Assen Race Talk

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jul 2 2007, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What I don't understand is why you want this to be a rider thing. The bikes are very different, more different than they've been for years.

What I do understand is your dobble standards when you first say it's the riders, then to go on to suggest Honda is under par.
If it is riders that make the difference at least be man enough to admit that the current world champion doesn't do his job.

What did MotogpNews say: "The worst American title defender since.., well, the previous American title defender" Or something like that.
As usual Babel, you try to argue a misguided point and rather uniformed opinion. I suggest you go back and read my posts before you begin to make generalized statements of its content. It’s usually fun debating you because your arguments are so easily refutable. What isn’t fun is that when shown the way, you insist on keeping to your narrow assertions. (Even when you pointed to Rossi's tire as crapping out, and later shown to be completely and embarrassingly wrong, you still stubbornly tried to save face, and held on to that excuse by saying a variation of: “Well it was something to do with the tire”, even though the official word was, the tire looked great after the race. Haha, how’s that for making a credible opinion?) You simply are trying to defend your plethora of tirades that point to the Ducati to rationalize Casey winning over Rossi in past races. When it comes to these two top riders and machines, your first inclination to explain (excuse) your boy’s for a sub par performance. As far as technical issues, I think with enough googling, we can both make a case, however, I think it comes back to simple speculation—which when it comes to formulating an opinion, it’s the same except it “sounds” more techy (that is to say, “techy” doesn’t equate being right).

As far as Hayden’s performance. It has been my assertions all along that he has not performed well—as a rider. Never have I changed that assertion, so for you to suggest that is either uniformed, or using a red herring—I think both apply here because of your inability to carry a debate.

You try to split hairs with argument regarding Casey’s “Ducati” and Rossi’s “Yamaha” every time Casey wins. Oh, if you don’t believe me, read your stuff on threads that pertain to this, it’s all there for you to review. Oh, and go over my rebuttals to help you understand the other side of the issue.

This question of machinery is your gig, not mine. You like to point to the bike; rather I like to credit the rider. However, yes, I am aware that the machine has an effect on this result. So no it’s not contradictory. But when the machine is equal enough, you like to point at the bike to make a case. Rather my point is that the bikes are so much similar in overall performance that the difference is the rider when it comes to the two top riders this year. Do you understand? Is the nuance too difficult for you to decipher? Do you understand that when all things are “equal”, then the factor that has the greatest effect on the result is the rider?

Here is the difference when it comes to having a discussion about machinery/package in regards to the Rossi/Stoner duo and the rest of the field, including Hayden. I’m compelled to help you understand, since you erroneously think its contradictory). The defense is: Rossi/Stoner’s packages are fairly equal (though depending on who wins, those on the losing end try to make a case that they are not). Interestingly enough, the losing end, never makes a case that the “loser” had a “better” package, but rather the winner had the “advantage”. Sounds like good old fashion “bias” to me, but you would have us believe otherwise.

