I've noticed that many of the past 500cc and Moto GP champs have come up though the world 250cc class. I can only think of a couple who have not: Doohan and Wayne Gardner and also Nicky Hayden, though he has not won a championship (but I think he's getting close). Seems to me that WSBK has not developed a whole lot of top GP riders. I think Hopkins might have done better if he did a year of world 250cc before getting on the big bikes. What do you say?
Dylan Code
250 racers make better moto GP riders?
It's all about cornerspeed...
What 250 bikes lack in HP they make up for in handeling...so 250 Riders are masters of Cornerspeed, which includes breaking and TC on exit of the turn...
It is very easy to get spoiled with 220HP, it becomes more of a "point and shoot" type of racing, vs the traditional, faster thru the corners...
I'll watch 250 MotoGP Racing vs Premier MotoGP anyday...
What 250 bikes lack in HP they make up for in handeling...so 250 Riders are masters of Cornerspeed, which includes breaking and TC on exit of the turn...
It is very easy to get spoiled with 220HP, it becomes more of a "point and shoot" type of racing, vs the traditional, faster thru the corners...
I'll watch 250 MotoGP Racing vs Premier MotoGP anyday...
I recently got the DVD recapping the 2005 Moto GP series for 250cc and 125cc. The 125 races are also among the best.
Pedrosa and Stoner don't seem to be having much trouble getting up to a decent pace already on the big bikes.
Pedrosa and Stoner don't seem to be having much trouble getting up to a decent pace already on the big bikes.
It's NOT all about cornerspeed anymore, not when the MotoGP bikes are more like 250+ hp. The smaller bikes are great to hone riders' skills before they jump on the big monsters, but it definitely takes an additional/different skillset to ride a MotoGP bike fast. Even at the AMA level there are riders who must work on giving up a little corner speed so they can stand up their superbikes earlier and get better drives off the corner. Call it point and shoot or whatever, but the bottom line is that you can't ride a big hp bike like a 125 and expect to go fast.
Dylan???Dylan Code said:
Thats my name too... hope you represent it well
The latest issue of RRW & MT is the best issue I have had from them ever. Big focus on GP.
So my point, the Suzuki have the highest corner per what they say but they get there lunch eaten in power/acceleration, and I have to believe in chassis dynamics (braking, stability).
Given that I suppose the 250 thing might not have so much weight in respect of the corner speed thing, BUT I believe the knowing of how to maintain corner speed and not really on point and shoot riding, ala AMA/WSBK style clearly is not the desirable method. I suppose a background in 250 is a HUGE benefit, but nothing replaces drive and being inspired. The two together seems to yield World Champ titles.
afmmotorsports:
What is your take on the best line up to make a top Moto GP rider? Obviously there is no right and wrong line up but I am curious how others view this subject. An example from years past was that most of the top roadracers came from a flat track backgound, which is not so much the case now.
What is your take on the best line up to make a top Moto GP rider? Obviously there is no right and wrong line up but I am curious how others view this subject. An example from years past was that most of the top roadracers came from a flat track backgound, which is not so much the case now.
Dylan Code said:
Well I am not afm, but they way c.Stoner was brought up and the MotoGP academy seems to be the route. His team, LC Honda has brought him through year, and team principle Luccio C said this was the plan.
To be noted is not only the team interests of bringing up talent lies not only in picking athletes but also sponsor dollars... Ex. Dani Pedrosa and Repsol
That's a tough question - maybe champion bull riders?! :lol Especially with traction control (yes, everyone denies it but you could hear the Suzukis sputtering all the way out of T6 at Laguna!) you have to wonder exactly what skills MotoGP riders mastered to be as good as they are. Mladin admits the 600s carry more cornerspeed than the superbikes and I'm sure the MotoGP riders can see the 125s and 250s rail through the corners, so maybe what those guys (and Mladin!) have figured out is WHEN to go slow and HOW MUCH slower to go in order to minimize laptimes. It's arguably easier to ride as fast as you can through a corner rather than figure out you need to take two little clicks out of your wrist to get the bike turned a little quicker so you can get on the gas 10 feet before your competitor.Dylan Code said:
I'm racing a R1 this year (although I swore I wouldn't race a literbike anymore) because I need to do a little data gathering on some new tires from Michelin, but I'm honestly intimidated by a relatively stock R1 since I don't have traction control... You really need to have your sh*t together to race a literbike, so I can't even begin to understand what it takes to ride a MotoGP bike in anger. With that much power and the same basic amount of sidegrip as a stock motorcycle (contact patch doesn't get any bigger for them!), clearly they have waaaay too much horsepower and have to make a decision to back out of the throttle so they can "point and shoot". The difference between good riders and great riders is only tenths of a second sometimes, so just because Stoner and other MotoGP newbies can be "pretty close" doesn't mean that they can actually ride the beasts - they're "good riders" so they won't be off the pace too much, but it will take a while to turn into "great riders" (some may never even get there).
