<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ May 22 2007, 06:44 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. I did take a look again. And I don’t see “shredding”. Its normal race tire wear. I’m not sure if you are aware, but races tires are much softer (even the “hard” ones) than your normal street tire. If you have ever been on a track, you will notice plenty of little bits on the track. This is normal and not due to “tire failure”. Rossi’s tire was fine.
2. You keep using this word “shredding” to describe the normal wear of the tire. But you are implying tire failure. In this case, everybody’s tire was “shredding”.
1. I have a couple of rain tires in the garage, and a bunch of dry tires, maybe I should go out and check them. No, I don't think I need to.
What we see has absolutly nothing to do with normal race tires wear. You will never see rubber shreds hanging on the tire halfway between the center and the edge on a three laps old tire. A worn out tire with faults or with the wrong setup, yes. If you know even a little about race tires you should know. However it may happen to rain tires, but even so it's shreding, nothing more nothing less, but that can happen on a rain tire if the conditions isn't wet enough. So, yes, as I agreed in the previous post, the tire didn't go to pices but had some sign of shredding, and under the conditions right after the switch I guess that could happen, and obvioulsy did.
And yes, Rossis tire looked fine after the race, in fact according to Rossi it showed very little sign of wear, and thats a very bad sign.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>3. I think you forgot “one option” and here it is: Rossi struggled with the rain. But to a Rossi fan like yourself, this is never an option it seems. So you point to everything else. Then when you can’t figure it out, you point to: A) Engine
Tire C) Other guy’s Machine. But guess what, there is always D) Rider Performance. But when another rider sucks it up in these conditions, “they” suck, right?
Where did I say any one else sucked?
If you want a performance measurment on Rossi's rain performance look at the rest of the michelin guys. Out of them all, only two others reached the checkered flag, one with the softer version and in front of rossi. The rest binned it.
So far we of one guy on stones who had hard rubber, Hopper. He was in the front, well ahead of Rossi after the bike switch and ended well behind.
That puts his pace in some perspective.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>4. I saw the video again half way through my posts, just to double check. When I posted a comment for V. And I quickly confirmed, there was no tire problem, no “shredding” no “tire falling apart.” Don’t you think it’s interesting that only a select few saw this mysterious tire problem?
That IS interesting. I just followed rogers link at quite right, there it is, tiny shreds 1/2-2/3 down the tire small shred of rubber. If you cant see it you really should change googles. Those can't possibly be leagal to drive with.
But again, as you didn't get it the first time, and probably not the second, every good things is three; The problem was not the shredding, allthough I now have heard three comentator teams (N,GB,I) discussing the same issue (rogers link in italian you hear the word detoriatone or something like that, no doubt what the discuss) and it was natrual to guess that this could be the cause, but as Rossi, Burgress and Michelin all stated, they had too hard rain tires for most of the michelin teams. AFAIK only Repsol ut on the softer ones.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>5. But consider this, Pedrosa has a history of doing poorly under wet conditions. Yet he did pretty well (would you concede?) So what is the explanation? Was it a super great tire he had? Perhaps one explanation is, he was able to negotiate the conditions. He did well in the wet. And in the same way, perhaps, just perhaps, Rossi struggled to negotiate the conditions. Maybe Rossi didn’t do that good in the wet. You see, sometimes things change. Do you think Rossi will be the fastest racer on the track every time all the time? He sometimes gets beat, and sometimes, it has nothing to do with his machinery (that includes tires).
You must be able to do better than compare with Pedrosa. He has learned a hell of a lot, just like another Repsol guy did in front of last year (or before that?), he also sucked in rain once, but as a great racer showed the ability to develop. And surprice of all surprices, Pedrosa also developed in an area he had a lot of development to do.
What did Rossi do? Undevelop, forgot how to ride, no inspiration.
I'm not totally ruling out that he just had a bad day, but when we have a very valid cause, confirmed by the Rossi, Brugress, Michelin and a bunch of michelin guys in the gravel, you must forgive me for grabing that hair strand rather than your obvious reason that Rossi did the oposite of Pedrosa and forgot how to ride in rain.
Jezz, why do I bother writing these long posts. Feeding with tea spoon doesnt help anyway.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>6. No, don’t try to spin it here. You weren’t “partly” right, you were totally wrong! You guys were saying the tire was failing. And you said this in no uncertain terms. You said this in “bold” statements. Now you try to backpedal? Just say you were wrong. Its easy, we all do it from time to time. I’ve been wrong before too. Yours and other’s statements were not “speculative”. Here is an example a “speculative” statement: Maybe something was wrong with his tire.” Here is and example of a bold statement: “For sure there was a tire problem because it was “shredding” and “falling apart.” Don’t try to backpedal and say you were merely “speculating.” My English isn’t that great either, but I can tell the difference between these two concepts.
Now youre truly behaving like an .... This is what I said about the tires in my first post:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>strategy or tires failed or maybe Rossi was pushing too hard on his first lap with wets on, allthough it didn't look like that.
And in a later post this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>went with them to the pit on 5th, quickly went up to third, but allready after two three laps the tire started to show signs of shreding.
That was obviously not the cause, allthough it was absolutly tru, what really happened was that the rain increased and the need for softer tires showed.
As I've said before, it seemed like the plausible explanation at the time, so did three different comentator teams also think. We later got the real cause, hard rubber. Big deal. WE GOT IT WRONG. Happy?
But your so full of it that whenever Rossi doesn't win it must be him, and only him, no matter how obvious other explanations are. Thats where YOU go wrong every single time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>7. But here is the difference, you watch the race, and then go on to “explain”—code for rationalize how your boy did.
I thought your first post were ok, you had some explaining too, about why Rossi wasn't on top, and I disagree, but thats ok. What I react on is your comments where you have read the rest of the posts, and the press conferences and the post race comments, and
then start picking early speculations to pieces and call them biased because later information show that there were another tire issue that was the real cuase. Thats a wize ... as big as I've ever seen one.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>8. “You know who you are.” Was obviously not you. But the person that it was aimed at did know (one person only) because I had an exchange with him. But I put it as my signature to remind him.
Non the less it was there for everyone to read in every post you sent.
I just found the comparison in place after that commet of yours about idots, and I still do.
