Lorenzo - I don't care about MotoGP championship

Daniboy said:

I was asking a question, are you always so irritable?

Click to expand...

Only on the subject of Two Stokes Dani boy.

Question for you - do you ever actually think before you post for the sake of it?

So Arrab, if Alex Barros had gotten his hands on the RC211V from the get-go, do you think Rossi wins the title? I know it's a total hypothetical and unable to be proven. But it's a fascinating thought I think anyway.

Arrabbiata1 said:

Only on the subject of Two Stokes Dani boy.

Question for you - do you ever actually think before you post for the sake of it?

Click to expand...

No I just ping my fingers on the keyboard and fudge it! Do you enjoy your massive superiority complex?
But actually my thoughts are in 02 Honda got it right and nobody else did, is that Rossi's fault?
And similarly in 07 Ducati ventured into unknown territory and got the prize.

Daniboy said:

No I just ping my fingers on the keyboard and fudge it! Do you enjoy your massive superiority complex?
But actually my thoughts are in 02 Honda got it right and nobody else did, is that Rossi's fault?
And similarly in 07 Ducati ventured into unknown territory and got the prize.

Click to expand...

It's not even a remotely accurate comparison; 990cc/2 stroke 2002 season vs the 800cc 4-stroke 2007 season. As Arrab pointed out --and you again have completely missed the point-- it was not an evenly matched grid from the perspective of everyone running engines mandated by a set engine formula. If everyone in 2002 was running a 990cc 4-stroke, then your point had weight. Instead --to use an F1 analogy-- it was like Tyrrell Racing running the DFV Cosworth engine in 1984 and for part of 1985 when the entire grid had pretty much switched over to the 1.5 liter V6 turbocharged engines. The little Cossy was putting out about 500BHP when the turbo engines in those years from Renault, Honda, and Ferrari were already north of 700HP in 1984 and north of 800 in 1985. The strongest track for the two strokes in 2002 was at the Sachsenring, a nice technical circuit that allowed for the agility of the 2-strokes to shine. Similarly in F1, the DFV Cosworth in 1984-1985 shone at Monaco and Detroit, both technical street circuits that negated the horsepower advantage of the turbocharged engines due to the turbo lag.

JPSLotus said:

So Arrab, if Alex Barros had gotten his hands on the RC211V from the get-go, do you think Rossi wins the title? I know it's a total hypothetical and unable to be proven. But it's a fascinating thought I think anyway.

Click to expand...

No, I think Rossi was to be fair, the better rider at the time. But he certainly wouldn't have won 11 races and sealed the thing at Rio.

Daniboy said:

No I just ping my fingers on the keyboard and fudge it! Do you enjoy your massive superiority complex?

Click to expand...

'Do you enjoy your massive superiority complex?' - Perhaps a question to pose to your hero?

Daniboy said:

But actually my thoughts are in 02 Honda got it right and nobody else did, is that Rossi's fault?
And similarly in 07 Ducati ventured into unknown territory and got the prize.

Click to expand...

No - Rossi had in some respects earned that ride but the history and circumstances that lead up to that I was recently debating with J4rn0. However, that does not alter the fact that he wielded a massive disproportionate advantage both in terms of machinery, tyres and support over the rest of the grid in virtually the complete absence of competition.

You still seem to have missed the point. In 2007 the formula - although a leap into the unknown was inaugurated throughout. In spite of what you may have been conditioned to believe, the GP7 did not have as much of an advantage as so many suppose. Straight line speed alone does not win races. That bike was a handful and the trellis frame unpredictable and incredibly finicky making the bike extremely challenging to even find a workable base setting. Stoner far preferred the nightmare CF chassis. The 2002 RCV on the other hand was untouchable. They 'got the prize' because the rider earned it.

JPSLotus said:

It's not even a remotely accurate comparison; 990cc/2 stroke 2002 season vs the 800cc 4-stroke 2007 season. As Arrab pointed out --and you again have completely missed the point-- it was not an evenly matched grid from the perspective of everyone running engines mandated by a set engine formula. If everyone in 2002 was running a 990cc 4-stroke, then your point had weight. Instead --to use an F1 analogy-- it was like Tyrrell Racing running the DFV Cosworth engine in 1984 and for part of 1985 when the entire grid had pretty much switched over to the 1.5 liter V6 turbocharged engines. The little Cossy was putting out about 500BHP when the turbo engines in those years from Renault, Honda, and Ferrari were already north of 700HP in 1984 and north of 800 in 1985. The strongest track for the two strokes in 2002 was at the Sachsenring, a nice technical circuit that allowed for the agility of the 2-strokes to shine. Similarly in F1, the DFV Cosworth in 1984-1985 shone at Monaco and Detroit, both technical street circuits that negated the horsepower advantage of the turbocharged engines due to the turbo lag.

