Burgess against single tyre rule

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Sep 29 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>

The sport had someone perish during an on track incident for the first time in 40 or so years. The FIM, DORNA, the MSMA, and IRTA can not afford another on track death anytime soon.

Did you happen to see Hopper's or Capi's crash at Assen? Did you see Casey's crash at the downhill right-hander in Sachsenring? Do you remember DeAngelis' crash at Jerez were the front tucked and the rear hit him in the face? How about Pedrosa's crash at Sachsenring?

I'm all for unlimited performance. I want to see cornerspeeds get higher and top speeds get higher. I want to find out what human beings can do, but it needs to be safe (little/no threat of death). Safety will catch up, while we wait they can make some changes.

I will say this: most things in sport are adjustable over time, is it possible to successfully repeal control tire legislation?
Katos death was a tragic accident but frankly what they were still doing racing at Suzuka was beyond me as mr Edwards said in Faster and Faster when asked about the risks "We Know its not all flowers and roses".
Danis accident at Sachsenring happened when he was getting on the brakes so on a 990 he'd have been carrying more speed at this point and had a bigger crash!?
You seem to have missed my point,yes the amount of people getting hurt from crashing this year is ridiculous and its due to higher corner speeds of the 800s compared to the 990s but if theirs such an outcry about this then what about the 250's?! id say 90 percent of the time theyll be carrying alot more corner speed than the 800's how is this not dangerous aswell?!
The point is in trying to make the sport safer theyve made the bikes far quicker in the most dangerous part of the track.They have a history of doing this like in 2005 (i think) when they first dropped fuel capacity it made the bikes more dangerous as they were "edgier" due to leaner carburation they have good intentions in trying to make the sport safer but.....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thom @ Sep 29 2008, 11:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Katos death was a tragic accident but frankly what they were still doing racing at Suzuka was beyond me as mr Edwards said in Faster and Faster when asked about the risks "We Know its not all flowers and roses".
Danis accident at Sachsenring happened when he was getting on the brakes so on a 990 he'd have been carrying more speed at this point and had a bigger crash!?
You seem to have missed my point,yes the amount of people getting hurt from crashing this year is ridiculous and its due to higher corner speeds of the 800s compared to the 990s but if theirs such an outcry about this then what about the 250's?! id say 90 percent of the time theyll be carrying alot more corner speed than the 800's how is this not dangerous aswell?!
The point is in trying to make the sport safer theyve made the bikes far quicker in the most dangerous part of the track.They have a history of doing this like in 2005 (i think) when they first dropped fuel capacity it made the bikes more dangerous as they were "edgier" due to leaner carburation they have good intentions in trying to make the sport safer but.....

Sorry, I should have tied the whole thing together.

I'm not saying you don't have a point. The sport could easily end up more dangerous. While I believe safety is important, I'm more interested in the parity of equipment.

Anyway, what I was trying to point out was that many riders have been badly injured or had terrible crashes this season. The riders seem to be relatively united behind a control tire change.

The riders are one of the key components of IRTA.

We know Ezy wants a control tire, if he swings IRTA in his favor, a control tire is a done deal from a bylaws standpoint b/c DORNA cast the tiebreaker. IRTA has swung due to rider injury, the costs associated with repairing injured riders, and hassle associated with hiring replacements.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Sep 29 2008, 01:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i'd Wiki that word if i were you

This is a question: Actually it is almost rhetorical since there aren't very many that weren't rider error.
"How many get offs are the fault of the machine this year?"

This is a statement inferring rider error is the cause of most of the high speed cornering accidents: Can be true or false...you decide.
"The machine doesn't twist its own throttle or apply its own brakes."

This expands the thought a bit:Again, work through it...the inference is that they have total control and they can ride anyway they want putting the safety of any situation solely in their hands...so don't complain to me when you crash riding outside the limits...or blame the machine.

"The riders are in total control of the machine and they can choose to ride it any way they want."

Another one: Actually just repetition to reinforce the idea.

"They set it up any way they want and choose the tires to run."

Okay now the sarcastic part: I am mocking the tire rule here and Dorna's idiocy...well it's my opinion.
"Give them a pile of mediocre tires and tell them to win but slow down while doing so. Sounds good to me."

The proposed agreement is ......... Hopefully that is plain enough English for you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Parc Ferme @ Sep 29 2008, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You should check out the definition of "Fact"

Try dictionary.com, it's very convenient.I never claimed my opinion as "fact". although you did make that claim. well here are some examples of your "facts"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>5. Soon the tracks will say "Enough!"; because there will be a point where the costs outweigh the benefits.

