MotoGP Still think electronics aren't the deal they are? - Page 3

jose_jimenez · 11-09-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamus

None taken.

I equate the electronics on the bike to that analogy. If I don't have to worry as much about my throttle being a 1/4" off what physics will allow the bike to do, I can concentrate on more external factors to make myself go faster: better lines, different braking points, better body position. Electronics may allow the rider to go WFO earlier but said rider still has to put the bike in the right position at the right time for physics to keep the bike going faster and stay on the track.

And I got promoted last year

See I don't equate that because if you fly your chopper, well it's not some competition like Grand Prix is. Riders are the main deal or they'd put the bikes up on the podium. And sure a 600 today is easier to ride but again, not really what I'm talking about. A 600 is easier to ride in your analogy, the engines are better, they turn easier, etc. In essence everything is the same as it was years ago, except the engine, chassis, suspension, and tires are all much better as far as riding the thing goes. We are now entering a time when computers are doing things for us. IMHO, and maybe many don't want to agree (I'm cool with that), is that at this level that is the rider's job to me. I want that to be their job, throttle control. I want to see these guys duke it out and I don't think a computer should control that throttle. It's taking something away from rider control and putting into electronics. I don't like that, and apparently neither do a lot of other people. Bake posted a link to a poll and Superbikeplanet and there is a nice chunk of the people who voted that said they'd like the electronics removed. Use all the technology you want to make the engine, the chassis, the suspension, the tires, leave throttle control to the riders or else it will take away from the human's job piloting it and transfer it to a computer. Does it make sense to you that flying aircraft and a competition between riders could be viewed as separate things?

jose_jimenez · 11-09-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigerblade

It's also nice when the best riders in the world can actually race because they're not getting injured from highsided consistently.

For the most part that was taken care of with 4 strokes. 2 strokes had the nasty powerbands that went nothing, nothing, nothing, then wham!!!!!!!! All at once. You saw highsides decrease when they went to 4 strokes. I miss the early days of the 4 strokes because the electronics packages were so much less. Lots of riders sliding bikes through corners and lighting up the rear tire and such, it was fucking awesome to watch!

seamus · 11-09-2007, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jose_jimenez

See I don't equate that because if you fly your chopper, well it's not some competition like Grand Prix is. Riders are the main deal or they'd put the bikes up on the podium. And sure a 600 today is easier to ride but again, not really what I'm talking about. A 600 is easier to ride in your analogy, the engines are better, they turn easier, etc. In essence everything is the same as it was years ago, except the engine, chassis, suspension, and tires are all much better as far as riding the thing goes. We are now entering a time when computers are doing things for us. IMHO, and maybe many don't want to agree (I'm cool with that), is that at this level that is the rider's job to me. I want that to be their job, throttle control. I want to see these guys duke it out and I don't think a computer should control that throttle. It's taking something away from rider control and putting into electronics. I don't like that, and apparently neither do a lot of other people. Bake posted a link to a poll and Superbikeplanet and there is a nice chunk of the people who voted that said they'd like the electronics removed. Use all the technology you want to make the engine, the chassis, the suspension, the tires, leave throttle control to the riders or else it will take away from the human's job piloting it and transfer it to a computer. Does it make sense to you that flying aircraft and a competition between riders could be viewed as separate things?

I see and understand everything you're saying. But isn't MotoGP (and in reality any motor sport except for that old IROC competition and the upcoming R6 cup) not just a competition between the best riders but also the best manufacturers? I think it's the all around package of "all of the above" that wins. Hence the statement, "win on Sunday, sell on Monday". If it were just the rider the statement would no longer ring true. Even with the electronics, which will have to be adapted to each individual rider and style, it's still the guy on the horse that has to make it go and make all the decisions. He just has one or two less things to worry about.