Click to expand...

My point is that the new formula and all available options were known in advance, Honda got their rc211 bike right, nobody else did .
And fast forward to 2007, yes same for everyone but Honda & Yamaha leaned their engines off to account for new fuel limit , Ducati coped better as you could see in a few races.

Arrabbiata1 said:

No, I think Rossi was to be fair, the better rider at the time. But he certainly wouldn't have won 11 races and sealed the thing at Rio.


'Do you enjoy your massive superiority complex?' - Perhaps a question to pose to your hero?



No - Rossi had in some respects earned that ride but the history and circumstances that lead up to that I was recently debating with J4rn0. However, that does not alter the fact that he wielded a massive disproportionate advantage both in terms of machinery, tyres and support over the rest of the grid in virtually the complete absence of competition.

You still seem to have missed the point. In 2007 the formula - although a leap into the unknown was inaugurated throughout. In spite of what you may have been conditioned to believe, the GP7 did not have as much of an advantage as so many suppose. Straight line speed alone does not win races. That bike was a handful and the trellis frame unpredictable and incredibly finicky making the bike extremely challenging to even find a workable base setting. Stoner far preferred the nightmare CF chassis. The 2002 RCV on the other hand was untouchable. They 'got the prize' because the rider earned it.

Click to expand...

Expertly dodged question who is my 'hero' btw???

Daniboy said:

My point is that the new formula and all available options were known in advance, Honda got their rc211 bike right, nobody else did .
And fast forward to 2007, yes same for everyone but Honda & Yamaha leaned their engines off to account for new fuel limit , Ducati coped better as you could see in a few races.

Click to expand...

Are you still not understanding the massive discrepancy between the factory teams and the satellite teams? It would be like letting factories run the current 1000cc bikes while the satellites have to run the 600cc Moto2 machines. It's not even remotely similar to 2007, and why you keep insisting on it being so, is moronic.

QUOTE=Daniboy;425033]Why consider it a farce? If 2002 was a farce then the same logic would apply to 2007 when a new formula saw one manufacturer steal a march on the rest.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Stoner's 2007 championship goes along with Colin Edwards' championship on the Aprilia Cube which had a significant straight line advantage, and then there were all those dry wins by other Ducati riders in 2007, as well as Marco Melandri, the winner of 5 races previously on Honda Motogp bikes immediately being faster than the Honda and Yamaha factory riders and up with Stoner when he got on the Ducati GP07 at the post-season test.

Rossi like all champions of whom I am aware except one non-premier class win by Capirossi deserves full credit for his championships, and since he has more than most he deserves more credit. He doesn't however deserve to be given titles he didn't win in 2006, 2007 and 2015 (and to a lesser extent 2010) which his fans have consistently tried to award to him, with him outright joining them in such claims in regard to the 2015 championship.

The point about 2002 is not that he wasn't the best rider or hadn't earned that ride by being so, it is that it makes any claims by his fans about Stoner having advantages in 2007 or Hayden having advantages ludicrous and proves the claimants to be without any sense of proportion, since that bike was literally a different class/formula than the rest of the field, and only a non-remarkable factory team-mate had access to the new formula bike for most of that year; once Alex Barros, by most assessments a good but not "alien" rider got on the bike he proved quite competitive with Rossi, while there is no evidence of any kind that any rider other than Stoner would have won a dry race let alone got near to winning the championship on a Ducati GP07.

michaelm said:

Daniboy said:

Why consider it a farce? If 2002 was a farce then the same logic would apply to 2007 when a new formula saw one manufacturer steal a march on the rest.

Click to expand...

Yes, Stoner's 2007 championship goes along with Colin Edwards' championship on the Aprilia Cube which had a significant straight line advantage, and there were all those dry wins by other Ducati riders in 2007, as well as Marco Melandri, the winner of 5 races previously on Honda Motogp bikes immediately being faster than the Honda and Yamaha factory riders and up with Stoner when he got on the Ducati GP07 at the post-season test.

Click to expand...

Dani is out of his element on this.

I would implore anyone to really pay attention to that GP07 and what it was doing on the circuit. Yes Stoner rode it extremely well, but you can see the handling issues showing even as he rode around them.

While the Ducati horsepower advantage was substantial, it was nowhere near the best bike on the grid. In fact, as Arrab said, had anyone other than Stoner been on that bike, it never would have won the title. I would also say that Rossi would have easily won the title that year, and the Michelin/Bridgestone debacle that unfolded in 2007 with Rossi never would have happened. It's quite possible that the tire war would have continued much longer than it ultimately did as the rest of the Bridgestone runners would not have done enough to make Rossi feel threatened.

