Development Rider

frethammer said:

But what exactly is a Development Rider? Well it seems the benchmark is V.R. but what the hell is it really?

Click to expand...

What?!



All racers are developers. The input that a racer gives the team steers how they will develop modifications for the bike in the near and distant future.



Some members of the public believe different riders have a greater ability of conveying what is needed to make the bike better to the teams. This sometimes leads to being portrayed as a great 'development rider'



However there is no test for this so its all relative.



A test rider does not race the bike however they are familiar with the bike they are riding and will ride it through each stage of development and help give feedback by telling the factory if the new parts they create help or hinder them.



Hope this has helped you understand a little.



P.S how long have you been following the GP's?

Valentino is credited with such developmental acclaim because he has arguably the best crew in the paddock and Yamaha catered to his every wish when he signed from Honda. That hasn't happened at Ducati. I'm not sure how much of it has to do with the stubbornness of Ducati and how much has to do with the fact that their operation is smaller than the likes of Honda and Yamaha, but Ducati has been much slower in their catering to Rossi's wishes. They've certainly done much more this season than in years past, but it wasn't Yamaha 2004 in which Rossi turned up with a number of new engines and chassis available for him to choose from.



As far as other riders getting a label of poor developers, especially Stoner and Lorenzo, it's pretty unfair. This past season was Lorenzo's first in leading development for Yamaha so it's incredibly difficult to determine what he's done. The bike was already a winner. And Stoner spent four years at Ducati, where we've already discussed as being reluctant to change from its ways at the insistence of their riders. I know this argument is months old now, but everyone always said Stoner never moved that Ducati forward in development. I argue Ducati didn't let him. He won with it, job done.

Austin said:

Valentino is credited with such developmental acclaim because he has arguably the best crew in the paddock and Yamaha catered to his every wish when he signed from Honda. That hasn't happened at Ducati. I'm not sure how much of it has to do with the stubbornness of Ducati and how much has to do with the fact that their operation is smaller than the likes of Honda and Yamaha, but Ducati has been much slower in their catering to Rossi's wishes. They've certainly done much more this season than in years past, but it wasn't Yamaha 2004 in which Rossi turned up with a number of new engines and chassis available for him to choose from.



As far as other riders getting a label of poor developers, especially Stoner and Lorenzo, it's pretty unfair. This past season was Lorenzo's first in leading development for Yamaha so it's incredibly difficult to determine what he's done. The bike was already a winner. And Stoner spent four years at Ducati, where we've already discussed as being reluctant to change from its ways at the insistence of their riders. I know this argument is months old now, but everyone always said Stoner never moved that Ducati forward in development. I argue Ducati didn't let him. He won with it, job done.

Click to expand...

Very true. When it comes to Honda I still think they will cater their development toward Dani and the future horse jockeys to follow. Lets hope they treat this champion a little better than they did the last one.

frethammer said:

So we don't have a benchmark and we don't have a basis for any analysis of a "development rider"?



But why does this keep popping up. I'm also into another forum alongs with my countrymen and they keep yapping on how good Vale is. I've done my research, seen the vids, know the accomplishments then unfortunately, seen the 2011 season.



I guess the ideal development rider is all up to the engineers then? Is there any interviews out there regarding them? All I see is the rider interviews?

Click to expand...

It's because the Boppers have been spewing the "Valentino is God" line for the last umpteen years. Like much of the VR myth, his supposed engineering genius has never been significantly challenenged. Now, with him and Jeremy (Mr. Magic ... Rabbit) Burgess floundering without direction, people are beginning to question a number of these long-standing assumptions.



The original notion that VR, or any rider, is somehow "developing the bike" is absurd. Riders offer feedback, and engineers decide on a plan and 'direction' to pursue. They whip up a series of new parts, change geometries, etc., and present these changes to the rider for feedback. The rider says "that's better" or "that sucks." The process is akin to a simple A-B-A eye exam. Hell, the way some people talk, you'd think VR was singlehandedly programming the supercomputer to run frame stress analysis, or tweaking the CNC to generate the latest cam profiles.

The term "development rider came to be when the boppers thought they could claim that as a mythical good point for Rossi, who was at the time not doing the actual job he was supposed to be doing ....



Its an idiotic myth

The reality is, in all levels of racing from club to MGP, as in life, I suppose, some people/riders are better at articulating their needs/feelings than others. The mechanics and engineers who create and wrench motorcycles have to rely on feedback from the rider to make adjustments to (hopefully) improve a bike or set it up for a particular riding style or track. Information such as, "in turns 3 and 11 my front suspension rebound causes my front wheel to lose contact with the tarmac so I keep pushing in those corners", is more helpful to an engineer/mechanic than, "I don't like the feeling of the bike in turns 3 and 11".



Another variable is some riders can just ride around setup issues and can take a bike/setup which another riders feels is a brick and make a stellar performer of it...



