<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ May 22 2007, 03:05 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1.maybe you wouldn't mind to take a look at the race again.
2. That IS a
sign of shredding, allthough it doesn't have to be on a rain tire.
3.The engine was working, only a well working chassi enables riding like that, and it was really riding like
that , he gave it all, and that pretty much
leave one option left, the tire. Unless of course you suggest Rossi had forgotten how to ride a bike.
3. The posts was right after the race we had no reports so of course we
were speculating.
4. Based on the pictures we saw (and you should see) that was a pretty good guess.
5. We tried to
find out why rossi while giving it all
didn't have the pace.
6. It turned out we were partly right, it was the tires, allthough they were to hard rather than to soft or really
shredded.
7. It's easy to come here 2 days after the race to be a smart ... and have all the answeres, but it really doesn't count for much. I mean, it's not like it is a secret that we are Rossi fans and as so,
trying to explain (that is not the same as excuse) the bad result is almost our obligation
If anything this is truly :fishing1:
8. From the guy that used to have "You know who you are" in his signature.
9. Doubble standards, Hypocrite, foot in motuth ...... fill in the blanks and take a pick or two
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”.
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 B) 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?
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? Have you ever seen that little advisement on car rear view mirrors that says, “objects in mirror are closer than they appear.” That’s because the mirror is a bit skewed and so the viewer may see something a bit different then what is actually there. Well, this is a similar effect when one is wearing Rossie colored glasses buddy.
5. You tried to find out why Rossi didn’t have the pace? Well how about, he got out performed by a few guys, who after-all, are also trying to win! Look, I know Rossi is good and has history doing well in wet conditions. 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).
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.
7. I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but I live about a day’s time away from Europe. (The world is round and divided up into time zones, look it up on google.) Just being a bit sarcastic here, don’t take it to heart). But on top of that, we get our coverage on delay. On top of that, I get on here and post on the spoiler thread before I read all the comments or race reports. I purposely stay away from anything that will effect my takes. So if you read my first posts, they are similar to yours, based only on the race coverage. (Which I think you have the advantage, since we only get the mere race, nothing else). But here is the difference, you watch the race, and then go on to “explain”—code for rationalize how your boy did.
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.
9. Pick the one that applies. I think you will find that the posts I sited fit. You know, the saying: “if the shoe fits…
Look, Babel, I can see you took issue, but c’mon, after all that has come out, for you not to admit you were wrong then go on and try to make a case that perhaps you were partly right is not helping your case. At some point you have to come to grips that its not always the tires, bike, etc. It’s rare to see biases clearly exposed. And this thread has been a magnificent example of this. Unfortunately, sometimes people can take something and debate it. But this was an un-debatable and undeniable truth. You say you were just “speculating.” This is as close as you get to admitting you were simply wrong. Yet, even after being shown the actual comments by two people who are intimately involved, Rossi and Burgess, you still get on here and try to make a case for a “shredding” tire? This is amazing!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ May 22 2007, 08:15 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>for you jumkie, altho the youtube picture is not as good as the eurosport picture that was on tv but at about 1:10 into the film you can see tyre parts flying off.
Thanks for the link buddy. But dude, that is hardly conclusive. As I was telling Babel, it's fairly normal to see this on race tires. You should know this since you have followed GP for so long. I think you may have watched this more with your heart than with your mind. It's understandable, but certainly not enough to make "bold" statements and say it was "falling apart" (implying tire failure) to explain Rossi's slower pace. Look, he wasn't that slow. He was simply "struggling" with the difficult conditions. And poor tire choice to boot. But even that is splitting hairs because, as it has come to light, Hopkins had similar tires, and he "struggled" with the conditions too. Perhaps Rossi is as human as Hopkins, eh? Nothing more, it was just a tough race to perform well, some did (Vermi) some didn't (all the crashers) and others managed (Rossi etal).