JPSLotus said:

Dani is out of his element on this.

I would implore anyone to really pay attention to that GP07 and what it was doing on the circuit. Yes Stoner rode it extremely well, but you can see the handling issues showing even as he rode around them.

While the Ducati horsepower advantage was substantial, it was nowhere near the best bike on the grid. In fact, as Arrab said, had anyone other than Stoner been on that bike, it never would have won the title. I would also say that Rossi would have easily won the title that year, and the Michelin/Bridgestone debacle that unfolded in 2007 with Rossi never would have happened. It's quite possible that the tire war would have continued much longer than it ultimately did as the rest of the Bridgestone runners would not have done enough to make Rossi feel threatened.

Click to expand...

I had forgotten (probably didn't see the race because it was on at an unusual time for Australia) but Ukawa on the other factory Honda beat Rossi in the 2nd race at South Africa in 2002 in addition to Barros when he got on a 990 at the end of the year.

Daniboy said:

Wasn't the switch to 4t considered a risk at the time?

Click to expand...

From memory, not really as that was the way technology was headed for both emissions and future development of environmentally friendlier machines.

Sure it may have been considered a risk in as much people were initially unsure of the performance capabilities of the four strokes compared to the two strokes, but very early in the development cycle there were leaks regarding the power differential and more rider friendly characteristics of the four strokes. By the time race 1 started it was known as to what the season was to bring and from memory there were even rumblings from some of the 500cc teams whether it was worth competing given the costs involved versus the reward that they stood to receive as it was not clear at the time who may get four strokes later in the season or even in 2003.

Being fair one could say that every change to rules, equipment or formula brings a risk element with regards to how those changes will impact, but the change to four strokes was considered somewhat of a given that it spelled the end of two strokes with all investment to be in four strokes, thus little risk as the season started primarily because the four strokes were well developed,

JPSLotus said:

So Arrab, if Alex Barros had gotten his hands on the RC211V from the get-go, do you think Rossi wins the title? I know it's a total hypothetical and unable to be proven. But it's a fascinating thought I think anyway.

Click to expand...

i know you asked Arrib but hey, why not, there is no race to discuss

IMO only of course but no and I say that purely based on Barros' consistency (or lack thereof as he was very much a there or where type of placing) by comparison to Rossi who was and remains ridiculously consistent (this year being his worst for many in that aspect).

But, I do believe that Barros would have won more races and the title chase would have been far closer thus putting added pressure on Rossi with the end result being debatable in the hypothetical world

JPSLotus said:

While the Ducati horsepower advantage was substantial, it was nowhere near the best bike on the grid. In fact, as Arrab said, had anyone other than Stoner been on that bike, it never would have won the title. I would also say that Rossi would have easily won the title that year, and the Michelin/Bridgestone debacle that unfolded in 2007 with Rossi never would have happened. It's quite possible that the tire war would have continued much longer than it ultimately did as the rest of the Bridgestone runners would not have done enough to make Rossi feel threatened.

Click to expand...

I have asked a few times here and many times in other places when the debate comes up with regards to the Ducati 'power/speed' advantage.

If it was all about speed, why do they not race drag bikes in MotoGP?

Whilst we know the answer it is always interesting to watch the results as often people will then generally dodge the follow up question as well.

If it was pure speed and if the Ducati was fastest (Stoner's Ducati not always having the top speed), how then did Yamaha and other manufacturers win races). Sure the answer is often handling which then feeds back to teh very point that with all the power in the world, unless the bike handles it is a pile of .... and thus the rider makes a significant different, thus credit should be given

JPSLotus said:

Dani is out of his element on this.

I would implore anyone to really pay attention to that GP07 and what it was doing on the circuit. Yes Stoner rode it extremely well, but you can see the handling issues showing even as he rode around them.

While the Ducati horsepower advantage was substantial, it was nowhere near the best bike on the grid. In fact, as Arrab said, had anyone other than Stoner been on that bike, it never would have won the title. I would also say that Rossi would have easily won the title that year, and the Michelin/Bridgestone debacle that unfolded in 2007 with Rossi never would have happened. It's quite possible that the tire war would have continued much longer than it ultimately did as the rest of the Bridgestone runners would not have done enough to make Rossi feel threatened.

Click to expand...

