I've been thinking about this since Dani Pedrosa started MotoGP this year. Dani weighs 44lbs less than Nicky Hayden! A lot of people said at the beginning that he wouldn't have the strength for a MotoGP bike, well he has definately proved them wrong. Laguna-Seca was an extremely physical race, all the racers commented on how demanding it was, even Hayden thanking his personal trainer for keeping him fit.
Some the advantages of less rider weight, from what I've read/concluded, are that with less weight you can accelerate faster and brake deeper. Less weight is also easier on tires making them last longer or allowing a lighter rider to pick a softer tire with more grip than heavier riders. I've also heard that a lighter rider can carry more fuel, in which they dial the engine up, creating more hp. But I know that the rules only allow so much fuel, so I'm not sure about the last one.
The only main disadvantage I'm aware of is a lighter rider is a weaker rider. A stronger rider can muscle the bike around and is more likely to save it before a crash happens. Also in the rain heavier riders get more traction due to their weight helping tires punch through the water.
In Superbikes, I think it balances out pretty good. Mostly because they don't have traction control systems or very limited traction control systems. So I think that they should not regulate rider weights in Superbike.
But I'm beginning to think rider weight regulating might be necessary to kep a level playing field in MotoGP. This biggest obsticle is enfrocement. Where do you put the ballast?? But put that aside and pretend that there is a perfect way to add ballast. MotoGP's traction control is getting better and better. Most are agree that you no longer need strength over precision but precision over strength now. Every article I've read has said that if Pedrosa or Stoner came to MotoGP on 2-stroke500cc, they wouldn't be taking mulitple poles and race wins in their rookie year. The 4-stroke990cc, traction controlled MotoGP bikes are much easier to ride and don't require the strength that the old 2-stroke500ccs did.
Sport rider's August edition has a good article on which training grounds are best for a successful MotoGP career. The top MotoGP riders, Schwantz and Rainey all pretty much agree that Superbike with a dirtbike background was the best training ground for the old GP bikes. But for the new GP bikes with traction control systems, they all are starting to think the 250cc and 125cc GPs are the best training grounds.
What do you guys think?
Regulate rider weights(if there was a perfect way to do it) or not??
Some the advantages of less rider weight, from what I've read/concluded, are that with less weight you can accelerate faster and brake deeper. Less weight is also easier on tires making them last longer or allowing a lighter rider to pick a softer tire with more grip than heavier riders. I've also heard that a lighter rider can carry more fuel, in which they dial the engine up, creating more hp. But I know that the rules only allow so much fuel, so I'm not sure about the last one.
The only main disadvantage I'm aware of is a lighter rider is a weaker rider. A stronger rider can muscle the bike around and is more likely to save it before a crash happens. Also in the rain heavier riders get more traction due to their weight helping tires punch through the water.
In Superbikes, I think it balances out pretty good. Mostly because they don't have traction control systems or very limited traction control systems. So I think that they should not regulate rider weights in Superbike.
But I'm beginning to think rider weight regulating might be necessary to kep a level playing field in MotoGP. This biggest obsticle is enfrocement. Where do you put the ballast?? But put that aside and pretend that there is a perfect way to add ballast. MotoGP's traction control is getting better and better. Most are agree that you no longer need strength over precision but precision over strength now. Every article I've read has said that if Pedrosa or Stoner came to MotoGP on 2-stroke500cc, they wouldn't be taking mulitple poles and race wins in their rookie year. The 4-stroke990cc, traction controlled MotoGP bikes are much easier to ride and don't require the strength that the old 2-stroke500ccs did.
Sport rider's August edition has a good article on which training grounds are best for a successful MotoGP career. The top MotoGP riders, Schwantz and Rainey all pretty much agree that Superbike with a dirtbike background was the best training ground for the old GP bikes. But for the new GP bikes with traction control systems, they all are starting to think the 250cc and 125cc GPs are the best training grounds.
What do you guys think?
Regulate rider weights(if there was a perfect way to do it) or not??
