lorenzo sign 1 year deal @yamaha

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Aug 28 2009, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Pood thai mi dai, na... roo gan mai?

Its just I figured that would have been their plan this year too... making it happen has been another matter!


Krap pom. Mai pen rai. Chokdee krap.
Absolutely making it happen is the big question.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Aug 27 2009, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If Lorenzo is a supposed equal, then he should be getting the same opportunity to test as Valentino. Simple as. Thoughts otherwise are wearing those same glasses, Babel.

This is the illogical thing I've ever heard from you.

There is always a shortcoming on resources in racing, if you think any proper race team will delay testing parts to make the extra set you are living on a stronger illusion that I've ever seen before.
And although a good factory should have a fairly strong success rate, lets not forget that this is prototype testing. That means that a fair percentage will fail. New parts shows no improvement or even slows the bike down, so again, lets remove the glasses and listen to Lorenzo's manager when it comes to actual real advantages.

<he should be getting the same opportunity to test as Valentino.> Bah, you are hillarioous!
This is a job and yo do your job, not testing because you are entitled to.

If the kid has any intelligence he keeps it that way and let Rossi develop that bike for him. (now THAT was with rossi glases on, the rest is pure common sense)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Aug 26 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>it didnt need any development by 06, just a few tweeks for rider preferences. by 06 the rc211v was the best bike straight out the box and the other manufactures were not investing in there 990's as much because the 800 rule was to follow the next season.

+1 Rog, 06 was the 'Steve Brabury' of World Titles

I can feel the keyboards singing to this one already!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Aug 28 2009, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This is the illogical thing I've ever heard from you.

There is always a shortcoming on resources in racing, if you think any proper race team will delay testing parts to make the extra set you are living on a stronger illusion that I've ever seen before.
And although a good factory should have a fairly strong success rate, lets not forget that this is prototype testing. That means that a fair percentage will fail. New parts shows no improvement or even slows the bike down, so again, lets remove the glasses and listen to Lorenzo's manager when it comes to actual real advantages.

<he should be getting the same opportunity to test as Valentino.> Bah, you are hillarioous!
This is a job and yo do your job, not testing because you are entitled to.

If the kid has any intelligence he keeps it that way and let Rossi develop that bike for him. (now THAT was with rossi glases on, the rest is pure common sense)


But Babel, 'fair' within the context of testing means 'equal opportunity' and if one rider is always given equipment to test over and above another that can easily be construed as unfair or preferential treatment.

Yes, it is certainly common sense and logical that one always tried to ensure a consistent level of feedback on parts that are to be tested and as such, one could say that it is therefore logical that the same person be used at all times as they will provide consistent feedback. But converse to this is that then the machine in question is developed to suit that one rider and as such it continues a path of real or perceived preferential treatment.

Of course, this applies generally to the 'good' of the testing compoenent, not the bad as the question then is raised as to if VR (as the example in context of this thread) rejects a component, does JL get an option.

If JL does get an option to test than all good, but if JL does not get the option (option as opposed to actual testing as he can refuse) than that does continue the perception of following one path to the possible detriment of other riders (real or imagined).

Basically and to cut to the chase, many riders will reject a component that another rider would say is the best thing since sliced bread - shouldn't those other riders get the opportunity?





Gaz

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Aug 29 2009, 07:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This is the illogical thing I've ever heard from you.

There is always a shortcoming on resources in racing, if you think any proper race team will delay testing parts to make the extra set you are living on a stronger illusion that I've ever seen before.
And although a good factory should have a fairly strong success rate, lets not forget that this is prototype testing. That means that a fair percentage will fail. New parts shows no improvement or even slows the bike down, so again, lets remove the glasses and listen to Lorenzo's manager when it comes to actual real advantages.

<he should be getting the same opportunity to test as Valentino.> Bah, you are hillarioous!
This is a job and yo do your job, not testing because you are entitled to.

If the kid has any intelligence he keeps it that way and let Rossi develop that bike for him. (now THAT was with rossi glases on, the rest is pure common sense)

+1 Babs, I believe he is a closet Rossi Hater......... who loves emoticons.....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Aug 28 2009, 08:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But Babel, 'fair' within the context of testing means 'equal opportunity' and if one rider is always given equipment to test over and above another that can easily be construed as unfair or preferential treatment.

