lorenzo to leave ducati?

JKant · Apr 25, 2017

Gaz said:
Did not Yamaha use Forward racing during the open period as a means to obtain data with regards the ECU (from memory here, not google)?

Might have. Its no substitute for using your own software though nearly as bad as having to replace both your software & ECU (a la Honda).

The salient difference was that the Yamaha was using the data to develop their bike while Ducati was was working on developing the ECU software to suit their bike.

I still totally disagree with regards to a head start but all good, we can differ as I firmly (and simply) do not agree that things cannot and do not change year on year.

As an example, tyres changing can impact the good work put in to electronics from one week to the next, thus the ECU could theoretically be mooted year on year due to development anyways

Other changes can impact the stability of the package, having a cascading effect but its extremely unlikely to undo the advantage of a tailored ECU.

Same point yes but twice as far behind which clearly shows that the gap had increased which by correlation means that Ducati were not as competitive against the big 2.

Twice as far behind Yamaha. Less than half as far behind Honda. (The KR211V was a RC211V with a custom chassis)

Absolutely they can develop one within the current rules ............. and just as absolutely I would expect the rules to change shortly thereafter if it is deemed that Ducati are ahead of the pack with said development.

Running ahead of the pack is, lets say unlikely. Achieving a competitive bike isn't.

Scoring a podium is a poor indication of competitiveness - are you going to tell me that Jack Miller was competitive in 2016 ......... I mean, he scored a win so ............

IMO here but one is over-rated in that he is yet to stop that crashing so for mine, whilst the second is a very good #2 team man and occasional race winner with impeccable pedigree as a nearly man (no disrespect to him, just that the 'man' is a bit further ahead).

One podium in three races while still climbing the hill (its the only the third race since the new aero regulations). Can't compare to one podium in two years and with just a handful of top 10 finishes in the remainder along with a full score of DNFs/DNSs.

And while his win came in an Assen monsoon, Ducati have proven to be fast in a range of conditions on a wide variety of tracks. Scored a podium at 13 out 18 tracks and been in the top 5 in the all the rest.

What both riders demonstrated was the potential of the bike were it being ridden by someone with both the speed & aggression of Iannone and the consistency & patience of Dovizioso.

But was refused ........... why.

The answer is quite simple - that for him to change did not benefit DORNA

Wasn't refused. He asked for it after Brno and was running on Bridgestones two races later.

Absolutely Bridgestone were there for race wins and title wins should they come along ........ else, why the .... be involved.

Very realistic assessment. With you completely.

I genuinely feel that a tyre company working with a 'lesser' team has huge potential to produce results that showcase the potential of the factory and products as through close development with a smaller number of teams, the opportunities for collaboration increases.

Very idealistic assessment. Not with you at all.

They're not there to showcase the potential of lesser teams or smaller factories that run those tyres. They are there for race wins and title wins should they come along. Actually no, let me rephrase; race wins/title wins makes it sound like the kind of noble achivement that athletes strive for. Bridgestone are there to beat Michelin (and vice versa).

Which means catering to Stoner, Rossi, Pedrosa and their kind while giving lip service to the hoi polloi hailing from Kawasaki, Aprilia, CRT, Open Class, satellites and the like.

It doesn't matter if KTM outperformed expectations to score their first points finish if Bridgestone riders aren't on the podium occupying the top step, preferably with a total lockout.

And if you can get the press & public talking about how its your tyre that made it happen rather than the bike or rider, then you've gone above and beyond the call of duty and your bosses at HQ will sing paens in your honour. (An effective way of achieving that might be to beat Michelin when its being run by a certain prominent rider.)

Gaz · Apr 25, 2017

JKant said:
Might have. Its no substitute for using your own software though nearly as bad as having to replace both your software & ECU (a la Honda).

And Ducati were not using their own software either were they

JKant said:
The salient difference was that the Yamaha was using the data to develop their bike while Ducati was was working on developing the ECU software to suit their bike.

Says?

Is this your assumption or knowledge making this statement, or is it a googled article from somewhere?

Both were very likely working the same manner - with the same end result in focus

JKant said:
Other changes can impact the stability of the package, having a cascading effect but its extremely unlikely to undo the advantage of a tailored ECU.

And just as conversely, an ECU that is not as manageable nor suited to your product can upset the equilibrium of other essential bike performance componentry.

