Burgess: No trouble found on Rossi's engine

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Nov 12 2007, 08:36 PM) [snapback]100381[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
oh is is ,is it ?
you disagree that 3 major rule changes in one year were going to spring up a few surprises good for some bad for others. thats have a look at these rule changes.
1. capacity change
2. the new tyre regulations, limited and have to be chosen thursday. how many teams had tested there tyres at misano before ?
3. the one that really hurt some teams, 1 liter less fuel from 22 to 21 liters.
when i said about the transitional year it was not to put stoner down, far from it, it was to explain why some riders/team's were struggling. i think we were all surprised to see hrc so far back at the beginning.
now if you take pointing out these facts as a dig at stoner, then thats your problem.


Was same old for everyone nonetheless .... so whats the point?

What would we say if it turned out extra windy at say 10 of the GP's snowing at one and rainy the rest ???

Its the same for everyone, and they coped with whatever was thrown at them, as they do every year, in the following fashion:

1. Stoner
2. Pedrosa
3. Rossi
4. .......

The trouble is folk that attest to these being things that effected the championship.

Well I for 1 think a rainy day has a greater effect than all those three changes in one.

And I don't think any one of them would have changed the outcome of the year.

And next year will be different again ..... thats the way it goes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Nov 12 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]100384[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Was same old for everyone nonetheless .... so whats the point?

What would we say if it turned out extra windy at say 10 of the GP's snowing at one and rainy the rest ???

Its the same for everyone, and they coped with whatever was thrown at them, as they do every year, in the following fashion:

1. Stoner
2. Pedrosa
3. Rossi
4. .......

The trouble is folk that attest to these being things that effected the championship.

Well I for 1 think a rainy day has a greater effect than all those three changes in one.

And I don't think any one of them would have changed the outcome of the year.

And next year will be different again ..... thats the way it goes.

no body said it wasn't the same for all, remember stoner and hayden ran out of fuel on the cool down lap this year. my point is there were always going to be surprises in a transitional year, but you call that "wacko". i disagree that rain would make more difference, never known it rain for 18 races in a season. but i dont expect you to even try and understand the implications of these changes because you take every comment by a rossi fan as a slur against stoner. when i made the transitional year comment it was actually in a thread about capirossi. capi was a championship contender last year but no where this year. hrc and nicky won last year but no where this year, i could go on, but you feel these changes had no bearing on this years results, oh well, i guess you cant show people who refuse to open there eyes.

Of course the fact there were so many changes this year affected things at a team level. Some hit the ground running (and well done to them for being so foresighted and adopting, years ago, a methodolgy that has finally paid off) and some were still running to catch up at the end of the season. That's not taking anything away from any rider. It's just common sense. Of course the conditions were the same for all the riders. But it would be incredibly naive to look at MotoGp as a one-man sport.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 12 2007, 10:15 AM) [snapback]100392[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Of course the fact there were so many changes this year affected things at a team level. Some hit the ground running (and well done to them for being so foresighted and adopting, years ago, a methodolgy that has finally paid off) and some were still running to catch up at the end of the season. That's not taking anything away from any rider. It's just common sense. Of course the conditions were the same for all the riders. But it would be incredibly naive to look at MotoGp as a one-man sport.

They obviously made at least one rule change too many. I am not sure they have even saved any money, which was one justification, they haven't encouraged any new manufacturers, and they certainly haven't produced closer racing which one presumes was also among their aims. I agree with others that this year may be an aberration and having liberalised the tyre rule they should leave things alone for a year now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(michaelm @ Nov 12 2007, 01:52 PM) [snapback]100431[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
They obviously made at least one rule change too many. I am not sure they have even saved any money, which was one justification, they haven't encouraged any new manufacturers, and they certainly haven't produced closer racing which one presumes was also among their aims. I agree with others that this year may be an aberration and having liberalised the tyre rule they should leave things alone for a year now.


They don't know what they are doing... ok they had to get rid of the 500 because it was at the height of its development but the 990s at least reminded me of the 500 days.

These bikes are nothing like it...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(an4rew @ Nov 12 2007, 06:37 PM) [snapback]100474[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
They don't know what they are doing... ok they had to get rid of the 500 because it was at the height of its development but the 990s at least reminded me of the 500 days.

These bikes are nothing like it...


Machinary wise the 800's are closer to the 500's because they are smaller, more nimble and more corner speed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Nov 12 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]100476[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Machinary wise the 800's are closer to the 500's because they are smaller, more nimble and more corner speed.