As for my analogy, it's not really any different. It's granny smith v red delicious. In my sport, the competition is between me and the bad guy with a gun. If I'm a split second off, I lose. If I can gain that split second by allowing a computer to control something internal, I win and get to fight another day and you get cool video for YouTube. In MotoGP (and any motor sport) the split second determines win or lose not life or death, although it could alter a career. So, yes. I can see the difference but I can also see the similarity. It's down to split second decisions and the GP manufacturers have decided to give the rider another tool to use to allow the human brain focus on other tangibles to find those split seconds.

It still makes for great debate though and I enjoy that part.

slickwill · 11-09-2007, 08:11 PM

I'm putting in my vote for the total package with no limitations. I want to see the peak technology being tested and refined. It still is going to take a good rider to win. I love the fact that we are seeing TC hit the street on the new 1098R. I will love it even more when it shows up on the run of the mill 600RR. Sure, I agree that it simplifies some things for the riders but again it will still be about the total package. The fact that "better" riders are getting beat due to technology should just push the other manufacturers to come up with something better.

jose_jimenez · 11-09-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamus

It still makes for great debate though and I enjoy that part.

Well we see eye to eye there. I think your points are valid also. I just don't think it's as simple as some people want to make it out to be. I think it's a valid debate because you have people on both sides and they are pretty evened out. I'll be playing close attention to F1 next year to see how their decisions will affect that sport.

MotoVegas · 11-10-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jose_jimenez

There are enough current and ex-racers they have said the same thing and I guess I'm going to listen to them more than motorcyclists on the internets. No offence.

Why this? Seriously, brother, no need to cheap shot other guys with differing opinions.

You do realize the same argument can be pushed back by those of us that disagree with your thoughts on the subject, yes? Such as, why would I listen to some "motorcyclists on the internets" on this subject and not listen to guys like Freddie Spencer (who I had a personal conversation with, wherein he indicated to me that he WISHED they had these technologies perfected back when he was racing) and articles by guys like Mat Mladin welcoming traction control to the sport.

See, there are wise skilled well informed men on ALL sides of this issue not just "some motorcyclists on teh internetz" who disagree with you and some of the greats of motorcycling (while other greats in turn disagree with them). Some of us, wish electronics would play a smaller part in racing (your camp); and others of us welcome the ever advancing roll of technology into motorcycle racing.

The fundamental difference is, perhaps, what MotoGP should be about. I think that is where this difference of opinion is coming from. I personally think it should be about cutting edge technology designed and built by talented engineers, assembled and maintained by talented mechanics, and piloted by supremely skilled human beings, so that technology eventually finds its way to the street production bikes to make them BOTH faster AND safer. Two camps, two different philosophies. No "right", no "wrong". Just different outlooks on the sport and the purpose of the sport itself. I personally don't see MotoGP as the place that is solely about the skills of an individual motorcycle rider battling the skills of another individual rider. In my opinion that is to "small" an outlook of the purpose and function of the sport.

Then again, what do I know I'm just some "motorcyclist on teh internetz".

phobe · 11-10-2007, 01:35 PM

Excellent summation, counsellor.

jose_jimenez · 11-10-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MotoVegas

Why this? Seriously, brother, no need to cheap shot other guys with differing opinions.

Cheap shot? I said no offence. Apparently Seamus understood and didn't take offence to it. Get pissed off if you want.

MotoVegas · 11-10-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jose_jimenez

Cheap shot? I said no offence. Apparently Seamus understood and didn't take offence to it. Get pissed off if you want.

I didn't take "offense" but merely remarked on what was obviously a cheap shot to those that have a differing point of view than yours (which is why I indicated some greats that DONT agree with your point of view on the matter). Indeed, why bring an internet forum thread into creation (on a subject you know has at least two sides to the argument), if you don't want to hear what people on an internet forum board have to say, or if you don't agree with what they have to say you respond basically with a remark that indicates "you're wrong people, I listen to experts not you... no offense". Actually, you listen to SOME experts on the matter. Because if ALL experts agreed on the matter, there would be no controversy.

