ASSEN GP 2011: RACE *SPOILERS*

people mostly complain not about having another tyre supplier, but having softer compounds

(even in some domestic series for example, if its free to choose your tyres, eventually everyone will be on the same

these days the dunlop gp211

so its kind of unfair for people to be unable to have the tyre they want, thats why i think the single tyre rule is a good thing)

bill88 said:

people mostly complain not about having another tyre supplier, but having softer compounds

(even in some domestic series for example, if its free to choose your tyres, eventually everyone will be on the same

these days the dunlop gp211

so its kind of unfair for people to be unable to have the tyre they

want, thats why i think the single tyre rule is a good thing

Click to expand...

I can see your point, however in most domestic series we are dealing with a much more standard bike in comparison to

Motogp prototypes, when manufacturers are pushing the

boundaries with development and what their particular riders

need, then a k mart style tyre supply is completely juxaposed to

the philosophy needed for all to have a shot at it.....almost

counterintuative I know and if bridgestone had actually

developed some new variations in the last two seasons then we

may be seeing different outcomes, however they have proven

that their push for dominance in motogp, and indeed the

motoracing world, over Michelin was purely motivated by the

corporate gain for as it is they have allowed little to trickle down

to the consumer, especially when compared to Pirelli, and they

lack the same passion that Michelin showed. Michelin still shipped sns's to several riders despite being guaranteed at least the top five-seven spots each week for years. This was passion, not just corporate ideals, which Also inevitably lead to the technology filtering down to the consumer with the introduction of the first dual and triple compound rubber for the road.



The sole tyre supplier is a problem in prototype racing, presently though, dornas choice of supplier is IMO proving to be a bigger problem than it could be........

Good Job Spies! damn 12 pages for a race post and most about tires...hmmm.

Well all I can say is well done marco (who was in front and had his own accident unfortunatly leaving lorenzo nowhere to go) cos the best thing I saw from trackside was the speed Lorenzo caught and passed people, unbelievable that these guys have the same sized engines!



Well done Ben spies but best part of the day was Brad Smiths performance!



Oh and it was bloody freezing!!

techno said:

Oh and it was bloody freezing!!

Click to expand...

I can be the judge of that, how cold was it? If it didn't geel lik 50 below zero, then you're being a ...... I was at Silverstone, whe it felt like the Artic winter.

Tom said:

Bridgestone are harming motogp, i think they need to take a serious look at the sport, themselves and at Formula 1 and realize that everyone can win if they just change their approach. It's getting ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree. Maybe we should go back to a time where the races were decided by how much pull you had with the tire manufacture? Simonchelli's crashed should not be blamed on the tires, as I think they were all on the same brand. Manage what you got is the lesson. What is ridiculous is the years that SNS were allowed to skew the results, tantamount to WWF. FARCE.

chopperman said:

You take away competition, you take away the need for major investment. I was against a single tyre rule for this very reason. .... we don't even have intermediates, WTF is that all about

Click to expand...

I thought the same thing, until I asked this question to somebody on Ducati team. He said intermediates are so rarely used because the weather circumstances are extremely rare, that is it would have to be wet to dry or dry to wet, and a switch to other bike during race would negate the need for intermediates.

Jumkie said:

I can be the judge of that, how cold was it? If it didn't geel lik 50 below zero, then you're being a ...... I was at Silverstone, whe it felt like the Artic winter.

Click to expand...

You SoCal boys dont know what cold is. I bet temps in the 40's did feel cold to you.

hawkdriver said:

I don't think we can blame them for this weekend, it was colder than normal and they offered to bring more tires and that was rejected by one of the factories. I think it would be smart to change the rules and allow for more tires in these conditions without any input from any team or factory. BS knew they needed better tires for the weekend and tried to deliver them(according to motomatters the tires were on a truck just waiting for the go ahead), so at least they had a solution to the problem but it isn't their fault the solution wasn't used. They are bringing what the manufactures want, how can you blame them.

Click to expand...

Yes! Kropo mentioned this in his roundups. He said "the hunt" was on to find this team. Not sure why Bridgestone is getting so much heat (no pun intended). Accounts of the riders themselves say Bridgestone has astonishing performance. Anybody who watches WSBK would know this.

povol said:

You SoCal boys dont know what cold is. I bet temps in the 40's did feel cold to you.

Click to expand...

It felt cold to me and I'm from Minnesota. Our idea of fun in the winter is playing hockey and snowboarding.