JKant said:
Twice as far behind Yamaha. Less than half as far behind Honda. (The KR211V was a RC211V with a custom chassis)

Irrespective, they were less competitive looking at the points table

JKant said:
Running ahead of the pack is, lets say unlikely. Achieving a competitive bike isn't.

Possible - yes

Likely - no (for the previously mentioned reasons of rule changes, again as history has shown as Ducati are the tru innovators of this sport and have suffered because of it)

JKant said:
One podium in three races while still climbing the hill (its the only the third race since the new aero regulations). Can't compare to one podium in two years and with just a handful of top 10 finishes in the remainder along with a full score of DNFs/DNSs.

You were talking 2016, not 2017 (remember, your mention of winglets in response to my comment)

JKant said:
Wasn't refused. He asked for it after Brno and was running on Bridgestones two races later.

Incorrect.

He was refused when they asked at the same time as Rossi however due to pressure from Puig to HRC, he was then allowed to change mid-season.

JKant said:
Very idealistic assessment. Not with you at all.

They're not there to showcase the potential of lesser teams or smaller factories that run those tyres. They are there for race wins and title wins should they come along. Actually no, let me rephrase; race wins/title wins makes it sound like the kind of noble achivement that athletes strive for. Bridgestone are there to beat Michelin (and vice versa).

Which means catering to Stoner, Rossi, Pedrosa and their kind while giving lip service to the hoi polloi hailing from Kawasaki, Aprilia, CRT, Open Class, satellites and the like.

It doesn't matter if KTM outperformed expectations to score their first points finish if Bridgestone riders aren't on the podium occupying the top step, preferably with a total lockout.

And if you can get the press & public talking about how its your tyre that made it happen rather than the bike or rider, then you've gone above and beyond the call of duty and your bosses at HQ will sing paens in your honour. (An effective way of achieving that might be to beat Michelin when its being run by a certain prominent rider.)

See, your take does not look at the history and whilst to you, my view may be idealistic history proves that it has been attempted and proved successful, albeit with much trial and error.

As the example I bring you Bridgestone who supported the minor companies, worked with those manufacturers to develop tyres for their bikes and teams, all the while not wanted by the major factories (Yamaha and HRC). Then through hard work and perseverence of many people we got to 2007 where all the ducks aligned and David slayed the Goliaths with race wins (2 manufacturers, 3 riders) and a championship.

This of course did not go down well with people and so we had discussion and pressure applied regarding tyre availability with an extra Bridgestone spot being made available, something that did not sit well with the previous lesser player manufacturers.

Now I will give you this, every company competing wants a podium lockout and yes, if the Ching Sheng sponsored team finished 18th it means squat, but if that Ching Shen sponsored KTM goes from 18th, to 11th, to 7th and is consistent, then people notice and you get cheap brand recognition (cheap by comparison) as well as interest from others as to what Ching Shen could do for them.

I genuinely am not sure of your motivations in some of your posts but I do suggest that a revision of recent history (my recent, not yours) would show that a minor player in the sport, became a giant player in the sport on the back of working with smaller teams to develop.

The current situation does not help the smaller teams one iota aside from possible cost benefits (remembering that Michelin pay to participate) as the tyre of today are just as factored around the top few as you fear are the tyres of the competitive era.

michaelm · Apr 25, 2017

Several teams other than the Ducati team were happy to employ, and got reasonable results with the Bridgestone tyre when it was not a control tyre in 2006 and 2007, most notably Suzuki of course.

JKant · Apr 25, 2017

michaelm said:
You are either ignorant, or guilty of sophistry in regard to the 2006 season, because if you had watched every race on replay you would be aware that the 2006 Ducati was a very competitive bike, for the championship and not just for individual race wins, including against Rossi in his prime on a Yamaha as I said, although your quibbling about the competitiveness of the field was sophistry in the first place as I also said.

Can you please point out where I said or implied that the 2006 Ducati wasn't a very competitive bike, or was otherwise incapable of challenging for the championship?

(I believe my posts made it pretty clear that I considered the GP16 to be capable of fighting for the title, and Ducati to be as competitive in the 2016 season as they were in 2006, also a competitive season.)

You are also changing your narrative given in a recent previous post you claimed that the racing was less good in 2006 than in recent seasons

I think this is 5th or 6th time that you've (deliberately?) misquoted me.

Can you please go back to wherever you claim to have read this and point it out?

because of what you had heard, not what you had seen, and watching races 10 years later with the benefit of hindsight and preconceived notions based on that hindsight

I don't recall saying that I knew the outcome of the races or the season. Can you please point it out?

