By the way, low-tech has nothing to do with close racing. When a driver (Mladin) far outstrips the field in terms of talent, he will win more races, which is racing, right?

And parity should be in the rules, not in post-construction adjustments. If your team's bike is faster, your reward should be victory - this is racing, right?

"Parity" is already wrong because it is artificial. It is an attempt to manufacture a "race-like" product, something that looks like racing but is in fact scripted.

When a bike/rider/team is faster, they should win. When the series organizer constantly fiddles with different bikes (or blatantly breaks the rules to allow an illegal bike) in the name of "parity" the organizer has killed racing.

The only way to have anything like close racing is to race identical box-stock machinery with only safety mods, all one make and model. (And then, some people will still whine because some drivers are better than others.)

Limiting costs is alright, but there has to be a series where people just come to race. Bargain and entry-level series are fine, but there is a reason no one watches the stack Mazda races, even though they are usually very close: they are usually not real exciting except for the drivers.

Also, look at NASCAR and Grand Am: NASCAR is not cheap even with parity, and people are screaming because Jimmie Johnson wins in his kit car too often. Grand Am uses old tech and allows very little development and has almost no fans.

If DMG follows either of these examples it will fail.

The rich teams will almost always beat the poor teams, because the rich teams tend not to be just rich, but also to have longevity, and thus experience, quality personnel (nothing wrong with a family team unless the family members aren't that skilled) and can generally prepare batter. More info, easier access to parts (Duncan Datyton has a monocoque shipped overnight form California to Petit Le Mans; some teams couldn’t afford the shipping, let alone a second tub,) and better information (multiple bikes, multiple seasons.)

The best idea is to attract a lot of strong teams to the premier class, and have support/ladder classes where people can find their own levels, and keep rising so long as talent and resources allow, (which of course means being nice to the teams and riders, not calling them “expendable,” and also making sure teams are treated fairly and compensated for appearing and performing.)

As I have said here before, DMG has a short span of time in which to convince fans that it doesn't just want to run low-tech, detuned bikes. it might have to for a season or two, to refill the coffers as best it can, but it risks losing all hope of fan and manufacturer support if it doesn't disavow the NASCAR model.

thewon4 - 27 October 2009 03:14 PM

JohnnyP said that the distance between MotoGP and the street is shorter than in Prototype car racing and production market b/c prototype racing cars go faster than production racing cars

That is NOT what JP said. Either your understanding of simple statements are so far off reality, or you are being dishonest.

This is what JP said:

"I've told people before that the distance from race car technology appearing on a street car is much much longer than the one from race bike to street bike. To me the proof is in the lap times. Look at Formula 1 compared to the fastest production based car series vs. MotoGP to Superbike."

What it means is that the performance gap between an F1 car and the best street car is greater than that between MotoGp bike and a superbike.

Try to understand the above, please.

I'm not saying he's wrong,.....

Your agreement or lack of it to something he DID NOT say is immaterial to the discussion.

I'm saying his statement doesn't even resemble a reasonable proof.

What are you talking about? It is clear that you DID NOT UNDERSTAND what he said! What "proof" are you talking about?

The FIA create rules that cause production classes to be slower, it is independent of any market forces at play. I agree that the distance is shorter from GP to the road, but not b/c of the bunk reason he gave.

FIA? You did not even understand the arguement! You give crap about FIA for what? To debunk an arguement that JP did not make?

I don't know precisely why the distance is shorter to market in GP than it is in F1. I'm sure there are many reasons.

Looks like you did understand what JP meant! And you seem to agree with that statement and with JP! Wow. Then why would you say all the other things 'quoted' above?

14, are you just engaging in word play? The only reason that I can think of why you would do that is because you have NO SUBSTANCE to what you say.

You people don't read

Really?

You just identify a person as friendly or hostile and then you act accordingly.

I don't know you so why should I be hostile?

I don't agree with what you say and I say so, giving reasons. Anything wrong with that?