Austin said:

It felt cold to me and I'm from Minnesota. Our idea of fun in the winter is playing hockey and snowboarding.

Click to expand...

Aye was a bit cold, I had tae put ma jacket on........

I admit, I'm spoiled by SoCal weather. But I Silverstone was one cold MF. That is every except Pete looked cold. That or Pete just wanted to show off his legs so decided to wear shorts.

Austin said:

Agree with you and what Talpa said. I believe a safer alternative would be for options that heat up immediately and fade as the race progresses. In addition to some safety improvements (I realize losing grip at the end of the race is also dangerous), tire management would become important again and could create better racing.

Click to expand...

Bridgestone can't win it seems. Riders crashing because of loss of grip near the ending stage of the race would 'feel' worse and peeps would criticize them even more. Nothing like the outcry of riders who think they had it in the bag only to go down at the end stages of a race. Simocelli .... up, nothing else too it (not that your are blaming Bstone for his crash) but this idea cropping up that Bstone have less than brought a great product to the premier of racing is a bit much to stomach for me my dear friend. What would bringing back Dunlop and Michelin do? Suddenly Bstone is being accused of complacency. Why? On what basis?

Z4Kevo said:

OK. An observation...and not to defend Simo he really needs to exercise better judgement.



But when watching the race start I noticed that Lorenzo had a pretty good jump, came across traffic and then tried to stuff it up the inside underneath Spies. He obviously had too much speed to pull off the maneuver and let it push to the outside where his rear hopped up on him almost leading to a highside that would have most certainly taken out Simo. But he didn't lose it...and as a result nobody is talking about it.



Could it not be said that Lorenzo tried a similarly unadvised move on cold tires but got away with it since he didn't crash out? Hence, nobody is giving him grief for it?



Any way. Just an observation.

Click to expand...

Jumkie said:

But he didn't lose it...



That seems to be the key, doesn't it....

Click to expand...

Z4Kevo said:

Yes it does! At the end of the day that is exactly key. But fundamentally wasn't he being just as careless and taking just as big a risk? I think an argument could certainly be made to the point.

Interesting wrinkle though isn't it?

Click to expand...

Jumkie said:

Not really, Lorenzo took it to limit, Sic passed it. The differece is probally very tiny, but the consequences major. Btw, why we having this conversation in practice thread? Lets move to race thread.

Click to expand...

Were are on the same page Jumkie. I would say my only quibble is that every racer talks about how totally unpredictable the BS are when they are cold. That you have absolutely zero warning before they snap and how this is totally unlike any other situation they face concerning knowing or not knowing where the limit is.



That being the case can we really cast praise or blame on any rider who crashes under these circumstances? One could say that Lorenzo didn't know where the limit was any better or worse than Simoncelli did and that Lorenzo just got lucky.



Given each individual's recent history (and the fact that nobody else crashed in that turn) I would generally agree and say that Lorenzo somehow found the limit and avoided it whereas Simoncelli did not.



But I'll leave that for others to decide.

Jumkie said:

Bridgestone can't win it seems. Riders crashing because of loss of grip near the ending stage of the race would 'feel' worse and peeps would criticize them even more. Nothing like the outcry of riders who think they had it in the bag only to go down at the end stages of a race. Simocelli .... up, nothing else too it (not that your are blaming Bstone for his crash) but this idea cropping up that Bstone have less than brought a great product to the premier of racing is a bit much to stomach for me my dear friend. What would bringing back Dunlop and Michelin do? Suddenly Bstone is being accused of complacency. Why? On what basis?

Click to expand...

In the days of the tire war, when tire management was important and tires did go off at the end of races, how many guys fell off because of it? Maybe it's selective memory, but it always seemed to me that guys were forced to slow down because of tires, not fall off as is the current practice.



One instance of complacency would be the development of the 2012 tires. They were unanimously loved and when the riders asked for them for the remainder of 2011, the answer was no. They're literally sitting on a better product than they're making available to the riders. If that's not complacency then I don't know what is. Like I said at the time of the 2012 tire test, they're under no obligation to give them to the riders, so fair play to them. But it's still complacency.

Austin said:

In the days of the tire war, when tire management was important and tires did go off at the end of races, how many guys fell off because of it? Maybe it's selective memory, but it always seemed to me that guys were forced to slow down because of tires, not fall off as is the current practice.

Click to expand...

