<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Oct 23 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]96670[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
and i wonder why that is ! nothing to do with ducati then ?
Bridgestone want competition, whats the point if everyone worth mentioning has their tyres
and i wonder why that is ! nothing to do with ducati then ?
Bridgestone want competition, whats the point if everyone worth mentioning has their tyres
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 23 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]96672[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Bridgestone want competition, whats the point if everyone worth mentioning has their tyres
thats pretty lame.
they want competition yet they still said they will bid to be the sole supplier.
they dont want to supplie rossi unless there the sole supplier then !
i think theres a lot more to this than meets the eye.
Bridgestone want competition, whats the point if everyone worth mentioning has their tyres
thats pretty lame.
they want competition yet they still said they will bid to be the sole supplier.
they dont want to supplie rossi unless there the sole supplier then !
i think theres a lot more to this than meets the eye.
Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 23 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]96669[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Because Bridgestone said they don't want to supply him with tyres.
That is not an acceptable reason. This is not a tire championship, so if that is the case then I understand Ezpeleta... Tire suppliers should be ready to supply any teams, and happy to do that since they do it for good money. They are there to develop good rubber and earn reputation and profits, not to decide who can have the best tires (and win) and who can not (and lose).
The previous situation was also bad, with Michelin favouring Honda and Yamaha - but at least until 2005 all top contenders were on the same rubber, so it was not a deciding factor.
Now top contenders are split over two brands, - in this case you must have substantialbalance, or freedom of choice, or, if these two things are not possible, then you'll have a spec tire...
Same thing happened in SBK already, Michelin was helping only Ducati, now it is different... Don't think the spec tire proposal is a bluff, if other changes fail to bring about more balance the spec tire will be enforced.
Because Bridgestone said they don't want to supply him with tyres.
That is not an acceptable reason. This is not a tire championship, so if that is the case then I understand Ezpeleta... Tire suppliers should be ready to supply any teams, and happy to do that since they do it for good money. They are there to develop good rubber and earn reputation and profits, not to decide who can have the best tires (and win) and who can not (and lose).
The previous situation was also bad, with Michelin favouring Honda and Yamaha - but at least until 2005 all top contenders were on the same rubber, so it was not a deciding factor.
Now top contenders are split over two brands, - in this case you must have substantialbalance, or freedom of choice, or, if these two things are not possible, then you'll have a spec tire...
Same thing happened in SBK already, Michelin was helping only Ducati, now it is different... Don't think the spec tire proposal is a bluff, if other changes fail to bring about more balance the spec tire will be enforced.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(J4rn0 @ Oct 23 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]96676[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Tire suppliers should be ready to supply any teams, and happy to do that since they do it for good money. They are there to develop good rubber and earn reputation and profits, not to decide who can have the best tires (and win) and who can not (and lose).
How can you apply this logic and still accept that factories can chose which riders they employ. Shouldn't the riders be able to have a Ducati if they request one?
Tire suppliers should be ready to supply any teams, and happy to do that since they do it for good money. They are there to develop good rubber and earn reputation and profits, not to decide who can have the best tires (and win) and who can not (and lose).
How can you apply this logic and still accept that factories can chose which riders they employ. Shouldn't the riders be able to have a Ducati if they request one?
Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 23 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]96678[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
How can you apply this logic and still accept that factories can chose which riders they employ. Shouldn't the riders be able to have a Ducati if they request one?
The logic is there and it is consistent. See, the MotoGP championship awards three titles:
1. Best Rider
2. Best Bike
3. Best Team
These three are the objects of the competition. Thats why you cannot equalize or swap riders or bikes or teams, because they are being raced against each other, they are the contenders.
But there is no world title for tires (neither for fuel, or brakes, or suspension for that matter, although they are very important components). These things are not the objects of the competition and should be either equal, or a matter of free choice by everybody.
How can you apply this logic and still accept that factories can chose which riders they employ. Shouldn't the riders be able to have a Ducati if they request one?
The logic is there and it is consistent. See, the MotoGP championship awards three titles:
1. Best Rider
2. Best Bike
3. Best Team
These three are the objects of the competition. Thats why you cannot equalize or swap riders or bikes or teams, because they are being raced against each other, they are the contenders.
But there is no world title for tires (neither for fuel, or brakes, or suspension for that matter, although they are very important components). These things are not the objects of the competition and should be either equal, or a matter of free choice by everybody.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(povol @ Oct 21 2007, 06:06 AM) [snapback]96255[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Without even looking im going to go out on a limb and say your favorite rider is, let me see,Rossi.I have come to the conclusion that a lot of Rossi fans could give a rats ... about the sport as long as their guy is winning.Saying that manipulating the sport, is good for the sport, is wrong on a bunch of different levels.I think they would be happy if he was the only bike on the circuit if it meant him winning.Try being a fan of the sport instead of being a jock sniffer.
