So really concentrated on that, getting the right set-up, getting a better feel for it and it became one of my strongest. I haven't really got a big weak point now, not like I was with braking, so now I can just sort of work on all of them to try and balance it out as much as I can. It's very similar to Mugello, really, and Brno. It's fast, flowing. I don't really like turn one because of all the bumps on the inside, but the rest of the track's quite smooth, but it flows and it's got uphill, downhill.
There's that many different things to it. And on a MotoGP bike, you can really open that thing up for a long time in a lot of places and that's rare these days. On a it was too boring for me, even on a it was open too long. There was nothing happening. But with a MotoGP bike you can really get that throttle open and wind it out a bit. And that's what's exciting for me. Gets the adrenaline pumping a bit more. There's a few corners there that you're able to slide through in some pretty high gears and some pretty high corner speeds.
So it's just a lot of fun for me. The way the banking camber, everything goes, it's really a nice to track. It's like a roller coaster. Yeah, you're able to ride these bikes a bit faster. A number of riders had front tyre problems at Assen and Mugello. One explanation was too much trail braking. Do you find it has an effect on front tyre wear? It depends on the bike set-up. Depends how much weight's on it.
So you'll go into the corner and normally my bike's set up a little bit more so it releases the front a little bit earlier. We've got a bit stiffer springs in, maybe. So I'm able to go into corner a long way and I have to, to be honest, to get the bike to turn, keep that bike weighted and loaded. And if you don't you've got to have a bike that when you release the brake it doesn't want to release so much. So it's still got all that weight on the front but just in a different way.
It's something strange. I think Andrea Dovizioso had it quite bad on his bike in Assen and he pushes the front in very, very hard. Some area I guess he likes to work on a lot. I prefer to stay a little more balanced. But he puts a lot of presser on that front and I guess that sort of buckled as well. Even my tyre during that race, I was coming out, as soon as I cracked the gas and got a little bit of weight off it, the bike was just skipping and moving everywhere.
And didn't feel good in general. It's different techniques, different ways you load the tyre and different set-ups that you use to benefit your technique and that's exactly why just about no two riders can use the same set-up, because they have to use different ones because they have a different way of riding.
Andrea Dovizioso believed your riding styles were similar, but soon saw everyone was different. I'll never even try and think that two riders are the same.
Every rider I've ever been around has their own technique and their own way to gain speed. So, that's something that I disagree a lot with rider coaches and things like that that are trying to bring speed in a different direction.
Each rider has their own potential and should be brought out by themselves and trying to nurture their own speed rather than trying to bring speed out by their way which isn't natural and it's something you got to think about.
And if you start going 'What set-up's he got? I want that,' it's not going to work. You've got to basically find your own set-up and that's why we don't look at anybody else's.
We'll look at it occasionally when I'm losing in one or two corners and need to know why, but that's the only bit I'll ever look at. I never look at set-up sheets or anything like that, because we know we ride differently to everyone else and everyone else rides differently to each other, so you've got to find your own way.
With such differences among your styles, how does that drive the development of what's going to be the base package for the ? I think it's actually a strong point to have more people testing the bike. I think there's a massive misconception that somebody should develop the bike for them, because sometimes they've got weaknesses they're going to create in that bike and not be able to have it as a good all-around package.
So I think the more people that ride it, not necessarily the more people, but the more top riders that give more information about it-maybe one rider's stronger and has got more sensitivity in one area of that bike that they're able to put their input into than another-then I think it all comes together and they do a great job to make a balanced bike and then you can go your own separate ways. But it's mainly just chassis stiffness like that.
I think having more data from more different directions is going to be a better way. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. The cc formula is dead. MotoGP is set to return to cc from , according to a proposal submitted to the Grand Prix Commission at Valencia today. The cc bikes have received a deluge of criticism, almost from the moment they were introduced, and that deluge has finally buried them.
The decision has hinged upon a change of mind by the MSMA, the manufacturers association. So far, the manufacturers have been opposed to any changes to the MotoGP formula, partly because high costs of entry created a barrier to new entrants in the class, allowing the existing participants to dominate the class. But the high costs have taken their toll even on the existing manufacturers, and with the future of Suzuki in the class in doubt under the current rules, and even doubt about just how long Honda was prepared to continue, a change was almost inevitable.
That contract states that no changes may be made to the engine capacity without a unanimous decision by all of the manufacturers in the MSMA. The initial proposal was to allow the use of production engines in prototype chassis, but the current proposal makes no mention of production engines at all. This is more than supported by Dorna, more than supported by Dorna, but the first reaction to this by MSMA is very very positive.