And again in reply to your last several posts, whatever you may care to theorise and whatever you think a control tyre should do, there is absolutely no evidence the Bridgestone control tyre made teams other than the Yamaha and Honda factory teams more competitive, and it remains to be seen whether the Michelin control tyre will do so other than by means of capricious tyre failures.

If you believe Stoner on that Ducati could have been as competitive on those Michelin tyres, okay. I really don't wish to contest the argument.

JKant · Apr 25, 2017

Gaz said:
And Ducati were not using their own software either were they

Says?

Is this your assumption or knowledge making this statement, or is it a googled article from somewhere?

Both were very likely working the same manner - with the same end result in focus

Googled article from somewhere, read some time ago (when the winglet ban was announced I think). Ducati familiarized itself with the open class ECU & software on a works bike and then passed on proprietary software to Magneti-Marelli to develop the spec ECU.

Possible - yes

Likely - no (for the previously mentioned reasons of rule changes, again as history has shown as Ducati are the tru innovators of this sport and have suffered because of it)

I think this is a faith thing. I can see no reason for Dorna to single out any factory for a beatdown - its motivations seem to run more on the lines of keeping the sport competitive in order to improve the 'show' and expand the audience base.

So yeah if Ducati pulls off a miracle and unveils a bike that can go two seconds faster than anyone else on the grid, I do expect Dorna to do what it can to level the playing field. But I expect the same response to Honda or Yamaha doing the same. Sure 15 years ago, things were different but there's a different economic reality in operation today.

See, your take does not look at the history and whilst to you, my view may be idealistic history proves that it has been attempted and proved successful, albeit with much trial and error.

As the example I bring you Bridgestone who supported the minor companies, worked with those manufacturers to develop tyres for their bikes and teams, all the while not wanted by the major factories (Yamaha and HRC). Then through hard work and perseverence of many people we got to 2007 where all the ducks aligned and David slayed the Goliaths with race wins (2 manufacturers, 3 riders) and a championship.

The salient point here is that Bridgestone went to the smaller companies because the larger teams were already receiving SNS tyres (until banned in 2007). Had a factory team signed Bridgestone, they wouldn't have hesitated at the opportunity to put their stamp down on Parc Ferme.

It paid off for them but having paid they have little incentive to persist with the smaller teams.manufacturers.

Now I will give you this, every company competing wants a podium lockout and yes, if the Ching Sheng sponsored team finished 18th it means squat, but if that Ching Shen sponsored KTM goes from 18th, to 11th, to 7th and is consistent, then people notice and you get cheap brand recognition (cheap by comparison) as well as interest from others as to what Ching Shen could do for them.

I genuinely am not sure of your motivations in some of your posts but I do suggest that a revision of recent history (my recent, not yours) would show that a minor player in the sport, became a giant player in the sport on the back of working with smaller teams to develop.

The current situation does not help the smaller teams one iota aside from possible cost benefits (remembering that Michelin pay to participate) as the tyre of today are just as factored around the top few as you fear are the tyres of the competitive era.

Cheap in comparison to? Bridgestone, having already become a giant, already has access to a factory teams and a top rider as a tool to give it its wins/podiums what is its incentive to divert it focus towards nurturing a smaller less competitive entity.

When you say 'became a giant player in the sport on the back of working with smaller teams', maybe its just me, it seems like you're suggesting that the supplier has an ethical responsibility to the smaller players on the grid?

The current situation helps the smaller teams today through the money injected into the sport but its questionable if its helping the larger teams a great deal. Unlike the open tyre era, the supplier doesn't have the same incentive to score podiums - and can factor in the opinions of all the factories at least (except for KTM that's not really participating at the moment). And since the factories are running a diverse range of machinery - the final allocation would perhaps be as close to the median as can be expected.

JPSLotus · Apr 25, 2017

JKant said:
Well then they were either out of money or resources or motivation by 2014 when they switched to an open-ECU and started championing the spec-ECU/unified software proposal, in opposition to Honda which flat out swore to quit MotoGP if the ECU rule change went through. It went through.

Electronics & software isn't something that you just need to get right leaving the rest to the rider. As long as you can afford it, the development continues without pause (no season-freeze here), the payoff is substantial, but crucial point is that the marginal rate of return does not drop off as steeply as it does for other segments. If Ducati were the first to get the 800cc electronics dialed in - that's all they had - the first movers advantage, nothing more. Doesn't help them today.

