Rossi any good?

Eh? Do you have any idea how physically demanding racing a bike is?
Rossi will be incredibly fit and is probably no less able than anyone
else to cope with driving an F1 car.

 

Come on, we all know the rider just sits there and lets the bike do
all the work.

 

Really? Does modern F1 favour a particular physique? It currently
seems to encompass a reasonable range (Schumi is fairly tall, I
thought, and Hakkkkkonnnnnen was quite dumpy, no)? While I appreciate
the G force are significantly higher in F1, there's little doubt in my
mind that motorcycle racing is at least as physical as the top level,
if not more so.

 

heh, it's the gyroscopic effect.

 

Bollocks. Some of the best blokes for stamina are the wee fit wiry guys.
Fighter jocks, for example. You don't see many big ones, they're all
flying transports or bombers or propping up the bar.

 

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote

Kin true mate, ask any burd wiv a smile on her face.

 

So true. G tolerance is inversely proportional to height (or, more
accurately, the distance between heart and brain)[*]. Although the high
G loads in an F1 car are presumably mainly lateral so it's probably not
that big a deal if you're very tall in F1, as long as you can physically
fit in the car.

Aerobic fitness and stamina are, I'd guess, most important for F1 - and
your average motoGP rider is going to be faily well-developed in that
area.

[*] That must be why short-arse Tom Cruise was "the best of the best", I
reckon.

 

steve auvache says...

Seconded

 

The actual distance or the separation in the direction perpindicular
to that of the G-force being applied?

 

Yes.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

To be honest, I question whether you posters even analyze F1 on a deep
level.

Let me pose you a question - Why is Michael Schumacher so good?

Of course, he is good for numerous reasons. However, it is not simply
his "talent" or ability to drive an F1 car fast over a single lap.
Indeed, the one record that he doesn't yet have is the number of pole
positions. Quite often his qualifying performance isn't that remarkable.

However, he always seems to be at the front by the end of the race. The
reason is that if you look at his lap times, he is able to run at close
to qualifying pace lap after lap for the duration of the race. On the
other hand, some other drivers can qualify quite well, but when you look
at their laps in the race, they cannot maintain this pace. They may even
be a second or two per lap slower. Adding this up over the course of the
race, you can see why they are nowhere near the front by the end.

Undoubtedly a part of this lack of consistency is simply that some
drivers don't possess the fitness level required to drive at the limit
for the duration of a race. Indeed, it is often remarked just how fresh
Schumacher appears at the end of the race. On the other hand, you can
see that some of the other drivers are really physically drained by the
end of the race.

What you have to realize is that the modern F1 car, due to the extreme g
forces, is incredibly physical to drive. Even a racing gokart requires
extremely high levels of fitness. The first time I drove a kart I found
it just as tiring as sprinting the same distance. What this means is
that getting the required level of fitness is not simply a matter of
training. Take the example of running. A lot of people could not
complete a marathon under a certain time, no matter how much training
they do. Their body simply doesn't have the right make up. Being able to
drive an F1 car at the limit for a whole race is similar, in that many
people would never be able to attain the level of fitness required. That
is why the top drivers have such a level of fitness that they can go and
train with Lance Armstrong, like Webber does. In short, F1 these days
doesn't just require an extremely high level of talent to be able to
drive a car fast for a single lap, but possibly even more difficult is
having the required fitness to drive the car like this over the course
of an entire race distance.

Many of you then say that Rossi is already fit because he races motogp.
Well obviously. However, both olympic athletes who swim the 1500m and
olympic athletes who run the 5000m are "fit". However, does this then
mean that a 1500m swimmer could run the 5000m in an olympic time?? Of
course not, as the two disciplines use different muscles groups. It is
the same thing with bikes compared to cars. It is obvious that Rossi is
built differently than F1 drivers, who tend to be stockier as they need
to endure *much* higher g forces (just look at their necks). In bikes
you don't get the extremely high g forces, but you need to be nimble to
be able to move around on the bike (whereas f1 drivers are in fact
strapped in).