6. If the GP circus doesn't come up with a solution, the whole house of cards will come falling down. Are your predictions facts? Really? I won't stoop to your level and ask you to look up the definition of the word "fact" in the dictionary.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Parc Ferme @ Sep 29 2008, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>All due respect to Burgess, the following are facts:

1. All the riders agreed unanimously for a single tire rule. This may be due to the proposed safety concerns (see below) or for personal/selfish reasons by the riders themselves.

I seem to recall reading that a number of riders were against the imposition of a single tyre supplier and funnily enough, it was the teams already using the Bridgestones (Ducati, Suzuki, Kawasaki and Fiat Yamaha via Rossi) who were most vocal.

The only unanimous approach or agreement I have seen reported was that all riders agreed to measures being discussed that would:-

a. Improve their safety mid-corner
b. By slowing down corner speeds

Nowhere have I seen a report that all riders agreed to a single tyre rule.

If I have missed it somewhere, please post a link or similar as it is possible that we did not get the report in Oz.



EDIT: And FWIW one would expect Burgess to be against the single rule as his team has just obtained a perceived advantage over some of its competitors so why would you want to have that taken away (just as Ducati have implied by their rumoured attempts to switch back to Michelin).




Garry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigAl @ Sep 29 2008, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i agree with him. burgess knows his stuff and has seen it all before. although he got it wrong with vale switching to bridgestones..


BigAl
Understand 1 thing... Jeremy Burgess Never Gets It Wrong.
Championships with Lawson x2, Gardner x1, Doohan x5, Creville x1, Vossi x6.. 15 World Tittles.
The reason Jeremy thought Birdgestone a bad idea is at the end of last year Vossi was looking for an Easy way to beat Stoner, or an easy fix. Burgess didnt like this, not cos Stoner is an Aussie
but he is old School and beleives that if you cant beat someone fair and square then you need to Take Ya Bat And Ball and .... OFF.

I dont think Rossi gives Jeremy enough RESPECT to be honest, look at that Pig of an M1 in 2003
over the off season he turned that PILE OF .... into something half Decent for Valentino to ride in 2004 otherwise he would never have won on the bike no matter if god himself rode it in 2004.
Theres no way Rossi would have Dominated the sport if it wasnt for Bergess.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stoner27 @ Sep 30 2008, 07:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>BigAl
Understand 1 thing... Jeremy Burgess Never Gets It Wrong.
Championships with Lawson x2, Gardner x1, Doohan x5, Creville x1, Vossi x6.. 15 World Tittles.
The reason Jeremy thought Birdgestone a bad idea is at the end of last year Vossi was looking for an Easy way to beat Stoner, or an easy fix. Burgess didnt like this, not cos Stoner is an Aussie
but he is old School and beleives that if you cant beat someone fair and square then you need to Take Ya Bat And Ball and .... OFF.

I dont think Rossi gives Jeremy enough RESPECT to be honest, look at that Pig of an M1 in 2003
over the off season he turned that PILE OF .... into something half Decent for Valentino to ride in 2004 otherwise he would never have won on the bike no matter if god himself rode it in 2004.
Theres no way Rossi would have Dominated the sport if it wasnt for Bergess.
Rossi thanks Burgess for his efforts on a regular basis. Often, after a race where he has performed better than he managed the rest of that weekend, he will praise the fact that Burgess and the team made a couple of changes during morning warm-up that allowed him to be so fast.

In his autobiography he explains that, although he was willing to go to Yamaha without Burgess, he tried really hard to persuade Burgess to make the move too. I can't recall any time when Rossi has failed to show utter respect to Burgess.

Regarding the 03 M1, remember that Rossi's input was rather important too. Yamaha produced 3 different engine specs over the off-season for Rossi to evaluate. He chose one and then Burgess and Rossi together developed that bike. Neither Rossi or Burgess could do it on their own.

Would a control tire force everyone to adapt a bike that is essentially the same across the entire field since the tire would surely be following a single philosophy in its design? Example, the control tire would be modeled on the tire used by the Championship winning machine (M1), then everyone else have to mimic the characteristics of the M1? Or the tire development direction could be dictated by the one with most clout (ex HRC), then everyone has to make an HRC like bike?

On the other hand, if we have a Single manufacturer (i.e. single brand but different flavors for each bike), then those who are deemed special (ex. Rossi, Pedrosa, Stoner) would be getting the highest specs while the rest just wait for scraps?

