Quote from: Triple J on October 25, 2012, 09:00:22 AM
If you guys really think the riders are not skilled and are just along for the ride  , then I suggest you get on a race track with a modern liter bike (even one with the electronic aids) and see how you do when someone is timing you. Then, imagine the bike had an additional 50-75 hp and weighed 50 lbs less. Modern liter bikes are a friggin' handful to ride at any sort of race pace, even with traction control. I can only imagine what a GP bike is like.

Saying you want to see more skillful rider is just plain silly...the fast guys now would still be the fast guys. Lap times might be a few tenths slower, but the same guys would still be laying them down.

I don't like the electronics, like the GPS-based fuel mapping and such, or launch control (or ABS, which no one uses now anyway). I have no problem with traction control though. As we've seen this year, it still doesn't stop all high sides.

Of course the guys currently riding are skilled.

I never said they were not.

However, I think it's clear that a rider on a ECU controlled bike has a lot more margin for error than a rider on a non-ECU bike. 

It's sort of like having a car that has ABS all your life, and then one day you drive a friend's old car with no ABS -- and you're in the ditch next you know it.

Of course the current crop are skillful riders, but I think there are far more body/mind calculations going on with a non-ECU controlled engine/traction/braking bike is used.

Quote from: derby on October 25, 2012, 09:12:08 AM
the groups would be tighter and there'd be more passing.

I agree. I'd still expect to see the same 3-5 guys up front though, just hopefully they'd be in a pack. I can't believe some people imply that the current riders are just along for the ride.

Doesn't Stoner usually ride with settings where the TC is less intrusive? I thought I had read that somewhere.

On the non-serious side of this thread this is some funny shit. I like the idea of corner workers chuckin' bricks!

And speaking of stating the obvious in douchelike fashion...

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/casey-stoner-says-valentino-rossi-is-one-of-the-major-reasons-why-motogp-has-become-boring/story-e6frfkp9-1226503440825

Quote from: duccarlos on October 25, 2012, 01:01:02 PM
And speaking of stating the obvious in douchelike fashion...

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/casey-stoner-says-valentino-rossi-is-one-of-the-major-reasons-why-motogp-has-become-boring/story-e6frfkp9-1226503440825

i agree that rossi is probably bored with not winning, but i don't think that's the point valentino is trying to make.

i don't think rossi contributed any more to the electronics situation than every other rider on the track.

Quote from: derby on October 25, 2012, 01:28:58 PM
i agree that rossi is probably bored with not winning, but i don't think that's the point valentino is trying to make.

i don't think rossi contributed any more to the electronics situation than every other rider on the track.

Again, stating the obvious is a douchelike manner. Rossi has contributed as much as any alien, with possible exception of Stoner that kinda prefers the bike to handle like a bucking bronco. Rossi has any received praise for being able to provide engineers with workable feedback. If this in turn is used to build an electronics package that make the bike smooth like mantequilla, then you can blame Rossi for doing an excellent job.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that MC electronics do the exact opposite...tame (optimize) a bike that, in one or more instances, is on the edge of uncontrollability for one reason or another.  Not sure how one "develops" electronics - as they're a control system, not a bike's mechanical fundamental.  They can be added, removed, damped up, damped down, tested for their effectiveness, etc., but that's not the same as bike development - unless they've become/acknowleged as "a part of the bike" without which it would not work...

If anything, Rossi's contributions to the GPXX needing less electronics would be a better measure of how much he's contributed.

It's too bad Stoner is leaving. With all this trash talking, there could have been some nice battles between the two next year with Rossi returning to a competitive bike. 

Stoner would get a lot more post-racing-career respect (from me, at least) if he dug into his own pocket a little and kick-started some of those Oz rider-development programs he whines aren't there...

Quote from: gm2 on October 24, 2012, 01:10:28 PM
you could never enforce it.  and the cost of trying to would make it a non-starter.

what if HRC had no line item budget b/c Honda corporate decided to make it part of R&D?  rider salaries are Promotional, etc.  and they're going to give internal auditing rights to Dorna?  no way.

But that's out of Carmelo's pocket...

make the beast with two backs him...

Quote from: OT on October 25, 2012, 01:54:21 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that MC electronics do the exact opposite...tame (optimize) a bike that, in one or more instances, is on the edge of uncontrollability for one reason or another.  Not sure how one "develops" electronics - as they're a control system, not a bike's mechanical fundamental.  They can be added, removed, damped up, damped down, tested for their effectiveness, etc., but that's not the same as bike development - unless they've become/acknowleged as "a part of the bike" without which it would not work...

If anything, Rossi's contributions to the GPXX needing less electronics would be a better measure of how much he's contributed.

The GPXX handles like a dog so bad that, try as you may, you will never be able to fix it with any electronics. They have tried swingarm changes, but still not helping. The frame has not changed from the beginning of the year. The only thing they have not tried is the engine configuration. In the end, all factory riders can be attributed to enhancing electronics, mainly because they provide feedback week to week on specific changes they can apply in every corner of a track. The engineers in turn can make small changes through the ECU to go faster.

they've got to change the engine orientation.

http://www.motomatters.com/analysis/2012/10/27/2012_phillip_island_motogp_saturday_roun.html

some snippets:

"...Honda's seamless gearbox, the 650,000 euro unit which allows gear changes to be done much more quickly and without upsetting the bike."

that's $840,000 for just the gearbox. $1.6MM per rider, $3.2MM per two-rider team.

"Honda's gearbox could well be a major contributing factor to Honda's opposition to a spec ECU. If HRC have had to spend a lot of time writing software to deal with the special circumstances created by a seamless shift gearbox, then they would be loath to give up that advantage. There is more to the electronics package than just fuel economy and throttle response, the ECU and its software also have a massive role to play in engine braking, getting the bikes smoothly and without drama into the corners - see the Moto2 bikes for an example of a machine without sophisticated engine braking strategies."

goes further to the idea of "developing electronics"...

Seems the racing would be better if the bikes weren't so smooth into the corners...see the Moto2 bikes.