That aside, the point of my response was you take points of view from current and former greats that agree with your position in an effort to bolster it, while you don't bring up points of view of current and former greats that disagree with your point of view. Capice?

jose_jimenez · 11-17-2007, 12:33 PM

I haven't checked the thread until today so excuse the late response.

Go back and read the threads discussing the subject. The attitude comes from crass comments coming from people on this site with a different opinion than mine. It's really nothing new I guess, a differing opinion then the next thing you know the comments get thrown at you for not sharing the opinion. Then the ridicule starts, and well the next thing you know an attitude is born

In fact, many here will throw insults at you because you don't share the same opinion they do, won't even give you common courtesy. When I start hearing comparisons to going back to carbs, steam engines, and bullshit like that, well I'm pretty much done listening to them at that point. And because I think the rider should make the difference I'm a commoner and so forth? The comments are there, read them. I think there are valid arguments on both sides, but some people won't even agree to that much. Hey if I'm not going to get a little 'decency' discussing things then I'm really not going to care what much happens after that.

I didn't post up any views to back what you are saying because I haven't seen them posted up. If you find some racers talking about how great these rider aids are, I'd love to read them.

phobe · 11-17-2007, 02:24 PM

He said he spoke in person with Spencer. Should he validate it by writing it on his blog and posting a link?

jose_jimenez · 11-17-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

He said he spoke in person with Spencer. Should he validate it by writing it on his blog and posting a link?

Yeah I read that, what do you want do next a versus? Spencer, what else do you got or is that it? Schwantz versus Spencer, who is next?

phobe · 11-17-2007, 11:29 PM

You know what? I change my mind. Electronics are the deal they are.

MotoVegas · 11-18-2007, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jose_jimenez

I didn't post up any views to back what you are saying because I haven't seen them posted up. If you find some racers talking about how great these rider aids are, I'd love to read them.

I've seen Mladin discuss it on Speed at length in favor of traction control. And here is a little snippet from him.

Soup :: A Moment With Mat: Traction Control; May 2006

And some remarks by Casey Stoner, basically saying why TC is here and needed (basically the reason I support it... without, the power levels these bikes generate it wouldn't be possible to control; or in the alternative LOTS more injured racers).

SPEEDtv.com - The Online Motorsports Authority | Moto GP | SPEEDtv.com - The Online Motorsports Authority Interview: Casey Stoner | by Dennis Noyes | The latest MotoGP headlines | Capirossi, Hayden, Melandri, Pedrosa, Rossi, Stoner, Elias, Edwards, G

And again, my point was that some racer's don't agree with you or other racers. Such as Mladin and Spencer and even Stoner. Not trying to "compare" racers, just pointing out that there exists a valid argument on the side in favor of traction control and WHY its here (and more importantly why it's here to stay - safety); valid from the standpoint from current and former racers, and not just guys like you and I that are babbling on the internet.

jose_jimenez · 11-18-2007, 11:16 PM

There was an interview with Stoner this year where he said he'd prefer to control the bike himself, rather than the electronics doing part of his job.
Wasn't a text interview but a video one. I hadn't read your link before so it was interesting to hear hear his comments midway through the season.

He doesn't completely disagree though.

Quote:

SpeedTV: Valentino has said that he doesn’t think these 800cc bikes as they are now could be ridden without TC, but he regrets that electronics has become so important.

C.S: I agree with that.

Mladin doesn't race MotoGp bikes and the level of electronics on the AMA bike he rides aren't the same or at the level of a GP bike.

As far as Spencer goes, does he get to ride the Honda GP bike every year on the journalist day? I'm just curious because I can't recall him doing so recently. Schwantz rode the GP bike right after the Valencia race.

I understand your point. Like I said, when the ridicule starts that's when I quit listening. There are some people here that will start ridiculing you when you don't share the same opinion as they do. It's interesting to get PM's sent to me by people that don't post on this site because of shit like that.

