MotoGP VS F1

I agree. The racing on 2 wheels is usually so much better. There are actual back-and-forth battles for the lead! Imagine that!


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

Last racen in Italy for Moto-GP put F1 to shame. Its amazingly better and is what F1 SHOULD BE! I dont miss a Moto GP race anymore!

 

Am not sure, I watch it occasionally I agree the racing looks tight, top and bottom of it for me is, I just prefer 4 wheels than 2.

I did see the other day though, I'am not sure what series it was, but 2 bikes had interlocked on the ground and by fluke they had locked onto each others accelerators and were gradually going faster and faster spinning in a circle on the ground, the bikers themselves were trying to get to the bikes, but couldn't it was hilarious to watch.

 

Here we go, ring a ring a roses

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaOVNqA7lBA]An unusual crash for two race bikes - YouTube[/ame]

 

I much prefer MotoGP nowadays to F1. Not only because of the better passing abilities, but also because F1 today now gets the bulk of its excitement every day, except Sundays, in the form of legal battles and arguments. I really couldn't care less if a team wants to sue the the other, but that makes more headlines every week compared to a pass on Sunday (because of course passing doesn't happen). Exact opposite of MotoGP.

Isle of Man TT was fun to watch this year, too, as it always is.

 

There is no comparison.

F1: 70% car/30% driver
MotoGP: 70% rider/30% bike

Just by the simple fact that bikes are so much narrower than cars makes passing a lot more feasible. Also, being able to see the entire rider, and how he shifts his body around on the bike whereas in F1, you can barely see what the driver is doing anymore. I love watching the old days, like Fangio, where you can see his whole upper body sawing away at the steering wheel......

 

Well said. When I remember to watch MotoGP I find myself flexing my feet and legs as if I was on the bike.

Gregg

 

Pedrosa beat Stoner on a Honda the year after? The 2011 Ducatti was clearly a field beater that died out after stoner left. Hayden did nothing against pedrosa the year after on a smaller honda. Pedrosa sucks IMO yet he is always near the top due to being on the factory honda.

There are only 1-2 rides fighting for the championship each year and they are a mix of the top 6 guys or so. It all depends on the bike that year and if they can keep their bones in one piece.

Yes Marquez is VERY good and I like him but this current Honda is everybit as good as the RCV211. Id say at best 60 bike/ 40 rider

 

I disagree, but nonetheless, what percentage would you apply to F1 in car/driver percentage?

 

So are you saying the best bike wins every year in MotoGP regardless of rider? What about in F1? Does the best car always win regardless of driver?

I'd say the latter is true, which is why guys like Villeneuve in the Williams, Button in the Brawn, and Vettel in the RB won easily. The current MBs...I wouldn't call any of those drivers the best during their championship seasons. MotoGP imo has some seasons like that, but nearly as much.

 

I would agree with your 70/30 assessment for F1.

After re-reading I suppose I would agree with the core of your argument that MotoGP is less machine vs rider based, however I think 30% bike is extreamly low and I would place it much closer to the 70% of F1

 

I don't think you can't put a percentage on either F-1 or MotoGP. Here's why:

The best riders/drivers tend to ride/drive for the teams with the best bikes/cars. So right away you're measuring apples and oranges when you compare the front of the grid with mid-pack.

One could very well argue that the car or bike is extremely important, at least at the front of the grid and especially in Formula One. Take a look at the grid where cars from the same team are often side by side. Of course, this is less true early in the year and early on after a major rules change, like right now. But as things settle down, you'll see more and more grids where the first 10 are side-by-side, or nearly so. And the same guys are at the front race after race. That tends to argue for the car being very important.

Put another way, Hamilton and Rosberg are good, but they aren't on the front row today because they're good, it's because they're both driving a Merc. Plenty of guys far back in the pack would be there if they were driving those cars. F-1 drivers usually don't change teams in the middle of the year, so you can't say for sure that Kimi would regularly be on the front row if he suddenly replaced Nico or Hammy. However, it would be a safe bet and I suppose nearly any of the drivers in the first half of the grid could do the same.

Likewise, in MotoGP the Honda guys are likely to be at the pointy end of the grid. True, Marquez is a one-of-a-kind rider and he most likely would be able to win on Rossi's bike, but he wouldn't be at the front on the Drive M7 Aspar which Nicky rides, so it certainly isn't 100% rider, we know that.