As far as the rest of the field, the bikes as a whole are certainly not up to par—par means equality, par is actually short for “parity”. As a whole, the Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, and satellites are not on equal standing. That doesn’t mean they are far off but certainly enough to make an identifiable deference in the results. It runs the spectrum from the horrible KR to the fairly good Honda. But as a whole, they are sub-par, though the Honda, with its new chassis is getting better. I concede that Hayden has not adjusted well to the 800, but neither has Pedrosa (a 250 champ won on a 800 either). Have you not read the press regarding Honda's performance as a machine? Have you not read that Hayden has got improvements only after Pedrosa? Have you not realized that Pedros had better results after he got the updated chassis? Did you not realize that Hayden podiumed on his first use on this unpdated chassis, that his teammate got previously? Have you not read this when you google to get your "techy" info because there is plenty of it, or are we just suppose to believe you? The commentator may have said it has been a bad title defense, what was his explanation? What is your explanation? Has Pedrosa also forgot how to win? You’d have to be an ..... not to realize that there is a reason why these bikes have zero wins combined in the dry and point to the rider alone—as you have tried to do by sighting Hayden, to explain a horrible performance this season. Yet, it is you who try to credit/chastise the rider in this case but when it comes to Rossi, you credit Stoner’s Ducati. So you try to have it both ways. What don’t you see about this hypocrisy? It’s beyond me, and furthermore, it’s a lost cause to try and debate it if you can’t see the point.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 3 2007, 05:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As usual Babel, you try to argue a misguided point and rather uniformed opinion. I suggest you go back and read my posts before you begin to make generalized statements of its content. It’s usually fun debating you because your arguments are so easily refutable. What isn’t fun is that when shown the way, you insist on keeping to your narrow assertions. (Even when you pointed to Rossi's tire as crapping out, and later shown to be completely and embarrassingly wrong, you still stubbornly tried to save face, and held on to that excuse by saying a variation of: “Well it was something to do with the tire”, even though the official word was, the tire looked great after the race. Haha, how’s that for making a credible opinion?) You simply are trying to defend your plethora of tirades that point to the Ducati to rationalize Casey winning over Rossi in past races.
Not often to see that much ........ from you RJ.
To your information, it was an issue with the tire, it was to hard.
That information was something we got later in the dicussion. So very very convieneint for someone like you. Besides, as I've know a thing or two about racing IRL, that tire didn't look like a tire in the best condition after 3 laps.
Rain tires do not look like that unless abused on too dry surface! But the damage was limited by a continously wetter race and it looked fine and worked like .... in the end. Much like a slightly shreaded race tire look like when you put on a street bike. After a few days/weeks it look fine, just a little worn.
With limited information I use what I got and it was a valid point at the time. So thought no less than three cometator teams I've heard so far. AFAIK they were all including past time racers that have forgotten more about road racing that I ever will remember.
Bottom line, I and others thought there had to be a tire issue, and we were right on that point, we were wrong about what the tire issue was about, but that's really of minor importance. Rossi did one of his best races ever to stay on that bike and get 10th position. Your guy on the soft michelins did a lot worse.
Too bring that issue up again is totally waste of time RJ, so let's move on or open the old tread and we can continue <u>that </u>discussion there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>As far as Hayden’s performance. It has been my assertions all along that he has not performed well—as a rider. Never have I changed that assertion, so for you to suggest that is either uniformed, or using a red herring—I think both apply here because of your inability to carry a debate.
I'll give you that, untill now you said he underperformed.
But, your ability to bring up past discussions when it's hardly called for, ignoring the actuall debate: Why should we leave the bikes alone, and just conclude that it's all down to the riders, when that is so obviously false?
Instead you bring up an old qualified guess (that were pretty close) and make a big argument aainst that. If you wanted to make a point a short reference would have done.
What's that if not diversion?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>You try to split hairs with argument regarding Casey’s “Ducati” and Rossi’s “Yamaha” every time Casey wins. Oh, if you don’t believe me, read your stuff on threads that pertain to this, it’s all there for you to review.
So what? Except, it's not splitting hairs IMHO. It's basically one thing, the one thing every single person that has seen Stoner win this year also have seen: The ducati accelleration and top speed, RJ not included.
It's also to lesser degree the Bridgestone rain tires well known ability to take abuse under dryer conditions.
When Stoner can use those advantages he has the edge, he still have to do the races, and did so with bravour. He's had a fantastic season so far, but to say it's only up to rider, that's pure ........ in my ears.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>This question of machinery is your gig, not mine. You like to point to the bike; rather I like to credit the rider. However, yes, I am aware that the machine has an effect on this result. So no it’s not contradictory. But when the machine is equal enough, you like to point at the bike to make a case. Rather my point is that the bikes are so much similar in overall performance that the difference is the rider when it comes to the two top riders this year. Do you understand?
Is the nuance too difficult for you to decipher? Do you understand that when all things are “equal”, then the factor that has the greatest effect on the result is the rider?
I understand and I strongly disagree. Who are you to define the the bikes equal enough? They are different enough to make the difference and they are more different now than in years. (repeating my self, I know)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Here is the difference when it comes to having a discussion about machinery/package in regards to the Rossi/Stoner duo and the rest of the field, including Hayden. I’m compelled to help you understand, since you erroneously think its contradictory). The defense is: Rossi/Stoner’s packages are fairly equal (though depending on who wins, those on the losing end try to make a case that they are not). Interestingly enough, the losing end, never makes a case that the “loser” had a “better” package, but rather the winner had the “advantage”. Sounds like good old fashion “bias” to me, but you would have us believe otherwise.
Well, what if there actually was a difference in equipment that actually made the difference, the way you describe it is seems it never occured to you that it could be the case.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>]
As far as the rest of the field, the bikes as a whole are certainly not up to par—par means equality, par is actually short for “parity”. As a whole, the Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, and satellites are not on equal standing. That doesn’t mean they are far off but certainly enough to make an identifiable deference in the results. It runs the spectrum from the horrible KR to the fairly good Honda. But as a whole, they are sub-par, though the Honda, with its new chassis is getting better.
No need to discuss KR, they are as you say way under par. For the others, I don't know. We wouldn't be discussing Ducati's power without Stoner, so the riders are certainly important. But what if he wasn't there? If he stayed Mr Crashey in his old team? With Sete and Capirex still on Ducati. Would the Yamaha be the clearly superior machine? What if a stoner or a rossi jumped on a Suzuki or Kawasaki, supported by their own teams, how many days or weeks would it take them to set up a world class machine? They are not underpowered compared to the Yamaha, and they shown that they can be fastm but we don't know, and therefore we certainly don't know that they are under par.
The single performance point that is undisputably measurable is the power and top speed. All other points go down to a rider/machine combination that is impossible quantify 100%.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I concede that Hayden has not adjusted well to the 800, but neither has Pedrosa (a 250 champ won on a 800 either). Have you not read the press regarding Honda's performance as a machine? Have you not read that Hayden has got improvements only after Pedrosa? Have you not realized that Pedros had better results after he got the updated chassis? Did you not realize that Hayden podiumed on his first use on this unpdated chassis, that his teammate got previously? Have you not read this when you google to get your "techy" info because there is plenty of it, or are we just suppose to believe you? The commentator may have said it has been a bad title defense, what was his explanation? What is your explanation? Has Pedrosa also forgot how to win? You’d have to be an ..... not to realize that there is a reason why these bikes have zero wins combined in the dry and point to the rider alone—as you have tried to do by sighting Hayden, to explain a horrible performance this season. Yet, it is you who try to credit/chastise the rider in this case but when it comes to Rossi, you credit Stoner’s Ducati. So you try to have it both ways. What don’t you see about this hypocrisy? It’s beyond me, and furthermore, it’s a lost cause to try and debate it if you can’t see the point.