Yes, it is certainly common sense and logical that one always tried to ensure a consistent level of feedback on parts that are to be tested and as such, one could say that it is therefore logical that the same person be used at all times as they will provide consistent feedback. But converse to this is that then the machine in question is developed to suit that one rider and as such it continues a path of real or perceived preferential treatment.

Of course, this applies generally to the 'good' of the testing compoenent, not the bad as the question then is raised as to if VR (as the example in context of this thread) rejects a component, does JL get an option.

If JL does get an option to test than all good, but if JL does not get the option (option as opposed to actual testing as he can refuse) than that does continue the perception of following one path to the possible dtriment of other riders (real or imagined).

Basically and to cut to teh chase, many riders will reject a component that another rider would say is the best thing since sliced bread - shouldn't those other riders get the opportunity?





Gaz

well put gaz... well put.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Aug 29 2009, 11:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But Babel, 'fair' within the context of testing means 'equal opportunity' and if one rider is always given equipment to test over and above another that can easily be construed as unfair or preferential treatment.

Yes, it is certainly common sense and logical that one always tried to ensure a consistent level of feedback on parts that are to be tested and as such, one could say that it is therefore logical that the same person be used at all times as they will provide consistent feedback. But converse to this is that then the machine in question is developed to suit that one rider and as such it continues a path of real or eprceived preferential treatment.

Of course, this applies generally to the 'good' of the testing compoenent, not the bad as the question then is raised as to if VR (as the example in context of this thread) rejects a component, does JL get an option.

If JL does get an option to test than all good, but if JL does not get the option (option as opposed to actual testing as he can refuse) than that does continue the perception of following one path to the possible dtriment of other riders (real or imagined).

Basically and to cut to teh chase, many riders will reject a component that another rider would say is the best thing since sliced bread - shouldn't those other riders get the opportunity?





Gaz

One would certainly have to say here to Yamaha appear to be one of the Fairest when it comes to 'Current' Factory Team bike development-just check the scoreboard......but some things are just too expensive/time consuming and of course if it works for VR, it seems to also work for Jorge. He is certainly quick and was quick out of the box on the M1, I'm sure many other ex 250cc champs or current riders would love, and do equally as well in his seat-Marco, Pedrobot, Loris, CV and CS to name a few....

JL would do well to keep it quiet and continue to use his amazing ability and not his mouth in his attempts to beat VR.

Ducati's rather obvious development preferential towards CS and his style would have to be the greatest imbalance in a Factory team in MotoGP recently, so when it comes to equality versus winning we all know which one holds more importance, but Nicky is finally coming good

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talpa @ Aug 29 2009, 01:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ducati's rather obvious development preferential towards CS and his style would have to be the greatest imbalance in a Factory team in MotoGP recently, so when it comes to equality versus winning we all know which one holds more importance, but Nicky is finally coming good

So, what makes you so certain that Ducati favours Stoner in development?

What evidence that is available do you base that statement on?

Personally, I would think that the recent carry-on of Suppo and Ducati have actually shown their hand to be more factory than rider oriented and that to me would indicate that they beleive that factory knows best, thus in likelihood they are not developing for a rider but for a purpose (based on telemetry).







Gaz

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Aug 29 2009, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So, what makes you so certain that Ducati favours Stoner in development?

What evidence that is available do you base that statement on?

Personally, I would think that the recent carry-on of Suppo and Ducati have actually shown their hand to be more factory than rider oriented and that to me would indicate that they beleive that factory knows best, thus in likelihood they are not developing for a rider but for a purpose (based on telemetry).







Gaz

As I said Nicky is finally coming good so they are changing, but really look at Marco, brilliant rider with a great record at the end of 07, but its safe to say that Ducati didn't develop the GP8-9 around Marco.....common sense prevails for all teams/manufacturers.
Nicky has taken a while too, with mostly very poor results. So Ducati with successive team mates to CS in 800s, both ex-world champs with histories of good bike development= no real results, in comparison to Yamaha, Honda or even Suzuki's balance of rider performance (Good or Bad)...

