• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Speed inflation

DucatiHoney

DucatiHoney

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Location
Oakland
Moto(s)
...between bikes
Name
Heather
BARF perks
AMA #: 1028914
I've had a couple of talks with friends of mine who don't ride all that much anymore, but who were pretty fast guys for their time. They rode in AMA or were class champions maybe 10-15 years ago. I tell them my laptimes at the track or we go riding on the street and they remark that I'm pretty quick based on what they're used to seeing. To that I give a :wtf because I get my ass handed to me on a regular basis on both street and track.

I've been tuning into many of the recent discussions about how technology is making going faster easier and safer than ever as I watch professional races. Tires are stickier, brakes stop better, engines have more hp than ever before. Add to that the growing popularity of motorcycles. Trackdays are now the norm and riding schools and literature are pretty easy to come by. It seems like any schmoe riding 6 weeks could demolish a record set by a pro 50 years ago. The concept is known as "speed inflation" and can be compared to monetary inflation.

Inflation defined: A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.

But is this really true? Is there really a limited amount of talent in a person regardless of the era? If we could go back in time and plop the fastest rider from 1947 on a modern literbike would he be keeping up with Rossi or Spies? Would he be running in the A group at an average trackday? Or would I be swatting him on the ass as I drifted easily past him on a Sunday ride over 9?

As we quantify "fast" through the ages can anyone see a foreseeable end in sight? It seems that Formula 1 and MotoGP have set that limit. The engine sizes are getting smaller and technology being reduced in order to make the sports safer for the operators but also because vehicular advancements are arguably taking a lot of the human factor out of the racing challenge. Is NASCAR onto something with how they've set up their racing series?

For us average riders can you imagine what your grandkids will be thinking when you tell them that you used to do a sub 2:00 at Thunderhill? Do you think that they'll joke about you being a C group backmarker or will what you were able to do 50 or 60 years ago still be "fast"? Furthermore has anyone ever heard of someone taking out a bike from the past and running on the same tires and on the same track, for instance, to figure out whether we're faster than our historical counterparts? Is the question possible to answer due to knowledge about riding techniques that we possess that our predecessors did not?
 
I doubt an amateur of today could beat a hero of yesteryear when both are on modern equipment. Especially after yesterday's hero has 6 weeks to master the new stuff.
I think there is a wall and I don't think the fast guys are there yet.
Cool question, though.
 
I like the questions raised here.

Could Agostini even ride Rossi's M1?

What would Stoner be able to do on Hailwood's old MV?
 
The bikes may be stiffer, the suspension better, and the tires grippier, but humans are as soft and squishy as we've ever been.

I think the real improvements in safety have come from gear and track design, not the motorcycles themselves. We crash just as often now as we did back at the day, and the real difference is that we're going much faster when we hit the wall.
 
Cool question.. aren't there some vintage races that take place? what types of times are those guys running compared to modern supersports?
 
I have often wondered the same thing. I have a couple theories. One is that the old guys would still be the fast guys if they were magically teleported to the modern world.

My other theory, and perhaps the one I back the most, is that they probably would not. There was an interview recently with one of the lead Ducati GP guys and they discussed why Casey Stoner does so well on a bike that no one else can apparently ride. The gist of it was that Casey could sense the differences and make up for it by adjusting his style. Whether this is true or not it makes you think about other riders and wonder. Most riders spend the entire season trying to get the bike the way they need it to be so that they can ride it faster.

If you were to put Agostini on a new bike he might not know what to do. Even with some training. It may be that those bikes back then just HAPPENED to be perfect for the way that he rode a bike. If you gave him something with all kinds of electronics the bike wouldn't feel right.

If you cloned him, it might be the same way. Maybe certain people are programmed a certain way. Maybe we have a limited amount of speed that we are capable of attaining.

Kevin Schwantz still moves along pretty good as does Randy Mamola. They were both riding some pretty antiquated bikes by today's standards.

Maybe I'm full of crap.

:Popcorn
 
wingnutthehutt said:
If you were to put Agostini on a new bike he might not know what to do. Even with some training. It may be that those bikes back then just HAPPENED to be perfect for the way that he rode a bike. If you gave him something with all kinds of electronics the bike wouldn't feel right.
Click to expand...

I'd add that not only have the bikes changed, but so have the riders. The art of riding a motorcycle has been refined a great deal over the past 30 years - compare a twist-of-the-wrist to Keith's later works, and several other books of modern motorcycling technique.

You see the same thing in athletic sports, such as figure skating. For instance, according to Wikipedia, the Triple Lutz was never landed in competition until 1962. Today, it's relatively common technique.
 
wingnutthehutt said:
If you were to put Agostini on a new bike he might not know what to do. Even with some training. It may be that those bikes back then just HAPPENED to be perfect for the way that he rode a bike. If you gave him something with all kinds of electronics the bike wouldn't feel right.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question: What makes for a fast rider? Is it raw talent, skill or the desire to be a fast rider?
 
This is especially interesting considering your trackbike is as old as their championships.
 
Last edited:
Burning1 said:
I'd add that not only have the bikes changed, but so have the riders. The art of riding a motorcycle has been refined a great deal over the past 30 years - compare a twist-of-the-wrist to Keith's later works, and several other books of modern motorcycling technique.