Now that's funny First of all you are so easily triggered when it comes to Hayden that I really should do it more often, but then again you just start raving, totally missing my point.
I know that Pedrosa got his upgrades first, as he was the only one able to adapt to the 800 in the beginning. In this case there is no doubt about the hen or the egg. Pedrosa was there first, proving his ability, and thats why he got the improvments first, tough .... but thats the way it works with HRC and Hayden should have known. However that's totally beside the point.
Also, my opinions were not really into that post. My point was that you were quick to state that the Ducati and Yamaha is equal enough to make it a rider vs rider question. Then stating that the rest are under par. I don't find any evidence anywhere to support that what so ever. Danny won two races last year, so did Hayden. That was a special year with lots of injuries and misshaps. With small changes in the margines they could easily have been without any wins at all. That would dump the Honda from ok to the worst disaster happened to HRC ever. So I don't know how bad the Honda is now. It some times take the smallest change from failure to success. As an example there were big issues about Edwards rain tires and the bike was unridable. One pound less air pressure suposedly solved all that at Donington. What we do know is that the riders that are not on the top of the podium allways have something to complain about, allways.

My personal opinion is that this is a very complicated interaction of four parts: Bike, tires, team and rider. You can split that up in dosens of sub categories as well.
I (we) can only speculate based on former performance how these parts interact and how good they are. Each are certainly important enough to spoil a race and puting a good rider on a good bike doesn't even have to end up in good results if the rider/team can't sort the setup.
My opinion is that these factors all play an important role for each and every result.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jul 3 2007, 11:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not often to see that much ........

Babel, the tire, bike, package discussion has its place, but much to often it has become a tool to rationalize the two top rider’s results this year. You seem to have an affinity for this reasoning to support what I consider “bias”. To say when your rider loses, its the other guy's machine is "........" especially when the machines are both very good.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>it was an issue with the tire, it was to hard.
Too bring that issue up again is totally waste of time

Having a “hard tire” and saying as some did that it was “falling apart/wore out/etc” is astronomically different. I guess it’s a sore issue when you get it wrong, so lets just all forget about it, is that what you would like?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>But, your ability to bring up past discussions when it's hardly called for, ignoring the actuall debate: Why should we leave the bikes alone, and just conclude that it's all down to the riders, when that is so obviously false?

