This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

interview with Lorenzo (in italian)

Mental Anarchist said:
That is complete ......... Show me even the slightest bit of evidence that Stoner is not a lead development rider. Just because this myth is perpetuated over and over again by boppers does not make it a fact.



Last time Rossi developed a new bike for a new formula the bike was a piece of .... with server chatter problems and got its arse handed to it by the smallest manufacturer with a new rider in only his second year of MotoGP. So what facts do you have to suggest that it will be different this time around as he has only done it once and failed once.
Click to expand...



D-U-C-A-T-I

CS was #1 Rider 2007 to 2010 - Development went backwards - blame the Engineers - BUT don't forget the input or lack thereof from #1 rider.



BTW - I did state clearly that he ImO is a great Racer - so drop the bopper crap - seems to be your default line of argument
 
povol said:
No , he is right, neither of you have any evidence what so ever of Stoners ability to develop a bike, good or bad. With what JB has said about Ducati, it can easily be argued that rider development suggestions were ignored for the last 4 years.Just because you say its so, doesnt make it true.
Click to expand...





Let's assume for a moment - best case for CS feedback on the 2008 - 2010 Ducati - and believe for a moment he had constructive and objective input - if that was the case and Ducati just didn't listen - that was maybe due to:



CS lack of ability to communicate

Lack of technical credibility

Missing objectivity

blame it on others



Bottom line is - Both Engineers and #1 riders interdependently develop winning bikes. If the bike is not successfully developed - e.g to be a consistent winner, then both sides have failed to deliver



Now does anybody want to argue the merits of Ducati development 2008 - 2010?
 
ptk50 said:
Let's assume for a moment - best case for CS feedback on the 2008 - 2010 Ducati - and believe for a moment he had constructive and objective input - if that was the case and Ducati just didn't listen - that was maybe due to:



CS lack of ability to communicate

Lack of technical credibility

Missing clout

blame it on others



Bottom line is - Both Engineers and #1 riders interdependently develop winning bikes. If the bike is not successfully developed - e.g to be a consistent winner, then both sides have failed to deliver



Now does anybody want to argue the merits of Ducati development 2008 - 2010?
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.



If not having the power to sway Ducati's belief process is somehow Stoners fault, then yes, he is a complete failure
<
 
ptk50 said:
D-U-C-A-T-I

CS was #1 Rider 2007 to 2010 - Development went backwards - blame the Engineers - BUT don't forget the input or lack thereof from #1 rider.



BTW - I did state clearly that he ImO is a great Racer - so drop the bopper crap - seems to be your default line of argument
Click to expand...



Excuse me but are you still clinging to this despite all the evidence that your opinion, which you stated as fact, is to the contrary?



So can you please state for everyone here right now that you think that:



JB

Kropotkin

Stoner

Hayden

Melandri

Capirossi

All the satellite riders



are all wrong and that your opinion which is that Stoner can not provide feedback is in fact the actual truth?



You say that my default is to call 'Bopper'. What would you like me to say in response to a completely irrational argument from you? Do you think that such a thinly veiled disguise such as "IMO he is a great Racer" fools me any anyone else into thinking you are even handed in your assessment then you pay me and others the greatest disrespect because you are calling us ignorant and for doing so you think it is unfair of me to call you a bopper? Please....you are not dealing with children here mate so stop acting like one.
 
Mental Anarchist said:
What are you talking about? We do know. It is a known element that Ducati have not listened to their riders for many years. Even the object of all your desires has indicated that to be the case when he refused to go to Ducati some years back because they do not listen to the rider. JB has just come out in an interview and told the world that Ducati did not listen to Stoner nor analyse the problems. How many riders have ridden it and had their careers ended because Ducati would not change the bike. Melandri was sent to a shrink rather than Ducati believe him there was a problem with the bike. Stoner left Ducati to go to Honda because they would not fix the bike.



