<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Aug 16 2008, 06:43 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What do you mean by no race simulation? Rossi did his perfectly normal 3,4,5 fast laps sequence (+ in and out laps) in all his stints. A race simulation typically consist of 2 or three stints put together on the same tire and we don't get to see that. He had 23 laps in FP2, another perfectly normal number considering the length of the track.
Stoner did even fewer laps than usuall but the reason can be seen on motoGP.com, he's sick.
Not often you see those 10 laps stints, no. THAT would be unusuall.
Well, I'm not going to correct you with a long post about what knowledge I have. If not only because you totally misunderstood what I ment by that sentence. First of all it's common knowledge that these teams work pretty damned hard every race weekend to get the right setup and for Rossi's team that usually means very hard work all through the weekend with late nights analysing the telemetrics. So unless you dispute that acknowleged fact, sandbagging at this stage would be more than a small sensation. Secondly I've actually checked the analisys sheets and what you saw was a perfectly normal session but with one guy sick.
That was why my reply was like that. Not that I pretend to know a hell of a lot more, but if you want an opinion that
sounds like pure specualation to be taken serious you better have some serious insight to what is actually happeneing at the track right now. From what I see here you ARE a sofa racer, just like I am these days
but the difference is that I don't speculate in
wild theories based on what I thought i saw but didn't see. I may speculate too as I did when I wrote that Stoner might not be well, but it is based on actual observations and not as sensational (read far stretched)
Hey Babelfish.
You ever been to India?
This is what I was talking about and I’ve cut and paste the numbers so you can read them.
This is from FP2 in Laguna
Sequence 1 is a
14 lap sequence from Casey
15 1'36.476 30.869 19.599 20.441 25.567
16 1'23.338 22.125 17.391 19.170 24.652 244.0
17 1'22.207 21.620 17.063 19.115 24.409 254.2
18 1'21.928 21.578 16.952 19.035 24.363 258.2
19 1'22.848 21.549 17.003 19.383 24.913 256.6
20 1'22.585 22.127 17.113 19.051 24.294 243.0
21 1'23.045 21.723 17.265 19.359 24.698 255.9
22 1'21.946 21.551 17.059 18.922 24.414 253.7
23 1'22.361 21.788 17.011 19.080 24.482 253.4
24 1'22.352 21.656 16.941 19.076 24.679 253.2
25 1'22.281 21.834 16.949 18.965 24.533 252.8
26 1'22.325 21.725 16.984 19.092 24.524 255.1
27 1'21.941 21.699 16.987 18.930 24.325 255.9
28 1'22.563 21.767 17.022 19.146 24.628 255.4
29 1'21.826 21.540 16.911 18.969 24.406 250.3
Sequence 2 is an
8 lap sequence from Valentino.
10 1'37.781 30.410 19.610 21.136 26.625 134.7
11 1'25.844 22.730 17.733 19.967 25.414 246.7
12 1'23.788 21.982 17.322 19.347 25.137 254.1
13 1'23.179 21.844 17.307 19.191 24.837 255.4
14 1'22.772 21.735 17.041 19.161 24.835 257.1
15 1'22.968 21.789 17.299 19.146 24.734 258.9
16 1'22.857 21.752 17.168 19.128 24.809 256.1
17 1'23.210 22.109 17.134 19.174 24.793 256.8
18 1'23.206 21.844 17.184 19.201 24.977 257.3
19 28'46.768 P 23.850 17.743 19.507 27'45.668 252.6
I did a little more back checking and there are a lot of these in dry races (FP2 was dry at Brno)
These are called (in my rather inexperienced opinion) race simulations. 3,4,5 lap sequences you can do on super soft tyres like qualifiers. You cite these as race simulations, I feel you have erred.
The average of these two simulations (cited) is
12 laps, a little
over my
unusual figure of 10 but I’m kind of confident that your figure (and you hedged and couldn’t decide on a figure) was 3,4,5 (
average 4). Is 12 closer to 10 (me) or 4 (you).
Look, you don’t really like me because (IMO)
a- I am an Australian
b- I am a Casey fan
BUT at least I can count.
There are a lot of people who have observed things for a long time but are not great observers. Some people can observe for a short time and pick up a great deal. This is called perception – the navigation and interpretation of one’s environment (an ecological view of perception as opposed to cognitive but whatever)
I end this with a couple of points.
You must rely on some smoke and mirror theory of “the numbers aren’t true – there is something (swooning) DEEPER”. Some people are impressed by that kind of crap, you missed the mark with me.
People who peddle this become Reiki Masters and have all that zen .... I can’t stand happening. So you become Reiki master Fish. It has a ring to it, like the Monkey series on tv. Or Revenge of the Nerds (what if C.A.T spelt dog?) – "deep Ogre"
OR you just tell me the numbers are wrong. 2 + 2 = 5 (ever read Orwells 1984? That is a central theme – also comes up in Mein Kampf - the truth isn't what occurs, it's what people believe)
So now you are big brother master ogre Reiki Fish.
I have backed up some theories with numbers now (read “empiricism” brain boy) and I don’t really think I’m all that right, it was an off the cuff remark but you had to try and bloody my nose. What I said is speculation but you’ve not debunked that one little bit. Instead you've puffed yourself up with all your special deep zen knowledge and I'm judging you fairly harshly right now Forrest.
So zen reiki master ogre fish if I have seen the incandescent light of your brilliance forgive me for saying I am still stumbling in the dark and you have wasted innumerable pages on this forum to discipline me - and still haven’t said one single sensible thing to refute it AND it would have been bloody easy to refute were you not so damn intent on having a personal ( latin - ad hominem) argument. Stop drinking so damn much of your own bath water
Get that India you numpty