What's that if not diversion?

This "past discussion" was relevant. You do understand that word don’t you? When something is ‘relevant’ it means you bring it up because you are engaged and giving evidence and credence toward the debate, not avoiding it. In this case, perhaps bringing up something that questioned your credibility to formulate a rationalization for Rossi not winning was wrong, but I guess that’s not relevant and is equated to a “diversion”. How convenient.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>It's basically one thing, the one thing every single person that has seen Stoner win this year also have seen: The ducati accelleration and top speed

I guess they should just concentrate on making a fast bike with the top speed and any monkey can ride it, eh. Hum, I wonder why the fastest bike in the past 5 years hasn’t always won. That’s weird.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>It's also to lesser degree the Bridgestone rain tires well known ability to take abuse under dryer conditions.

When Stoner can use those advantages he has the edge

There is that “advantage” word again, ah, it’s his tires. That’s weird cause he won in the rain, or was it my imagination? Maybe it was the global warming thing and the rain comes down "dry" now.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Who are you to define the the bikes equal enough?

I guess I’m probably as knowledgeable as you about this, I google too; so I guess I have as much validity as you. And I say they are equal enough (that means they are on a competitive level playing field to the point that splitting hairs about what “bike/tires” has the “advantage” is negligible in relation to the effect of the rider).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Well, what if there actually was a difference in equipment that actually made the difference, the way you describe it is seems it never occured to you that it could be the case.

Well, what if there is not actually a substantial difference? The way you describe it seems to point to some major advantage that occurred. If you consider top speed this major advantage (which you seem to glorify), then top speed should be an overwhelming factor present in all the GP winners in the past. Is it?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The single performance point that is undisputably measurable is the power and top speed. All other points go down to a rider/machine combination that is impossible quantify 100%.
Somebody should tell those dumb engineers to stop measuring and calculating torque, traction control, power to weight ratios, fuel consumption telemetry, aerodynamics, spring rebound and dampening rates, centralization of mass, unsprung weight in relation to gyroscopic effect, etc. etc. Hell if you were right, they should just build a drag bike. Top speed is definitely the most openly visible factor that the casual spectator latches on to, but I think there are plenty of measurable factors that affect the performance of a motorcycle. For a guy who loves techy info, I though you might not say something so irrational.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I know that Pedrosa got his upgrades first…. Pedrosa was there first, proving his ability, and thats why he got the improvments first, tough .... but thats the way it works with

Let’s see, Hayden is the current champ, who beat his teammate last year, who by the way got the improvements before him last year also, just like this year again, and when given the improved equipment this year he again beats his teammate; and Pedrosa has “proved” his ability? Wow, that’s some great logic you got there. Have you heard of the word "politics"?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>My point was that you were quick to state that the Ducati and Yamaha is equal enough to make it a rider vs rider question. Then stating that the rest are under par. I don't find any evidence anywhere to support that what so ever.

You need to do more reading, I’m sure you will find some evidence. Go ask some "proven" race winners like Pedrosa and Melandri what they think about their ride, I’m sure its documented somewhere.




I agree that the interactions and factors of a bike-team-rider are very complicated. Of course they play a role (and if anybody has an "advantage" in the "team" department, its your boy who has a man named Burgess who has taken everthing he touches into champions); but you would have us believe that they are the 'major' role and point of discussion when comparing two machines and packages of two very similar bikes. So similar that when one beats the other (usually by the smallest of margins), your first reaction is to say, its the bike/machine, it’s the tires, it’s the…etc. where as I see the difference in results and chalk it up to the rider, who afterall, was riding the bike.