All I said was car racing is not the cutting edge of human technological development.

Apart from this, there are many other things that you said that were absolutely illogical and I have quoted them above from just one post of yours.

I do not agree with your statement above. I believe that you are wrong. F1 has many rules, and within the rules, everything the top teams do are at the VERY CUTTING EDGE OF TECHNOLOGY.

It is a game about creativity and adapting other technologies from other industries.

It may seem like a game to you because you have never dealth with cutting edge of technology or anything else for that matter. Without technology, there is no development. You don't have to reinvent the wheel to be at the 'cutting edge' of technology; making it spin faster at x amount of load and y amount of fuel involves not only development of the engine but development of newer engine technologies.

Unfortunately, the governing bodies have been killing creativity and forcing teams to buy exotic aerospace technologies in order to keep competitive.

This is where your DMG bias shows through eloquontly. Mating existing technologies with newer ones and adapting them to perform the task at hand at best as it can possibly be done is not "killing creativity" as you claim but the opposite of it. DMG would like to do away with it because it would remain "low tech" that they can control and you support it will illogic and disinformation.

The marketing rhetoric about high tech doesn't match the onerous restrictions they have placed on an engineer's ability to make something new.

Just the opposite. The engineers' ability to 'make something new' shows through in areas where restrictions do not exist. This translates to 'performance' which DMG (and you) totally abhorr.

That argument is not difficult to understand and it isn't that controversial if you stop rabidly overreacting and just read.

You have given no arguments, only semantics in this post and everywhere else in this thread.

NASCAR is not based on low tech materials, but they are low performance.

Why are their performance low? Just loading the trunk of your car with titanium just to brag about it alone will translate to low performance. High technology is not just one thing; it is an amalgamation of new and hitherto non-existing ideas into a concept and finally a product that may or may not use titanium or other high tech materials but would use what is required to deliver performance as intended and logically expected.

F1 is full of very high performance materials, but they aren't really that cutting edge or high tech.

So how would you explain their high performance? F1 is absolutely high tech and cutting edge in terms of technology, that is the only explanation.

odie - 27 October 2009 04:04 PM

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 02:51 PM

I was waiting ti see how long it would take 14 to jump in here, and then how long it would take for him to dig himself a hole he couldn't dig his way out of.

Seems three pages was plenty.

I am surprised by the "crossplane/firing order" faux pas. He is usually so adept at using Google to back up the statements he makes about the things he pretends to know.

Anyway, why are all NASCAR-owned series afraid of development? Because development might lead to racing, and NASCAR is sure that racing is not the product its fans want.

Falling ratings for NASCAR, no ratings ever for Grand Am, and the furor over DMG seem not to matter to them. They know they are right, never mind the evidence.

Thanks, 14, for being willing to shoot yourself in the foot again for our amusement.

I’m still waiting for the Google of Rotax overheating issues.

You don't need a google, you need to pay attention to the AMA. The Aprilia was not able to run without custom radiators because it overheated. In DSB Buell stuck with that ugly dual cooling fairing. In SBK they ditch it for a more traditional fairing-----because they were allowed to build a purpose built racing cooling system.

I don't know if the phenomenon is true for all Rotax engines, but overheating seems to be a problem for the larger twins they build.

SBK is the superbike world championship. No Buells in there...

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 04:06 PM

By the way, low-tech has nothing to do with close racing. When a driver (Mladin) far outstrips the field in terms of talent, he will win more races, which is racing, right?

I agree with you on everything except a few things. I agree that the AMA cannot have performance indexing to slow people down or create fake close racing that makes bad riders look good. I definitely agree that I would prefer that DMG and the manufacturers work together to write a set of rules that creates parity in the rulebook and not after the fact.