Now in regards to Rossi and his ability to develop the M1 800 for the start of the 2007 season are you saying that if the bike is good Rossi did it and if it is bad he did not but then he fixed it after Yamaha ...... it up? What my comment was, was that the bike Rossi turned up with at the beginning or 2007 after unlimited testing had significant issues. It had severe chatter front and rear. It was down on power. Now this is the new bike for a new formula that Rossi developed in an environment of unlimited testing. This is the ONLY time that Rossi has had significant input into developing a new bike for a new formula. The Honda 990 from my understanding did not have significant input by Rossi. After all he left Honda because they would not listen to him and in Rossi's view at Honda the rider was not important. When he went to Yamaha, the Yamaha was not a new bike. However Rossi was presented with a range of options that he got to pick. These options were all developed already and Rossi just picked his preferences and then fine tuned them. These options were not presented to any of the previous Yamaha riders so we do not know if any of the previous riders could of picked the same successful options. At Ducati, none of the options that Rossi is working through now were offered up to Stoner, Hayden, Melandri, Capirossi or any of the satellite riders so we do not know if they could have fixed the problems the bike has. My responses all started because one of your fellow cultists decided that his view about Stoner and all the other Ducati riders was fact. IT IS NOT and there is .... loads of evidence to the contrary yet it is beyond the scope of a brain washed mind to comprehend that.



So jump forward into the future and we are looking towards Rossi's ability to develop a brand new bike for a brand new formula and several people are suggesting that it is a given that Rossi's Ducati will be perfect and he will win 2012. Well I am simply stating a series of observed events that actually occurred and make an assumption that based on his 100% failure rate at developing a new bike for a new formula it is not a given at all the Rossi will be successful at developing the 2012 Ducati.
Click to expand...





Fair points well made!



Ok, so Ducati havent been listening to their riders up until Rossi walks in. So basically we have no idea whatsoever wether Stoner can develop a bike or not. Personally i think he'll be a lot more use information wise to an engineer purely because he rides at the speed he does. What i'm really curious to see though wether Honda adopt the same mentality as Ducati in regards to develpoment.



You can go on about how the M1 wasnt competative at the start of 2007 and blame it on Rossi and his crew, what you have to remember though is the whole formula was Honda's creation and they werent exactly taking it to Casey either. At the end of the day though the bikes problems did get ironed out, the chassis first (and remedied pretty quick if i remember correctly, wasnt 2006 the year of major chatter?) and then the engine. At the end of that season it was probably the best bike on the grid and Furasawa/JB and Rossi were fundamental in getting it to that level.



Basically, Rossi and his team turned Yamahas fortunes across 2 different racing formulae from pretty .... (check that stats) to winning. He and his team know what they are doing.
 
ptk50 said:
D-U-C-A-T-I

CS was #1 Rider 2007 to 2010 - Development went backwards - blame the Engineers - BUT don't forget the input or lack thereof from #1 rider.



BTW - I did state clearly that he ImO is a great Racer - so drop the bopper crap - seems to be your default line of argument
Click to expand...





<
<
<
<




How?
<
 
Mental Anarchist said:
What are you talking about? We do know. It is a known element that Ducati have not listened to their riders for many years. Even the object of all your desires has indicated that to be the case when he refused to go to Ducati some years back because they do not listen to the rider. JB has just come out in an interview and told the world that Ducati did not listen to Stoner nor analyse the problems. How many riders have ridden it and had their careers ended because Ducati would not change the bike. Melandri was sent to a shrink rather than Ducati believe him there was a problem with the bike. Stoner left Ducati to go to Honda because they would not fix the bike.



Now in regards to Rossi and his ability to develop the M1 800 for the start of the 2007 season are you saying that if the bike is good Rossi did it and if it is bad he did not but then he fixed it after Yamaha ...... it up? What my comment was, was that the bike Rossi turned up with at the beginning or 2007 after unlimited testing had significant issues. It had severe chatter front and rear. It was down on power. Now this is the new bike for a new formula that Rossi developed in an environment of unlimited testing. This is the ONLY time that Rossi has had significant input into developing a new bike for a new formula. The Honda 990 from my understanding did not have significant input by Rossi. After all he left Honda because they would not listen to him and in Rossi's view at Honda the rider was not important. When he went to Yamaha, the Yamaha was not a new bike. However Rossi was presented with a range of options that he got to pick. These options were all developed already and Rossi just picked his preferences and then fine tuned them. These options were not presented to any of the previous Yamaha riders so we do not know if any of the previous riders could of picked the same successful options. At Ducati, none of the options that Rossi is working through now were offered up to Stoner, Hayden, Melandri, Capirossi or any of the satellite riders so we do not know if they could have fixed the problems the bike has. My responses all started because one of your fellow cultists decided that his view about Stoner and all the other Ducati riders was fact. IT IS NOT and there is .... loads of evidence to the contrary yet it is beyond the scope of a brain washed mind to comprehend that.