You missed the close bracket on the first "quote"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Josh @ Jul 3 2007, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You missed the close bracket on the first "quote"


this thread is hotting up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 3 2007, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Babel, the tire, bike, package discussion has its place, but much to often it has become a tool to rationalize the two top rider’s results this year. You seem to have an affinity for this reasoning to support what I consider “bias”. To say when your rider loses, its the other guy's machine is "........" especially when the machines are both very good.
Having a “hard tire” and saying as some did that it was “falling apart/wore out/etc” is astronomically different. I guess it’s a sore issue when you get it wrong, so lets just all forget about it, is that what you would like?
I suggest you tell that to rest of the world as well. Tell all the world and national champions working for broadcasters they were dead wrong. Fine by me, call it dead wrong if that satisfy you ego. I and others (if they can stand RJ wrath when they got it wrong on the minor part) will continue to speculate when we see something is obviously not working as it should. Maybe we get wrong again, I couldn't care less, and I coudn't care less if you come here a weak later with your googled answere. Right now you're the one splitting hairs and behaving like a fool, and you are welcome to repeat yourself as often as you want.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>This "past discussion" was relevant. You do understand that word don’t you? When something is ‘relevant’ it means you bring it up because you are engaged and giving evidence and credence toward the debate, not avoiding it. In this case, perhaps bringing up something that questioned your credibility to formulate a rationalization for Rossi not winning was wrong, but I guess that’s not relevant and is equated to a “diversion”. How convenient.

Well, you could have quoted the whole and taken in what I suggested, "make a short reference", that would have taken care of that.
I don't think there is a problem with my credibility and you made a lousy reference to prove your point. The one case you build my "bias" on is the one where Michelin and the team go out and say they got the tire all wrong. Who else but you could really care in afterhand if that tire were too soft or too hard. It obviously didn't work and that was the issue.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I guess they should just concentrate on making a fast bike with the top speed and any monkey can ride it, eh. Hum, I wonder why the fastest bike in the past 5 years hasn’t always won. That’s weird.
Don't behave like a monkey your self please. It get very tiresome to respond to this ......... We look at two world class riders and two world class bikes, not monkeys and their bicycles. There is never huge differences. Someone here calculated the difference between 1st and 15th? to be 1% at the finish line. With those differences a clear to see advatage as Ducatis acceleration would allways play an important role.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>There is that “advantage” word again, ah, it’s his tires.
That’s weird cause he won in the rain, or was it my imagination?

Obviously it was your imagination, because he didn't win in the rain. In the rain he was second, drying up all the way to a dry racing line he won a magnifcient victory and Rossi had, as I said a bad day at work with too many mistakes. But lets forget I wrote that, because it doesn't fit your image of me, does it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>And I say they are equal enough (that means they are on a competitive level playing field to the point that splitting hairs about what “bike/tires” has the “advantage” is negligible in relation to the effect of the rider).
And still, all others look at the track layout and the wether when they set their odds, make their bets.
Funny, I feel as mainstreem as I could ever be, and still some find this controvertial at all.

I'll go as far as to say that as a package rider/bike over a season, they look competetive or "equal enough" and hopefully the championship will be as exciting as last year, but for each race the result depend a lot on weather and track layout.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Well, what if there is not actually a substantial difference? The way you describe it seems to point to some major advantage that occurred. If you consider top speed this major advantage (which you seem to glorify), then top speed should be an overwhelming factor present in all the GP winners in the past. Is it?
If there ever was such a difference it's now, at a major change in the equipment, allmost as important as the start of the 990 aera.
You really should read what I write, the ducati's main advantage is the accelleration, the one that doesn't enable others to stay in the draft.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Somebody should tell those dumb engineers to stop measuring and calculating torque, traction control, power to weight ratios, fuel consumption telemetry, aerodynamics, spring rebound and dampening rates, centralization of mass, unsprung weight in relation to gyroscopic effect, etc. etc. Hell if you were right, they should just build a drag bike.
Some things should be able to go without saying, but your monkey behaviour today seems to have no end.
With two top bikes with two top riders the only measurable difference we, as spectators can see from the bikes are the power and top speed difference. Does that mean they should drop the rest, or do I by anything suggest so?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Top speed is definitely the most openly visible factor that the casual spectator latches on to, but I think there are plenty of measurable factors that affect the performance of a motorcycle. For a guy who loves techy info, I though you might not say something so irrational.
Ah, I guess you got me again, I should have mentioned that this is the only measurement we as spectators can see and what the teams can compare against each others. Monumental misstake again. Maybe worth another thread?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Let’s see, Hayden is the current champ, who beat his teammate last year, who by the way got the improvements before him last year also, just like this year again, and when given the improved equipment this year he again beats his teammate; and Pedrosa has proved his ability? Wow, that’s some great logic you got there. Have you heard of the word "politics"?
Who cares, the rest of the world, and specially HRC don't give a .... who won last year, they tag the one they think can win this year. Oh, it's so unfair, I feel like crying.
My logic is just fine as they had the same bike in the start, and what ever your crybaby hero says, a slightly to small wind screen doesn't justify his performance this year, as you also agreed to, or didn't you?