You see the same thing in athletic sports, such as figure skating. For instance, according to Wikipedia, the Triple Lutz was never landed in competition until 1962. Today, it's relatively common technique.
Click to expand...

I agree, but please don't ever talk about figure skating again. This is a motorcycle forum. :twofinger
 
wingnutthehutt said:
I agree, but please don't ever talk about figure skating again. This is a motorcycle forum. :twofinger
Click to expand...

When I was getting out of skateboarding, doing a kickflip was an amazing trick that pro's did.

Now it's the first trick kids learn sometimes.

No, I still can't do them. :twofinger

But people are starting out with higher expectations, and watching videos of people actually doing whatever it is. 30 years ago people didn't hang off and drag knee on the street much right? Nowadays we have youtube vids showing "how to get your knee down!!!!".
 
Hailwood was his own answer to the question in his time, I think.

I strongly feel that most competitions and sports do hit a wall at some point-- I mean just look at the Olympics and such, training has become this high-tech bizarro process, and the top athletes are defined more by specialized mutant genetics (top female competitors manage to avoid puberty or turn out to be hermaphrodites for crying out loud) than anything else. Everything comes down to microscopic edges. Winning is basically the opposite of the "Perfect Storm" of a crash-- it's the Perfect Storm of all the best things happening to come together at the right time against all odds. Eventually some kind of line has to be drawn to level a distorted field and make the game about strategy again.
 
A few years back I read the opposite. That the capabilities of the latest bikes are light years ahead of bikes of just 15 years ago, yet lap times haven't dropped near as much as one would expect. This may have changed in the last few years with the introduction of all the electronics.
 
same is with any other sport.

do you think people were doing backflips on dirtbikes 15 years ago? :cool
 
iamrob said:
do you think people were doing backflips on dirtbikes 15 years ago?
Click to expand...

Yes, but nobody was landing them...

Instead of thinking "This vid will rock!" it was all "Well, at least I'll be dying doing something I..."
 
For a better understanding of how the racing motorcycles have evolved, pick up a copy of The Grand Prix Motorcycle: The Official Technical History by Kevin Cameron. I have the book, but haven't read the whole thing. I started at about 1975 to find out what the Grand Prix motorcycles were like when Kenny Roberts started racing them, then read up to the early MotoGP machines.

As progress was made in suspension, frames, engine power, and tires, the riders who did the best were the ones who were best able to adapt to the new behavior. And I'm convinced more than ever that radial tires made a bigger difference in lap times than any other one thing.

I'm also pretty sure that any of those top riders would only need a few hours riding the new bikes to be faster than today's backmarkers.
 
wingnutthehutt said:
I have often wondered the same thing. I have a couple theories. One is that the old guys would still be the fast guys if they were magically teleported to the modern world.

My other theory, and perhaps the one I back the most, is that they probably would not. There was an interview recently with one of the lead Ducati GP guys and they discussed why Casey Stoner does so well on a bike that no one else can apparently ride. The gist of it was that Casey could sense the differences and make up for it by adjusting his style. Whether this is true or not it makes you think about other riders and wonder. Most riders spend the entire season trying to get the bike the way they need it to be so that they can ride it faster.

If you were to put Agostini on a new bike he might not know what to do. Even with some training. It may be that those bikes back then just HAPPENED to be perfect for the way that he rode a bike. If you gave him something with all kinds of electronics the bike wouldn't feel right.

If you cloned him, it might be the same way. Maybe certain people are programmed a certain way. Maybe we have a limited amount of speed that we are capable of attaining.

Kevin Schwantz still moves along pretty good as does Randy Mamola. They were both riding some pretty antiquated bikes by today's standards.

Maybe I'm full of crap.

:Popcorn
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Evolution happens as a RESULT of the environment - it does not cause it. Make sense?

The old guys learned to ride the way they did because of the bikes that were available. You put them on new bikes and once they get used to them they would kick ass. Their physiological characteristics that allow them to be good riders would still apply on newer machines.

Nobody is "programmed" to ride a motorcycle. We have senses, we have reflexes, and we have physical traits like eyesight, strength, etc. Different people have different strengths, weaknesses, and sensitivities. The better riders are just more able to adapt to their equipment.

Stoner can apparently adapt to anything and ride it well - he's more versatile. He didn't come out of the womb "programmed" to ride a motorcycle. Nobody does. Rossi hopped into an F1 car and was nipping at the heels of record times, with virtually no car experience. The same psychical characteristics that make him great on a motorcycle also helped him in the car.

This goes back to Socrates' (correct me if I'm wrong) question about knowledge. Is it inherent and we just have to remember it? Or is it completely fresh? I believe we have certain characteristics that lend themselves well to certain talents.
 
Last edited:
The fast guys are the fast guys. Back 30 years ago they had a different set of problems to solve, weak chassis, lower grip tires, less power but the fast guys could find solutions.
Riding skill is somewhat learned but there is a certain natural ability that cannot be learned, you either have it or you don't. You can learn, through practice, to become a good rider but you can't make a slow guy really fast no matter how much training he gets. It sucks but some guys are backmarkers and some are winners, we don't all get the same talent.

Thanx, Russ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top