MotoGP top speed too high ?

[MadMatt]

Am I the only one concerned about the speeds the Moto GP are reaching ? It was already high before, but now with the new engines its even higher. They have tyres which are different on the left of the rolling surface and on the right, and so on. It seems they are going faster and faster, despite the fact they are already too fast imo.

In F1 the FIA always try to reduce the speed, but in Moto GP they are going faster and faster. 335kph at Estoril on 2 wheels is just not right imo. I like speed, but there its a bit too much. Will be interesting to see what speed they can reach on the Catalunya circuit. What do you think about the speed in Moto GP ?

[Red Schneider]

I'm no expert, but I would guess the difference lies in the fact that two-wheeled cornering performance sucks balls compared to cars. Pulling 5G's in a car has the potential for a hell of a lot of damage if you have an off or accident. I'm guessing that cornering speeds don't improve much in MotoGP even if engines are more powerful. Also riders are probably not as likely to tangle on the straight as they are in turns, so doing 210 mph vs 180 mph -may- not be a big deal.

Makes some sense to me, for whatever it's worth.

[cheapracer]

Am I the only one concerned about the speeds the Moto GP are reaching ?

Unlike F1 who have bizzarely short braking distance and micro-seconds to make major decisions, the braking distances are huge so the riders have plenty of time to compensate for errors as you see them merely go wide and square off on occasion.

On the straights themselves the riders even touch on occasion without much drama (they have been known to punch and kick each other too!).

[boson]

People don't tend to crash on the straights though! They went to 800cc engines and corner speeds went up hugely, causing far more crashes and injuries than they had back in the 990 days (last year and the number of broken collarbones was a bit of a joke!). Sure, occasionally they might crack 210mph, but then they hit the brakes and spend the next couple of seconds slowing it down to 3rd gear. The increase in engine power will have brought corner speed down a bit and hopefully reduced the number of front end crashes on the way into corners.
Another factor could be that on bikes, they don't behave that differently at higher speeds whereas cars tend to use aero effects a lot, which makes it a completely different beast at high speeds. At 210mph an F1 car will generate ridiculous amounts of downforce which must get dangerous as it could lead to tyre failure, or maybe just an unbalanced, twitchy car.

[jamescbrown]

the faster the better.. peace

[PNSD]

One of the reasons for the fantastic racing in the lower formula's of MotoGP is the lower end top speed, it means more slipstreaming. So in terms of overtaking, then yes maybe lower top speeds might be good.

As for the general idea that the speeds are too high? I would tend to agree, Superbikes are the same though, what was the top speed at Monza a few weeks back? IIRC it was well into the 230mph (correct me if i am wrong!)...

[Belatti]

My question is, have wee seen fatal or big accidents recently because of top speed?

[Red Schneider]

I think waiting for someone to die before instituting changes is rather frowned upon these days.

[mx_tifoso]

I don't think that's what he meant. Think about it this way, when do we see accidents at or near top speed? They are all most always on braking or somewhere within the realm of a corner (entry, mid, or exit).

[Belatti]

Sorry Red, I agree with your comment about instituting changes. Mx understood what I meant.

I really cant see the difference between the danger level of running 200 vs 220mph on a bike.

What I think would be more dangerous is if they take corners 20mph faster or brake 50m later. Any failure there and you are too close to avoid the accident.

[Red Schneider]

I guess you're right. Then it would seem to follow that eye-popping top speeds are not of real import. More powerful engines can't alter the 'bottleneck' of braking and cornering performance, so... yeah.

[RacingManiac]

Are their straightline speed that different between the 800cc to now 1000? When MotoGP first went to 4 stroke, 1000CC formula before the 800, the bikes were spinning their rear tire 30mph faster on the straight than their actual ground speed. When they went to 800, the top speed AFAIK did not change much, they just have less wheel spin, and the bike actually got faster around corner...the whole changing make to 1000(and I believe, banning of traction control) was to slow the cornering speed down...

[MadMatt]

I think they could have stayed with the 800cc and just increase the minimum weight limit.

Maybe there are not accidents caused at high speeds, but I think you all remember few accidents that happened on the crest at Mugello when few drivers had huge accidents there. You can always say that reducing the speed by 20kph would not make huge difference, but honestly the signal given by the authorities is the not right one (increasing the speed of the bikes).

I personally find silly doing 330-340-350kph on a bike. In F1 they tent to try to limit the top speed to 300kph and yes the cornering speed is higher, but what if you have brakes problems at the end of the straight on a bike at 340kph ? I would say that 300kph would be a good max top speed for bikes.

Just my opinion but its scary to see how fast they are going these days

[mx_tifoso]

Yes Matt, you do find it scary, which is why you're on the internet talking about the speeds and they are riding balls out on track regardless of top speeds. We're not the Stoners and Rossi's. No offense.

And the move to 1000's was approved by most riders.

[Belatti]

I personally find silly doing 330-340-350kph on a bike. In F1 they tent to try to limit the top speed to 300kph and yes the cornering speed is higher...

I woud like to see more 350kph top speed tracks in F1.... and definitively less chicanes.