Btw, there seems to be a maximum number of quotes allowed here.

OMG don't you ever get tired?!?

I'm liking Nicky more and more. Hes a fighter and altho hes not maybe as good on these European as he was in America. At least hes taking risks something he was not doing before. I would like to see him go for it more not just when he has nothing to lose.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jul 3 2007, 06:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm liking Nicky more and more. Hes a fighter and altho hes not maybe as good on these European as he was in America. At least hes taking risks something he was not doing before. I would like to see him go for it more not just when he has nothing to lose.

Bloody hell! Nice point even though consistency was strategy last year over risk taking, and it did work. But for me ‘risk taking’ just makes it better.

Anyway, to break a bit the essays from dear racejumkie and babelfish, let me put in a bit of good old ‘Gossip or news’ from both Yamaha and Ducati:

1.- Lorenzo will join Rossi at Yamaha.
http://apps.portalmix.com/motogp/noticias/...cd050b4c6a98d26

2.- Capirossi signs for Ducati for 2.5 million euros, drops from 3.2 million.
http://www.marca.com/edicion/marca/motor/m...lo/1012364.html

It’s in Spanish news. Must mean gossip. No offence!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jul 3 2007, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I suggest you tell that to rest of the world as well.

Amazing but not surprising, but as usual, your Rossie colored glasses keep you from seeing the facts clearly. You try to enlist support from the world, were there is none. As I recall, the word you used to describe the imaginary problem that Rossi had supposedly experienced in France was his tire “shredding”. Wow, what a descriptive word for something that proved to be nothing—that’s why the word “incredible” was created, that is to say not credible. Oh, and you backpedaled and then to the point of apologizing as I recall, but when taken to task, you do the predictable thing—stubbornly cling to your all-ready proven blunder. Saying that the whole world agrees with you is further evidence that you have nothing. Haha, its sorta fun (but rather sad) to see your weak arguments dissolve into thin air. But incase you haven’t noticed, its this line of reasoning, the one that you adore when you point to bike/tires that has become increasingly harder to defend, since Casey/Rossi’s performances have consistently disproved your assertions. You and a few misguided posters cling to this idea, this race it was a few Stoner fans, I’m sure when Casey wins, it will be your turn to invent a tire “shredding” incident to rationalize what your foggy goggles have you seeing. I see that this race, all that stored energy that you would have otherwise put into rationalizing, had Casey won, has now been diverted to Hayden bashing. Sad, really. But predictable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 4 2007, 06:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Amazing but not surprising, but as usual, your Rossie colored glasses keep you from seeing the facts clearly. You try to enlist support from the world, were there is none. Wow, wh As I recall, the word you used to describe the imaginary problem that Rossi had supposedly experienced in France was his tire “shredding”. at a descriptive word for something that proved to be nothing—that’s why the word “incredible” was created, that is to say not credible. Oh, and you backpedaled and then to the point of apologizing as I recall, but when taken to task, you do the predictable thing—stubbornly cling to your all-ready proven blunder. Saying that the whole world agrees with you is further evidence that you have nothing. Haha, its sorta fun (but rather sad) to see your weak arguments dissolve into thin air. But incase you haven’t noticed, its this line of reasoning, the one that you adore when you point to bike/tires that has become increasingly harder to defend, since Casey/Rossi’s performances have consistently disproved your assertions. You and a few misguided posters cling to this idea, this race it was a few Stoner fans, I’m sure when Casey wins, it will be your turn to invent a tire “shredding” incident to rationalize what your foggy goggles have you seeing. I see that this race, all that stored energy that you would have otherwise put into rationalizing, had Casey won, has now been diverted to Hayden bashing. Sad, really. But predictable.
actually jumkie, i also said i thought i saw rossi tyre shredding, there were a few of us that saw the image on tv during the race so we posted this straight away, you also bought into this after i posted a video clip that showed bits of tyre appearing to be flying off, you then said paraphrasing here "it was probably caused by micro lacerations caused by rossi running off the edge of the track"
the other funny thing in this thread is,stoner fans are firing into rossi fans who said stoners bike had a big power advantage ,but there bringing this argument into races were this wasn't an advantage like the wet races and assen not turkey china ect, dragging up old debates into a new debates to destract from the new facts , now thats sad, do you understand ?

