TT Zero
Comments
-
Well clearly you're misinformed as the only major difference i can find is that track racing does have a brake whereas speedway doesn't.Kowalski675 wrote:bennett_346 wrote:Go on then, explain the difference.
Already have - totally different tracks (far longer in flat track), different surface, totally different bikes (the only thing they have in common is the number of wheels and lack of brakes),
Other than that the things you have listed hardly make them different sports. I could ride my MTB on gravel or mud but its still MTB. I could ride it for 3 hours or 10 hours but its still MTB.0 -
F1 and indycar are very similar. One is the American imposter of the real thing.
Rally and Rallycross actually are different, one being predominantly point to point, the other being a circuit race. Curiously, rallycross came about because foot and mouth made the RAC rally impossible one year.
Enduro and motocross are, by and large, the motorbike equivalent of rallying, and rallycross.
it seems however, that flat track is just "bigger speedway". Or American speedway.0 -
I think a closer match would be supermoto and motocross. Interesting point about where rallycross came from though, never would have thought.0
-
Kowalski675 wrote:FocusZing wrote:"John McGuinness lapped at 105.65mph
That would've won a TT in 1966, lol...
Yes, in comparison it's quite a gap, although they are progressing quickly.
I bet it seems strange watching them go by silently, silence isn't a great selling point for a sport though.0 -
Are they getting quieter? Some of the first electric bikes (although quite obviously quieter than the real thing) made this kind of cool sci-fi hoverbike sound.FocusZing wrote:Kowalski675 wrote:FocusZing wrote:"John McGuinness lapped at 105.65mph
That would've won a TT in 1966, lol...
Yes, in comparison it's quite a gap, although they are progressing quickly.
I bet it seems strange watching them go by silently, silence isn't a great selling point for a sport though.0 -
bennett_346 wrote:
Well clearly you're misinformed as the only major difference i can find is that track racing does have a brake whereas speedway doesn't.Kowalski675 wrote:bennett_346 wrote:Go on then, explain the difference.
Already have - totally different tracks (far longer in flat track), different surface, totally different bikes (the only thing they have in common is the number of wheels and lack of brakes),
No meaningful brake, only a token rear (and if you knew owt about bikes you'd know that the rear brake on a motorcycle does very little). If you can't see the massive differences between a flat track bike and a speedway bike then you seriously need an eye test (or you're one of those people who, when asked what car they own, would reply "a blue one", lol - the only thing they have in common is the number of wheels and lack of brakes. To say they're the same is like saying a CR250 is the same as an RC211V - they're totally different machines evolved for totally different racing.0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:Curiously, rallycross came about because foot and mouth made the RAC rally impossible one year.
Not quite true, I'm afraid. Rallycross was first demonstrated as a sport for TV in early 1967 (it was set up for World of Sport, IIRC). The F&M outbreak wasn't until later in the year (when the RAC Rally was cancelled, as you say). There were three rallycross events prior to the scheduled rally, and an international event had been planned to start a week or so after the RAC, to try and capture some of the rally competitors. In the end, the 'World Championship' featured only UK drivers. A formal championship series had also been arranged to kick off in '68.
Amazing to see how it's developed.
Interestingly, the Yanks have their own sanitized version (Global RallyCross Championship) featuring cars developed specifically for their events to take accounts of the huge gap-jump that are needed to keep the Septics entertained. Global, my arris.How would I write my own epitaph? With a crayon - I'm not allowed anything I can sharpen to a sustainable point.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are worth exactly what you paid for them.0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:F1 and indycar are very similar.
F1 cars and Indy cars are as different as chalk and cheese, as is the racing.it seems however, that flat track is just "bigger speedway". Or American speedway.
Whatever. I'm a newbie to mountain biking and know very little about it - I wouldn't presume to try lecture someone about mountain biking who's ridden MTBs for over 20 years, immersed themselves in the sport for over half their lifetime, worked for years in the trade and knows far more about the subject than I ever will...0 -
Kowalski675 wrote:bennett_346 wrote:
Well clearly you're misinformed as the only major difference i can find is that track racing does have a brake whereas speedway doesn't.Kowalski675 wrote:bennett_346 wrote:Go on then, explain the difference.
Already have - totally different tracks (far longer in flat track), different surface, totally different bikes (the only thing they have in common is the number of wheels and lack of brakes),
No meaningful brake, only a token rear (and if you knew owt about bikes you'd know that the rear brake on a motorcycle does very little). If you can't see the massive differences between a flat track bike and a speedway bike then you seriously need an eye test (or you're one of those people who, when asked what car they own, would reply "a blue one", lol - the only thing they have in common is the number of wheels and lack of brakes. To say they're the same is like saying a CR250 is the same as an RC211V - they're totally different machines evolved for totally different racing."Flat track bikes have front and rear suspension, and rear brakes. The brakes are what make it completely distinct from speedway, as the brakes allow for a different cornering technique." Wood, Bill (August 1983). "Wayne Rainey's road to stardom". American Motorcyclist (Books.Google.com).
