|
2014 World Champion? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Valentino Rossi |
|
13 | 19.40% |
| Jorge Lorenzo |
|
13 | 19.40% |
| Dani Pedrosa |
|
8 | 11.94% |
| Marc Marquez |
|
33 | 49.25% |
| Total: | 67 votes | ||
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Because if they're fuckups it pulls the entire series down. We've already had one race this series where that was apparent. And when we had both Michelin and Bridgestone in MotoGP only half the field was hosed when one of them screwed up, and that also ruined the racing. Watching top-4 racers fall to mid-pack because Michelin brought the wrong compound was not great to watch. At least with a single supplier everyone deals with the same poo poo. Also: single supplier systems are apparently much, much better for the teams. Bridgestone paid 20m to make tires for MotoGP, but under multiple supplier rules, teams would be paying about 30,000 euros per race for tires - completely screwing over the smaller teams. In the ongoing efforts to make MotoGP cheaper and more accessible for non-Honda/Yamaha entries going back to multiple suppliers would be a big step backwards. The best part about open tires was the ability for one tire manufacturer to make so many varieties of tires. Having their own tire (and Stoner) is what let Ducati win on a bike unlike anything else on the grid, and why they had to give in and go to a twin-spar frame (like Honda/Yamaha) after switching to the standard tire. All the teams have to design their bike around the tires. The most exciting side-effect of switching to a new tire supplier is the upheaval in the grid order. I'm sure everything will settle into roughly the order things are now after a season or two, but watching the different riders and factories come to grips with the new tires at different speeds will make for enjoyable racing. epalm posted:Hm, why not rotate between the top 3(?) tire manufacturers. Each gets a year with MotoGP, then 2 years off. HRC's boss said "minimum, 6 months" when asked how long it'll take to redesign their bike to new tires. It's not like us plebs on the street who can switch and adapt, at this level the bikes are designed to the tire. And each manufacturer goes about tire-making in very different ways, so it's a huge change. To the riding style as well: As always let's all just read David Emmett: motomatters.com posted:Shuhei Nakamoto told me that adapting to a new tire would be 'very, very difficult.' The HRC boss harked back to 2012, and the new front which Bridgestone brought early in the year. 'For 2012, Bridgestone changed the front tire construction. We made a new machine [to handle the new tire],' Nakamoto said. 'We will have to do so trial and error to understand the new tire.' How long would it take to build a bike capable of coping with tires from a new manufacturer? 'Minimum of six months,' Nakamoto told me. The HRC boss was resigned to the change, however. 'This is normal,' he said, 'when you change the tire, you spend the money.' Gay Nudist Dad fucked around with this message at 15:47 on May 2, 2014 |
#
¿
May 2, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The Ducati example is a prime case of how a spec tire hurts the series. By requiring the bike to conform to the tire, instead of being able to pick a tire that conforms to the bike, it forces all the bikes to be that much more similar, that much less innovative, and that much less boring. I'm gonna go on this paragraph-by-paragraph: First: I agree. It is too bad that it leads to such homologous design. But I think the tradeoffs are worth it. Second: Yes, the tailoring has made things a bit more bland. I'll ignore the traction control per-corner tuning, since that's a bit outside tire chat, though I agree that it's pretty lame and would prefer to see it removed (I am pretty sure the GPS tracking has been, but I'm not sure), and wonder if the move to the stock ECU/sensor package will reduce or eliminate it. But going to varied tires won't change tuning the bike per track and nothing will ever eliminate that, there's no racing series that doesn't allow the machinery to be setup for each track. The trickle-down tech discussion is also a lot bigger than this, but MotoGP is a prototype series. It's where the manufacturers should be able to do whatever crazy poo poo they want, if anywhere, and see what sticks. WSBK or BSB is where they can go to just build a better gixxer. Moving to a multiple-supplier tire system also won't eliminate them tuning the bike to each track, and setting the TC to each track, and setting the engine mapping to each track. As for safety, I think the one thing the elctronics DO get right is the increase in safety. The gnarly high-sides of the 2-stroke era are gone. The bikes now are running higher speeds with more power and doing so without sending riders to orbit. The one time the sensors got it really wrong and made things dangerous was the 1 in a million Marquez/Pedrosa incident last year, and when that happened it came to light that Honda was the only bike on the grid not running redundant sensors. They were the only bike it could've happened to. Third: Taking out the ability to tailor the bikes eliminates all value for the factories - they can't develop in that situation. And if you require them to build to all of 3 suppliers, Honda and Yamaha will just build three different chassis and rotate between them. They'll have a Bridgestone chassis, a Michelin chassis, a Pirelli chassis. And then it's three times the cost and arguably more dangerous, since the rider never gets to learn to be fast on the same hardware and rubber. And the one thing MotoGP could never restrict is chassis development. Take that away and it's no longer a prototype series. MotoGP is already running a spec ECU and datalogger across the grid, with the difference being that factory teams run their own software, but AFAIK that means the type of sensors available are already restricted. Even if all the teams collecting the same type of data from the same sensors, the teams that can afford the most talented engineers will still win. Deep pockets will always win racing. Lastly: Again, AFAIK, Bridgestone was paying Dorna for the privilege of providing tires - and the teams got them for free. The motivation there is Huge Advertising and the opportunity to develop tires with data from the best bikes and the best riders. Every podium finisher had to wear a Bridgestone hat. That value-for-money is gone in a multiple-supplier system, especially with 1/3rd the development data under your regime, and so they'd probably have to charge for tires... and as mentioned in the MM article I linked that was about 30,000 euros per race per bike, which is a huge cost for the small teams. Honda and Yamaha will always pay it. Tech3 and Gresini (and especially Forward or Paul Bird) may not be able to.