They felt the spec ECU would benefit them. Thinking that doesn't make it so in the long run. Sort of like how some were initially high on the spec tire rule for 2009.

Everyone had the same chance to build a good engine/software combination when they switched from the 990's to the 800's. Ducati did a far better job to the dismay of Yamaha and HRC's engineers. IIRC, Stoner himself said the engine was never the issue with Ducati during his time there, it was the chassis. Well the one exception was in 2008 when they went for that horsepower increase where the benefits were far outweighed by the drawbacks.

michaelm · Apr 25, 2017

Just for you JKant.

Post 57."Let me put it this way - take Stoner out of the equation and Ducati has always been struggling irrespective of what tyres were available to it".
No, they had a very competitive bike without Stoner in 2006, had 4 wins, and their points performance which you compare with 2016 was from less races and affected by injuries to their 2 factory riders, Gibernau's definitely not due to a bike problem or riding error and Capirossi's not either iirc.

Post 76: "(and no I didn't know the results beforehand, when I watched them, so I don't really mind not having watched them live)".

Post 65: "Tremendous season sure, better than the last 2 seasons in general opinion? Not from what I gather. Comparable perhaps".
Ok I will admit to having partly misread that one, your posts where you try to make tiny punctilious points in rebuttal of broader arguments are tedious to read in a cafe on a mobile phone on which they extend for pages and pages, and I sometimes go to my speed reading mode and in this case neglected "in general opinion". I don't know what general opinion you are talking about however, and without denying the possible influence of nostalgia my point was that those who followed both seasons contemporaneously are in a better position to judge the comparative quality of the racing imo, and 11 years is not 25 anyway.

JPSLotus · Apr 25, 2017

michaelm said:
Just for you JKant.

Post 57."Let me put it this way - take Stoner out of the equation and Ducati has always been struggling irrespective of what tyres were available to it".
No, they had a very competitive bike without Stoner in 2006, had 4 wins, and their points performance which you compare with 2016 were from less races and affected by injuries to their 2 factory riders, Gibermau's definitely not due to a bike problem or riding error and Capirossi's not either iirc.

Post 76: "(and no I didn't know the results beforehand, when I watched them, so I don't really mind not having watched them live)".

Post 65: "Tremendous season sure, better than the last 2 seasons in general opinion? Not from what I gather. Comparable perhaps".
Ok I will admit to have partly misread that one, your posts where you try to make tiny punctilious points in rebuttal of broader arguments are tedious to read in a cafe on a mobile phone on which they extend for pages and pages, and I sometimes go to my speed reading mode and in this case neglected "in general opinion". I don't know what general opinion you are talking about however, and without denying the possible influence of nostalgia my point was that those who followed both seasons contemporaneously are in a better position to judge the comparative quality of the racing imo, and 11 years is not 25 anyway.

I may be wrong, but I feel even when Kant is faced with a solid rebuttal that doesn't leave much or any room for additional interpretation, he still tries to move the argument into some subtle tangent to try and avoid being pinned down to whatever the original contention was. It's amusing since he was insistent on accusing me of arguing semantics, when he spends plenty of time arguing just that when his points are debated or refuted.

michaelm · Apr 25, 2017

JPSLotus said:
I may be wrong, but I feel even when Kant is faced with a solid rebuttal that doesn't leave much or any room for additional interpretation, he still tries to move the argument into some subtle tangent to try and avoid being pinned down to whatever the original contention was. It's amusing since he was insistent on accusing me of arguing semantics, when he spends plenty of time arguing just that when his points are debated or refuted.

Some of my lack of patience with JKant is not of his own causation, but due to a debating a famous Stoner hater who pervaded the MotoGP blogosphere at one time at some length on another forum who debated similarly making very broad assumptions and giving unsupported opinions in favour of his own case but being punctilious in the extreme and requiring forensic levels of evidence for the arguments of others, which I see as inconsistent, and JKant seems to have similar tendencies, particularly in trying to change the argument by focusing on some minor point as you say.

michaelm · Apr 25, 2017

He MotoGP forum

Double

Calamari · Apr 25, 2017

I agree with Furiosa.
Lorenzo is obviously a great rider and it seemed a faster bike would have made him even better especially if he got in front like the old days !
Even so, nobody changes mid season so he will have to get used to it.
I think he will improve as the season rolls on.