I believe Yamaha to be the Fairest at present and look at their results.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talpa @ Aug 29 2009, 02:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I believe Yamaha to be the Fairest at present and look at their results.
I actually agree with this, and it is hard to think of an example of bikes as closely matched as appears to be the case at yamaha currently. Perhaps mick doohan, as at one stage early in the doohan years there were reputedly a number of hondas with similar specifications, and to his annoyance they gave his settings to other riders as well. This didn't seem to make any difference, as he like valentino didn't need much help . I had thought that valentino not getting his set-up ultimately tweaked until race day was because it took time to adjust the bike to the differing parts of the track as can apparently be done these days, but a recent theory that he does it so jorge doesn't get his perfected set-up does not seem unlikely.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Aug 29 2009, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I actually agree with this, and it is hard to think of an example of bikes as closely matched as appears to be the case at yamaha currently. Perhaps mick doohan, as at one stage early in the doohan years there were reputedly a number of hondas with similar specifications, and to his annoyance they gave his settings to other riders as well. This didn't seem to make any difference, as he like valentino didn't need much help . I had thought that valentino not getting his set-up ultimately tweaked until race day was because it took time to adjust the bike to the differing parts of the track as can apparently be done these days, but a recent theory that he does it so jorge doesn't get his perfected set-up does not seem unlikely.

+1, Mick and JB certainly dragged Alex and Taddy along like a tow truck! but ultimately the composer triumphs

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Aug 29 2009, 03:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So, what makes you so certain that Ducati favours Stoner in development?

What evidence that is available do you base that statement on?

Gaz
Oh, come on. Stoner is so far the only one who can even ride the bike fast. The others are still trying to figuring the bike out. Inconsistent is the word Hayden use. He would probably deny them changing parts out all the time in the hope of finding consistency and stability and work from there.
Stoner somehow got the feel and can tell them what works and what doesn't, at the sharp end that is, and that's what I would call the development side, until they got a somewhat base bike they all can work with. So up to now I would say Stoner has done all the development, not only or maybe not even at all, because of favoritism, but out of necessity. Actually much the same as any factory team out there. They all have the one they trust more and who gets the new parts. It's IMNSHO just like it should be.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (frosty58 @ Aug 28 2009, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>well put gaz... well put.

I am not sure Frosty and Garry... Some riders prefer 'Not' to test parts because they waste their 'Setup' time, confuse them or whatever... Pedrosa complaining he had to do it rings a bell. Also Hayden 'had' to try that 'Clutch' as a new part back then, and neither were happy!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VHMP01 @ Aug 29 2009, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I am not sure Frosty and Garry... Some riders prefer 'Not' to test parts because they waste their 'Setup' time, confuse them or whatever... Pedrosa complaining he had to do it rings a bell. Also Hayden 'had' to try that 'Clutch' as a new part back then, and neither were happy!



V, you missed where I said

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Aug 29 2009, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If JL does get an option to test than all good, but if JL does not get the option (option as opposed to actual testing as he can refuse) than that does continue the perception of following one path to the possible detriment of other riders (real or imagined).


To me, each rider has the right of refusal, but at the same time each manufacturer has the right of demand and it is under the demand circumstance where one can identify the 'unofficial' team number 2.

In teh example you use, if Pedrosa refused and Honda made Hayden than that is just affirmation of the team heirachy (rightly or wrongly), just as should Rossi refuse Yamaha would make someone test the part. But it could well also be an example of the manufacturer approach in that they dictate as opposed to work with the team to develop parts requested by the riders.

But I do suspect that as we progress into 2010 with less time available to test that there is a real risk of riders not testing parts and either having development stall somewhat, or risking all in a race to be let down.





Gaz

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Aug 29 2009, 02:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But Babel, 'fair' within the context of testing means 'equal opportunity' and if one rider is always given equipment to test over and above another that can easily be construed as unfair or preferential treatment.

Yes, it is certainly common sense and logical that one always tried to ensure a consistent level of feedback on parts that are to be tested and as such, one could say that it is therefore logical that the same person be used at all times as they will provide consistent feedback. But converse to this is that then the machine in question is developed to suit that one rider and as such it continues a path of real or perceived preferential treatment.

Of course, this applies generally to the 'good' of the testing compoenent, not the bad as the question then is raised as to if VR (as the example in context of this thread) rejects a component, does JL get an option.

If JL does get an option to test than all good, but if JL does not get the option (option as opposed to actual testing as he can refuse) than that does continue the perception of following one path to the possible detriment of other riders (real or imagined).

Basically and to cut to the chase, many riders will reject a component that another rider would say is the best thing since sliced bread - shouldn't those other riders get the opportunity?





