Comments on: Motorcycle Racing – Rider or Technology?

By: Jeff Rittter

Jeff Rittter — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:05:29 +0000

For those who have read Rossi’s autobiography you’ll know that he states that the big reason to move to yamaha was because of this very argument. The bike or the man? Which is more important? His opinion is the man will always be more important than the bike, what good is all that technology if you don’t have the skill to harness it correctly. And why should we put a stop to the advancement of technology, ESPECIALLY in racing. Most of what we have on our street bikes came from racing, even the cruisers out there with radial mounted brakes and radial master cyclinders. That came straight from the GP tracks. To not allow tech to advance in the race arena would be to stifle the advancement of our beloved motorcycles. And if you don’t want them to advance then you’ll be able to consider yourself a connoisseur and stick with the less tech heavy bikes. And I’m sure that not all bikes will become two wheeled computers. There is to much love for the simplicity of engine, frame, two wheels, controls. Maybe, maybe when we are all gray or dead than everybike will be computerized and tech heavy but I really doubt it. Racing has always been about pushing the limits, of both man, machine, and the inherent technology. To take and attitude that technology hurts would be disatrous. That kind of attitude would not stay with just the bike, it would bleed over into other areas of our safety, like helmets and riding gear. I’ve spent some time in the military and talked with the pilots of our fighting war planes. Those are some incredibly tech heavy devices. Those pilots, at least the old timers who were flying when I was wearing diapers say that the planes are better and less physically demanding to fly, to an extent. That is, not counting the ability to pull more g’s than previously, but they are more difficult mentally. All that tech requires more attention from the pilot so that he can use it to it’s fullest advantage and overcome the competition, in their case the enemy. Maybe not the best analogy but it stands to reason that most of us still couldn’t pilot a tech heavy bike with the aplumb that we pilot our own streetbikes. I’d venture to say that the case would still stand even if the tech heavy bikes were tuned to put the power that our own bikes put out. We’d still have to learn how to harness that advantage. Rossi did it when he left honda and went to yamaha. He showed that the rider is just as important if not more important than the technology and the bike. Just my 5 cents worth.

By: Prester John

Prester John — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:07:06 +0000

Some say basic tech, privateers and wins based on 98% rider skill are the pure essence of motorcycle road racing. So who can name the current WERA points leaders?

MotoGP and Superbikes _should_be about factory teams and tomorrow tech.

Tom

By: aaron

aaron — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:49:08 +0000

I think the 800cc limit will simply limit the traction control requirements on motogp bikes. with 300hp possible from a 990cc machine, limiting it to 220-240 (as is current practice) is simply a way to make it controllable. faster, yes. but for those enamoured with technology (or just high tuned motors) the 800cc bikes will require tuning them closer to the limit to produce optimum power for the desired outcome. less big-bang trickery, more screaming high rev bikes. anyone notice that rossi’s bike sounds kinda like a ninja 500 twin?

By: Dodgy

Dodgy — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:47:13 +0000

Aren’t slipper clutches traction controls?
And I think traction control would potentially ruin the spectacle of some classes of racing (mainly superbikes and MotoGP)…
There’s an old adage (actually it’s not; I just made it up) that says:
“if you can’t win, start backing it in”
Where would we be without the show-offs like Gardner, Mamola and Gobert and a host of others; who, when having a bad day, would put on a show for the crowd…

And the 800cc limit is a joke BTW… The idea is to slow the bikes down? It’ll work for about five minutes at a guess. And only in acceleration and a little top speed. But the idea is rider safety yes? And the cornering speeds (where accidents happen and riders get hurt) will probably be higher!
990 ccs and a four speed gearbox, I’d like to see (and hear) that…

By: todd

todd — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:54:36 +0000

More and more technology means less and less privateers. The great thing about racing is a winning under-dog. Now an “under dog” must have a few million in resources just to keep up with the rest of the pack. The more over developed race bikes become, the more boring it is in my opinion. Of course they are fast, they were designed that way. What we are now down to is brand loyalty and rider personality. Since I don’t have brand loyalty or even care who any of the racers are I’m completely bored with racing. I do like to see the technology and pit-quick-fixes and am impressed by the seemingly limitless development money thrown at the machines.
I do see the technology eventually trickling down to the consumer but what good is it? OK, it makes a fast bike go faster or stop quicker and be more expensive and look more “modern”. I just happen to think practical motorcycle technology reached is peak somehwere in the early ’70s.

Everything else since is just frills, expense, and styling exercises.
-todd