Stoner and Hayden were the only riders in GP at the time with a dirt track backround. Its quite plausible that the Ducati could have been the ideal bike for his style. No one ever takes that into account that the Ducati could have been an advantage for him just because it was a disadvantage for everyone else. Hayden's a great rider but when does he ever get the most out of a bike.
This same argument could be made about Sr's TZ750. Was the bike really a demon or a match made in heaven.
I also wonder how the point and shoot legends of the 80's would have fared on the GP 07.
What always seems to be missing in the 07 debate is that the Pedrocycle (tm arabb) was the exact opposite of the 02 Honda, and was the least successful Honda in modern GP history.

One thing that seems to be eternal with Italians and racing, is that they more often than not build great engines, yet lack the requisite chassis to make use of the engine in areas other than a straight line. Ferrari historically has had this issue. But in any event, top speeds mean little, however I still giggle watching the Desmosedici basically shitting all over the M1 at Losail 2007. Bike handling issues aside, that was a special engine.

Honda though is more proof that seeking out more power doesn't always translate into great things given their recent woes. I'd say Marquez is doing what Stoner did in 2007, only he doesn't have the number of race wins that Stoner had. I just hope that if he wins the title, we aren't treated to some revisionist history about how the 2016 incarnation of the RC213V was a great bike.

JohnnyKnockdown said:

Stoner and Hayden were the only riders in GP at the time with a dirt track backround. Its quite plausible that the Ducati could have been the ideal bike for his style. No one ever takes that into account that the Ducati could have been an advantage for him just because it was a disadvantage for everyone else. Hayden's a great rider but when does he ever get the most out of a bike.
This same argument could be made about Sr's TZ750. Was the bike really a demon or a match made in heaven.
I also wonder how the point and shoot legends of the 80's would have fared on the GP 07.
What always seems to be missing in the 07 debate is that the Pedrocycle (tm arabb) was the exact opposite of the 02 Honda, and was the least successful Honda in modern GP history.

Click to expand...

Except the Ducati was not the ideal bike even for his prodigious talent. What we saw on the RC213V was the ideal bike that fit his style.

JPSLotus said:

Except the Ducati was not the ideal bike even for his prodigious talent. What we saw on the RC213V was the ideal bike that fit his style.

Click to expand...

You could probabaly apply that statement to every rider on the grid. Except Pedro of course.

JohnnyKnockdown said:

You could probabaly apply that statement to every rider on the grid. Except Pedro of course.

Click to expand...

Not really.

JohnnyKnockdown said:

Stoner and Hayden were the only riders in GP at the time with a dirt track backround. Its quite plausible that the Ducati could have been the ideal bike for his style. No one ever takes that into account that the Ducati could have been an advantage for him just because it was a disadvantage for everyone else. Hayden's a great rider but when does he ever get the most out of a bike.
This same argument could be made about Sr's TZ750. Was the bike really a demon or a match made in heaven.
I also wonder how the point and shoot legends of the 80's would have fared on the GP 07.
What always seems to be missing in the 07 debate is that the Pedrocycle (tm arabb) was the exact opposite of the 02 Honda, and was the least successful Honda in modern GP history.

Click to expand...

Sure, that is the point though. I doubt stoner would have beaten Rossi in 2007 had they both been riding equal factory Yamahas. I do strongly doubt Rossi would have beaten him had they both been on factory Ducatis. John Hopkins who was offered the ride is the other guy who may have melded with the thing imo. I don't think MM's current style would have worked, but think it quite likely he would have adapted. Sure the golden age superbike riders may well have been suited by the bike.

JohnnyKnockdown said:

Stoner and Hayden were the only riders in GP at the time with a dirt track backround. Its quite plausible that the Ducati could have been the ideal bike for his style. No one ever takes that into account that the Ducati could have been an advantage for him just because it was a disadvantage for everyone else. Hayden's a great rider but when does he ever get the most out of a bike.
This same argument could be made about Sr's TZ750. Was the bike really a demon or a match made in heaven.
I also wonder how the point and shoot legends of the 80's would have fared on the GP 07.

Click to expand...

Have always said much the same JKD, that being that 2007 was a perfect storm for (in this case) Ducati and Stoner as Ducati found a person who was able to exploit the strong points of their machine whilst having sufficient talent and skills to minimise the negative points such that they were somewhat masked in reality (given the number who have since tried and failed).

None of this dismisses Stoner's ability IMO as it is that special melding of talent with equipment that, when all works is sublime to watch and produces results for all involved (and this is all riders so fortunate enough to have the opportunity to one day gel so sublimely with a machine and equipment).

There are a few riders who I personally would have liked to see on that specific incarnation of Ducati as a pure excercise in the 'if only' type of discussion (McCoy being prime on my list even though it was at the end of his career).