Gaz
Your post made me laugh and bought back memorys.

In 06 and 07 Hayden was the man being "forced" to test all the new parts while pedrosa was finishing higher than his team mate on the old stuff. Yet the bike was "build for pedrosa" .
Now rossi is testing new parts instead of lorenzo and its seen as favortizum towards rossi oh the irony.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Aug 28 2009, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This is the illogical thing I've ever heard from you.

There is always a shortcoming on resources in racing, if you think any proper race team will delay testing parts to make the extra set you are living on a stronger illusion that I've ever seen before.
And although a good factory should have a fairly strong success rate, lets not forget that this is prototype testing. That means that a fair percentage will fail. New parts shows no improvement or even slows the bike down, so again, lets remove the glasses and listen to Lorenzo's manager when it comes to actual real advantages.

<he should be getting the same opportunity to test as Valentino.> Bah, you are hillarioous!
This is a job and yo do your job, not testing because you are entitled to.

If the kid has any intelligence he keeps it that way and let Rossi develop that bike for him. (now THAT was with rossi glases on, the rest is pure common sense)
The one-off parts have already been tested. You don't think Valentino or any factory rider are the first to test pieces, do you? The test riders do the legwork and if they respond positively to it, the parts are sent to the team. Fabrication time is surely not an issue at this point.

Lorenzo should get the same opportunity to test as Valentino. In every team there is a number one and number two rider, except for Yamaha come 2010 where it is in Lorenzo's contract that he is to receive equal treatment as Valentino.

Any time a rider is on a bike developed by Rossi/Burgess, they're in a strong position. At the same time, as Gaz pointed out, it's in Lorenzo's best interests to have an opportunity to test. Just because what's working for Rossi is also working for Lorenzo doesn't mean that there aren't bits that don't work for Rossi that would for Lorenzo.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Aug 30 2009, 05:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Your post made me laugh and bought back memorys.

In 06 and 07 Hayden was the man being "forced" to test all the new parts while pedrosa was finishing higher than his team mate on the old stuff. Yet the bike was "build for pedrosa" .
Now rossi is testing new parts instead of lorenzo and its seen as favortizum towards rossi oh the irony.

There you go Rog... exactly what I tried to point out too!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Sep 1 2009, 01:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The one-off parts have already been tested. You don't think Valentino or any factory rider are the first to test pieces, do you? The test riders do the legwork and if they respond positively to it, the parts are sent to the team. Fabrication time is surely not an issue at this point.
Yes, even though the parts have been stress, durability and road tested we know, as you point out later, a part tested by, say, Canepa isn't necessarily gonna work for Casey (or in Fiat/Yams case Jorge or Vale). Fab time? How many say prototype engine parts does each bike require... one on the bike and 2 or 3 spares? I can't see fab issues. Maybe its cost-related?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Sep 1 2009, 01:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Lorenzo should get the same opportunity to test as Valentino.
Agreed, Lorenzo is a special case at the moment and should have this opportunity. Testing/evaluating is a skill not all riders posses so some teams prefer one riders opinion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Sep 1 2009, 01:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Any time a rider is on a bike developed by Rossi/Burgess, they're in a strong position. At the same time, as Gaz pointed out, it's in Lorenzo's best interests to have an opportunity to test. Just because what's working for Rossi is also working for Lorenzo doesn't mean that there aren't bits that don't work for Rossi that would for Lorenzo.
What happens if Jorge starts testing, likes some different parts than Vale, but starts getting poorer results... does Yamaha continue to spend cash on producing Jorge's parts if they feel they are adversely affecting his performance? (Or vise versa or course)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Aug 31 2009, 10:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What happens if Jorge starts testing, likes some different parts than Vale, but starts getting poorer results... does Yamaha continue to spend cash on producing Jorge's parts if they feel they are adversely affecting his performance? (Or vise versa or course)
I would have to imagine that wouldn't be an issue. The base setting is there, Valentino and JB already did their magic. I think what Lorenzo would like is to be able to evaluate new bits just as Valentino does. If he's slower with the new bits, he won't use them. Am I missing your question?

Just theoretical, I guess... How long does Yamaha humour Jorge if he insists he likes certain parts that Vale doesn't if Vale is out performing Jorge? Do they continue with the expense of developing two bikes in different directions if they (Yamaha) believe that Jorge would be faster following Vale's development direction.