http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/sp.../2010/July/jul
201-suzuki-gets-increased-engine-allocation/

Hmmm. So Suzuki are on double secret probation?

Jeez' what is it going to take?

I really don't wish this on the riders, but I'm holding my breath each
race in case Rossi's engine blows up and then Lorenzo, Pedrosa and
Stoner fall off on the oil. We came awful close to that in practice with
Lorenzo's engine. Is it going to take some really high profile accident
to bring everyone to their senses? Anyone want to take bets on when the
first big blow up happens in a race to one of the aliens?

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Keep Away From Children

Mark N <(E-Mail Removed)> Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:39:21
>The one thing that might stop this is that they will race their
>freshest motors, while they practice on the high-mileage ones. So
>unless at the end of the year they have no choice, it's not terribly
>likely. I also think practice is the more dangerous situation, because
>the riders are very spread out, they're less likely to see a blow-up
>but there might not be time enough to give them warning, as was the
>case last weekend.

I assume you've seen this.
http://motomatters.com/news/2010/07/..._blow_up_could
_affec.html

IMHO Lorenzo is not going to get to the end of the year on his
allocation. My guess is that tech3 won't either even if they turn the
rev limits down and make them even more of a dog than they are now. Hard
to tell about Rossi as his engines have done one less meeting and had 2
being ridden slowly.

>Personally, I think the problem here is a too-aggressive move to motor
>limitations, coupled with the increasing disaster that is 800cc MotoGP.
>If they were running 1000s I have to imagine that building a reliable
>long-mileage motor that made sufficient power wouldn't be so difficult.

If the 1000cc rule had stayed but they'd added the limited engines rule
we'd be in the same situation. When it ended we were in just the same
horsepower, revs and fuel limitation battle we're in now. It's racing.

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Keep Away From Children

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:48:49 GMT, Julian Bond wrote:

> Hmmm. So Suzuki are on double secret probation?

I don't believe a single thing in that rag unless I've read it somewhere
else.

Switters <(E-Mail Removed)> Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:35:41
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:48:49 GMT, Julian Bond wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. So Suzuki are on double secret probation?
>
>I don't believe a single thing in that rag unless I've read it somewhere
>else.

Here you go then.
http://motomatters.com/news/2010/07/...than_others_su
zuki_t.html

Krops is repeating the rumour, but as he's an insider in the paddock
now, I'd give it a bit more weight.

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Alcohol-Free

Julian Bond wrote:
> Mark N
> Hard
> to tell about Rossi as his engines have done one less meeting and had 2
> being ridden slowly.

Rossi missed four races, and the fossil fill-in only did one weekend,
and probably entirely on his most-tired motors. So Rossi probably has
a notable edge over Lorenzo in this regard. If Lorenzo has to add two
more motors than Rossi, that could easily be 40 points or so. And if
Lorenzo ratchets back performance to stretch use, it actually could
end up more. And one assumews the later motors will be better, and
Rossi should have more of those. In some sense over the last four
races Lorenzo has been doing Rossi's testing.

> >Personally, I think the problem here is a too-aggressive move to motor
> >limitations, coupled with the increasing disaster that is 800cc MotoGP.
> >If they were running 1000s I have to imagine that building a reliable
> >long-mileage motor that made sufficient power wouldn't be so difficult.
>
> If the 1000cc rule had stayed but they'd added the limited engines rule
> we'd be in the same situation. When it ended we were in just the same
> horsepower, revs and fuel limitation battle we're in now. It's racing.

I kind off doubt that. 1000s make excessive power for the tires, so
much of the electronic and rider management would be focused on
limiting the power going to the tire. 800s don't so much, so the
motors have focused more on peak power and high revs to get there, and
management has been more focused on smoothing the powerband. It would
be useful to know exactly where the failures have come from and the
areas that are the weakest links in achieving mileage requirements on
the 800s, but in simple terms it probably comes down to rev levels. My
guess is parts are stressed less at lower revs, even if the motor is
bigger; issues would be less likely to come from the head, for
instance, rev levels were the whole reason for the rather problematic
move to pneumatics for the Japanese.