different, as you might guess. I think the majority was/is generally against continuing two stroke racing. They also likely don't really want a shrinking, overly expensive underclass, which is what this has become under Aprilia's domination. What they also don't want is an expensive prototype-based four stroke class, can't afford it. What they probably do want is a production motor-based class, at least the Japanese majority. But that puts them, or rather Dorna, in conflict with WSB/IMS, and it also opens up other issues, so the spec engine compromise put forward by Dorna was acceptable, at least it ran the two strokes out and started things down the path they want, and it costs them absolutely nothing now.

Correction: the bore limits came after the announcement about the move to 1000cc. Yes, Dorna wanted it because they believe it makes a better product. However, the factories, in the interest of avoiding a total redesign nerfed the 1000s to the point of being no better or even different than the 800s. The Claiming Rule Teams do have some advantages but I don’t believe that the MSMA is worried about being beaten there. In order to actually compete with the factories, the budget of a factory will be need. BWN and Aprilia could bring this but the MSMA have an out – they get to decide what is a CRT and when is a factory. I’m not seeing any similarities to Moto2.

Maybe. I think Dorna was willing to compromise on the 1000s adequately to keep the 800s viable, but they will not tolerate a field made up entirely of 800s and the same kind of racing we've seen the last three years. So if that happens the rules will change, and they will have the support of the FIM (where Ippolito seems a strong supporter of cheaper, production-based GP racing) and the IRTA (with the power there held by the independent team owners/managers, and 800s have not been good to them). And Dorna could pull a "Phlegmini" and run the opposing factories out, switch to production motors in 3rd-party chassis, maybe with the backing of Aprilia and BMW. This is not the issue the four remaining factories want to draw a long-term line in the sand on, unless something changes on the racetracks that makes 800s not so bad. And I'm struggling to see that happening.

 

[JO EBRMC]

I'm pretty sure it does. The riders have choices on fuel mapping and use, and, as I understand it, they can change that up in real time. The bike's computer also monitors the fuel use, and kicks in if the bike is going to run short and not finish. If a rider has extra fuel at the end of a race they could select a power map at a critical stage and throw down a flier to get away or make a pass, in the same way a guy might drift back because his fuel is running low. I think it cuts both ways, which is what one would expect given the technology level now.

I think it is reasonable to assume that certain tracks eat more fuel than others. This raises the issue that I believe Ducati has suggested exists: finding the right displacement that will provide the fuel efficiency needed to be competitive at all the tracks will be difficult. The suggestion being that a 1000cc will not have the efficiency needed for say, a Motegi which is exactly where the 1000 would probably be the strongest (Stop, get out of corners faster) if we assume a material difference between displacement.
The obvious solution might be to run different displacement motors based on the track. Of course, the problem here is with just 6 motors available, further limiting yourself with motors totally inappropriate for a given track is probably too much of a risk.

But you were talking about two bikes running at the same RPM, the larger one using more fuel than the smaller one. But at the same RPM the larger one is also making notably more power, right?

While correct, that isn’t really what I was getting at. Yes, at the same RPM, the 1000 will make more hp but it will also be further up in its range. The 800 will simply run 20% and produce the same hp. The important part of the comparison isn’t so much the specific RPM as it is the relative percentage of the RPM scale the motors would be at. At 80% of WOT, both motors should be pretty close in output and fuel consumption .

In terms of peak horsepower, that's an important question. I'd be somewhat surprised if a bore-restricted 1000 would be making 4000rpm less than an 800 on top, and if it's actually less than that, 3000 or less, I would think the 1000 would be making more power. But it would also make more power all the way up there, I'd think, so that would be a meterial advantage.

It may be possible the 1000s can be run at 16k, in which case, it will make more power. The problem is again, the efficiency. All of that power is going to use fuel – fuel that at some tracks is extremely limited. As I mentioned earlier, there may be tracks where this is an advantage but it will be a major problem at others – so much so that I can’t see the engineers being willing to make that compromise. The fuel efficiency that they are getting now is remarkable but there is only so much you can do with it. Leaning out and limiting fuel on a bike that needs more of it is going to lead to reliability issues. So, if you can, in fact, get more power from a larger (bore limited) motor that will help you at a small handful of tracks, do you accept the risk at all of the tracks at the opposite end of the fuel usage scale?

I don't see it that way. From the beginning it seemed the riders were surprised with the way the 800s worked, that they could run through the corners so quickly (the gyro effect) but that they had to be ridden on that "ideal" line, because anything else would just slow them down - they just don't have the power coming out to make up for anything less than ideal going in and through. Passing became difficult because they brake so late (top straightline speed is lower and corner speed is higher, less braking needed), and passing on a line with a sub-optimal exit wouldn't do it unless it was a block pass. Because of these lines it's grip on the edge of the tire that really matters now, as opposed to the grip more on the center of the tire than a 1000 might be able to utilize, in the way the 990s used to.

I will maintain that the way the 800s (and the 250s) run through corners is faster than stop and go. You can overcome this difference through horsepower but you need a pretty serious hp advantage.
That said, the fuel limits are still the deciding factor. Stop and go is where fuel is wasted. Maintaining speed is how it is saved. If the 800s, running wheels in line, are running short of fuel, a bike shedding speed and then making it up in hp is going to run even shorter of fuel.

Yet that's what the the riders have been saying, and pretty universally. That's the fastest line only if you have an excess of side grip, relative to everything else. But an excess of power can overwhelm that, and also open up opportunities elsewhere, especially more power down low. This hasn't been a slow, evolutionary change, there was a watershed moment when MotoGP went to 800s, and everything had already changed when they were first testing those things in the fall of 2006. The electronics and the tires have further developed since then, of course, but that doesn't mean things can't swing back the other way, this is not an absolute anymore than it was 35 years ago.