This is such a mess. They should just leave the tires alone. Surely this years championship was better than last years (considering that the top 3 were very close until the crashes & injuries for Pedrosa and Stoner occured) and we are only on the 2nd year of 800cc. This radical change is not the way to go IMO.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Sep 30 2008, 06:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Rossi thanks Burgess for his efforts on a regular basis. Often, after a race where he has performed better than he managed the rest of that weekend, he will praise the fact that Burgess and the team made a couple of changes during morning warm-up that allowed him to be so fast.

In his autobiography he explains that, although he was willing to go to Yamaha without Burgess, he tried really hard to persuade Burgess to make the move too. I can't recall any time when Rossi has failed to show utter respect to Burgess.

Regarding the 03 M1, remember that Rossi's input was rather important too. Yamaha produced 3 different engine specs over the off-season for Rossi to evaluate. He chose one and then Burgess and Rossi together developed that bike. Neither Rossi or Burgess could do it on their own.
Hi Yamaka46
Mabe im missing something dude that your seeing.. its just that ive never seen them together after the race, mabe JB just doesnt like the crowd..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mumu37 @ Sep 30 2008, 07:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Would a control tire force everyone to adapt a bike that is essentially the same across the entire field since the tire would surely be following a single philosophy in its design? Example, the control tire would be modeled on the tire used by the Championship winning machine (M1), then everyone else have to mimic the characteristics of the M1? Or the tire development direction could be dictated by the one with most clout (ex HRC), then everyone has to make an HRC like bike?

On the other hand, if we have a Single manufacturer (i.e. single brand but different flavors for each bike), then those who are deemed special (ex. Rossi, Pedrosa, Stoner) would be getting the highest specs while the rest just wait for scraps?

This is such a mess. They should just leave the tires alone. Surely this years championship was better than last years (considering that the top 3 were very close until the crashes & injuries for Pedrosa and Stoner occured) and we are only on the 2nd year of 800cc. This radical change is not the way to go IMO.


Your point is valid and has primarily been my concern and argument against the thought process that a control tyre will make for closer racing.

IMO, it will not as the tyres used are developed based upon specific feedback from those using them who have their own specific nuances which affect tyre performance. As an example whilst Capirossi and Vermuelen may have the same basic bike, the set-up preferences may as well make them two completely different machines which will use tyres differently.

Additionally there is a definite 'pecking order' and I would expect that in 2008 for example Bridgestone have spent much time and effort developing a tyre that 'works' for Rossi, possibly to the detriment of other development for lesser teams (ie. Kawasaki).

Further as you have suggested the likely scenario is that the tyre will be developed based upon the feedback of the 'highest placed' or 'most highly regarded' rider. This then will mean that the tyre will be developed based upon the preferences of one rider and again may likely not suit other riders (the saqme argument used against Stoner and the Ducati development). Should therefore other riders be forced to use equipment that cannot be developed to their tastes or preferences?

IMO a single tyre rule is a farce as cream will always rise to the surface as has done this season despite the 'supposed' inequities of Michelin in 2008.

I will throw a few suggestions of possible paths to try to ensure fairness for discussion below.

1. Award the supplier to a manufacturer not currently in MotoGP (such as has been suggested in other threads).

2. Award the supplier to a manufacturer who must, under the contract work with each factory team to develop tyres that are best suited to the manufacturer's bike. This could be extended to a representative rider of each team is it is deemed 'feasible'. The aim here is that tyres are developed to suit the bike and not based on feedback of one rider/manufacturer.

3. The supplier must produce Hard/Medium/Soft tyres of their design and compound only. They are not to work with any team or rider in MotoGP to improve or develop the tyres but must instead work with all 'test riders' only to produce a better product. This is similar in though to point 2 but trying to remove individual rider bias or preference from teh supplier.

So come on, rip into them.





Garry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stoner27 @ Sep 30 2008, 07:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Hi Yamaka46
Mabe im missing something dude that your seeing.. its just that ive never seen them together after the race, mabe JB just doesnt like the crowd..


JB is definitely NOT a publicity hound nor does he do his work for publicity or public recognition.

But, to your original post, Rossi does often ensure that his team get the credit and that team includes Burgess. To single JB out alone would (IMO) fail to recognise the efforts of each and every member of that team as whilst JB is a large part of that team, others do and play as important roles.





Garry

I was opposed to a control tyre last year but have come around to the view that a control tyre might not be a bad thing. I do , however, still lack faith in dorna's capacity to devise approriate regulations for such a tyre, and what is being proposed so far seems quite nebulous; is there going to be a control tyre or tyres provided by a single manufacturer, which are not necessarily the same thing. I also agree with those who question the frequency of rule changes recently.