How can you compare the 2-stroke 500's to the new 800's? Totally different types of beasts.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 12 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]100477[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
How can you compare the 2-stroke 500's to the new 800's? Totally different types of beasts.

i wonder if tc were banned if this would turn out to be fairly true?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 12 2007, 06:45 PM) [snapback]100477[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
How can you compare the 2-stroke 500's to the new 800's? Totally different types of beasts.


i was simply saying that relative to the 990's the 800's are more like the 500's. Obviously they are very very different machines, you don't need to tell me that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(frosty58 @ Nov 12 2007, 06:48 PM) [snapback]100480[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
i wonder if tc were banned if this would turn out to be fairly true?


The 500's would have TC by now of course

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Nov 12 2007, 06:52 PM) [snapback]100481[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
i was simply saying that relative to the 990's the 800's are more like the 500's. Obviously they are very very different machines, you don't need to tell me that.

The 500's would have TC by now of course

how are the 800's more like the old 500's compared with the 990's, i dont understand, from what ive seen the 800's look pretty tame compared to the 990's let alone the 500's. did you ever actually see any 500 races tom ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Nov 12 2007, 06:42 PM) [snapback]100476[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Machinary wise the 800's are closer to the 500's because they are smaller, more nimble and more corner speed.


yea but they don't threaten to throw the rider off every corner which was the exciting bit for me years ago.... as Rossi said on the faster dvd the 500 ahh feck

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Nov 12 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]100384[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Was same old for everyone nonetheless .... so whats the point?

Yes it was the same, the same huge gamble. And huge gambling continued through the season for the michelin riders.

I suggest World Poker Tour instead of MotoGP if you think that gambling should be a major part of your sport.
Most others seems to agree that more tires means more fair racing even for the small teams and that's why the change the ruels for next year. But you disagree with that?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
What would we say if it turned out extra windy at say 10 of the GP's snowing at one and rainy the rest ???

At least 10 rounds would have been cancelled and we wouldn't have had a WC. What's your point?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Its the same for everyone,


It's not. It's not even the same gamble for everyone.

But I do think that Soner earned his championship. What would have happened with none or other changes is just lots of if's, but it would have been different, maybe not at the very top but still different.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Nov 12 2007, 11:40 PM) [snapback]100530[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
It's not. It's not even the same gamble for everyone.


true its only the same for everyone if its an R6 cup as Stoner puts it

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Nov 13 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]100530[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Yes it was the same, the same huge gamble. And huge gambling continued through the season for the michelin riders.


That's what MotoGP is compared to standard formulas yes .... get used to it.

Although I'd call their "gamble" more of an educated guess.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Nov 13 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]100530[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I suggest World Poker Tour instead of MotoGP if you think that gambling should be a major part of your sport.


But it is a gamble, if you want to put it that way, Ducati gambled on hiring Stoner, Rossi gambled on changing to the pneumatic valves, Every rider picks what they "feel" they wil require in tyres, TC setting is selected on a "gamble", Engine settings are a gamble, Steering settings are a gamble, frame settings are a gamble, brake settings/setup is a gamble ...... every corner taken is a gamble, gearing setup .... gamble ..... Thats Motogp ...... If you want to equalise the machinery part ..... yeah R6 cup would be good for you. ...... its allways been a gamble!! ... why change that?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Nov 13 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]100530[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Most others seems to agree that more tires means more fair racing even for the small teams and that's why the change the ruels for next year. But you disagree with that?


I don't personally think tyres mattered a hoot this year .... I still say the fact that Stoner came out so hungry is what has brought this question up .... if he had finished 3rd or even 2nd ... would we even have a tyre situation??



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Nov 13 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]100530[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
At least 10 rounds would have been cancelled and we wouldn't have had a WC. What's your point?


They don't cancel GP's for rain ..... you either didn't read or are twisting what I wrote??


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Nov 13 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]100530[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
It's not. It's not even the same gamble for everyone.


Oh yes it is ....... its even a gamble which manufacturer you are with .... but most teams try to get the most out of there package.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Nov 13 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]100530[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
But I do think that Soner earned his championship. What would have happened with none or other changes is just lots of if's, but it would have been different, maybe not at the very top but still different.


I reckon had any of the chages not occurred and only riders life changes/team changes had occured ...... it would have been a very simillar outcome. I would have loved to see Stoner on a full factory 990 .... I reckon his corner style would have been amazing with all the power .....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Nov 13 2007, 01:26 AM) [snapback]100532[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
That's what MotoGP is compared to standard formulas yes .... get used to it.