Just like the tire issue, I think there are valid arguments on both sides. I don't think I've ever said that I'd like to see the bikes rid themselves of electronics, but only said that I don't like the ever increasing role that they play and where do you draw the line? Rider after rider talking about just nailing the throttle mid-corner and the bike sorts the rest of it out, well it's not like I came up with this idea all on my own. There are some people that don't agree with that and that is fine but sometimes they get so angry at a differing opinion that they'll insult your mother

There was a link on Soup discussing this sort of thing, and apparently there are mixed views on it. Soup :: SouperPoll

jose_jimenez · 11-18-2007, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

You know what? I change my mind. Electronics are the deal they are.

Great, maybe you've gotten smart enough to not belittling someone's family just because you don't agree with them about a topic on some internet site.

MotoVegas · 11-18-2007, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jose_jimenez

There was an interview with Stoner this year where he said he'd prefer to control the bike himself, rather than the electronics doing part of his job.
Wasn't a text interview but a video one. I hadn't read your link before so it was interesting to hear hear his comments midway through the season.

He doesn't completely disagree though.

No, but he is defending TC if you read the entire statements in context. Nobody (except his most tenacious foes) and certainly not the new champ (and certainly not mid season before he was champ), is gonna come right out and say "Rossi, is wrong. I disagree with him." He is still pretty much a god and HIGHLY respected in the sport. One measure what he is saying is the level of power on those bikes requires this amount of electronics to control the bikes nowadays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jose_jimenez

Mladin doesn't race MotoGp bikes and the level of electronics on the AMA bike he rides aren't the same or at the level of a GP bike.

Meh, I've noticed that the guys currently "on top" or close to "on top" support tc. And the guys "not on top" or "knocked off the top" kind of bad rap it. But lets face it, Mladin is the winningest AMA superbike champ of all time. He does have plenty of "cred" when it comes to discussing these matters and the effect on the sport in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jose_jimenez

As far as Spencer goes, does he get to ride the Honda GP bike every year on the journalist day? I'm just curious because I can't recall him doing so recently. Schwantz rode the GP bike right after the Valencia race.

No idea. I do know that he rode Nicky's 990 (the bikes with some 260 bhp) right after the '06 championship, and that was only 4 months before I was in his class and talking with Spencer on the subject (he discussed his experience on the bike at length in class). My guess is, he gets to ride those things (Hondas of course) just as often as Schwantz does; but who knows. Next time I take his class, I'll ask.

Anyhoo, we all know the '08 10s have a TC system on them. And I hear the new '08 RR has some form of TC on it... details not released from Honda yet. Go-go technology pioneered on GP bikes!!!

jose_jimenez · 11-18-2007, 11:49 PM

It's the combination of all the electronic rider aids. I've never said it was just TC and that is what I find laughable about this.

Dovi rode the 990 and the 800 and explained the difference in regards to the electronics packages on the bikes so that was my point. From Dovi's comments and others, the electronics have stepped up in terms of handing over rider duties to the computer.

I think it's cool that the Kawasaki will have TC, and I will be interested to read the reviews of it.

MotoVegas · 11-19-2007, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jose_jimenez

I think it's cool that the Kawasaki will have TC, and I will be interested to read the reviews of it.

And Honda, it looks like too! RRW just mentioned it. But they didn't have much detail. Hopefully it won't be that staged crap that they put on the Gixxers, but more like what they are putting on the 10... real world TC.

I'm pretty fired up to read how the "rubber hits the road" with these new stock systems and whether or not they will be "alterable" by computer uploads/plugins, etc.

CBRVFR · 11-22-2007, 08:45 PM

Edwards on Scumacher's lap times:

Quote:

These bikes are so advanced now - all you need to do is crank the electronics up to where you can't crash and you can go five seconds off the pace pretty easily. You just get in and nail it!" Edwards told Crash.net, when asked about Schumacher's lap time.