You don't see nearly as much "Noah's Arc" sorting in MotoGP because not only are the bikes more equal then F-1 cars, there is indeed more value put on the rider's ability but I think it's impossible to say how much. Interestingly that ability can vary quite a bit depending on the riders mood, how much he likes a particular track, the weather, how long it's been since his last serious crash, and the current state of his contract negotiation. The performances of F-1 drivers, on the other hand, are much more predictable; i.e. you can almost guarantee that the silver cars will be one two on the grid these days. That tells me that pure bravery is a much more significant factor in MotoGP. Of course, anyone who watches MotoGP, especially if they also ride a bike themselves, can see that right away.

MotoGP riders are literally astounding, but I'm not sure you can proportion the bike/rider value even though sometimes these guys can make things happen that seem impossible.

 

How can you say that when cornering on a bike depends so heavily on how a rider shifts his weight around on the bike, whereas in an F1 car, cornering has absolutely nothing to do with a driver's weight shift.......?

Think about it......the total weight of a rider on a bike has the rider making up probably around 30% of the total weight and can get lean angles as high as 60% (which is almost completely dictated by the rider shifting his weight), where in F1, the driver makes up maybe 10% of the total weight, and there is zero ability to create any lean whatsoever.

Saying a rider's input is closer to an F1 driver's input of only 30% compared to the machine is ridiculous.

 

I follow MotoGP religiously... as far as this season is concerned, except for the last race its been a boring season, MM has won every race. A few years ago I would have said that this was the best racing series on the planet, but in recent years politics and rule changes have really hurt the series. this season we have 3 different sets of rules for the same class, one for the factory bikes, one for the open class bikes, and one for the Ducatis.

 

At least in MotoGP they don't have silly and constantly changing aerodynamic rules.

My guess is that MotoGP bikes now rev higher than 2014 F1 cars rev.....

 

I love F1, but MotoGP has been catching my eye more and more lately. I'm not to the point of making sure I catch every broadcast like F1, but I DVR and watch most, if not all, the races. MotoGP has great wheel to wheel action and seems far less political. The battles can be awesome going back and forth, unlike we see in F1 these days.

I don't think MotoGP will ever take over from F1 as my favorite racing series, but it's certainly taking more and more of my attention as F1 goes in a direction I'm not thrilled with.


Mark

 

I subscribe to the Moto GP live stream and love it. You get to watch all the practices, qualifying and races for THREE series: Moto 3, Moto 2, and Moto GP. The up-and-coming riders are there to watch, as are the veterans.

Too bad F1 doesn't have similar brackets on the same race weekends, but I wouldn't subscribe to an F1 feed right now anyway.

Cheers,

George

 

I'd argue the MotoGP is far more politically screwed up then F1. The rules in MotoGP are not evenly applied, there are only 3 manufactures and each of them can swing a lot of weight in the rules department. half the field in motogp is not competitive, mostly made up of production racers that are purposely build by the manufactures to be slower then the factory bikes and the satellite bikes. teams have different software rules and tire rules that are applied to them.

 

First few seasons of MotoGP were AMAZING. I agree with Duck Hollywood that of late, it's gotten screwed up. They have different rules and it's a bit of a mess now, you really have 3-4 bikes / teams that can compete and that's it.

I'm a huge Ducati fan, and they haven't been competitive since Stoner left. They are racing under slightly different rules to keep them up top, it's not working.

 

This debate had got me a little interested in it - Certainly some here seem to enjoy it a lot. However, "different rules"!? WTF?

That seems as bad as Le Mans (OK, the WEC) and their BOP BS. Sorry, not for me - One of F1's huge appeals to me is they're all on the same (level) playing field.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Well these aren't classes per se (although they are trying to position it as such). Here's a great primer - "Open", "Factory", and "Ducati" (LOL!!!):

2014 MotoGP Rule Cheat Sheet: The Open, Factory And Ducati Regulations At A Glance | MotoMatters.com | Kropotkin Thinks

Now if you want to keep Ducati happy and competitive - ADJUST THE FORMULA. I know that's expensive, so you have to publish the rules way in advance, yada, yada...I get it.

What they have done is piss off all the other manufacturers, because the perception is Ducati is getting a break - AND THEY ARE!

I haven't been as into it, so there may be a counter POV that's simply better thought out than my emotional ranting, but I think it sucks. This coming from a Ducati fan no less.