I realize losing grip at the end of the race is also dangerous

Click to expand...

Did you say the above?



and to add, I'm not sure how tire management is not still important, riders just need to learn to manage tires at the beginning too.

Austin said:

One instance of complacency would be the development of the 2012 tires. They were unanimously loved and when the riders asked for them for the remainder of 2011, the answer was no. They're literally sitting on a better product than they're making available to the riders. If that's not complacency then I don't know what is. Like I said at the time of the 2012 tire test, they're under no obligation to give them to the riders, so fair play to them. But it's still complacency.

Click to expand...

So they presented a set of tires that are still being developed and the riders said, great, that is progress, we love them, good job, and this is a sign of "complacency"??? Are we talking about the same "complacency" buddy?



Lets say they have one tire failure because they haven't got all the kinks worked out, what would be the clamor then? Maybe something like, they should not have rushed them out before thorough development. Bstone should not be "complacent" when it comes to rider safety.



Bstone can't win.

Jumkie said:

Did you say the above?



and to add, I'm not sure how tire management is not still important, riders just need to learn to manage tires at the beginning too.



So they presented a set of tires that are still being developed and the riders said, great, that is progress, we love them, good job, and this is a sign of "complacency"??? Are we talking about the same "complacency" buddy?

Lets say they have one tire failure because they haven't got all the kinks worked out, what would be the clamor then? Maybe something like, they should not have rushed them out before thorough development. Bstone should not be "complacent" when it comes to rider safety.



Bstone can't win.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you learn to manage something as completely unpredictable as a cold tire that is difficult to heat. It seems to have caught out just about every rider on the grid at some point this season. At least with a fading tire, it's still predictable.



Come on, man. You and I both know that if there were any potential kinks or any sort of threat to rider safety, Bridgestone would never have rolled them out in the first place. They've been through a heavy testing regimen, they've caught the major problems. This was merely an opportunity to get some feedback from riders to see if they're headed in the right direction. And they got the reaction they wanted.



Now, this is where the complacency sets in. If they had any sort of competition, they would've handed out the 2012 rubber to their teams as quickly as possible. But because they don't, they can afford to sit on it (at least until the MSMA or Dorna or the riders make some considerable noise). Knowing you have a better product but refusing to release it because you don't have to, that says complacency to me.

Jumkie said:

Yes! Kropo mentioned this in his roundups. He said "the hunt" was on to find this team.

Click to expand...

Not the greatest source but the BBC "commentary team" said it was Gresini.

basspete said:

Aye was a bit cold, I had tae put ma jacket on........

Click to expand...

If a Scotsman says it's cold, it's cold.

Austin said:

I'm not sure how you learn to manage something as completely unpredictable as a cold tire that is difficult to heat. It seems to have caught out just about every rider on the grid at some point this season. At least with a fading tire, it's still predictable.

Click to expand...

My friend, that's not what I remember. I remember Michelin riders comparing them to Bridgestones saying, with Michelin, the tires had grip until they didn't. This was under 'tire war competition'. I'm not sure what isn't predictable about a cold tire, its a cold tire. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these 'cold tire crashes' were admittedly on "cold tires" (that is, at the beginning of the sessions) Cal, Karel, Sic (three different bikes, all offs, at the beginning of a session, that is when tires are 'cold').

Austin said:

Come on, man. You and I both know that if there were any potential kinks or any sort of threat to rider safety, Bridgestone would never have rolled them out in the first place. They've been through a heavy testing regimen, they've caught the major problems. This was merely an opportunity to get some feedback from riders to see if they're headed in the right direction. And they got the reaction they wanted.

Click to expand...

My learned friend, as you said, they issued the tires for "testing and feedback" purposes ONLY. Why do you think they were ready to provide the entire grid under the massive undertaking that is an even by event for the rest of the season? I highly doubt that the tires were in the trim that would be spec for a race weekend event. Also, maybe you can tell me, but would these tires have been any better at Silverstone, a cold wet track? I thought the brunt of the test was for slicks. Also, do you think these test tires would have faired better under the cold conditions at Assen? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we know the answer to that. And on top of that, they actually attempted to address the specific problem by having a truck ready to bring different tires, a team refused. How this is Bstones fault, I fail to see the logic.

Austin said:

Now, this is where the complacency sets in. If they had any sort of competition, they would've handed out the 2012 rubber to their teams as quickly as possible. But because they don't, they can afford to sit on it (at least until the MSMA or Dorna or the riders make some considerable noise). Knowing you have a better product but refusing to release it because you don't have to, that says complacency to me.

