Help Support MotoGP Forum:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 1 2008, 09:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Corser and Mladin are both riders with failed GP careers and zero experience on 4 stoke gp bikes. I don't think either would be especially suitbale development riders.
Harsh Tom.
I would not say that neither of the riders mentioned had 'failed' GP careers as (IMO) they did not get an opportunity fo even have a GP career that could fail.
As to the argument regarding Corser's ability (using one name mentioned) to develop and/or assist in developing a MotoGP bike and whether he woudl be suitable given his lack of experience in the GP world, I would argue the converse.
Having a rider with infinite amounts of four stroke experience and no preconceived ideas as to how the GP bike should handle I would consider an advantage. He (they in the case of the factory) could utilise the reference points provided by the riders superbike experience and times to determine which way they need to head in terms of development.
But, I do also believe that whilst a rider like Corser could develop the bike better than many others, I do also feel that his ability to develp the last tenth of so would be questionable in terms of his not knowing the behaviour of other GP bikes.
However, there is (IMO) an argument for using riders like Corser to assist in bike development given their levels of racing experience, design and engineering as the main test riders for the factories are also non-GP riders.
Now, on to teh West/Hopkins debate (Kosy vs Sackwack).
I personally see both sides and on pure dollar terms (salaries alone) I would suggest that Hopkins does not provide value for dollar by comparison to West (by the way, it is my understanding that West was nowhere near 500k). But, one cannot look at salary alone and in that regard (as pointed out by Sackwack) Hopkins is a long way in front of West as he bought dollars to Kawasaki and also bought exposure in the US market (that pains me to say as I really do think that Hopkins is past hi GP use by date).
In short, in terms of exposure that produces dollars for Kawasaki Hopkins wins as in all honesty the Australian bike market is small and Hopkins has wider appear globally as his personality is somewhat more 'party boy' and approachable than is West (no disrespect to either).
Garry
Harsh Tom.
I would not say that neither of the riders mentioned had 'failed' GP careers as (IMO) they did not get an opportunity fo even have a GP career that could fail.
As to the argument regarding Corser's ability (using one name mentioned) to develop and/or assist in developing a MotoGP bike and whether he woudl be suitable given his lack of experience in the GP world, I would argue the converse.
Having a rider with infinite amounts of four stroke experience and no preconceived ideas as to how the GP bike should handle I would consider an advantage. He (they in the case of the factory) could utilise the reference points provided by the riders superbike experience and times to determine which way they need to head in terms of development.
But, I do also believe that whilst a rider like Corser could develop the bike better than many others, I do also feel that his ability to develp the last tenth of so would be questionable in terms of his not knowing the behaviour of other GP bikes.
However, there is (IMO) an argument for using riders like Corser to assist in bike development given their levels of racing experience, design and engineering as the main test riders for the factories are also non-GP riders.
Now, on to teh West/Hopkins debate (Kosy vs Sackwack).
I personally see both sides and on pure dollar terms (salaries alone) I would suggest that Hopkins does not provide value for dollar by comparison to West (by the way, it is my understanding that West was nowhere near 500k). But, one cannot look at salary alone and in that regard (as pointed out by Sackwack) Hopkins is a long way in front of West as he bought dollars to Kawasaki and also bought exposure in the US market (that pains me to say as I really do think that Hopkins is past hi GP use by date).
In short, in terms of exposure that produces dollars for Kawasaki Hopkins wins as in all honesty the Australian bike market is small and Hopkins has wider appear globally as his personality is somewhat more 'party boy' and approachable than is West (no disrespect to either).
Garry
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 5,583
- Location
- Thailand
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kosy @ Dec 1 2008, 07:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>For all those people who bagged West for the bike's lack of performance after 12 month experience, you all seem a little stupid as most said Melandri was going to do the job, with his 5 odd years experience. Reading this now everyone is now saying it's now the bike and not the rider. As i have said in previous posts....alot of you don't actually follow bike racing, you seem to have jumped on the bandwagon with Rossi and worry more about who's trendy to support than thinking the problem out before posting something....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dion @ Dec 2 2008, 06:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Does anyone on this forum know of what Kawasaki successes are ?
History ?
I dont really know, all I know is, when I was considering which 600 to buy a good friend and good rider said to me, well what kawasaki ever won ?
Not that much me thinks !!!!!!!!!!
Were you considering the 600s for road or track use... or maybe both? What is your riding style? Might be a good friend and a good rider, but a bloody ...... consultant on a bike purchase if that was his only response!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dion @ Dec 2 2008, 06:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Does anyone on this forum know of what Kawasaki successes are ?
History ?
I dont really know, all I know is, when I was considering which 600 to buy a good friend and good rider said to me, well what kawasaki ever won ?
Not that much me thinks !!!!!!!!!!