While I agree that GrandAm isn't a particularly good racing property, I don't agree that it has no development. Each year the manufacturers can homologate new stuff and each year it is horsepower capped. Unfortunately, the dunces in GrandAm continuing tinkering with things after the fact and that is exceedingly annoying. However, Grand Am has more engine variation than F1, and each year the engines could change more than F1 engines if the manufacturers cared about the series (they don't b/c DMG screws with the performance after dyno testing and homologation--stupid).

I believe that DMG have already showed a willingness to change this season when they introduced turnkey racers. DMG originally took a hard line approach that the teams can't modify anything unless DMG allows it. The rules pissed people off, they didn't stop development, and they weren't that cheap. Mid-season DMG allowed Buell to test the turnkey racer concept and according to DMG they let Buell test it b/c they weren't going to make an impact at the front (Buell actually did make an impact within the top 10 regulars). All we need to see now is whether DMG are actually going to follow through on their promise to extend the turnkey idea to other manufacturers and whether they take DMG up on the offer. Turnkey racers allow a modified version of the old rules b/c the manufacturers are allowed a lot more freedom to modify the bikes for racing. It's still not perfect b/c the price tag needs to be very low, but it is what it is.

As you already know, I'd prefer a higher state of tune and I also think it would be a good idea to start laying the framework for a higher performance SBK class that uses the turnkey racer concept but allows the manufacturers even more design freedom, maybe even some chassis modifications. The class could be introduced as budgets and safety allow. Even if the class was just 8 bikes in the beginning I don't really care. As long as they continue to homologate finished race bikes that are available to everyone the series will start making drastic improvements.

Maelochs - 27 October 2009 04:06 PM

By the way, low-tech has nothing to do with close racing. When a driver (Mladin) far outstrips the field in terms of talent, he will win more races, which is racing, right?

Less technological freedom does equal closer racing but that doesn't mean a superior rider/driver won't dominate. Notice that this season the margins of victory were much closer than last. Mladin still won, just by not as much.

And parity should be in the rules, not in post-construction adjustments. If your team's bike is faster, your reward should be victory - this is racing, right?

I agree, what I was talking about was the base rule set, not any competition adjustments issued thereafter.

In production-based car racing sometimes competition adjustments are issued because you've got a bunch of different cars with different displacements and drivetrains and what-not competing in the same class. With motorcycle racing there's one (maybe 2 or 3) displacement in the class and everyone builds to that so there's no real 'need' for comp adjustments.

Also, look at NASCAR and Grand Am: NASCAR is not cheap even with parity, and people are screaming because Jimmie Johnson wins in his kit car too often. Grand Am uses old tech and allows very little development and has almost no fans.

NASCAR is cheap in comparison to series with more open rules. Teams will always spend as much as they can to get an advantage but there is a point of diminishing returns where there's no point in spending more money. That point is relatively low in NASCAR compared to something like a Le Mans prototype or F1 car. Jimmie Johnson's team could spend $50 million more a year on development but that will certainly get them a lot less extra speed than spending an extra $50 million on a LMP1 car.

The rich teams will almost always beat the poor teams, because the rich teams tend not to be just rich, but also to have longevity, and thus experience, quality personnel (nothing wrong with a family team unless the family members aren't that skilled) and can generally prepare batter. More info, easier access to parts (Duncan Datyton has a monocoque shipped overnight form California to Petit Le Mans; some teams couldn’t afford the shipping, let alone a second tub,) and better information (multiple bikes, multiple seasons.)

Absolutely. The difference is that in a series with less technical freedom the rich teams will win by a smaller margin. For the fans if the race is won by 1-5 seconds instead of 15-20 it's going to be more interesting (for the most part).

