http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2008/May/080513rn.htm

Interesting thoughts on TC from the best tuner in the business.

JB defines traction control as another set-up tool, albeit a powerful one. Back in 2002 when the Repsol team tested Honda's first traction control system at Valencia, JB recalls Rossi getting off the bike and saying "Don't tell anyone, but this isn't fair!" And that was a simple system that compared front and rear wheel speeds and retarded the ignition timing if they were different by more than a set percentage. Nowadays, TC systems are almost infinitely variable with maps that alter the electronics' intervention with respect to lean angle and corner speed differently for every gear.

it sure it made jb's job easer to keep 250hp tamed. not the first time he has spoken out of turn. he says its nothing really yet all the riders who have come up from 250 state it makes it to easy.
i wonder if jb ever rides the bikes he talks about.

Thanks for the link. Traction control is not the end all be all of riding. For example it will do nothing to help a rider when it comes to braking -- where a lot of passing occurs anyways. It also won't help a rider who enters a corner too fast.

It's awfully written, & the occasional lack of quotation marks really put me off the article.

Huh?

That depends if you consider engine braking control to be TC, it is there to aid traction afterall.

thats a good point tom. we need help on this issue from our resident Tc expert dumber barrymachine.

Btw: Where did he go? Not that I miss him, but it was occationally amusing reading his posts.
Maybe he decided to leave us as his predictions gets increasingly amusing as well?

Ot:
In my book engine braking is part of the TC electronics.

Seems to me that he does make to much of an effort to play down the TC role. Of course a cold tire slide can't be saved by TC. For TC to be of any help on a bike you will need to be on the brakes or on power and have a grip close to what you can expect under the existing conditions at least for now this seems to be a limitation. If you have a cold tire allready working on the very limit of it's grip only by lean angle, letting off the power will not be enough to make the tire grip again until it's by far to late -> high side.

- Surely this is mainly governed by the slipper clutch?

Which is exactly what happened to Lorenzo

Hate to say it, but Casey would not have won his world championship last year were it not for the dominance of TC

No rider would have their world title without the advantages of their machinary.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean

I do, but I am not going there again.

tom thinks rossi only got his titles because of the rc211v. he forgets no other riders could get a title on it. biaggi ukawa ect didnt get near rossi on the same bike. he also doesnt know rossi got a title on the nsr500 because he was still dripping off the end of his dads dick back then.

I just read this, hahahaha.

He's busy, holding hands with Pinks; singing and praying for Stoner.

consoling each other for the inevitable

What's his point Michael?...I genuinely don't understand. Motorcycle racing is replete with championships won on inferior machinery....man over machine. Look no further than Rossi at Welkome '04..the first rider to win cosequetive GP's on different machinery, going on to take the title in his first year at Yamaha at a time that the M1 was still handicapped from a lack of previous direction.. But the best example that springs to mind is '93. Had it not been for Misano, Rainey would have held Schwantz and taken a fourth title on pig of a Yam that handled like a puppy on a lead.

Tom, please have a break from your exam revision and enlighten me!! I'm obviously confused.

If you are to put Casey's title down to Tc, why not put all of Rossi's down to JB. Or haydens down to HRC. Its not really fair to say one rider won because he had the best equipment and not to carry that value through when others win. Each rider has to deal with their circumstances, advantages and disadvantages. They are all world champions because they maximised their oppertunities



1. WRONG

2. You must have looked away when Hayden won the world title

3. WRONG

He was bloody impressive in the latter half of 2000 -his debut season as well.

Right -I understand now. So championships are only won purely because the best machinery was availed to the triumphant rider/driver in question - who is in fact irrelevant. He should study hard and get a job with HRC!

Actually he may have a point...didn't this happen last year? - a Joke for Chrissake

To be fair, who else in 02 could challenge him? I don't think anyone could put Ukawa on Rossi's level even on the best bike.



I think his point is, since a lot of you like to flame Tom for having a differing opinion, that you don't win a championship on a 'shit bike'. I'd say that 04 was VERY good from Rossi, but I wouldn't have called the M1 the worst bike (that's reserved for the KRV5) since it seemed to be by far better in the corners and on the brakes with Rossi onboard.