You dont half talk a load of ..... poval. The Rossi fans want what everyone else wants, great races. Yes, of course Id prefer Rossi winning, thats whats called being a fan. But Id also prefer him winning by having a battle with someone to the line, not just leading by 50 bike lengths throughout the entire race. One of the best races this year, for me, was at Catalunya. Even though Rossi didnt win, it was just a fantastic race from start to finish. Stoner deserved that win with a faltless ride.
When Pedrosa won at Donington last year, no-one gave a stuff, because he was about 12 seconds ahead of the field. No-one wants to see some guy just doing laps round the track. I was there, and everyone around me was only watching the Rossi / Melandri scrap for second, because that was where the race was. You go on about Rossi fans not giving a rats about the sport. The Non-Rossi fans are the ones that are continuing this crap. No-one would give a toss if the Tech 3 squad had changed to bridgestones even half way through the season. Its all the Rossi bashers who feel theres something wrong with him wanting better equipment. And dont give me that crap about his apparent underhanded way of getting bridgestones. He shouldnt have had to use his influence to get his way, he should be free to choose his make of tyre. Every rider should. If a team want to try a different swing arm or electronics, they are free to do so. So why not with tyres?, why should there be all this crap about it?
Without even looking im going to go out on a limb and say your favorite rider is, let me see,Rossi.I have come to the conclusion that a lot of Rossi fans could give a rats ... about the sport as long as their guy is winning.Saying that manipulating the sport, is good for the sport, is wrong on a bunch of different levels.I think they would be happy if he was the only bike on the circuit if it meant him winning.Try being a fan of the sport instead of being a jock sniffer.
You dont half talk a load of ..... poval. The Rossi fans want what everyone else wants, great races. Yes, of course Id prefer Rossi winning, thats whats called being a fan. But Id also prefer him winning by having a battle with someone to the line, not just leading by 50 bike lengths throughout the entire race. One of the best races this year, for me, was at Catalunya. Even though Rossi didnt win, it was just a fantastic race from start to finish. Stoner deserved that win with a faltless ride.
When Pedrosa won at Donington last year, no-one gave a stuff, because he was about 12 seconds ahead of the field. No-one wants to see some guy just doing laps round the track. I was there, and everyone around me was only watching the Rossi / Melandri scrap for second, because that was where the race was. You go on about Rossi fans not giving a rats about the sport. The Non-Rossi fans are the ones that are continuing this crap. No-one would give a toss if the Tech 3 squad had changed to bridgestones even half way through the season. Its all the Rossi bashers who feel theres something wrong with him wanting better equipment. And dont give me that crap about his apparent underhanded way of getting bridgestones. He shouldnt have had to use his influence to get his way, he should be free to choose his make of tyre. Every rider should. If a team want to try a different swing arm or electronics, they are free to do so. So why not with tyres?, why should there be all this crap about it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(J4rn0 @ Oct 23 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]96686[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
The logic is there and it is consistent. See, the MotoGP championship awards three titles:
1. Best Rider
2. Best Bike
3. Best Team
These three are the objects of the competition. Thats why you cannot equalize or swap riders or bikes or teams, because they are being raced against each other, they are the contenders.
But there is no world title for tires (neither for fuel, or brakes, or suspension for that matter, although they are very important components). These things are not the objects of the competition and should be either equal, or a matter of free choice by everybody.
Well thats rediculous. What if all the teams decide they want Showa suspension, or everybody decides they want Shell lubricants. Why on earth should a component supplier only be allowed to supply parts if they can and will make enough for everyone. It is the nature of competition to look for an advantage, and factories make contracts with their supplier and work with them to make the biggest advantage they can. If a supplier didn't get to chose who they supplied then each team would comform to what was currently the best and equipment suppliers would be forced out of competition instantly.
The logic is there and it is consistent. See, the MotoGP championship awards three titles:
1. Best Rider
2. Best Bike
3. Best Team
These three are the objects of the competition. Thats why you cannot equalize or swap riders or bikes or teams, because they are being raced against each other, they are the contenders.
But there is no world title for tires (neither for fuel, or brakes, or suspension for that matter, although they are very important components). These things are not the objects of the competition and should be either equal, or a matter of free choice by everybody.
Well thats rediculous. What if all the teams decide they want Showa suspension, or everybody decides they want Shell lubricants. Why on earth should a component supplier only be allowed to supply parts if they can and will make enough for everyone. It is the nature of competition to look for an advantage, and factories make contracts with their supplier and work with them to make the biggest advantage they can. If a supplier didn't get to chose who they supplied then each team would comform to what was currently the best and equipment suppliers would be forced out of competition instantly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Oct 23 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]96674[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
thats pretty lame.
they want competition yet they still said they will bid to be the sole supplier.
they dont want to supplie rossi unless there the sole supplier then !
i think theres a lot more to this than meets the eye.