So jump forward into the future and we are looking towards Rossi's ability to develop a brand new bike for a brand new formula and several people are suggesting that it is a given that Rossi's Ducati will be perfect and he will win 2012. Well I am simply stating a series of observed events that actually occurred and make an assumption that based on his 100% failure rate at developing a new bike for a new formula it is not a given at all the Rossi will be successful at developing the 2012 Ducati.
Click to expand...

Agree with most points which are well made. I do however maintain that in 2006 Yamaha took a wrong turn in chassis design steering Valentino up a blind alley. This is not uncommon and reminds me of 1993 when the same happend to Rainey.



You are correct about the RCV211v which won races out of the crate. In fact either Alex Briggs or Brent Stephens (forget which) later commented that they used to mess around with the settings largely out of boredom - how times change
<
 
ptk50 said:
D-U-C-A-T-I

CS was #1 Rider 2007 to 2010 - Development went backwards - blame the Engineers - BUT don't forget the input or lack thereof from #1 rider.



BTW - I did state clearly that he ImO is a great Racer - so drop the bopper crap - seems to be your default line of argument
Click to expand...



Ramon Forcada (JLo's head mechanic) recently stated that CS has an amazing ability to understand what works and what doesnt in very quick time....hence why you see him go out for a lap or 2 get up to warp speed, diagnose if the setup changes made have been beneficial and come back in and give precise feedback....but what would he know
<




Obviously the boppers have far more knowledge than the chief mechanic of the world championship team on this particular subject
<
 
spooky said:
Fair points well made!



Ok, so Ducati havent been listening to their riders up until Rossi walks in. So basically we have no idea whatsoever wether Stoner can develop a bike or not. Personally i think he'll be a lot more use information wise to an engineer purely because he rides at the speed he does. What i'm really curious to see though wether Honda adopt the same mentality as Ducati in regards to develpoment.



You can go on about how the M1 wasnt competative at the start of 2007 and blame it on Rossi and his crew, what you have to remember though is the whole formula was Honda's creation and they werent exactly taking it to Casey either. At the end of the day though the bikes problems did get ironed out, the chassis first (and remedied pretty quick if i remember correctly, wasnt 2006 the year of major chatter?) and then the engine. At the end of that season it was probably the best bike on the grid and Furasawa/JB and Rossi were fundamental in getting it to that level.



Basically, Rossi and his team turned Yamahas fortunes across 2 different racing formulae from pretty .... (check that stats) to winning. He and his team know what they are doing.
Click to expand...



I agree we do not know if Stoner can deliver feedback that allows engineers to develop a bike or not. What we do know is that in 2006 he jumped on the bottom string satellite Honda with a team brand new to MotoGP (the team had never touched a MotoGP bike before) and set it up to secure pole at his first race weekend. We then know that he went to Ducati as the 3rd option rider and told the team to set the bike up in a completely unique way and then went out and won the first and 9 more races and a WC that year gaining the approval of FP who designed and engineered the bike leading him to comment that Stoner was the only one who rode the bike the way it was meant to be ridden. We also know that he can change to a new manufacturer and get on a bike ridden by a fellow alien for 4 years and immediately go fast than him, make decisions on the direction he wishes to go in regarding the chassis, engine and electronics and translate this information well enough that he has been fastest at every test, won 3 of 4 pole positions and be the only rider to have won more than 1 race and would be leading the WC right now if he was not involved in someone else crash.



So what do we know from this? We know that Stoner knows exactly and an feel precisely what a motorbike is doing when he rides it at the limit. He knows exactly how he can set it up to maximise what he is given and go faster than anyone else more times than any other rider in the last 4 years.



We also know that he is intelligent enough to see when a team is not going to change the way they work for him and make a decision to change to a team that can give him the bike he needs to apply his trade....win races. We also know that he is talented enough and has enough to offer a team for them to take him as a very high priority first pick rider with the sole aim of having him win the WC that their major sponsors prized rider has not been able to deliver.