It looks like there is a consensus, but we have to take it day-by-day. The fear is, of course, that a change in engine capacity would not be enough to cut costs, and merely create a new class of expensive prototypes. Poncharal said that this would not be allowed to happen: "The whole idea supported by everybody including the MSMA is to get the costs drastically down.
Poncharal admitted it would be difficult, but said that the Grand Prix Commission would not try to solve everything at once. Asked how to ensure that costs didn't once again spiral out of control, Poncharal replied "That's the next question. One day at a time!
I can't believe it! I can only hope the transition goes smoothly and they exercise common sense. I'm still a bit concerned they will continue with the 21L fuel rules which are currently putting enormous emphasis on electronic refinement and pneumatic valves.
I have no idea how the plan to control the power of the bikes, but I hope they use pragmatism and the abandon the rules paradigms that have lead to exponential cost growth in the era of electronic 4 strokes. How will this make anything cheaper that couldn't be done with cc?
Why not cc? Why not 1. Unanimous as it was, I bet this will lead to the exit of Suzuki in , and possibly Ducati if they are not instantly successful with the new formula. The only good that will come of this is if they use a Moto2 style rulebook but allowing all factories to supply engines and teams to build their own bikes. Sadly, this will still spell the end to Suzuki's presence as well as Ducati and we'll just see a rotisserie of 'Cosworths' come to the table with non-competitive power-plants and then exit after a year.
In and of itself, the displacement changes solve nothing because teams can spend whatever they want; however, it does reduce the cost of losing. Furthermore, more displacement will allow the engineers to build bikes that can make hp and probably easily last the requisite 3 or 4 races that Dorna want. This is definitely good news, though I'm going to wait to learn of further details going along with this change before I get too excited.
I'm hoping the new 1,cc formula, once it is all ironed out, will include technical regulations that allow for more than simply 4-cylinder machines to be competitive. Unlike the old cc formula, for example, it would be cool to see regs that allow twin-cylinder machines to be a viable option, while still leaving the potential for the other cylinder number configurations as it was during the early days of the four-stroke era.
Technical diversity in MotoGP is a good thing, and will likely attract more manufacturers to the series. Something which is badly needed That the contract states that no changes may be made to the engine capacity without a unanimous decision by all of the manufacturers in the MSMA Come on guys.
They just need to ban traction control and limit revs to 14,rpm. Have 25ltr of E85 e85 runs very cool like methanol to use over the race and all of a sudden you have fast cheap green powerd bikes that arnt run lean. They must be able to make the Motogp cc bikes cheaper and still faster than the Australian Superbikes.
Sorry for having a winge!!! I think that going back to cc is akin to throwing good money after bad - we're here now, the racing is competitive, and the future is non-fossil fuels - so why go to something that will use MORE fuel? Seems stupid. Perhaps I'm just not wearing the right rose-tinted glasses when I think about the s, but maybe the people who carry on about smoking powerslides as this seems to be the primary reason people want the big motors back should watch a re-run of the Philip Island MotoGP race?
The cc bikes will be exactly like the cc bikes - high corner speed, electronics taking away the fun unless the rider wants it - just more expensive. Another example of policy on the run based on the lowest denominator. MotoGP is indeed the premier class in the motorcycle racing world, with millions of dollars being poured annually into the teams, riders and bikes.
The premier class was not always called MotoGP , nor was the maximum engine limit always cc. The class is the oldest motorsport World Championship still in existence today.
The first year saw races in the cc, cc, cc, and cc bike classes and cc sidecars, though these were phased out from the World Championship classes in the mids. The cc class had long disappeared at the end of the season, but until that point, riders often raced in several classes and even won World Championships in different classes in the same year.
John Surtees went one better and is still the only person to become World Champion in the Premier Classes of both the two and four-wheel disciplines. Despite Graham never winning again, Britain took a stranglehold on motorcycle racing for the next 28 years, sharing the Championships with Italy and Rhodesia. In , specific rule changes were implemented to facilitate the phasing of the cc two-strokes engines.
The premier class was then rebranded as MotoGP , and manufacturers could choose between running a two-stroke engine with a max of cc or a four-stroke engine up to cc. By no two-stroke machines remained in the MotoGP field , although the cc Moto3 and cc Moto2 classes still consisted exclusively of two-stroke machines. In , the maximum engine displacement for MotoGP was reduced to cc and stayed at this size until , when it was increased to a maximum of cc and has been constant ever since.
Grand Prix motorcycle racing MotoGP actually has three classes that make up the group. Four if you count the electric E-Class, which most purists do not. New fans often are unsure if MotoGP refers to the whole group of classes or just to the premier class of cc machines and riders. It is inevitably Moto3 that gets them first.
0コメント