I think this guy knows a bit more than you. And it's completely rediculous to make an assumption i know so little about cars, i know far far more than your average joe. In fact it annoys me on a daily basis just how bad at driving and unknowledgable about cars the general public are. I passed my driving test first time with a completely clean sheet (not that it matters; it's the most superficial and useless testing system there is, as evidenced by how bad people are at driving here). I've been obsessed with motorsport since i was 3 years old. I used to regularly drive Land Rovers off road. I've been around motorbikes since i was born.0 -
Well I'll be damned! I'd always been led to believe it was a way around F&M. Learn something every day, eh?Clank wrote:Not quite true, I'm afraid....
Let's see. Open wheel racers, single seat, enhanced aerodynamics packages, non-contact racing around tarmac/asphalt circuits.Kowalski675 wrote:
F1 cars and Indy cars are as different as chalk and cheese, as is the racing..YeehaaMcgee wrote:F1 and indycar are very similar.
Yep, completely different.
Well yes, the bikes are different, but the racing, is the same.Kowalski675 wrote:If you can't see the massive differences between a flat track bike and a speedway bike then you seriously need an eye test
A MotoGP bike, and a WSB bike are different, but the racing is the same.
Hell, a MotoGP bike and a Moto2 bike are vastly different, but, get this... the racing is the same. Hell, they even use the same tracks!
A WRC Fiesta, and an Escort MKII are entirely different vehicles, but you know what people do in both of them? They rag them silly round forests and street courses, against the clock. They rally them both. Is the poor grass roots guy seriously not competing in the same sport as the WRC car?0 -
Kowalski, I bet you are one of those types who defines every single subcategory of mountain biking and rides a "trail" bike not an xc bike.0
-
YeehaaMcgee wrote:Well I'll be damned! I'd always been led to believe it was a way around F&M. Learn something every day, eh?
A good friend is on the MSA scrutineering for the rallycross at Knockhill and Croft and I've had to sit through the story sooo many times. It was someone elses time to suffer it!
How would I write my own epitaph? With a crayon - I'm not allowed anything I can sharpen to a sustainable point.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are worth exactly what you paid for them.0 -
-
YeehaaMcgee wrote:
Are they getting quieter? Some of the first electric bikes (although quite obviously quieter than the real thing) made this kind of cool sci-fi hoverbike sound.FocusZing wrote:Kowalski675 wrote:FocusZing wrote:"John McGuinness lapped at 105.65mph
That would've won a TT in 1966, lol...
Yes, in comparison it's quite a gap, although they are progressing quickly.
I bet it seems strange watching them go by silently, silence isn't a great selling point for a sport though.
Nah, you still get that cool "Endor Moon speederbike" sort of whirring from the motors, plus obviously the road noise from the tires. They'll be lapping 120s within a few years, then it's just a case of improving longevity so they can withstand 3-4 laps.0 -
bennett_346 wrote:Kowalski, I bet you are one of those types who defines every single subcategory of mountain biking and rides a "trail" bike not an xc bike.
Nope - I know very little about mountain bikes, but even I can look at them and tell from their basic shape, geometry, suspension etc that they're very different bikes for very different purposes. If you cant see the massive differences between a speedway bike and flat track bike (or an F1 car and an Indy car) then you must seriously need an eye test.0 -
You're missing the point, we can SEE that they look different, but the racing they do, is the same. Do keep up.0
-
bennett_346 wrote:The brakes are what make it completely distinct from speedway, as the brakes allow for a different cornering technique."
I think this guy knows a bit more than you.
And he says speedway and flat track are completely different - thanks for proving my point, lol. Do you even know who Wayne Rainey is, lol?And it's completely rediculous to make an assumption i know so little about cars
I never said you did, I said that if you can't see the differences between a speedway bike and a flat track bike then you're blind. You may know plenty about cars, but you seem to know shag all about bikes, lol. And who didn't pass their driving test (and bike test) first time? You'd have to be a bit of a mong not to - all you have to do is drive around for twenty minutes - it's hardly neurosurgery, lol.0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:You're missing the point, we can SEE that they look different, but the racing they do, is the same. Do keep up.