It is highly likely that one of the reasons that Rossi is so good on the
bike is because he is so wiry, but this would be a disadvantage for
driving an F1 car. Of course, you could argue that over time Rossi would
be able to develop the different muscle groups required for an F1 car.
However, it is debatable just how much of muscle mass is under
environmental as opposed to genetic control. Certainly some people
naturally have certain physiques no matter how much exercise they do,
and the fact that not all of the drivers on the F1 grid at the moment
have been able to develop the required muscles suficiently, suggests
that developing the required muscles to be able to drive an F1 car flat
out for a whole race is not trivial. Anyone who thinks it is a trivial
issue should examine F1 in more detail.

 

I struggle to stay awake watching it let alone examine it.

 

And why is this? One reason is that the Ferrari is easier to drive
close to its max compared to other cars which may be hustled round to
a quick lap, but its damn hard work. Given your karting experience
you should know this of course.

 

Gee, rather than actually debating anything I say, you try and bring it
into question by inferring "of course" to another statement. How can I
possibly compete with such an intellect.

However, what you say is simply incorrect.

If a car is difficult to drive, it means that it is
unpredictable/inconsistent. This will lead to inconsistent lap times not
only over the course of the race, but in a single lap qualifier as well.
Indeed, a difficult to drive car is likely to affect single lap
qualifying even more so, as on the single lap the car is closer to the
limit - so any unexpected deviation is likely to have even greater
consequences.

So if it was the case that the reason that Schumacher is better is
because the Ferrari is easier to drive, then you wouldn't get the
pattern observed where people can be fast on a qualifying lap but then
be slower as the race goes on. Rather, their performance would be
inconsistent across both qualifying and the race. On the other hand,
Schumacher should perform consistently well in qualifying as the car is
easier to drive at the limit without making mistakes.

 

Incidentally, I am still amazed that you guys think that driving a F1
car isn't a major physical challenge (try reading the reports of drivers
who are given the opportunity to drive an F1 car and how tiring they
find it even after a short time - despite the fitness regime they
undertake to try and prepare themselves), and that you think that
driving a motogp bike is the same physically as driving an F1 car.

 

Driving an F1 car is a big physical challenge. But with the likes of
power steering and semi-automatic gears the cars are physically easier to
drive than 20 - 30 years ago.

And riding a motogp bike is more phyically demanding that driving an F1
cars IMO.
In F1 car you steer you are strapped firmly in. In MotoGP/Superbikes you
must westly the bike around corner using your body weaight by moving it
about, you are constantly moving around, very hard work.

However if you want to see hardwork, watch sidecar racing, the guy on the
sidecar takes on hell of a battering
--
Transplants save lives! - Have you signed up to be a donor?
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk

Do something amazing today. Save a life, give blood.
http://www.blood.co.uk/

My games collection and Live games:
http://www.fooatari.plus.com/.

 

I think also a cars handling and speed over a race is also very much
depending on how kind the car is to its tyres, and also how easy it is to
setup, and how its balance is effected by the race. Simply looking at lap
times doesnt tell the whole story.

I remember watching Brundle drive the 04, or maybe 03 Ferrari and he kept
talking about how good it was, how easy it was to drive, how much he felt
part of the car and the car did exactly as it was told.
A driver cant make as much of a difference as they used to be able to, if
the car isnt great, your performace suffers as a consequence.

--
Transplants save lives! - Have you signed up to be a donor?
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk

Do something amazing today. Save a life, give blood.
http://www.blood.co.uk/

My games collection and Live games:
http://www.fooatari.plus.com/.

 

Nah, a car can be difficult to drive but predictable. Would you consider a
car with bucketfulls of understeer and oversteer easy to drive just because
it is consistent? How would you compare it to a car that "corners on rails".

Times in a race may be inconsistent because of the relatively high levels of
concentration required. Nothing to do with the car being inconsistent.

 

Well I haven't done F1 or MotoGP but I have used lower formula racing
cars and a Gixxer track bike. While the car certainly makes physical
demands on the driver it's much less than on a bike.

'Hog