When we mentioned the report of the AMA potentially allowing traction control on Superbikes (something the AMA now says will not happen), there was a bit of feedback on both sides of the issue. Some of you say traction control is great, hard to police anyway so why not allow it? Others say it’s another step in the direction of technology taking over and leaving less for the rider to do or leaving less of the performance difference between bikes to depend on rider input. There really isn’t a right or wrong here, it’s all opinion, but what about that?
How do you construct a set of rules for a motorcycle race series that means the winner is the better rider? If you manage to do that, will the race still be exciting enough for spectators? If all racers were confined to 125cc bikes, rider skill (and small size) would mean a lot, conserving speed at all costs and making sure you never made a mistake. Riders would certainly matter, but how many spectators watch 125cc races? High power and high speed make races much more exciting to watch and as riders gain skill and mature they’re able to do things with those bikes many of us find unbelievable. But high power motorcycles quickly become high tech and now the problems begin.
You could have a one manufacturer race series where everyone rode the same bikes but then the excluded companies would be understandably upset. Even then, unless you provide sealed engines and prebuilt bikes, how do you keep the technology from determining winners?
In auto racing, the IROC series gave racers identically prepared racecars and everyone drove around as you watched the Camaro passing the Camaro and then being overtaken by the Camaro. Long strings of cars, all bunched up, proving nothing. Yawn!
Without spectators, you can’t have a profitable race series of any sort. Do the spectators care more about the rider or the motorcycle? Do they even care at all as long as the racing is exciting?
Drag racing is one area where technology means almost everything. Except for driver or rider reaction time, much of the rest is up to the machine and every time you hear the winner interviewed in any drag race they always keep thanking the clutch guy and the engine guy and the tire guy, … let’s face it, on a percentage basis, the technology is the high contributor here. Fans still love the race so is that bad?
Look at Formula One auto racing, about as high tech as you can get, still lots of fans. So what does this all mean?
From the perspective of the rider, technology is two edged, if you don’t have it you’ll complain about the other guy who does, if you do have it you might wonder how good you are compared to the guy without it, even though you smile while you stand on the podium (after all, you deserve it, right?). The questions might arise in the minds of the rider but I don’t think the spectators care at all, and they buy the tickets.
In the “old days” which is before the advent of computers in everything, this question never arose, or at least not as frequently, because the technology was a lot less capable of altering performance to the degree it does today. Now, allowing all of the technology means gradual lessening of the rider’s contribution. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Should motorcycle technology or rider skill make the bigger contribution in the outcome of the race? It will always be a combination, but where do we draw the line? Thoughts?
The Kneeslider: Traction Control for AMA Superbikes
C. J. Luke, III says
I think that there are “obvious” skills that the rider/driver brings to the track. I am not against technological improvements in the equipment, just against technological improvements that eliminate or severly lessen the significance of a riders skill.
Racing isn’t all about raw power. As engine technology has improved, power has gotten to the point that it is beginning to be almost unmanagable by the drivers so we are left with two choices:
1. Use technology to manage the power
2. Reduce the engine displacement to keep the power managable by the riders skills.
Racing has always been about both the man and the machine. I don’t think that you can remove either from that equation and still have racing survive. It would not be as interesting to the masses to see a field of absolutely matched vehicles (cars or bikes) so the the rider was the “only” difference, and it would not be as good for us ( the interested/buying public ) because it would not spur inovation and improvement in the machines, and I certainly don’t think it would be as interesting to see some kind of fully automated racing ( no driver required ).
As to where we should “draw the line?”…there is no such thing as a perfect mix…it will always become unbalanced in some way and it is the job of the rules committies to try to keep it within some “reasonable” bounds but it should always be about both the vehicle and the driver combination.
Matt says
My fondest memories of going to Laguna Seca, before I moved to NC from CA, were during the AMA Superbike weekends. While it was great to see guys like Duhamel and Chandler swapping positions in the Superbike class, it was almost more fun to watch the HD Sportster 883 class. Similarly prepped and spec’d “slower” machines really made the talent of the rider the main focus, and watching the Haydens doing two wheel drifts on a bike not known to be a great handling machine was fantastic.
I know that the big bike manufacturers would fight any attempts to make the Superbike class a one bike show, but I would love to see something like IROC introduced to AMA racing. Take the top guys and give them all the same bike and let the people see just who really deserves the bragging rights!