"Development rider" is a subjective term which should imply a rider who can provide the necessary feedback to his wrenches to make his bike more suitable to himself and the conditions of the track.

Mick D said:

The reality is, in all levels of racing from club to MGP, as in life, I suppose, some people/riders are better at articulating their needs/feelings than others. The mechanics and engineers who create and wrench motorcycles have to rely on feedback from the rider to make adjustments to (hopefully) improve a bike or set it up for a particular riding style or track. Information such as, "in turns 3 and 11 my front suspension rebound causes my front wheel to lose contact with the tarmac so I keep pushing in those corners", is more helpful to an engineer/mechanic than, "I don't like the feeling of the bike in turns 3 and 11".



Another variable is some riders can just ride around setup issues and can take a bike/setup which another riders feels is a brick and make a stellar performer of it...



"Development rider" is a subjective term which should imply a rider who can provide the necessary feedback to his wrenches to make his bike more suitable to himself and the conditions of the track.

Click to expand...

I agree. In most aspects of every day life, if you can convey your thoughts and opinions, positives, negatives, imformation or needs to others by a means in which they respond to the above points, then you are going to be more successful ( or popular ) socially and in whatever your chosen profession is.



The rider is not soley responsible for developing a bike, but the amount and quality of feedback they provide is surely invaluable to the process of development isn't it ?



I ain't a bopper, but I think VR has played a significant part in bike development in the past. OK, we know he has probably had the best of the best in every aspect in the past, but ya still gotta do the job. JB may have been lucky enough ( or good enough ) to be working with the best factories and the best in riders in Doohan and Rossi, but you still gotta do the job. You can't knock them because they have previously been in the enviable position of having everything in place to give them every chance of succeeding.



Its been quoted numerous times in the past but Colin Edwards said words to the effect of " Now that Valentino has left, I feel almost untouchable at Yamaha, because I am now the only guy who can work to develop the bike. Jorge included ". Surely Colin is in a good position to comment on who, how and what is required as part of bike development within in GP team



In fairness to Jorge, he is now a further year down the line with Yamaha and has probably gained some experience of what is required from him in terms of feedback etc.

I also wonder whether Yamaha didnt have the financial ability to throw any serious money ( Honda style ) into developing a 800cc bike for this season, when they knew it was gonna be out the door in 2012.

Austin said:

Valentino is credited with such developmental acclaim because he has arguably the best crew in the paddock and Yamaha catered to his every wish when he signed from Honda. That hasn't happened at Ducati. I'm not sure how much of it has to do with the stubbornness of Ducati and how much has to do with the fact that their operation is smaller than the likes of Honda and Yamaha, but Ducati has been much slower in their catering to Rossi's wishes. They've certainly done much more this season than in years past, but it wasn't Yamaha 2004 in which Rossi turned up with a number of new engines and chassis available for him to choose from.



As far as other riders getting a label of poor developers, especially Stoner and Lorenzo, it's pretty unfair. This past season was Lorenzo's first in leading development for Yamaha so it's incredibly difficult to determine what he's done. The bike was already a winner. And Stoner spent four years at Ducati, where we've already discussed as being reluctant to change from its ways at the insistence of their riders. I know this argument is months old now, but everyone always said Stoner never moved that Ducati forward in development. I argue Ducati didn't let him. He won with it, job done.

Click to expand...

Good post, good answer, as usual.



It was Furusawa himself that said Jorge's developmental abilities were a way off Valentino's (late 2010, in his 'retirement' interview with Crash.net). He also was extremely complimentary of Valentino's abilities to develop a bike. I think that these comments are the ones that are most telling - by the engineers and factories working with the riders.



Ultimately, no matter what any rider tells the factory, the factory must be capable and competent enough to turn the rider feedback into the changes that are needed. (It is a 'team' effort, after all). This is where it's sometimes difficult to gauge a particular rider's development skills.

MdubSTYLIE said:

Very true. When it comes to Honda I still think they will cater their development toward Dani and the future horse jockeys to follow. Lets hope they treat this champion a little better than they did the last one.

Click to expand...

Thats probably a good thing ! Casey is great at jumping on someones elses bike and winning on it. 07 he jumps on Capi developed bike and wins wc, Then his input over the next 2 years reaps .... all and develops a pig. He jumps on Dani's bike in 2011 and wins wc. Lets hope for caseys sake they listen to dani and not stoner.

MdubSTYLIE said:

Very true. When it comes to Honda I still think they will cater their development toward Dani and the future horse jockeys to follow. Lets hope they treat this champion a little better than they did the last one.

Click to expand...

This one ain't such a difficult to design for, he gives them wins when they make a change for the good. The last one ........ WhoTF would know if they were doing any good when they changed things? he so rarely won on it.



