So what I'm getting at with goingtoscotland's point that Kurosaki doesnt.
Is that REAL men race bikes with no TC, regardless of how much power it puts out that it become impossible to ride for anyone who's not sensitive enough to the machinery.
If there was no TC rule, Rossi would been of a contender this year.
Is that right or am I way off?
That doesn't make any sense.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentino Rossi
If you don't hang your balls out there and just do it, you'll never know what might have happened.
Excuse my different cognitive process for making nonsense.
What I'm trying to say, that people that races in premier class can ride current GP bike with no TC, but not everyone can be so good at it. So in theory, Rossi could have been a highly placed racer? Didn't he ride the 500 GP without TC?
Am I still not making sense? Or am I talking in the wrong argument?
[edit]
I realized my primary language makes everything sounds simple. Since it don't say all the details as much as English writer do. My bad, I will try better next time I post.
Really? It's clearly not a necessity as they have been doing it forever and on much more difficult to handle machinery.
Calculators aren't a necessity. Do they make math easier? For sure, but you can still do it without them.
The last 500GP bikes put out 220hp. Maybe 20hp down on the current 1000s, but 4 strokes are kittens compared to a 2 stroke.
Also in addition to KR, Rossi says so.
A calculator is not a motorcycle. lame comparison.
They're different bikes, like I've already explained before.
link? I don't recall Rossi ever saying TC isn't necessary on these bikes. He has criticized electronics from ruining the racing but there's more to electronics than just TC. 990s had TC and nobody complains about the quality of racing there.
Anyway, you're off your original point from the article you said talked about rider aids, comprehensively. Everybody likes to point the finger at traction control out of all the various electronics on the bike without any real proof.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentino Rossi
If you don't hang your balls out there and just do it, you'll never know what might have happened.
A calculator is not a motorcycle. lame comparison.
They're different bikes, like I've already explained before.
link? I don't recall Rossi ever saying TC isn't necessary on these bikes. He has criticized electronics from ruining the racing but there's more to electronics than just TC. 990s had TC and nobody complains about the quality of racing there.
Anyway, you're off your original point from the article you said talked about rider aids, comprehensively. Everybody likes to point the finger at traction control out of all the various electronics on the bike without any real proof.
Location: On an intergalactic cruise, in my office
Posts: 27,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosaki
A calculator is not a motorcycle. lame comparison.
They're different bikes, like I've already explained before.
link? I don't recall Rossi ever saying TC isn't necessary on these bikes. He has criticized electronics from ruining the racing but there's more to electronics than just TC. 990s had TC and nobody complains about the quality of racing there.
Anyway, you're off your original point from the article you said talked about rider aids, comprehensively. Everybody likes to point the finger at traction control out of all the various electronics on the bike without any real proof.
Not really, no.
Yes, they are very different motors. The 2 strokes are much more difficult to deal with. Leave the rest of the bike out of it. The rest of the bike matters not. Only the engine configuration matters.
Obviously you ride your 600 without traction control. If someone that rode a 50cc scooter came up and told you traction control or other rider aids were necessary on the track what would you say?
He said it would be better racing without rider aids in the same article KR was referenced in. I would considering him saying the racing would be better without rider aids to indicate that they're not necessary.
There are only two actual rider aids in MotoGP. Traction/wheelie and launch control. They do not have ABS, or active suspension. The rest of the electronics on the bike, the FI and ignition system, telemetry and data-logging systems, various engine mapping/whatever, none of those are rider aids.
MotoGP should be about all areas of rider skill. That's not even the argument that was made, though. I'm not even going there. Rider aids(read; traction control) are not NECESSARY to ride a 1000 or any other displacement GP bike. End of story. They might make your job easier and they can make you faster, but that doesn't mean they're necessary to operate, turn a lap on the bike, or race the bike.
Kenny Roberts Jr has also said it should be eliminated, but what does he know either, right? I suppose it's necessary if so many people want it gone, eh? Stoner also said he would rather have not had it. You're right though, it must be necessary if all these former champions think it should be eliminated...
__________________
2005 ZX-10R Street and Track Whore
Last edited by goingtoscotland; 11-07-2012 at 02:15 PM.
Yes, they are very different motors. The 2 strokes are much more difficult to deal with. Leave the rest of the bike out of it. The rest of the bike matters not. Only the engine configuration matters.
Obviously you ride your 600 without traction control. If someone that rode a 50cc scooter came up and told you traction control or other rider aids were necessary on the track what would you say?
He said it would be better racing without rider aids in the same article KR was referenced in. I would considering him saying the racing would be better without rider aids to indicate that they're not necessary.
There are only two actual rider aids in MotoGP. Traction/wheelie and launch control. They do not have ABS, or active suspension. The rest of the electronics on the bike, the FI and ignition system, telemetry and data-logging systems, various engine mapping/whatever, none of those are rider aids.
MotoGP should be about all areas of rider skill. That's not even the argument that was made, though. I'm not even going there. Rider aids(read; traction control) are not NECESSARY to ride a 1000 or any other displacement GP bike. End of story. They might make your job easier and they can make you faster, but that doesn't mean they're necessary to operate, turn a lap on the bike, or race the bike.
Kenny Roberts Jr has also said it should be eliminated, but what does he know either, right? I suppose it's necessary if so many people want it gone, eh? Stoner also said he would rather have not had it. You're right though, it must be necessary if all these former champions think it should be eliminated...
There are more to the electronic aids than just tc and launch control.
MotoGP still is about rider skill. If the bikes are so much easier to ride like you're trying to make them out to be, there would be more competitive riders since the bike would make up for their shortcomings, right? I mean, they just have to twist the grip and line up the bike in the corner, right? The bike does everything else, right? Rider just has to hold on...
These bikes are only easier to ride up to a certain limit, which isn't fast enough to be truly competitive. To go as fast as the bikes can go is not at all easy, regardless of what you and other electronics naysayers think about rider aids, or there would be more riders challenging for the podium, and it's not just because a decrease in the number of real competitive bikes.
We're not going to agree so I'm done with this topic.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentino Rossi
If you don't hang your balls out there and just do it, you'll never know what might have happened.
Linear Mode
