J4rn0

There are two points that seem rather obvious:

What Stoner is actually saying is that with less electronic aids Rossi would be the best of the rest barring Stoner -- that is, I don't imagine Stoner conceding that Rossi could ever be better than him, with or without electronics (the same is true for Rossi of course). We know he's someone who always speaks his mind, so I would not look for hidden motives there. Marquez is not going to like this statement though. Nor Lorenzo.

The fact that a rider has been successful in the lower classes without electronic aids is not very significant, because electronics become useful or even indispensable only when the bikes are exceedingly powerful: in the lower classes power is manageable, so electronic aids are not so important.
I remember Dovi saying that the MotoGPs, back in 2008 when he entered the class, were already easier to ride than the 250s.

It is not by chance that a rider like Stoner demonstrated all his talent when he moved to MotoGP, on the most powerful bikes. He could make up for the limits of the early electronic systems and now we know that he never relied on them too much.

And, coincidentally he retired when the electronics became more developed and dominant.

RCV600RR

It's a relative thing.

It's ultimately a performance tool now - more for race pace than quali. It's instructive that all riders use it.

I think VR usually likes the harder compounds, actually (depending on carcass).

Bike design is a really loose term. Engine design is heavily affected by electronics. I think chassis design is affected much less by electronics.

J4rn0

Surely Marquez would not be playing so much with the limit on a 200 bhp 500cc stroker without electronics, and if he did, his crashes would be much more serious than what they have been so far. Highsides are nasty things.

RCV600RR

Such clear logic. Another great post, as usual.