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:So it makes sense that Bridgestone agreed to take a helluva lot less money (and, presumably, eat a lot of the development costs internally) in exchange for monopoly advertising. They don't take any money, actually, they just spend it. They pay Dorna 20 million Euros for the privilege and then pay to design, develop, ship, deliver, and help teams setup their tires. From MotoMatters again: "If another choice of compound were to be added, that would increase the number of tires Bridgestone would have transport to the track by some 300 per weekend. If two extra tire choices were added, that number would go to 600. Bridgestone would need an extra race truck to transport the tires to European circuits, and transport costs for overseas rounds would be massively increased. Bridgestone already pays over 20 million euros a season to supply a maximum of 22 riders each season with free tires. The Japanese firm is not keen for costs to be raised further." So that monopoly advertising (and the R&D info) is obviously worth it. Snowdens Secret posted:I also don't think slowing down the entire pack is really going to do much to make races tighter - time intervals are time intervals - but there is validity to the argument that a faster race is a less safe race. My only thought on this - based on armchair theory - is that lower the level of grip all around might make it easier to build a bike to it. Say the current Bridgestones over a grip level of 100, and only the top bikes can use 100% of that 100. The Open bikes can only use 95% of it. If that grip level was 90, maybe the CRT bikes could utilize all 100% of it and be slightly closer to the factory bikes. I'm not even sure that makes sense. hayden. posted:Why are there fuel limitations in MotoGP? It seems like it would just drive development costs up for engines because you're throwing another hurdle in the mix. It's not like sportbike owners care about their fuel mileage. The manufacturers asked for it. Honda (and Yamaha, et. al.) wanted it as an engineering challenge, the theory being that what they learn about fuel economy in this crazy extreme environment can eventually lead to more efficient street bikes. And the side effect of the little fuel is a greater need for electronics, which they also want to develop. Dorna is trying to take both of these back (thus the Open bikes getting a 24L fuel limit, everyone getting spec ECU/datalogger hardware, and Open bikes getting spec ECU software).
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
nsaP posted:You have it precisely backwards. Definitely. Ryder/Moody was a great combo, largely because they had clearly been commentating together for some time and seemed to be friends out of the booth, too. It made their commentating very natural - they knew when they could interrupt each other and they could make jokes or asides that weren't misinterpreted. And while I like Moody in the other commentating I've heard by him (X-Games mostly), and I still like Ryder in MotoGP, the two were definitely greater than the sum of the parts. I like that Huewen brings an ex-racer's perspective to the box but he's not nearly as good on the play-by-play as Moody was and his unfamiliarity with MotoGP/2/3 is obvious. Hopefully they'll get better and get less awkward with each other. Despite their flaws I still watch them over the world feed guys but we'll see how long I keep that up.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:Rossi and Marquez are great together: I'm so glad the now and future king, Marquez, has a personality. And not a negative one like Stoner, but a jovial, hey-isn't-this-fun one. In every post-race interview he seems genuinely thrilled to be there and have gotten to race, and considering he has what millions of kids would consider to be a dream job, it's heartening to see him seem to feel the same way. And Rossi seems to have a good grasp on where he stands, happy that he's competitive but aware that he's not gonna be a championship contender, and he seems okay with that. Watching a relaxed, happy Rossi and Marquez interact is one of the best things going on this season.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Marcy Marq really hosed up the rookie bar. It's no longer enough to come in, learn the bikes, learn the field, have a mid-pack first year and slowly progress forward into steady top-5s. It used to be commendable if a rookie finished 5th, but good can't follow great. I wonder if we'll see higher turnover in the next few years as all the factories cycle through talent looking for the next record-setter?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FRE_HZnI9c Watch Moto3, then, and you can see 10 guys racing like that, fighting for first, the whole race, every race. It was amazing this year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
A friend of mine wants to get into MotoGP. He's ridden for years, but never really watched a race. If you were going to show someone a recent race, maybe one from each class but definitely at least one from the premier class, what would you show? More recent the better. Or I guess I could just pull up one of the Faster-series documentaries?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
nsaP posted:Oh also, please find non-world feed commentators because Nick Harris barely knows what's going on and will just be confusing. Also for full race excitement show your friend 2014 Moto3 races. Yeah I'm definitely showing him something from Moto3 when the time comes. I figure I could probably grab any 2014 Moto3 race, as I recall they were almost all great. Maybe the last race, explaining the Miller/Marquez championship situation. I agree about the world feed - I miss Eurosport something fierce. I watched BTSport this year and it got better as the year went on, but I still miss the dynamic between Moody and Ryder. I've told him to watch Fastest as a primer, but if he wants to get more into it I'd like a few current (2014, maybe '13) races to show him so he sees the current cast of characters and bikes. Fastest is about 2010 and a hell of a lot has changed since then.Death of the 2-strokes, Rossi at Ducati, Stoner at Honda then quitting, switch to 1000cc, the rise of Marc Marquez...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 05:49
|
|