Assen Race Talk

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 5 2007, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yes, we were debating it, and once I pointed out that the bikes are equal, but not equal only when Casey wins it seems, has a peculiar stench of "bias".

To your information, you havent pointed out ..... You walk in and define the bikes equal, without being willing to debate what the so many others are: Accelleration and tires. If you want I'll make you an exception and google a little and set up some links, but only if you're to lazy to find them yourself. I see above that we allready have one from crash.net.

Only when Casy win? Read the tread and see what I say about the ducati corner exits and find the bias there.

Also, when there is common knowledge that all michelin riders had too hard tires, except the Repsol team, how can it be bias to blame underperforming on tires?

I have a feeling that you might have a stronger bias than me in this case.
Looks like the "bikes are equal" are more like a mantra, true if repeated often enough, rather than based on your close analisys. At least I haven't seen one single argument in that direction, just the "definition".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 5 2007, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Oh how we miss the point. The question is, does this explain the difference in results?

Answer from some Rossi fans when he loses: Yes
Answer from some Stoner fans when he wins: No
Answer from some Rossi fans when he wins: No
Answer from some Stoner fans when he loses: Yes

For me, the final race results in relation to the difference in overall bike performance, is too close to call. For me, so far this season, whoever wins between Stoner and Rossi on any given race was the better rider that race, baring a catastrophic meltdown (imaginary failures, not included).

Well, if that’s the question… then to us Rossi’s tinted colored sunglass fans and to crash.net it kind of explains itself: “Still has two main areas of technical weakness”. This kind of answers “The difference in results”, wouldn’t it?

PS. Come on Jumkie, you and I really get along, but it’s not made up from us man!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jul 5 2007, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Also, when there is common knowledge that all michelin riders had too hard tires, except the Repsol team, how can it be bias to blame underperforming on tires?
Oh how we throw around words when we got nothing. When a bad choice in tires is made, are they "underperforming"? No. They are performing how they were suppose to, but not for the conditions that they were used for. This is what I call "bias". You try and spin and suggest there was an inherent failure with the tire, so in this way the responsibility is removed from your beloved performer. Tell me something, if I choose to use a paper napkin to shield me in the rain and find that I get wet, is the napkin "underperforming?"--or should I have chosen an umbrella?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VHMP01 @ Jul 5 2007, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well, if that’s the question… then to us Rossi’s tinted colored sunglass fans and to crash.net it kind of explains itself: “Still has two main areas of technical weakness”. This kind of answers “The difference in results”, wouldn’t it?

PS. Come on Jumkie, you and I really get along, but it’s not made up from us man!

Ah my friend, I have not been ignoring you, but your line of reasoning is so similar to the triad of thrice that I figured one response would do for all three. But to reply to you exclusively, tell me something, is the article presenting information for speculation or is it telling you that this "technical weakness" is to account for win/loss results?

Well here is the answer, its presenting it for our speculation as to how this information influences the results. Obviously, you and the other two are inclined to say, ah ha, eureka, you see, this is why Rossi gets beat. As for me on the other hand, take the information and speculate that the differences, though not debatable, are small enough and negligible to contend that this has not overwhelming or definitely accounted for the race result. I'm contending (speculating) as you and others, that there are many factors and parameters that influence/effect a race result, and I for one don't think top speed is a major one, perhaps you and your buddies do (though usually to explain a Casey win over Rossi).

C'mon V, make it a challenge.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Jul 5 2007, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i think it helped with the first few races of the season down the long straights but in all fairness not every rider would have the balls to use all of that speed. as ive said before, it's a team sport with many variables so i dont think any one thing will make a win but a failing in any one thing will make a loss.
I think all the riders have the balls to use anything at their disposal. However, on your second point, well Roger, we may be closer to an agreement.

This is an interesting and intriguing question/factor--top speed. I really think this factor of top speed has been made more than what it really is, especially by those wanting to rationalize why Rossi has not beat Stoner every time. So I'm going to open up a new topic with some info and see what the rest think. It seems we have Babel thinking top speed is the be all and end all, but I obviously disagree. But perhaps others are shy to chime in because they don't want to get caught up in the debate, so lets see what we all think about top speed on a clean slate. I'll start a new topic up in a few minutes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 5 2007, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>C'mon V, make it a challenge.

I'm just part of the rest of the world, good old 'V'... hadn't been as active (censured photos) but not lost either, kind of family, work & studies. Close to date at Laguna mate, have fun!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Jul 6 2007, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Oh how we throw around words when we got nothing. When a bad choice in tires is made, are they "underperforming"? No. They are performing how they were suppose to, but not for the conditions that they were used for. This is what I call "bias". You try and spin and suggest there was an inherent failure with the tire, so in this way the responsibility is removed from your beloved performer. Tell me something, if I choose to use a paper napkin to shield me in the rain and find that I get wet, is the napkin "underperforming?"--or should I have chosen an umbrella?

Wise words!