I agree with you that Rossi helped Yamaha sort their bike in 2004 and kept it sorted for most of the way through to 2006. I agree with you also that despite getting the development of the new bike wrong in 2007 Rossi and his team did get it sorted during the course of the season. I also acknowledge that you include JB and Furasawa in achieving this goal. Unfortunately many of the extreme fanatics infer repeatedly that the good bits are all Rossi.



I also agree with you that Honda did not come out of the blocks well in regards to Stoner but I can not agree with you that Honda and Yamaha were not doing better than Ducati as I am sure I do not need to remind you that if you take out the Stoner anomaly Ducati faired far worse than both Honda and Yamaha.
 
Arrabbiata1 said:
Agree with most points which are well made. I do however maintain that in 2006 Yamaha took a wrong turn in chassis design steering Valentino up a blind alley. This is not uncommon and reminds me of 1993 when the same happend to Rainey.



You are correct about the RCV211v which won races out of the crate. In fact either Alex Briggs or Brent Stephens (forget which) later commented that they used to mess around with the settings largely out of boredom - how times change
<
Click to expand...



Same thing happened to the NSR500 in 1988 according to WG.....seems the engineers had the plans upside down
<
 
Mental Anarchist said:
I also agree with you that Honda did not come out of the blocks well in regards to Stoner but I can not agree with you that Honda and Yamaha were not doing better than Ducati as I am sure I do not need to remind you that if you take out the Stoner anomaly Ducati faired far worse than both Honda and Yamaha.
Click to expand...



Totally missed that, good point!
 
Arrabbiata1 said:
Agree with most points which are well made. I do however maintain that in 2006 Yamaha took a wrong turn in chassis design steering Valentino up a blind alley. This is not uncommon and reminds me of 1993 when the same happend to Rainey.



You are correct about the RCV211v which won races out of the crate. In fact either Alex Briggs or Brent Stephens (forget which) later commented that they used to mess around with the settings largely out of boredom - how times change
<
Click to expand...



It is my opinion that the rider does not develop the bike. The engineers do that. Therefore I do not blame Rossi for the things I am arguing in the other posts other than to argue back in the face of those that do think it is all the rider. It is this very process of engineers develop parts/bikes - riders test them and provide feedback - engineers go and engineer solutions to problems given in the feedback and then present new solutions, that allows me to argue with conviction that no one can say that Stoner can not develop a bike simply because he never has developed one and never in his career will he. Neither has Rossi or any other rider. It is such an easy argument to win.
 
Frizzle said:
Exactly Krop.

I also remember Stoner saying he had basically the same bike all year because of lack of funds at a small team.

Now Ducati dumps their WSBK team & focuses entirely on Motogp. They hardly have the same backing to develop the bike do they?

Ducati have produced a new chassis 4 races into a season. Have they ever done that before?

Kropotkin perhaps you have the answer?
Click to expand...



Nope. One Ducati spokesperson told me "We're doing everything we can for Casey! We've even got a new set of triple clamps!" I think that summarizes their underestimation of the situation.



Now, of course, Valentino Rossi is riding for Ducati, and winning 4 or 5 races isn't enough. They know now they are expected to either win a championship or come very, very close. They've now realized just how far off they are.
 
ptk50 said:
Let's assume for a moment - best case for CS feedback on the 2008 - 2010 Ducati - and believe for a moment he had constructive and objective input - if that was the case and Ducati just didn't listen - that was maybe due to:



CS lack of ability to communicate

Lack of technical credibility

Missing objectivity

blame it on others



Bottom line is - Both Engineers and #1 riders interdependently develop winning bikes. If the bike is not successfully developed - e.g to be a consistent winner, then both sides have failed to deliver



Now does anybody want to argue the merits of Ducati development 2008 - 2010?
Click to expand...



Ptk50, suppose you and me work for a moving company and the two of us try to lift a wardrobe to the second floor. If I drop it, is it then your fault if the thing is in pieces?
 
spooky said:
Totally missed that, good point!
Click to expand...



You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy and at least have some objectivity.....some of the other zealots on here are a lost cause and only believe what they want to believe due to personal bias. Dont get lumped into that category as its a dead end road.