I think what bridgestone want is to beat michelin. If michelin have very good or the best riders, so much the better. Second choice is to be sole tyre supplier, as this is victory of a sort as well. I doubt ducati have much to do with it, although they like beating everybody else and rossi in particular as well.
thats pretty lame.
they want competition yet they still said they will bid to be the sole supplier.
they dont want to supplie rossi unless there the sole supplier then !
i think theres a lot more to this than meets the eye.
I think what bridgestone want is to beat michelin. If michelin have very good or the best riders, so much the better. Second choice is to be sole tyre supplier, as this is victory of a sort as well. I doubt ducati have much to do with it, although they like beating everybody else and rossi in particular as well.
Joined Oct 2007
4K Posts | 744+
Tuscany, Italy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 23 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]96688[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Well thats rediculous. What if all the teams decide they want Showa suspension, or everybody decides they want Shell lubricants. Why on earth should a component supplier only be allowed to supply parts if they can and will make enough for everyone. It is the nature of competition to look for an advantage, and factories make contracts with their supplier and work with them to make the biggest advantage they can. If a supplier didn't get to chose who they supplied then each team would comform to what was currently the best and equipment suppliers would be forced out of competition instantly.
In fact all those components are freely available. Almost all bikes use Brembo brakes for example, Brembo does not say 'no' to anybody. Ohlins is owned by Yamaha, but they also sell suspensions to everybody. Same does Showa.
Then of course each team has to develop the bike using whatever components they have chosen, and that is the capacity of the team. Your team can be better than mine working with Bridgestone, that's fair, but Bridgestone should not refuse their rubber to my team. That is the whole point.
Well thats rediculous. What if all the teams decide they want Showa suspension, or everybody decides they want Shell lubricants. Why on earth should a component supplier only be allowed to supply parts if they can and will make enough for everyone. It is the nature of competition to look for an advantage, and factories make contracts with their supplier and work with them to make the biggest advantage they can. If a supplier didn't get to chose who they supplied then each team would comform to what was currently the best and equipment suppliers would be forced out of competition instantly.
In fact all those components are freely available. Almost all bikes use Brembo brakes for example, Brembo does not say 'no' to anybody. Ohlins is owned by Yamaha, but they also sell suspensions to everybody. Same does Showa.
Then of course each team has to develop the bike using whatever components they have chosen, and that is the capacity of the team. Your team can be better than mine working with Bridgestone, that's fair, but Bridgestone should not refuse their rubber to my team. That is the whole point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(J4rn0 @ Oct 23 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]96690[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Your team can be better than mine working with Bridgestone, that's fair, but Bridgestone should not refuse their rubber to my team. That is the whole point.
I disagree, variation is good for the sport and good for the markets involved. I think it is understandable and admirable that Bridgestone don't want to monopolize motogp because they prefer to be in a competative environment.
Your team can be better than mine working with Bridgestone, that's fair, but Bridgestone should not refuse their rubber to my team. That is the whole point.
I disagree, variation is good for the sport and good for the markets involved. I think it is understandable and admirable that Bridgestone don't want to monopolize motogp because they prefer to be in a competative environment.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 23 2007, 07:56 AM) [snapback]96692[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I disagree, variation is good for the sport and good for the markets involved. I think it is understandable and admirable that Bridgestone don't want to monopolize motogp because they prefer to be in a competative environment.
Dude,unless you havnt figured it out,most Rossi fans dont give a .... whats good for the sport.Its all about feeling good about themselves and rooting for a winner
I disagree, variation is good for the sport and good for the markets involved. I think it is understandable and admirable that Bridgestone don't want to monopolize motogp because they prefer to be in a competative environment.
Dude,unless you havnt figured it out,most Rossi fans dont give a .... whats good for the sport.Its all about feeling good about themselves and rooting for a winner
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(povol @ Oct 23 2007, 05:30 PM) [snapback]96741[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Dude,unless you havnt figured it out,most Rossi fans dont give a .... whats good for the sport.Its all about feeling good about themselves and rooting for a winner
I don't feel that way but its clear rossi is being held back by a couple of issues. hes not lost it as some think.
Dude,unless you havnt figured it out,most Rossi fans dont give a .... whats good for the sport.Its all about feeling good about themselves and rooting for a winner
I don't feel that way but its clear rossi is being held back by a couple of issues. hes not lost it as some think.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(an4rew @ Oct 24 2007, 02:45 AM) [snapback]96745[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I don't feel that way but its clear rossi is being held back by a couple of issues. hes not lost it as some think.
well its been 2 years now ..... how long it take him to sort out these "issues" .... when is the big "ressurection" going to occur?