"NASCAR is not based on low tech materials, but they are low performance. F1 is full of very high performance materials, but they aren't really that cutting edge or high tech."

won4- Carbs, steel tubing, and bump stops aren't low tech materials? F1 isn't hi-tech? What do you call a 8 cylinder engine that runs 19,000 rpms for two or three races. I call that Hi-tech. What do you call the curves system that some of the teams are running? Changing Kinetic-energy into HP! I call that Hi-tech and technology that will be in cars in the future. Clean Diesel Technology that is now in cars. That Technology can from ALMS racing series. Run-flat tire technology can from racing and R&D;. So much of R&D;and technology from MotoGp and WSBK moves to street bikes every year. Why wouldn't you want to be apart of that. Are they that pig head or scared? Why tie yourself to one old idea?

thewon4 - 27 October 2009 05:24 PM

You don't need a google, you need to pay attention to the AMA. The Aprilia was not able to run without custom radiators because it overheated. In DSB Buell stuck with that ugly dual cooling fairing. In SBK they ditch it for a more traditional fairing-----because they were allowed to build a purpose built racing cooling system.

I don't know if the phenomenon is true for all Rotax engines, but overheating seems to be a problem for the larger twins they build.

I’ll try to type slow.

Using your delusions every motorcycle racing in WSBK this year and the past twenty or so years in the AMA have poor engine designs that are prone to ever heating.

The Aprilia used racing radiators because the rules allowed them to. They are lighter and are not built for hazards found on the street. Every bike that is allowed to use custom racing radiators do so to lower the center of gravity and lighten the bike. Regardless of manufacturer

As for Buell, the 1125rr’s fairings were a failed attempt to improve aerodynamics. That is one of the cheater parts Buell was allowed in dmg’s efforts to make it competitive. The 600cc class cheater bike was forced to use ‘stock appearing” bodywork. Again the radiators on the 1125’s were forced to be mounted on the outside of the frame because of Erik’s insistence in the fuel in the frame design. That caused a massive and unnecessary addition to the frontal area of the bike. No fairing in the world could resolve that and is one of the reasons it is an uncompetitive turd. The cooling capacity of the radiator had nothing to do with where it was mounted.

You really and truly know nothing about motorcycle racing do you?

Still waiting.

another perfectly good screw DMG thread ruined by 14 gibberish..

gsxr147 - 27 October 2009 07:48 PM

"NASCAR is not based on low tech materials, but they are low performance. F1 is full of very high performance materials, but they aren't really that cutting edge or high tech."

won4- Carbs, steel tubing, and bump stops aren't low tech materials? F1 isn't hi-tech? What do you call a 8 cylinder engine that runs 19,000 rpms for two or three races. I call that Hi-tech. What do you call the curves system that some of the teams are running? Changing Kinetic-energy into HP! I call that Hi-tech and technology that will be in cars in the future. Clean Diesel Technology that is now in cars. That Technology can from ALMS racing series. Run-flat tire technology can from racing and R&D;. So much of R&D;and technology from MotoGp and WSBK moves to street bikes every year. Why wouldn't you want to be apart of that. Are they that pig head or scared? Why tie yourself to one old idea?

Where's the rebuttal to my post. You simply took the opportunity to say what you wanted to say about F1.

NASCAR actually uses exotic versions of low performance metals like iron, steel. Unfortunately, you can't build and engine that revs to 19,000 rpm with an iron block and spring actuated titanium valves.

Imagine if they built the entire NASCAR out of titanium. Would it be high tech because it goes around the track much faster? Hardly. Titanium is just an element you pull out of the ground. If anything, a car made from titanium would actually have less technology than the highly complicated versions of low performance materials they currently use.

Yeah, F1 is obviously a lot more high tech than stock car racing, but the car industry as a whole (racing included) is not really considered to be a frontier of technological development.

Quit being dazzled by the dollar. If I get a fist full of $50s and I shake 'em around, would you say I'm a superior version of a human being. Actually, you probably would.

Just because something goes faster and costs 100x more doesn't make it high tech. As I showed above, high performance materials can actually be less high tech than the highly developed low performance materials in NASCAR. NASCAR doesn't allow research and development--that's the problem. It's not because they use cheap, low performance materials. It's because they refuse to let people develop the cars.