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents... but we all know opinions are like....... everybody has one.
Hmm, all this talk of power...
When you're braking for a corner, the power is irrelevant. You tip it in, possibly trail braking or not, depending on your style.
You dont use maximum throttle getting to the apex, and you only START to wind it back on post apex.
It seems to me that thrust is only used at the END of the process, and theres a lot that goes on before that.
I think the biggest difference between the style ( point + shoot vs crn speed ) is more in reference to the weight of the machine, and its consequent grip through the corner via its moments of acceleration (assuming quality of race rubber is equal and therefor slip threshold generated by a lighter machine allows higher speeds ).
What makes a good rider and where do they come from?
Well all I can say is look at Max Biaggi. He won so many 250 championships, so he clearly is a good example of a 250 rider. How has he gone in the top category...
When you're braking for a corner, the power is irrelevant. You tip it in, possibly trail braking or not, depending on your style.
You dont use maximum throttle getting to the apex, and you only START to wind it back on post apex.
It seems to me that thrust is only used at the END of the process, and theres a lot that goes on before that.
I think the biggest difference between the style ( point + shoot vs crn speed ) is more in reference to the weight of the machine, and its consequent grip through the corner via its moments of acceleration (assuming quality of race rubber is equal and therefor slip threshold generated by a lighter machine allows higher speeds ).
What makes a good rider and where do they come from?
Well all I can say is look at Max Biaggi. He won so many 250 championships, so he clearly is a good example of a 250 rider. How has he gone in the top category...
I know you weren't referring directly to tires but, the full lean contact patch of the latest 205/60-16.5(420) or whatever they are running that day is much larger than a 190/50. Now even with the exact tires on both bikes (stock r1 & yzr-m1) the GP bike has gobs more side grip, and it can hit leanangles that the r1 could not. With the bike leaned in hard the suspension is not in a position to efficiently deal with bumps. This makes it so much more critical for grip to have very low stiction and trick damping. The GP suspension alone gives much more grip. Then factor in a ~50lb weight differential. :sneaky
But they do have so much power that the ratio of power to side grip is way on the deranged end compared to a stock bike.
You're right, I should've said "proportionally bigger", as in "they don't get that much more sidegrip to go with the waaaay bigger hp figures". I've raced and tested quite a few 16.5s for Michelin and while I agree that the 16.5s offer more grip, the basic limitations of ALL motorcycles come down to TWO WHEELS and there's only so much grip you can squeeze out of the contact patch from those (relatively) skinny tires. If you went to the Laguna MotoGP races, the laptimes for Nicky Hayden were only about 3 seconds faster than his former AMA Superbike times - in some ways that's an eternety, but you gotta figure quite a bit of that time differential was made up when he stood the bike up and fired it out of the corners (BIG POWER!!! ...made the AMA Superbikes look like Ninja 250s compared to R1s...)
Looking at the laptimes today from Phillip Island, a big advantage that the 250GP and even 125GP riders have is that they are already familiar with the racetracks for MotoGP, so that could make the learning curve a little steeper and possibly explain why Nicky Hayden had a slower start in his first season. Otherwise, I still think seat time on a superbike makes for an easier transition to a MotoGP bike since those riding styles have more in common than a 125 or a 250.
Looking at the laptimes today from Phillip Island, a big advantage that the 250GP and even 125GP riders have is that they are already familiar with the racetracks for MotoGP, so that could make the learning curve a little steeper and possibly explain why Nicky Hayden had a slower start in his first season. Otherwise, I still think seat time on a superbike makes for an easier transition to a MotoGP bike since those riding styles have more in common than a 125 or a 250.
But what about the WSBK riders? They ride most of the GP tracks too and have the same familiarity as the 125 and 250 riders with those circuits. There are some fast riders in Moto GP who came from WSBK but few seem to have been able to ride quite at the level of other riders who came up through the 250 class. It seems that the best rider out there who graduated from superbikes is Nicky (who also has the magic formula of yesteryear's great roadracers: flattrack).
I would have to agree with afmotorsports in his theory of riding styles of superbikes being more similar to Moto GP. However looking at the results it appears to me that a seemingly very different type of bike and riding style is making better Moto GP riders.
Another possibility is that Moto GP riding styles have "trickled down" to the 250 classe by them watching the Moto GP riders and what they are doing out on the track.
I'm sure there are other aspects that I am not considering. Anyone else have a take on this?
I would have to agree with afmotorsports in his theory of riding styles of superbikes being more similar to Moto GP. However looking at the results it appears to me that a seemingly very different type of bike and riding style is making better Moto GP riders.
Another possibility is that Moto GP riding styles have "trickled down" to the 250 classe by them watching the Moto GP riders and what they are doing out on the track.
I'm sure there are other aspects that I am not considering. Anyone else have a take on this?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