Were you considering the 600s for road or track use... or maybe both? What is your riding style? Might be a good friend and a good rider, but a bloody ...... consultant on a bike purchase if that was his only response!
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 11,378
- Location
- Pomona NY
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kosy @ Dec 1 2008, 10:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Kawasaki in the 70's make a couple good bikes in 250, 350 and 750 with riders like Kork Boington (not sure of the spelling) and Greg Hansford. I think there were a few championship.
Supers I think....Pitt on the 600 and Scott Russell on the 750.
That's Ballington.
Wow . . . haven't heard that name in a while.
Supers I think....Pitt on the 600 and Scott Russell on the 750.
That's Ballington.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Keshav @ Dec 2 2008, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That's Ballington.
Wow . . . haven't heard that name in a while.
i think its this thread...enjoy!
http://www.powerslide.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=6162
i think its this thread...enjoy!
http://www.powerslide.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=6162
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 9,515
- Location
- Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigAl @ Dec 2 2008, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i think its this thread...enjoy!
http://www.powerslide.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=6162
That thing there is really a beast though! I'd be damn scared to ride that thing.
http://www.powerslide.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=6162
That thing there is really a beast though! I'd be damn scared to ride that thing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 2 2008, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>they have more superbike world championships than Yamaha
Tom your statement is wrong in a couple of ways. Don't hate me yet, you may agree.
Riders win riders championships.
Bikes win manufacturers championships.
Sorry Tom but Kawasaki have not won the World Superbike Manufacturers Championship.
Yamaha have. 2007. So I'd call it 1-0 to Yamaha.
As far as the riders championship, well Tom Kawasaki haven't won "championships" as you state, they've won a championship. 15 years ago.
So you can't say Kawasaki have won more WSBK WC than Yamaha.
At best its one all.
Tom your statement is wrong in a couple of ways. Don't hate me yet, you may agree.
Riders win riders championships.
Bikes win manufacturers championships.
Sorry Tom but Kawasaki have not won the World Superbike Manufacturers Championship.
Yamaha have. 2007. So I'd call it 1-0 to Yamaha.
As far as the riders championship, well Tom Kawasaki haven't won "championships" as you state, they've won a championship. 15 years ago.
So you can't say Kawasaki have won more WSBK WC than Yamaha.
At best its one all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GeePee @ Dec 3 2008, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tom your statement is wrong in a couple of ways. Don't hate me yet, you may agree.
Riders win riders championships.
Bikes win manufacturers championships.
Sorry Tom but Kawasaki have not won the World Superbike Manufacturers Championship.
Yamaha have. 2007. So I'd call it 1-0 to Yamaha.
As far as the riders championship, well Tom Kawasaki haven't won "championships" as you state, they've won a championship. 15 years ago.
So you can't say Kawasaki have won more WSBK WC than Yamaha.
At best its one all.
Good point, i wasn't and largely still aren't familiar with the manufactuers championship results. The weight of both championships in determining the best bike is an interesting issue as both depend on rider performances. In this circumstance and from my knowledge of what has taken place in the riders standings i would consider Yamaha to be the superior factory, but i felt like pointing out that Kawasaki have not been completely success free. Statistics can easily be manipulated and all that
As far as i know however my english was correct in stating "they have more superbike world championships than Yamaha".
As a side note, i think that with the superbike rules allowing relatively large amounts of moficiation and being so dependent on factory input and team quality, i would suggest that superstock racing provides more reliable evidence on which to base the success of production machines.
Riders win riders championships.
Bikes win manufacturers championships.
Sorry Tom but Kawasaki have not won the World Superbike Manufacturers Championship.
Yamaha have. 2007. So I'd call it 1-0 to Yamaha.
As far as the riders championship, well Tom Kawasaki haven't won "championships" as you state, they've won a championship. 15 years ago.
So you can't say Kawasaki have won more WSBK WC than Yamaha.
At best its one all.
Good point, i wasn't and largely still aren't familiar with the manufactuers championship results. The weight of both championships in determining the best bike is an interesting issue as both depend on rider performances. In this circumstance and from my knowledge of what has taken place in the riders standings i would consider Yamaha to be the superior factory, but i felt like pointing out that Kawasaki have not been completely success free. Statistics can easily be manipulated and all that
As a side note, i think that with the superbike rules allowing relatively large amounts of moficiation and being so dependent on factory input and team quality, i would suggest that superstock racing provides more reliable evidence on which to base the success of production machines.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 4 2008, 07:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i would suggest that superstock racing provides more reliable evidence on which to base the success of production machines.
Your not wrong there Tom
This is where Kawasaki really suck. The best they could manage in the 2008 Superstock 1000 final standings was 17th in the riders and 5th in the manufacturers.
Your not wrong there Tom
This is where Kawasaki really suck. The best they could manage in the 2008 Superstock 1000 final standings was 17th in the riders and 5th in the manufacturers.
