Group poll: midget solutions?

Mark N wrote:

> Not following that at all, so let me try this approach to the big
> issue here. It appears you're opinion is that you are opposed to the
> establishement of a minimum weight in MotoGP, as are a number of
> others here. The reasons for that seem to vary, and are not all
> entirely clear to me. I've been pretty specific on what I think is a
> problem, why I think it's a problem, why it's happening, and what
> should be done about it. So here are two questions that I'd like
> answered, and with fairly specific answers:
>
> 1) Assume MotoGP proposes to do what I have suggested, equalizing
> rider weight with ballast, kilo for kilo, for any rider less than
> 65kg. If you are not in favor of that, why not?
>
> 2) Assume MotoGP adopts this rule. What would you predict the
> consequences would be, both the short-term specific impact on the
> smaller riders now in the class and the longer-term impact on the
> class as a whole?

What, no answer? Well, let's try something easier, like multiple choice:

1) Assume MotoGP proposes to do what I have suggested, equalizing
rider weight with ballast, kilo for kilo, for any rider less than
65kg. Are you for it or against it, and why?

A) All for it. It's more fair, it will stop the shrinking rider pool
trend in its tracks, and teams will start looking more broadly for
prospective riders.

B) Against it. It will throw off motorcycle racing's magical balance,
the perfect match between weight and what you do with it, larger rider
size and weight and its dynamic aspect exactly offsetting the concurrent
weight and aerodynamic penalties. And the center point of that magic
balance is MotoGP, the series brilliant designers seemingly knowing
right where that lies. Large riders, small riders, they are all equal.

C) Against it. Riders raised on 125s and 250s are by definition the
most-skilled in racing, and this is wanted just to penalize their
superiority - sour grapes.

D) Against it. Weight and size are essentially a skill, and nature will
decide who is the best, not man and his rules. If the perfect rider
weights only 100 pounds, so be it.

E) For it. Anything that might screw Pedrosa is all right by me.

F) Against it. Clearly part of a conspiracy by the English-speaking
elements in racing to get their guys to the front. Just work harder,
boys, and lay off those donuts.


2) Assume MotoGP adopts this rule. What would you predict the
consequences would be, both the short-term specific impact on the
smaller riders now in the class and the longer-term impact on the
class as a whole?

A) The change won't be huge, but some of the smaller riders will be
impacted and struggle to maintain their previous pace. Pedrosa is hurt
in particular, and never manages to win a MotoGP championship, but
Lorenzo also doesn't make the top level and Elias crashes even more, if
you can believe that. Rider hiring practices don't change too much until
the rules change in the support classes, and that really marks the end
of the EuroMed era in GP.

B) There will be little if any impact. The 250-bred midgets will use
their well-honed skills to adapt, and by the start of the season they
will be right back where they were.

C) The rule will backfire totally. The little guys will actually end up
being faster, as the added grip from the added weight pays off under
acceleration, under braking, even in cornering. That causes a rethink of
the physics of bike racing, and factories start adding weight to their
machines generally. Eventually the FIM establishes a maximum weight
rule, when the bikes top 800 pounds and the top riders in the world are
all Samoans, and Japan's efforts to convert sumo wrestlers to GP fails
miserably. But those packages traveling at well over 200mph is
considered to be horribly unsafe... for the fans lining the tracks.

D) The change shifts things around significantly, with the smallest
riders suddenly looking ordinary at best. Honda quickly gives up on
Pedrosa and shifts their focus to no-penalty Hayden. But after his third
championship Rossi "convinces" Dorna to change the rule slightly, and
starting in 2010 any rider with fewer than seven GP championships is
required to ballast 20 kilos.

E) It's hard to say what it does, because the FIM screws it up, just
like the passing-under-yellow deal. They decide to do rider weigh-ins
after the races, but the penalty for being underweight/under-ballasted
is a stop-and-go ride-through during the race, and they can't penalize
anyone then, of course, because they haven't weighed them yet. By
mid-season Puig has figured it out, and by season end no one is running
ballast. Except Biaggi, returned from WSB, who has had his bike littered
with the stuff by the other riders, and even his own mechanics don't say
anything to Max.

F) Who cares if it works or not? Today's riders are all pampered pussies
anyway, and if McQueen was still around he'd flip 'em off, jump on his
BSA and head into Hollister to find some broads...

On 2007-10-19 01:08:04 -0400, Mark N <menusbaum RemoveThis @NYETSPAMearthlink.net> said:

> Mark N wrote:
>
> > Not following that at all, so let me try this approach to the big
> > issue here. It appears you're opinion is that you are opposed to the
> > establishement of a minimum weight in MotoGP, as are a number of
> > others here. The reasons for that seem to vary, and are not all
> > entirely clear to me. I've been pretty specific on what I think is a
> > problem, why I think it's a problem, why it's happening, and what
> > should be done about it. So here are two questions that I'd like
> > answered, and with fairly specific answers:
> >
> > 1) Assume MotoGP proposes to do what I have suggested, equalizing
> > rider weight with ballast, kilo for kilo, for any rider less than
> > 65kg. If you are not in favor of that, why not?
> >
> > 2) Assume MotoGP adopts this rule. What would you predict the
> > consequences would be, both the short-term specific impact on the
> > smaller riders now in the class and the longer-term impact on the
> > class as a whole?
>
> What, no answer? Well, let's try something easier, like multiple choice:
>
> 1) Assume MotoGP proposes to do what I have suggested, equalizing
> rider weight with ballast, kilo for kilo, for any rider less than
> 65kg. Are you for it or against it, and why?
>
> A) All for it. It's more fair, it will stop the shrinking rider pool
> trend in its tracks, and teams will start looking more broadly for
> prospective riders.
>
> B) Against it. It will throw off motorcycle racing's magical balance,
> the perfect match between weight and what you do with it, larger rider
> size and weight and its dynamic aspect exactly offsetting the
> concurrent weight and aerodynamic penalties. And the center point of
> that magic balance is MotoGP, the series brilliant designers seemingly
> knowing right where that lies. Large riders, small riders, they are all
> equal.
>
> C) Against it. Riders raised on 125s and 250s are by definition the
> most-skilled in racing, and this is wanted just to penalize their
> superiority - sour grapes.
>
> D) Against it. Weight and size are essentially a skill, and nature will
> decide who is the best, not man and his rules. If the perfect rider
> weights only 100 pounds, so be it.
>
> E) For it. Anything that might screw Pedrosa is all right by me.
>
> F) Against it. Clearly part of a conspiracy by the English-speaking
> elements in racing to get their guys to the front. Just work harder,
> boys, and lay off those donuts.

G. Why? At this point no gnome's have done a bunch, much less
dominated. Sure, Dani boi wins a race every now and then, but a rule to
limit wieght is prolly a little premature..

>
>
> 2) Assume MotoGP adopts this rule. What would you predict the
> consequences would be, both the short-term specific impact on the
> smaller riders now in the class and the longer-term impact on the
> class as a whole?
>
> A) The change won't be huge, but some of the smaller riders will be
> impacted and struggle to maintain their previous pace. Pedrosa is hurt
> in particular, and never manages to win a MotoGP championship, but
> Lorenzo also doesn't make the top level and Elias crashes even more, if
> you can believe that. Rider hiring practices don't change too much
> until the rules change in the support classes, and that really marks
> the end of the EuroMed era in GP.
>
> B) There will be little if any impact. The 250-bred midgets will use
> their well-honed skills to adapt, and by the start of the season they
> will be right back where they were.
>
> C) The rule will backfire totally. The little guys will actually end up
> being faster, as the added grip from the added weight pays off under
> acceleration, under braking, even in cornering. That causes a rethink
> of the physics of bike racing, and factories start adding weight to
> their machines generally. Eventually the FIM establishes a maximum
> weight rule, when the bikes top 800 pounds and the top riders in the
> world are all Samoans, and Japan's efforts to convert sumo wrestlers to
> GP fails miserably. But those packages traveling at well over 200mph is
> considered to be horribly unsafe... for the fans lining the tracks.
>
> D) The change shifts things around significantly, with the smallest
> riders suddenly looking ordinary at best. Honda quickly gives up on
> Pedrosa and shifts their focus to no-penalty Hayden. But after his
> third championship Rossi "convinces" Dorna to change the rule slightly,
> and starting in 2010 any rider with fewer than seven GP championships
> is required to ballast 20 kilos.
>
> E) It's hard to say what it does, because the FIM screws it up, just
> like the passing-under-yellow deal. They decide to do rider weigh-ins
> after the races, but the penalty for being underweight/under-ballasted
> is a stop-and-go ride-through during the race, and they can't penalize
> anyone then, of course, because they haven't weighed them yet. By
> mid-season Puig has figured it out, and by season end no one is running
> ballast. Except Biaggi, returned from WSB, who has had his bike
> littered with the stuff by the other riders, and even his own mechanics
> don't say anything to Max.
>
> F) Who cares if it works or not? Today's riders are all pampered
> pussies anyway, and if McQueen was still around he'd flip 'em off, jump
> on his BSA and head into Hollister to find some broads...

G. Even though F always looks purdy good to me the end result of any
rule establishing a weight minimum would prolly cost Dorna a bunch of
Buck$, err, Euros at the Euromed events and if you haven't noticed,
those are their core markets. So, any weight thing would be a big
non-starter..(at present anyway)

Look, you guys have beat this weight thing to death, but are prolly
missing something more important, like what the powers that be are
gonna' do to help (insure) Rossi regain his "rightful" place at the
top. I'm not saying the weight thing is unimportant, as weight, or more
specifically, the lack of it *ALWAYS* has an advantage, but until some
waif starts bitch slappin' the field the whole premise of restrictions
is academic/frivolous at best. Does Pedrosa have an advantage? You
betcha', but it's yet to be shown(at least to me) that anyone as lite
as he is can actually do the deal season long on "big" bikes..

Bottom line, it's all about money and as long as the majority of MGP's
money is made in Euromed events I wouldn't look for much, if anythng,
to change in regard to weight. Though it would be very interesting to
see what might unfold, if, say, some 100lb. USAin started cleaning
clocks in MGP. That might be a "little" different...