Assen was absolutely fantastic, thrilling right up until the end.

I'm happy for Hayden aswell. A deserved podium.

Oh my oh my. Where do you find the energy???

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 4 2007, 07:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Amazing but not surprising, but as usual, your Rossie colored glasses keep you from seeing the facts clearly.

I startet out the usuall quoting but it's a total waste of bandwith. You are obviously out to get me. You do so on an issue that were dicussed in it's own tread and choose to bring it up here in this one. It's clear that this got nothing to do with relevance, it was to bring up and old issue, only, and to misscredit my logic. And wow, what a job you're doing, not.

I admittet in that tread and in this tread that I and with me a bunch of pepole on the forum and commentators on the telly were wrong on that point.

However, anyone wondering why Rossi underperformed made a qualified guess based on what we saw. I call that an honest misstake, and a minor one as we got the tire part right and an explanation of why the tires didn't work later.

To make that into rossi colored googles are more than I can understand.
The reason Rossi underperformed in the rain were due to the tires, what more is there really to be said?

Get your act together RJ. This really doesn't look good on you. I warned you when you started arguing the old case instead of refering to it as relevant, and now you turned that into the major issue. An issue where you got it all wrong I must say.
And all this just to discredit me. wow.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 4 2007, 12:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Amazing but not surprising, but as usual, your Rossie colored glasses keep you from seeing the facts clearly. You try to enlist support from the world, were there is none. As I recall, the word you used to describe the imaginary problem that Rossi had supposedly experienced in France was his tire “shredding”. Wow, what a descriptive word for something that proved to be nothing—that’s why the word “incredible” was created, that is to say not credible....

Jumkie, good to see you back in form (Hayden's third)... and a couple of essays!

Anyway, here's to dear babelfish 'support from the rest of the world'… Oh well, not that much as the rest of the world, just me... But 'tire shredding' at Le Mans and Istanbul no doubt!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFFAsf8-Zw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw4ZgkWPPU4

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VHMP01 @ Jul 4 2007, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Jumkie, good to see you back in form (Hayden's third)... and a couple of essays!

Anyway, here's to dear babelfish 'support from the rest of the world'… Oh well, not that much as the rest of the world, just me... But 'tire shredding' at Le Mans and Istanbul no doubt!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFFAsf8-Zw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw4ZgkWPPU4

im with you and fish on this one.
we just commented on what we saw, mabe all tyres do this all the time but we have not always had this rear tyre angle video, so we just said what we saw, thats not making excuses just commenting on the information available at that moment, it's easy to jump in days later after official comment's have been made and criticize original spur of the moment posts that with the evidence at the time appeared correct.
cheap shot's jumkie, come on mate i no you can do better than that.

I agree with racemjunkie that the difference between the bikes especially now is negligible although from circuit to circuit someone will always have the advantage but really it's a matter of where you want to focus the drivers or the machines.I believe that yes at LeMans Rossi underperformed BECAUSE OF the tires like Babelfish says but there's another way to see this:It was Rossi that chose the tires and it was a risk that he took and lost (a part of the rider's ability is to choose the correct tire...)

So yeah my opinion is that it's a pretty balanced playing field...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (masterridley @ Jul 4 2007, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I agree with racemjunkie that the difference between the bikes especially now is negligible although from circuit to circuit someone will always have the advantage but really it's a matter of where you want to focus the drivers or the machines.I believe that yes at LeMans Rossi underperformed BECAUSE OF the tires like Babelfish says but there's another way to see this:It was Rossi that chose the tires and it was a risk that he took and lost (a part of the rider's ability is to choose the correct tire...)

So yeah my opinion is that it's a pretty balanced playing field...
you hit the nail on the head when you said NOW. yes they are pretty equal now but they were miles apart at the beginning of the season , so my point is , its a cheap shot to drag up old posts and try and make them relevant now.

this .... never gets old!

How the hell do you guys write so much