"But to find that last, four tenths say, you have to back the electronics off and really start to work it. It's like a gamble; play safe with the electronics and you'll be too slow. If everybody had the electronics turned up all the time then we would all be doing the same lap time.

He's not the fastest guy out there, but he's always pretty forthright.

MOTOGP: <B>Edwards explains Schumacher speed.</B>

11-09-2007, 08:11 PM	#64
slickwill Yep, thats camo... Join Date: 08-31-2007 Location: Idaho/Iowa Age: 29 Bike(s): Western Flyer Posts: 2,202	Re: Still think electronics aren't the deal they are? I'm putting in my vote for the total package with no limitations. I want to see the peak technology being tested and refined. It still is going to take a good rider to win. I love the fact that we are seeing TC hit the street on the new 1098R. I will love it even more when it shows up on the run of the mill 600RR. Sure, I agree that it simplifies some things for the riders but again it will still be about the total package. The fact that "better" riders are getting beat due to technology should just push the other manufacturers to come up with something better. __________________ If it has wheels, I've crashed it, and some things that don't skis, snowmobile, card board box, giant tube, sentra, dirtbike, lawn tractor, grandmas bread tray, kayak, canoe, raft, bicycle, waterskis, tobaggan, horse, ATV, Now my CBR (women)

11-10-2007, 01:35 PM	#67
phobe circa 1970 Join Date: 12-17-2006 Age: 26 Bike(s): 600RR, 125R Posts: 4,644	Re: Still think electronics aren't the deal they are? Excellent summation, counsellor.

11-17-2007, 12:33 PM	#70
jose_jimenez Not Sure's Legal Representation Join Date: 01-05-2007 Bike(s): Hurricane Posts: 1,983	Re: Still think electronics aren't the deal they are? I haven't checked the thread until today so excuse the late response. Go back and read the threads discussing the subject. The attitude comes from crass comments coming from people on this site with a different opinion than mine. It's really nothing new I guess, a differing opinion then the next thing you know the comments get thrown at you for not sharing the opinion. Then the ridicule starts, and well the next thing you know an attitude is born In fact, many here will throw insults at you because you don't share the same opinion they do, won't even give you common courtesy. When I start hearing comparisons to going back to carbs, steam engines, and bullshit like that, well I'm pretty much done listening to them at that point. And because I think the rider should make the difference I'm a commoner and so forth? The comments are there, read them. I think there are valid arguments on both sides, but some people won't even agree to that much. Hey if I'm not going to get a little 'decency' discussing things then I'm really not going to care what much happens after that. I didn't post up any views to back what you are saying because I haven't seen them posted up. If you find some racers talking about how great these rider aids are, I'd love to read them. __________________ http://www.bushslastday.com/

11-17-2007, 02:24 PM	#71
phobe circa 1970 Join Date: 12-17-2006 Age: 26 Bike(s): 600RR, 125R Posts: 4,644	Re: Still think electronics aren't the deal they are? He said he spoke in person with Spencer. Should he validate it by writing it on his blog and posting a link?

11-17-2007, 11:29 PM	#73
phobe circa 1970 Join Date: 12-17-2006 Age: 26 Bike(s): 600RR, 125R Posts: 4,644	Re: Still think electronics aren't the deal they are? You know what? I change my mind. Electronics are the deal they are. __________________ Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc

11-18-2007, 11:49 PM	#78
jose_jimenez Not Sure's Legal Representation Join Date: 01-05-2007 Bike(s): Hurricane Posts: 1,983	Re: Still think electronics aren't the deal they are? It's the combination of all the electronic rider aids. I've never said it was just TC and that is what I find laughable about this. Dovi rode the 990 and the 800 and explained the difference in regards to the electronics packages on the bikes so that was my point. From Dovi's comments and others, the electronics have stepped up in terms of handing over rider duties to the computer. I think it's cool that the Kawasaki will have TC, and I will be interested to read the reviews of it. __________________ http://www.bushslastday.com/