No, it's three new rules that make it a gamble
No, it's a rule that force every team to gamble based on wether forcast and surface reports. Especially the last one is nothing but a shame in the top class.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Although I'd call their "gamble" more of an educated guess.
But it is a gamble, if you want to put it that way, Ducati gambled on hiring Stoner,

No, they took him as a third choise. What was left at the end you might say.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Rossi gambled on changing to the pneumatic valves,

Playing the catch up game often involve taking risks, but I'm 99.9% sure that the pneumatic valves were Yamahas doing and not Rossi's. And from an engineering point of view the choise were the only right choise. If they were gambling on anything it was to stay with the springs for their original '07 engine. Btw: Playing the catch up game is some thing that often happen when there are many changes in the rules.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Every rider picks what they "feel" they wil require in tyres, TC setting is selected on a "gamble", Engine settings are a gamble, Steering settings are a gamble, frame settings are a gamble, brake settings/setup is a gamble ...... every corner taken is a gamble, gearing setup .... gamble .....

I don't know about "your" rider but "mine" sure as hell doesn't gamble on those parts. Some could be called educated guesses, others are calculated risks. When it come to tires the michelin riders had to pick tires they knew would be less than ideal if they missed the forcast with a couple of degrees, even if the right tire for that condition was available.
MotoGP is suposed to be the class where you can get the best technology available. For tires, a part of that is the huge variance in tires. To get the best they must be alowed to pick the exact right tire.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Thats Motogp

No, if that was MotoGP I woudn't be here, that's for sure.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
If you want to equalise the machinery part ..... yeah R6 cup would be good for you. ...... its allways been a gamble!! ... why change that?
Yeah, why change that. Why did they change it last year, why are they changing again for next year? While the new displacement created some waves it will settle, same for the fuel, but the tire rule made every race a gamble, not in racing, but picking tires, is that what MotoGP is about? All three changes together is bound to make huge differences.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
I don't personally think tyres mattered a hoot this year .... I still say the fact that Stoner came out so hungry is what has brought this question up .... if he had finished 3rd or even 2nd ... would we even have a tyre situation??

THIS IS NOT ABOUT STONER
and even if it was; you just did what I talked in last post:
1. You think everything is about stoner vs Rossi. Wake up, it's not.
2. You try to convince everyone that Stoner would have won on anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
They don't cancel GP's for rain ..... you either didn't read or are twisting what I wrote??

You are right, I got that wrong, I read 10 races with snow.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Oh yes it is ....... its even a gamble which manufacturer you are with .... but most teams try to get the most out of there package.
I reckon had any of the chages not occurred and only riders life changes/team changes had occured ...... it would have been a very simillar outcome. I would have loved to see Stoner on a full factory 990 .... I reckon his corner style would have been amazing with all the power .....

If's doesn't count for much, but I agree, Stoner would have been awsome even on the 990 Duc.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(an4rew @ Nov 12 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]100527[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
yea but they don't threaten to throw the rider off every corner which was the exciting bit for me years ago.... as Rossi said on the faster dvd the 500 ahh feck


Yeah but that would be a thing of the past even if we stayed with 500's. If we were in a situation to keep the two strokes they would not have remained frozen in time. They were already getting far easier to ride at the end of the 90's, by now they would be far from the beasts we all love to remember.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roger-m @ Nov 12 2007, 08:43 PM) [snapback]100501[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
did you ever actually see any 500 races tom ?


No i was born in 2002

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Nov 13 2007, 08:04 PM) [snapback]100561[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
No i was born in 2002


Good to see someoone on this forum is older than me!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Nov 12 2007, 06:52 PM) [snapback]100481[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
i was simply saying that relative to the 990's the 800's are more like the 500's. Obviously they are very very different machines, you don't need to tell me that.

The 500's would have TC by now of course

Not sure TC could have been so easily developed for strokers.

As BikerGirl said, they are a completely different beast. and I don't think suitable for TC.

Seriously though, have you ever ridden a large cap 2-stroke? I had a 500 Gamma which was (sort of) the 500 race bike with headlights etc. If you have then I think you'd understand why TC couldn't really help "calm" a 2 stroke. They are all about throttle control - even on the road, if you didn't understand that you'd wheelie it into a tree. And I regret selling the damn thing, but can't find another worth buying now.

Bring back real bikes I say!!

750's were a mans bike!!

TZ's, .... Kwaka triples!!


I rode a "dirtified" 750 Kwaka once ..... ( seriously ) that was nuts

It only really needed TC if you cracked the throttle off idle



So bring them back!! ......