The other thing I disapprove of mainly on philosophical grounds is that blow-ins like dorna are in a postion to evict a company like michelin from the sport more or less on a whim when michelin have a tradition of decades of involvement in and support of the sport. As someone said earlier in the thread this may be contributing to JB's attitude. In a world which accorded more closely with my notions of justice michelin should be in a position to boot dorna out rather than the reverse.

JB is an great technician but in this case he's just defending his old friends at Michelin. He's a loyal friend. He was against Rossi's move to Bridgestone for the same reason.

Those who believe Rossi needs a tire advantage to win are just like those who believe that Stoner would not win any race without electronics: these people are plain deluded.

I say, bring on the control tire--and possibly a control ECU--to stabilize not only corner speeds but also any undesirable competitive advantage coming from these rubber-electronics variables, and let us begin discussing races decided exclusively by riders and motorcycles again

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Sep 30 2008, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>JB is an great technician but in this case he's just defending his old friends at Michelin. He's a loyal friend. He was against Rossi's move to Bridgestone for the same reason.

Those who believe Rossi needs a tire advantage to win are just like those who believe that Stoner would not win any race without electronics: these people are plain deluded.

I say, bring on the control tire--and possibly a control ECU--to stabilize not only corner speeds but also any undesirable competitive advantage coming from these rubber-electronics variables, and let us begin discussing races decided exclusively by riders and motorcycles again
Over the history of the sport it has been quite common for equipment to give riders an advantage, and I actually have no problem with this if all are operating under the same rules. The rider of whom I am a fan quite possibly needs an advantage to triumph, whilst valentino rossi does not. What non-rossi fans or this one at least have issue with is that such advantages seem to only be a problem if they are held by a rider other than valentino.

I think dorna to their horror found last year that they had devised a formula in which valentino rossi could lose; I don't think they set out to help anyone in particular (except perhaps honda), probably (and quite reasonably) believing that a formula which disadvantaged valentino did not exist.

I'm failry sick of conspiracy theories and ideas of this manipulating that etc.
As a matter of fact, there is a self-regulating mechanism: all are 120% determined to succeed and, if on one hand they'd do anything to promote their own cause, on the other the interests are conflicting and they are watching each other so closely that a real manipulation is practically impossible, or couldn't last long--it would be exposed pretty soon.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Sep 30 2008, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm failry sick of conspiracy theories and ideas of this manipulating that etc.
As a matter of fact, there is a self-regulating mechanism: all are 120% determined to succeed and, if on one hand they'd do anything to promote their own cause, on the other the interests are conflicting and they are watching each other so closely that a real manipulation is practically impossible, or couldn't last long--it would be exposed pretty soon.
I personally don't think dorna are capable of a successful conspiracy and have said so many times, and I also enjoy and agree with most of your posts.

I am just getting old, and observing that times have changed. I believe that during most of the history of gp racing ducati building a faster bike or bridgestone producing better tyres would have been lauded rather than viewed as requiring regulation to produce a level playing field. I do acknowledge that technology is now so advanced that such regulation is possibly necessary. I am also sad, as it would appear is jerry burgess, that it seems likely a company possessing the tradition in motogp that michelin does is out after barely one year of mediocre performance.

I also don't think casey stoner will win another world championship against valentino unless the carbon fibre GP9 is a major technological advance unique to ducati. The way he beat valentino was by getting into a zone and riding at or beyond the capability of the bike. One way of forestalling this on a slightly slower bike is to get in front of him early, ride a perfect tactical race and block every available line as at laguna seca. Getting rid of the tyre edge technology so stoner has to adjust his attack according to the direction of the corner will be equally effective in preventing him establishing a killing rhythm in my opinion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (svgamer @ Sep 29 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>During the 500cc and 990cc eras if you were not running M's you were not a title contender.

Someone explain to me how that isn't a "control tire" in GP racing.

There are already "controls" in place (weight, fuel, engine size, etc). Development pushes forward, because manufacturers and riders have to go faster than the other guy within those limits.
its not a control tyre because there are/were many different types available within that brand. as jb said back in the 90's all the top boys were on michilin but mick would win on a tyre that no one else could ride on. single make tyre and control tyre are 2 different things. with a control tyre you all get the same, with a single make you get to choose which type compound ect but within that make

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Sep 30 2008, 07:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>its not a control tyre because there are/were many different types available within that brand. as jb said back in the 90's all the top boys were on michilin but mick would win on a tyre that no one else could ride on. single make tyre and control tyre are 2 different things. with a control tyre you all get the same, with a single make you get to choose which type compound ect but within that make


you can't teach trig to a tard Rog

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Sep 30 2008, 01:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>you can't teach trig to a tard Rog