Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Motogp 2007 v's 2008

Discussion in 'Racing, Motorsports, and Track Days' at netrider.net.au started by Andy37, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. I know that statistics are what you make of them and can be manipulated to achieve a desired result but I thought it would be interesting to look at the results from each season to see which year should have theoretically produced the more exiting races.

    Many people in the past have claimed that 2007 was a yawn and Stoner walked away into the distance but was it any less exciting than 2008 ? (if you ignore which rider sat on the top of the standings)

    With one round left to run in 2008 here's how the 2 seasons compare:

    Average gap between 1st and 2nd place:
    2007 5.781 seconds
    2008 5.548 seconds

    Average gap between 2nd and 3rd place:
    2007 5.226 seconds
    2008 5.425 seconds

    If you allow for wet races often throwing up unexpected results and wider finishing times, here's the same stats for the dry races only (note that both seasons have had 3 wet races):

    Average gap between 1st and 2nd place:
    2007 3.824 seconds
    2008 5.047 seconds

    Average gap between 2nd and 3rd place:
    2007 4.152 seconds
    2008 4.251 seconds

    In 2007 there were 5 riders that finished on the top of the podium and in 2008 (so far) there have been 4.

    in 2007 there were 12 riders that finished on the podium and in 2008 (so far) there have been 10.

    Anything to make from this ?
  2. Good bit of number crunching there. I don't think 2008 has shown us more exciting racing. With the exception of Laguna Seca it's been pretty average. Good to watch Stacey lose though.

    Now, what if you ran those calcs on the 2005 or 06 990cc seasons? And then maybe on a season from the 500GP era?
  3. I'd be interested to see how many crashes (averaged) there have been per meet or per year, perhaps even high sides Vs low sides. The 800 are meant to be safer, it would be interesting to see some data to back that up.
  4. From my personal stand-point....

    1). I found 2008 a little more exciting as we have the two front runners on the same rubber - so now it is a little more of an even playing field.

    2). This year we have seen Casey pushed to his limits in more races than last year and have seen the end result of that pushing

    3). The straightline performance of the Ducati is not as over-powering as it was in 2007 - although it is still faster in a straight line

    4). We have seen Casey mature this year which is terrific for his future.

    5). We are seeing more of Valentino of old - not racing from the beginning but using tactics and sitting on the rear of the lead rider which was his tactics of passed.

    This is how I personally looked at the 2008 season. :)
  5. No data required. 4 strokes are far easier and more forgiving to ride than 2 strokes at full pelt.
    But then you would know that!!
  6. I think Randy de Puniet would alone skew that analysis unless he was present in all comparison years.
  7. Wikipedia has detailed race reports from the first season in 1949. So a good report could be created. There is enough results for both 2 and 4 strokes (pre 2 stroke and post 2 stroke eras) for the results to be statistically significant.

    Sadly, I don't have the time atm to do this, if someone wants to do and needs some help I could probably help out.
  8. I reckon that's worth doing. I'll put something together for maybe the last 10 years.
  9. Having somebody say something and having factual proof are two different things.

    Can't say I've taken a 2 stroke to the track, so no I don't know that.
  10. Hi Port80.

    Alot of people utilise dirt-bike experience as a guide to this - not saying this is the case. :)

    From personal experience:
    - I find a 2stroke better for trail/enduro than a 4 stroke
    - 4 strokes are easier to ride as the power is not agressive thus less fatiguing to ride over prolonger periods of time
    - The power delivery of a 2stroke is typically more agressive than a 4stroke but 4strokes today are not dissimilar to 2 strokes of old

    Apart from that - I still think 2 strokes are AWESOME and I do miss them. But, I am almost 40 so I grew up with them :LOL: :grin:
  11. What about this for a fact.....We have a labor government and so statistics say that the majority of "Australians" are brain dead. Get out in the real world sonny.
  12. Well that's a bit off the topic for this thread, which we have already derailed enough. So why don't you post up a thread in Off topic to that extent and see what sort of response you get.
  13. [​IMG]

    Randy De Puniet accepting his award. Randy is the only rider to have won the award on bikes of different capacities and with different manufacturers back-to-back. De Puniet looks forward to defending his title in 2009.
  14. Arrrr f*ckit. Wikipedia runs out of race times in 2001. Anybody know where I can find a good source of race by race final finish times back as far as the 90s?
  15. NEver mind, motoGP.com has them, they're just a shit to navigate.
  16.  Top
  17. Loz, I have all data here.
  18. I've got access to it as well - but it takes ages making these god damn spreadsheets! I thought ten years would be indicative enough - and it certainly is.
  19.  Top
  20. Boring, as in there has never been fewer close finishes in the last ten years than there has been this year or last year.