For me the jury is still out on whether Stoner can lead development....but based on the fact that



1. Ducati had NUMEROUS riders fail on their bike bar ONE. With so many good riders giving feedback surely you cant assign blame to just the guy who rode the crap out of the bike and delivered them a world title. Others must surely also take some responsibility.



2. JB has stated in the above interview that they ignored their riders input. This seems to be a basic statement of truth with no hidden agenda.



3. The rider offers feedback to fix issues...nothing more. He does NOT engineer solutions to fix the problems...rather he says what works and what doesnt....end of.



4. Budgetary constraints limit engineering efforts.



5. Engineers offer solutions...sometimes they work sometimes they dont. If a solution at the start of the year is an improvement on last years effort but they dont upgrade that solution during the season the rider must make do with what he had to begin with....which is what Stoner and the other Duc riders have stated.



These are just SOME of the variables in developing a bike. As you can see it is near impossible to offer DEFINITIVE PROOF from an observers viewpoint who exists outside of the team structure to definitively state which of these variables is responsible if a bike doesn't improve or even work to begin with.



I also think after what we have seen so far this year the Honda seems to be a cut above the rest...so who is responsible for this state of affairs....CS, DP, MS, AD?????? Or is it a team effort with ALL the riders adding valuable input, a team with expert engineers and state of the art design facilities and the largest budget in the paddock with which to assemble the fastest motorcycle....see how hard it is to pinpoint the precise reasons for success.
 
povol said:
Fixed it for you.



If not having the power to sway Ducati's belief process is somehow Stoners fault, then yes, he is a complete failure
<
Click to expand...





Hey Povol,

Thanks - I couldn't have said it better.

Now if Mental would part the fur in front of his eyes and read this - maybe we'd progress
 
stiefel said:
Ptk50, suppose you and me work for a moving company and the two of us try to lift a wardrobe to the second floor. If I drop it, is it then your fault if the thing is in pieces?
Click to expand...





The 1st time you drop it - then it's potentially not my fault.

But if we work together for 4 years, during which I give you my input on how maybe not to drop it, but it doesn't help (lots of smashed wardrobes)



Then maybe I really would have part of the blame:

I mumble - speak Oz and you're Italian

Wrong advice

Non objective advice

I have no clout with you- so you don't listen
 
Mental Anarchist said:
Excuse me but are you still clinging to this despite all the evidence that your opinion, which you stated as fact, is to the contrary?



So can you please state for everyone here right now that you think that:



JB

Kropotkin

Stoner

Hayden

Melandri

Capirossi

All the satellite riders



are all wrong and that your opinion which is that Stoner can not provide feedback is in fact the actual truth?



You say that my default is to call 'Bopper'. What would you like me to say in response to a completely irrational argument from you? Do you think that such a thinly veiled disguise such as "IMO he is a great Racer" fools me any anyone else into thinking you are even handed in your assessment then you pay me and others the greatest disrespect because you are calling us ignorant and for doing so you think it is unfair of me to call you a bopper? Please....you are not dealing with children here mate so stop acting like one.
Click to expand...





As has been said in this forum-



"No point trying to talk sense to Mental Anarchist. If you dare say anything that suggests Stoner isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, he has a wobbly and starts bitching like a little ....."



But now you go a step further - EVEN - When I say that ImO "Stoner is a great racer" this just provokes more of your bitching - What is it - do you now claim the sole right to say anything about Stoner.



I do not think you are a child - nor do I treat like one - All on your own and without any help you manage to act & write like a challenged one
 

Similar threads

#22
David Emmet: A peek into the soul of Marc Marquez
Replies
20
Views
2K
#22
#22
MichaelBolton
RIP Phil Read aka "The Prince of Speed"
Replies
2
Views
640
Keshav
Keshav
P
Random Thoughts for 2020
Replies
26
Views
6K
michaelm
M
evo9
Lorenzo feels on Honda than Ducati
Replies
11
Views
3K
The Burning Barber
The Burning Barber
Jumkie
Michael Scott: An Oasis in a Sea of Sh*t
Replies
336
Views
36K
BarryMachine
BarryMachine

Recent Discussions