I like the idea of reducing displacement to keep things in check as well. This can only help with trickling down technology to the consumer. NASCAR would do well to go to a smaller motor, perhaps a V-6 like the ones available in the stock “stock” car. Restrictor plates suck. Traction control and similar devices are crutches. At least the motorcycle companies haven’t screwed with replacing rear wheel drive layout;’)
hoyt says
Is traction control a disproportionate part of the tech evolution?
In other words, is it a “spike” in tech advancement compared to other advances such as:
the evolution from drum brakes to disc brakes, tire compounds from the 70’s to today, chassis advancements, etc. ?
If traction control is more or less another tech advancement in line with historical advancements, then the “man” in the man-and-machine paradigm still firmly exists. It takes skill to race at 200 mph, crank the brakes to make that tight corner at the end…..just as it took skill to race at 125 mph on a ’50s machine.
Since racers race to the edge of physics, its all still fairly relative.
What is perplexing and interesting all at once about the “man-and-machine” sport is that it is harder to compare or measure greatness over time. It seems easier to compare the skill of Shaquille O’Neill to Wilt Chamberlain than it is to compare Paul Smart to Rainey. Schwantz to Rossi….
Nonetheless, there are valid concerns to make sure tech advancements do not “numb” the racing or cause major gaps between the top teams and the rest of the field.
Bob says
Traction control is evil. So is fuel injection. And solid state igntion. And rear suspensions. Skilled riders should know how to use manual spark advance. And what’s with throttles? Only pantywaists use them. Everyone knows that motorcycle racing technology peaked around WWI with the boardtrack racers and that it has gone down hill since then. [/sarcasm]
What century is this?
C. J. Luke, III says
I was born and raised in Daytona Beach Florida. I remember back in the 60’s when NASCAR had a rule that in order to race, a manufacturer had to produce and sell to the general public a certain number of that body style and engine combination for that year. It was a wonderful time! Dodge, Plymoth, Crysler, Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Chevy, Pontiac, and Buick were all racing. Body styles started to be come more “streamlined”…engines got bigger and more powerful, and damn near everyone could come away from every race with some kind of bragging rights or wish lists. Racing connected with Joe average.
Nascar changed all of that. Now the “body style and name” are the only things that are even close to being representative of anything we get to purchase and drive on the street. Nascar is wildly popular, with race fans that surely outnumber any other racing sport. But I don’t like it anymore. It’s just entertainment now…like T.V. wrestling. Drivers, their teams, and to some extent…the roll of the dice, are pretty much the only factors that determine the outcome of the race, but you still hear someone say Chevy finished first and second, with a prideful smile, like it has anything to do with a Chevy.
I think this is an example of not keeping a balance of all of the variables.
Technological improvements are a good thing.
Technological improvements that Joe Average gets to use and benefit from are a great thing.
Bob says
Read the article by Maladin: http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2006/May/060530-66.htm
Introducing new technology in the top tier of racing is an excellent way of testing for eventual trickle down into consumer bikes.
C.J. Luke says
I read the article Bob. I agree with almost everything that he says, right down to the part of enjoying his racing more when he doesn’t win everytime. This whole issue really comes down to preferences and choices. Which bike would you rather buy and ride (on the street)?
Kawasaki ZX-1400 or a Triumph Daytona 675?
In my case it is the latter. I personally don’t think either of the bikes can be used to anything like their full potential by 99.999% of the riders that own them, so I will take it one step further…
I would like to have a bike like the 600 cc class bikes of today…but with a 300cc turbocharged, direct injected ethanol, gasoline engine, or maybe a TDI diesel, that is capable of 110+bhp at the rear wheel and capable of 60+ miles per gallon and I would love to watch people racing that kind of bike.
I don’t think traction control will kill bike racing…look at NASCAR…I would rather see technology improvements that actually are usefull in the real world. By that I mean that I don’t think we actually can begin to use anything close to 200bph on a bike on the street…it’s strictly gonna be a racing item and will never see the light of day on a production street bike.
And hey….this is just my opinion…it doesn’t mean that I am right and you are wrong or vice versa…it just means we see this issue differently.
todd says
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
Dodgy says
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…
aaron says
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?
Prester John says
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
Jeff Rittter says
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.