Apart from all the differences, lol. You're the one missing the point. Do keep up...0 -
Well, for starters you began comparing the sports themselves, not the bikes they ride it on, and second it's a 45 minute test and the pass rate is a shocking 42%. Only 7 people out of all the people who took a driving test in the last two years at the place i did it passed first time with no minors, one of them me. Again, not difficult for us with a brain and eyes, but i mentioned it because you seemed to think i was clueless with cars.Kowalski675 wrote:And it's completely rediculous to make an assumption i know so little about cars
I never said you did, I said that if you can't see the differences between a speedway bike and a flat track bike then you're blind. You may know plenty about cars, but you seem to know shag all about bikes, lol. And who didn't pass their driving test (and bike test) first time? You'd have to be a bit of a mong not to - all you have to do is drive around for twenty minutes - it's hardly neurosurgery, lol.0 -
Cat With No Tail wrote:Nah, you still get that cool "Endor Moon speederbike" sort of whirring from the motors, plus obviously the road noise from the tires. They'll be lapping 120s within a few years, then it's just a case of improving longevity so they can withstand 3-4 laps.
I'd be willing to bet against that. It took 16 years for the engined bikes to go from a 105mph lap to 120mph. Electric vehicles are a complete blind alley anyway, but that's another discussion, lol. Mark Higgins lapped a production Subaru Impreza faster than 105mph (113mph, IIRC).0 -
bennett_346 wrote:the pass rate is a shocking 42%.
No wonder I see so many clueless, incompetent spastics on the roads...0 -
Yeah, it's dire. I'm not even sure how you'd fail it, it's the easiest thing i've ever done.0
-
I thought maybe they'd scrapped the test and just gave licences out in breakfast cereal packets now.0
-
-
You've only just noticed i'm mentally challenged? I'm almost offended.0
-
Anyway, to recap, we have... Old MotoGP is better than new MotoGP, because:
before we ever had a sport with the stupid MotoGP name, a dude raced American speedway, which is completely different to British speedway, because the bikes have bigger engines and a rear brake, and he did it recently, a long time after retiring, on a bike which was banned (allegedly because it was "too dangerous" - or at least that's the suggestion being made, not that it had anything to do with homologation), and that left Valentino Rossi impressed.0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:Anyway, to recap, we have... Old MotoGP is better than new MotoGP, because:
before we ever had a sport with the stupid MotoGP name, a dude raced American speedway, which is completely different to British speedway, because the bikes have bigger engines and a rear brake, and he did it recently, a long time after retiring, on a bike which was banned (allegedly because it was "too dangerous" - or at least that's the suggestion being made, not that it had anything to do with homologation), and that left Valentino Rossi impressed.
It was nothing to do with homologation (it's not a production race class, the bikes don't need to be homolgated). It was banned by the US racing authorities because it was Japanese and Harley Davidson had not a hope in hell of competing with it, since all they make are 1920s tractors built from pig iron. The fact that it was immediately banned to protect Harley's interests was neither here nor there for Kenny - he was just glad it was banned full stop, since, as he said, they simply didn't pay him enough to ride anything so utterly insane. To this day it remains acknowledged as arguably the most evil, vicious and downright fuc*ing stpid race bike ever built (Yamaha always did like a good hooligan bike, lol).0 -
Kowalski675 wrote:Cat With No Tail wrote:Nah, you still get that cool "Endor Moon speederbike" sort of whirring from the motors, plus obviously the road noise from the tires. They'll be lapping 120s within a few years, then it's just a case of improving longevity so they can withstand 3-4 laps.
I'd be willing to bet against that. It took 16 years for the engined bikes to go from a 105mph lap to 120mph. Electric vehicles are a complete blind alley anyway, but that's another discussion, lol. Mark Higgins lapped a production Subaru Impreza faster than 105mph (113mph, IIRC).
It also took the engined bikes around 50 years to do a 100mph lap. Lecy bikes did it in 2 years. Side-by-side comparison doesn't work. The lap times are not the biggest issue, it's the longevity of the motors and the batteries.
I actually consider my estimate of a few years to be quite conservative, if I'm honest, I think a number of the teams have it in them to do it next year.0 -
Aye, the geometry, handling, and riders have developed over the years. The subtle background work is always being done. The next step is to match the power and controllability. Durability can come after, once the bleeding-edge has got the speed.
I'm with CWNT here, I reckon it's going they're going to be competitive very very soon.0 -
Cat With No Tail wrote:Kowalski675 wrote:It also took the engined bikes around 50 years to do a 100mph lap.
46 years, but that's not comparing like for like track conditions. Originally the course was barely more than dirt tracks.
I can see the appeal of the TT Zero for those who are involved with the bikes, but it doesn't interest me at all (an electric bike's completely pointless to me).0
