Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I vaguely remember a big-wig at Honda laughing at the prospect of Rossi racing for them again... but i wonder how true to their word they really are

You'd think Rossi would literally LEAP at the chance to get on that Honda now after the piece of shit Ducati has pumped out again.

My hope is that Marquez gets the seat and Pedrosa gets the arse all together, Rossi finally retires and some of those nutbags in Moto2 make the step up.

  • Replies 486
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The Ducati is definitely not the bike to be on this year, but am I the only one that thinks Rossi may have been affected (even if only slightly) by the knowledge that he hit simoncelli in the back in the crash that killed him?

Sure he might have died even if Rossi didn't hit him as he came off, but it can't be an easy thing to deal with

I doubt he felt the need to prove much after his 4th...5th... 6th... And so on...

I've just been thinking for a while now that something like that has got to f**k with your head no matter how much of a professional you are. Not only a fellow rider, but countrymen and friend..

He's always publicly stated that he would much prefer to be in Australia, and that he spends as much time as he can.

Perhaps now he has a family, and in the wake of Simoncelli's tragic death, he's decided to hang it up so he can enjoy life. Hell; he's still got all his fingers and toes, not many racers end up with a full complement.

I'd be happy to see him in a V8SC; he's got a no bullshit approach, and I'm sure he'd adapt easily. He certainly wouldn't be the first rider to race cars.

Casey Stoner dominates opening MotoGP practice at Le Mans

Pos Rider Team/Bike Time Gap

1. Casey Stoner Honda 1m34.321s

2. Dani Pedrosa Honda 1m34.908s + 0.587s

3. Andrea Dovizioso Tech 3 Yamaha 1m35.065s + 0.744s

4. Ben Spies Yamaha 1m35.202s + 0.881s

5. Hector Barbera Pramac Ducati 1m35.213s + 0.892s

6. Jorge Lorenzo Yamaha 1m35.239s + 0.918s

7. Cal Crutchlow Tech 3 Yamaha 1m35.318s + 0.997s

8. Alvaro Bautista Gresini Honda 1m35.336s + 1.015s

9. Nicky Hayden Ducati 1m35.403s + 1.082s

10. Valentino Rossi Ducati 1m35.829s + 1.508s

11. Karel Abraham Cardion Ducati 1m36.291s + 1.970s

12. Stefan Bradl LCR Honda 1m36.500s + 2.179s

13. Randy de Puniet Aspar Aprilia 1m36.935s + 2.614s

14. Aleix Espargaro Aspar Aprilia 1m37.916s + 3.595s

15. Mattia Pasini Speed Master Aprilia 1m38.140s + 3.819s

16. Yonny Hernandez Avintia FTR-Kawasaki 1m38.209s + 3.888s

17. Michele Pirro Gresini FTR-Honda 1m38.255s + 3.934s

18. James Ellison Paul Bird Aprilia 1m38.943s + 4.622s

19. Danilo Petrucci Ioda-Aprilia 1m39.110s + 4.789s

20. Ivan Silva Avintia Inmotec-Kawasaki 1m39.729s + 5.408s

21. Chris Vermeulen Forward Suter-BMW 1m41.398s + 7.077s

was a top race. love watching any racing at that track. Pity F1 cannot go there instead of some of the Tielke sh*t tracks.

and one add was sensational, why cant F1 have on set of add breaks every half hour??

It'll be very interesting to see who gets Casey seat and probably Spies one too!

Cal should hop straight into Spies spot, but managers and agents will be fighting tooth and nail over that spare factory Honda spot

I imagine they've already jockeying for negotiation position 6 months in advance

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • My understanding is that UV tends to accelerate the aging process. If the car has been garaged, then you could probably get away with extending beyond 10 years. FWIW, in 2015, I had tyres on my 180B SSS that had a 3-digit code (2 for week, 1 for decade), ending in 0, so could have been more than 30 years old, but still worked fine. I did replaced them very quickly, though, once I discovered what the code meant!
    • But we haven't even gotten to the point of talking about stateless controllers or any of the good stuff yet!
    • You guys need to take this discussion to another thread if you want to continue it, most of the last 2 pages has nothing to do with OP's questions and situation
    • And this, is just ONE major issue for closed loop control, particularly using PID. One such issue that is created right here, is integrator wind up. But you know GTSBoy, "it's just a simple PID controller"...  
    • Nah. For something like boost control I wouldn't start my design with PID. I'd go with something that originates in the fuzzy logic world and use an emergency function or similar concept. PID can and does work, but at its fundamental level it is not suited to quick action. I'd be reasonably sure that the Profecs et al all transitioned to a fuzzy algorithm back in the 90s. Keep in mind also that where and when I have previously talked about using a Profec, I'm usually talking about only doing an open loop system anyway. All this talk of PID and other algorithms only comes into play when you're talking closed loop boost control, and in the context of what the OP needs and wants, we're probably actually in the realm of open loop anyway. Closed loop boost control has always bothered me, because if you sense the process value (ie the boost measurement that you want to control) in the plenum (after the throttle), then boost control to achieve a target is only desirable at WOT. When you are not WOT, you do not want the the boost to be as high as it can be (ie 100% of target). That's why you do not have the throttle at WO. You're attempting to not go as fast as you can. If the process variable is measured upstream of the throttle (ie in an RB26 plenum, or the cold side pipework in others) then yeah, sure, run the boost controller closed loop to hit a target boost there, and then the throttle does what it is supposed to do. Just for utter clarity.... an old Profec B Spec II (or whatever it is called, and I've got one, and I never look at it, so I can't remember!) and similar might have a MAP sensor, and it might show you the actual boost in the plenum (when the MAP sensor is connected to the plenum) but it does not use that value to decide what it is doing to control the boost, except to control the gating effect (where it stops holding the gate closed on the boost ramp). It's not closed loop at all. Once the gate is released, it's just the solenoid flailing away at whatever duty cycle was configured when it was set up. I'm sure that there are many people who do not understand the above points and wonder wtf is going on.  
×
×
  • Create New...