Click to expand...

Again, the tire brand brought out a few of next years tires in the making (unless these are the tires you think are set for next year....), to get feedback, the feedback they got was positive, and this is described as "complacency"? I don't get the logic hermano. I can't imagine what an undertaking it must be to provide the entire grid with the highest end motorcycle tires on the planet, but I imagine it takes a bit of time to get the whole logistical apparatus in firing order. Not to mention all the bearcats in agreement, liability management, and retooling of being a contract single tire provider, but I imagine you may be over simplifying it buddy. Notwithstanding, as you say, under competition, they may have been more apt to doing so; after all, Michelin would regularly make a set of specific tires for a few men, one with particular regularity. Knowing what are all the ramifications of providing tires for an entire grid, let alone just one more rider was perhaps a reason why they publically denied the first request by said rider. Perhaps, something to think about, eh? Also, I don't think they are "refusing" to bring out a better product, I think they are being prudent about the thoroughness of providing one of the most important aspects of the competition.

Jumkie said:

My friend, that's not what I remember. I remember Michelin riders comparing them to Bridgestones saying, with Michelin, the tires had grip until they didn't. This was under 'tire war competition'. I'm not sure what isn't predictable about a cold tire, its a cold tire.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these 'cold tire crashes' were admittedly on "cold tires" (that is, at the beginning of the sessions) Cal, Karel, Sic (three different bikes, all offs, at the beginning of a session, that is when tires are 'cold').







My learned friend, as you said, they issued the tires for "testing and feedback" purposes ONLY. Why do you think they were ready to provide the entire grid under the massive undertaking that is an even by event for the rest of the season? I highly doubt that the tires were in the trim that would be spec for a race weekend event. Also, maybe you can tell me, but would these tires have been any better at Silverstone, a cold wet track? I thought the brunt of the test was for slicks. Also, do you think these test tires would have faired better under the cold conditions at Assen? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we know the answer to that. And on top of that, they actually attempted to address the specific problem by having a truck ready to bring different tires, a team refused. How this is Bstones fault, I fail to see the logic.









Again, the tire brand brought out a few of next years tires in the making (unless these are the tires you think are set for next year....), to get feedback, the feedback they got was positive, and this is described as "complacency"? I don't get the logic hermano. I can't imagine what an undertaking it must be to provide the entire grid with the highest end motorcycle tires on the planet, but I imagine it takes a bit of time to get the whole logistical apparatus in firing order. Not to mention all the bearcats in agreement, liability management, and retooling of being a contract single tire provider, but I imagine you may be over simplifying it buddy. Notwithstanding, as you say, under competition, they may have been more apt to doing so; after all, Michelin would regularly make a set of specific tires for a few men, one with particular regularity. Knowing what are all the ramifications of providing tires for an entire grid, let alone just one more rider was perhaps a reason why they publically denied the first request by said rider. Perhaps, something to think about, eh? Also, I don't think they are "refusing" to bring out a better product, I think they are being prudent about the thoroughness of providing one of the most important aspects of the competition.

Click to expand...

This is all ........ and you know it Jums. Austins point is simple and obvious and you are ignoring due to your deep-seeded hatred for Rossi, and therefore Michelin. Your POV stands out like dogs balls and to be honest it consistently detracts from what could be........



The simple fact of the matter is, if Bridgestone had competition they would be introducing new compounds all the time, 'testing and feedback' was commonplace!.....it had to be! now we have seen '1' new development in '2' years which isn't available until next year.......that is complacency, plain and simple.



This is what is costing the teams and the sport. I'm sure even you are aware, that it is much more expensive to build, and continually develop, a bike around a tyre, rather than the other way around. Bridgestone is saving big dollars, whilst still getting all the Promo and branding benefits.



Why do you think Michelin use to build the 'SNS's'? What was the point? they would have probably won anyway, taken the top 5 spots even-consistently......so why? The Rossi conspiracy doesn't hold any weight with your argument here, the expense was too great and the options were given to many of the front-runners for it to be considered.......Its called development and competition in a prototype racing series. To be the best you must continually improve, unless there is 'no' competition that is.......then you don't have do anything but turn up with your old ...., and hey presto-you win! Which is exactly what Bridgestone is doing.......why would they bother doing anything else?