I don't feel that way but its clear rossi is being held back by a couple of issues. hes not lost it as some think.
well its been 2 years now ..... how long it take him to sort out these "issues" .... when is the big "ressurection" going to occur?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(povol @ Oct 23 2007, 05:30 PM) [snapback]96741[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Dude,unless you havnt figured it out,most Rossi fans dont give a .... whats good for the sport.Its all about feeling good about themselves and rooting for a winner
dude, unless you haven't noticed, he aint won a championship for 2 years so your talking crap.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 23 2007, 07:56 AM)
I think it is understandable and admirable that Bridgestone don't want to monopolize motogp because they prefer to be in a competative environment.
your not really that naive tom are you ?
bridgestone are interested in making money,end of. thats how they ended up the biggest tyre company in the world. if by "monopolizing" they sell more pruduct thus making more money thats what they will do.
Dude,unless you havnt figured it out,most Rossi fans dont give a .... whats good for the sport.Its all about feeling good about themselves and rooting for a winner
dude, unless you haven't noticed, he aint won a championship for 2 years so your talking crap.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 23 2007, 07:56 AM)
I think it is understandable and admirable that Bridgestone don't want to monopolize motogp because they prefer to be in a competative environment.
your not really that naive tom are you ?
bridgestone are interested in making money,end of. thats how they ended up the biggest tyre company in the world. if by "monopolizing" they sell more pruduct thus making more money thats what they will do.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Oct 23 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]96746[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
well its been 2 years now ..... how long it take him to sort out these "issues" .... when is the big "ressurection" going to occur?
Well, in WRC it took Gronholm 5 years to come back and be a serious title contender. In WSB it took JT 3 years to win it back.
I think you will find plenty of other examples even of dominant racers that lost a year or two or more just to come back as a true champion.
well its been 2 years now ..... how long it take him to sort out these "issues" .... when is the big "ressurection" going to occur?
Well, in WRC it took Gronholm 5 years to come back and be a serious title contender. In WSB it took JT 3 years to win it back.
I think you will find plenty of other examples even of dominant racers that lost a year or two or more just to come back as a true champion.
Joined Jul 2006
11K Posts | 291+
Texas
not to change the subject..(kinda)..but honestly...don't you all think the current rule is ....... stupid...pick the tyres before you even get on the track?? I mean come on, thats ...........at the minimum...for "safty" sake, tire choice AFTER practice is the smart thing to do....
Joined Sep 2007
2K Posts | 60+
here
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(xx CURVE xx @ Oct 23 2007, 07:04 PM) [snapback]96760[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
not to change the subject..(kinda)..but honestly...don't you all think the current rule is ....... stupid...pick the tyres before you even get on the track?? I mean come on, thats ...........at the minimum...for "safty" sake, tire choice AFTER practice is the smart thing to do....
I agree entirely and have posted similar thoughts on previous tyre-related threads.
The main thrust of the rule changes for this year were "for the sake of safety" so why does this rule (the part about picking the tyres before a wheel has turned at a track) fly in the face of safety?
not to change the subject..(kinda)..but honestly...don't you all think the current rule is ....... stupid...pick the tyres before you even get on the track?? I mean come on, thats ...........at the minimum...for "safty" sake, tire choice AFTER practice is the smart thing to do....
I agree entirely and have posted similar thoughts on previous tyre-related threads.
The main thrust of the rule changes for this year were "for the sake of safety" so why does this rule (the part about picking the tyres before a wheel has turned at a track) fly in the face of safety?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Oct 23 2007, 06:17 PM) [snapback]96751[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
your not really that naive tom are you ?
bridgestone are interested in making money,end of. thats how they ended up the biggest tyre company in the world. if by "monopolizing" they sell more pruduct thus making more money thats what they will do.
You have overlooked the value of competition. Nobody cares who wins when only one company eneters, thats why bridgestone want competition.
your not really that naive tom are you ?
bridgestone are interested in making money,end of. thats how they ended up the biggest tyre company in the world. if by "monopolizing" they sell more pruduct thus making more money thats what they will do.
You have overlooked the value of competition. Nobody cares who wins when only one company eneters, thats why bridgestone want competition.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(xx CURVE xx @ Oct 23 2007, 02:04 PM) [snapback]96760[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
not to change the subject..(kinda)..but honestly...don't you all think the current rule is ....... stupid...pick the tyres before you even get on the track?? I mean come on, thats ...........at the minimum...for "safty" sake, tire choice AFTER practice is the smart thing to do....
I dont have a problem with that and i believe Bridgestone has made some concessions as far as numbers [up to 40] and after first practice.
not to change the subject..(kinda)..but honestly...don't you all think the current rule is ....... stupid...pick the tyres before you even get on the track?? I mean come on, thats ...........at the minimum...for "safty" sake, tire choice AFTER practice is the smart thing to do....
I dont have a problem with that and i believe Bridgestone has made some concessions as far as numbers [up to 40] and after first practice.