Even if Stoner began to lose races after a change, it is valuable "development", as he has such a consistent win record the data collected is obvious.



Its an absolute nonsense to claim anyone but Stoner, at present is of any value as a "development rider" because even if:



Stoner is valuable if he shows the negatives by losing



or



anybody else, shows the positives by winning .......... but unfortunately no one else apart from Lorenzo and Pedrosa is really trying , or capable of riding at the level of Stoner. And even Lorenzo and Pedrosa are missing skills that Stoner has.



The biggest backward step may come early this year when Missus Stoner has the youngon, Casey may suddenly not want to risk it so much. Then we are back to a field of guys developing the best snail.





Edit: Oh and even though I can't really be bothered with all this "development rider" ...., Stoner ( or his results and data ) still has extreme pertinence at Ducati. This will only change when Rossi has quite a few wins under his belt. Because Ducati still have to be asking themselves, WhyTF was Casey able to win so much on it!!?? In reality the bike he left them at the last 4 rounds of 2010 looked every bit as good as the bike that he jumped on to in 2011.

BarryMachine said:

Its an absolute nonsense to claim anyone but Stoner, at present is of any value as a "development rider" because even if:

Click to expand...

I know I deleted your reasons but WTF!



All riders have value when it comes to development, as has been stated some riders are "better" than others but they all have value.



IMO I think stoner is probably at the lower end of the spectrum purely because he seems to have the ability to ride around faults in a bike that other riders seem to be more sensitive towards, leading me to think it would be harder for him to convey what is 'wrong'

Rossi this year put an end to this myth when he said that "he does not develop the bike, he is not an engineer, he provides feedback and then it is up to the factory/engineers to find solutions". Why did he finally end the myth? Because no matter what feedback he gave the engineers could not improve anything. His fault? Probably not.



At best, riders pick the best options from what the factory delivers to the race track for them to try.



Saying Stoner is not a good provider of feedback or selector of options is just plan stupid. At the beginning of this season's testing Honda turned up with a variety of chassis. Stoner assessed them all and confidently picked one. Pedrosa picked a different one. Stoner won the season with 10 wins, a record equalling 16 podiums and a record equalling 12 pole positions. I think he did his job better than anyone on the grid.



I believe the real skill is in tuning what you have and making it work for you or making yourself work with it. To this end the input of the pit crew is huge. Stoner's crew made the Ducati work enough for him that he could then make himself work for the Ducati. They switched to a completely different bike and they immediately made it work with no data almost every week. There is no doubt in my mind that Stoner's crew is the NUMBER 1 crew in MotoGP.

Baffy said:

IMO I think stoner is probably at the lower end of the spectrum purely because he seems to have the ability to ride around faults in a bike that other riders seem to be more sensitive towards, leading me to think it would be harder for him to convey what is 'wrong'

Click to expand...

Then you shoot yourself in the foot/head whatever ........... why not just use test riders? .............



because .......... they don't ride the bike at the operating performance that the fastest rider does. ergo Rossi has not. nor ever will be a great development rider.. He can ask for a bike that suits him, but thats it. If they did make bikes that suited Rossi ...... then he would be at a distinct advantage ....... wonder if that's ever happened.



You try getting on a showroom bike and going at your fastest ........... stupid proposition when its put like that, isn't it

chopperman said:

Casey is great at jumping on someones elses bike and winning on it. 07 he jumps on Capi developed bike and wins wc, Then his input over the next 2 years reaps .... all and develops a pig.

Click to expand...

You sure you want to stand by that argument? Despite the countless incarnations of the GP11 (the sort of productivity and output that's never before been seen from Ducati), I'd say the development of that bike has been just as slow and ineffective under Rossi as it was under Stoner.

Austin said:

You sure you want to stand by that argument? Despite the countless incarnations of the GP11 (the sort of productivity and output that's never before been seen from Ducati), I'd say the development of that bike has been just as slow and ineffective under Rossi as it was under Stoner.

Click to expand...

My bet is Rossi JB and co would of had a better starting point if they inherited the duc after the 07 season instead of a bike with years of changes with no direction. Whether this was caseys fault is debatable but fact is ,he has done very well on 2 inherited bikes that had no casey input.

chopperman said:

My bet is Rossi JB and co would of had a better starting point if they inherited the duc after the 07 season instead of a bike with years of changes with no direction. Whether this was caseys fault is debatable but fact is ,he has done very well on 2 inherited bikes that had no casey input.

Click to expand...

I'd be surprised. Melandri, although no Rossi, was an extremely capable rider at the time, jumped aboard the still-Capirossi developed Ducati and did less than what Rossi's done. The bike being difficult is nothing new and nothing Stoner or Hayden have done in the prior two years to Rossi's arrival have changed that for better or worse.

I thought the general consensus was that Rossi had developed the Ducati backwards so far?