I hit on this above but, I just can’t agree. The fastest way through a corner is always going to be to maintain the highest speed and the greatest forward movement. I think that what you are getting at is if there is something limiting grip, you have to compensate in some manner. Flattrack and ice racing are perfect examples of this. Keeping your wheels in line and maintaining grip on dirt or ice is going to be incredibly slow. However, the more grip you are able to generate, the closer to wheels in line you are going to be. The goal is always going to be to try to reach a high corner speed with tires gripping at all times – even in those cases where that is impossible. The closer you can get to this ideal the faster you are going to be. The engineers know this and, if they were to go to a 1000cc motor would still be aiming for that ideal. If there is some reason that a 1000 can’t possibly maintain adherence to the ideal that the 800s have provided, a 1000 has even less chance of being adopted.

And you have to remember that this is all in the context of actual racing, this isn't some Stoneristic fastest lap deal. In a race an 800 can't really use that ideal high corner speed approach if a slow-in-midcorner 1000 is in front of him, and getting off line will still present the same problem, except that the torquey 1000 will be even tougher coming off the corner.

Completely agree. KR found this out first hand: the corner speed they could get out of the 3 cylinder (because of the weight advantage allowed by the rules at the time) was of no use because the greater power of the 4s and 5s was allowing those bikes to get to the corner first. The result was the KR bike was forced to go at the slowest the other bikes had to go but couldn’t go as fast as them on the straights. This is, of course, if we assume the 1000s will have the power available to get to the corners first. As I mentioned earlier, this will be dependent upon fuel and at a good percentage of tracks, they simply aren’t going to have that fuel to waste.

A Pedrosa or Stoner might be able to get away if they lead off the line and hammer out their ideal laps against 1000s which don't make more peak hiorsepower or perhaps even less, but even getting off the line will be harder against the 1000s, I'd think. And I don't know that those 1000s aren't going to make more power, I'm not convinced by your fuel uber alles argument.

Let’s wait and see what the engineers are saying when they start announcing the specs for 2012. I am willing to bet that the term “fuel efficiency” will be a major component of any discussion about the decisions.

 

[JO EBRMC]

My understanding is that the GP Commission essentially decides everything. That's made up of Dorna, the FIM, the IRTA and the MSMA. Dorna has the tie-breaking vote, which means the only way they don't get what they want is when the other three unite against them. The MSMA has responsibility for the technical rules and their development, but the decisions are ultimately made or ratified by the Commission. The one exception to that is if the members of the MSMA are unanimous in what they want or don't want, then they have veto power. So from a practical standpoint, Dorna has the power - how often are the factories all united and standing in opposition to majority of the others?

This one is a bit hard to nail down. The rules state that the GPC votes on all rule changes but Ezpeleta has repeatedly referred to the contract with the MSMA that allows them complete control over the technical regulations. I believe that Ippolito has stated the same thing. Of course, part of this may be abdicating accountability for unpopular decisions but I think we can reasonably assume that the MSMA has primary control over the technical rules and I don’t think it would be unreasonable to take Ezpeleta at his word on this on.

In reality, they all want to work together, so this stuff probably gets decided more informally and without a lot of visible confrontation. I found this article by Noyes tonight, and I think it probably describes the politics fairly well: http://moto-racing.speedtv.com/article/motogp-noyes-notebook-msmas-cloudy-vision/

I’ve little doubt that there are compromises and deals worked out but those sorts of agreements are all made within the context of the relative leverage each party has. In this case, the MSMA really has the control while Dorna does not. Dorna is in a position where it needs the factories (I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with the factories having some level of control) and there is also the issue of this contract.

My take is a bit different, as you might guess. I think the majority was/is generally against continuing two stroke racing. They also likely don't really want a shrinking, overly expensive underclass, which is what this has become under Aprilia's domination. What they also don't want is an expensive prototype-based four stroke class, can't afford it. What they probably do want is a production motor-based class, at least the Japanese majority. But that puts them, or rather Dorna, in conflict with WSB/IMS, and it also opens up other issues, so the spec engine compromise put forward by Dorna was acceptable, at least it ran the two strokes out and started things down the path they want, and it costs them absolutely nothing now.

Why would the factories (particularly the Japanese) have any interest in reproducing a supersport class? This is just additional costs with no additional benefit. I can’t identify a reason why any of the current factories would have any interest in any sort of underclass.

Maybe. I think Dorna was willing to compromise on the 1000s adequately to keep the 800s viable, but they will not tolerate a field made up entirely of 800s and the same kind of racing we've seen the last three years. So if that happens the rules will change, and they will have the support of the FIM (where Ippolito seems a strong supporter of cheaper, production-based GP racing) and the IRTA (with the power there held by the independent team owners/managers, and 800s have not been good to them). And Dorna could pull a "Phlegmini" and run the opposing factories out, switch to production motors in 3rd-party chassis, maybe with the backing of Aprilia and BMW. This is not the issue the four remaining factories want to draw a long-term line in the sand on, unless something changes on the racetracks that makes 800s not so bad. And I'm struggling to see that happening.

I completely agree. Dorna needs something to make its product more compelling and marketable. IRTA and Ippolito want cheaper racing. The rules as they stand today, won’t meet the goals of any of these parties. And here is where things get interesting: the MSMA/Dorna contract runs out in 2012.