JKant · Apr 25, 2017

michaelm said:
Just for you JKant.

Post 57."Let me put it this way - take Stoner out of the equation and Ducati has always been struggling irrespective of what tyres were available to it".
No, they had a very competitive bike without Stoner in 2006, had 4 wins, and their points performance which you compare with 2016 was from less races and affected by injuries to their 2 factory riders, Gibernau's definitely not due to a bike problem or riding error and Capirossi's not either iirc.

You read this but didn't bother to take a look at what I was replying to. FYI -

"Struggling is all relative but just read releases etc and you will see that Ducati is struggling."

And my point was that if the 2016 bike was struggling than Ducati has always been struggling (missing the services of a rider like Stoner). It should be quite obvious that that's a comment on the GP16 not a criticism of the GP6 unless one intends to distort its meaning.

Post 76: "(and no I didn't know the results beforehand, when I watched them, so I don't really mind not having watched them live)".

And you interpret this to mean that I did know the results and therefore missed out the gravity of the races in 2006 season?

Post 65: "Tremendous season sure, better than the last 2 seasons in general opinion? Not from what I gather. Comparable perhaps".
Ok I will admit to having partly misread that one

But its the phone and the cafe and the coffee. Okay.

MigsAngel · Apr 27, 2017

One way or the other JLo best make some results on the existing package.....especially as the money pot might dry up soon for Ducati....

VW is actively exploring selling Ducati off....see other thread....

So JLo new owners may want to see some winning races from you very very soon....

Theo · Apr 27, 2017

MigsAngel said:
One way or the other JLo best make some results on the existing package.....especially as the money pot might dry up soon for Ducati....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-selling-ducati-brand-in-wake-of-asset-review

https://www.breakingviews.com/considered-view/ducati-is-one-vw-trophy-worth-selling/

Exclusive: VW eyes possible sale of motorbike brand Ducati - sources | Reuters

Or the new owners might not prioritise a factory effort that isn't winning consistently...

Personally, I wonder if it might have anything to do with their cheating on exhaust emissions in most of the companies they own, I've owned 2 VW's but would never consider them again and I know of others who voice similar opinions. anyway that's an opinion which I'm sure some will disagree with.

MigsAngel · Apr 27, 2017

Theo said:
Personally, I wonder if it might have anything to do with their cheating on exhaust emissions in most of the companies they own, I've owned 2 VW's but would never consider them again and I know of others who voice similar opinions. anyway that's an opinion which I'm sure some will disagree with.

It has everything to do with the cheating emissions.....this is why the had to look at their portfolio and really decide what was needed and not...

JPSLotus · Apr 27, 2017

Theo said:
Personally, I wonder if it might have anything to do with their cheating on exhaust emissions in most of the companies they own, I've owned 2 VW's but would never consider them again and I know of others who voice similar opinions. anyway that's an opinion which I'm sure some will disagree with.

As Mig already said it has everything to do with Dieselgate.

Ferdinand Piech also oversaw the Ducati purchase because he had passed on the prior opportunity to purchase the brand back in 1985. He always regretted not making that purchase back then. The 2012 purchase was basically to fill his wish of owning a motorcycle brand. They paid $1.2 billion then and Ducati has been generating profits of around $100-$110 million per year. Initial market estimates have a Ducati sale going for around $1.5 billion.

almoto · Apr 27, 2017

To clarify Jorge's situation further:

MotoGP: Lorenzo speaks out on the Ducati | Sport Rider

birdman · Apr 27, 2017

JKant said:
Very idealistic assessment. Not with you at all.

They're not there to showcase the potential of lesser teams or smaller factories that run those tyres. They are there for race wins and title wins should they come along. Actually no, let me rephrase; race wins/title wins makes it sound like the kind of noble achivement that athletes strive for. Bridgestone are there to beat Michelin (and vice versa).

Very marketing based assessment. Aprilia are there for race wins and title wins. No that doesn't work, let me rephrase, Aprilia are there to beat Yamaha. Still no good, I'll try again, Aprilia are there to beat Ducati. Ah .... this is just all too hard.

How about Aprilia are there for all sorts of reasons. To perform R&D on their product, to use competition to accelerate development of their product. To use competition for the betterment of their employees, particularly engineers. Force them to address problems and find solutions at a much faster pace then they would otherwise. To learn from their competition. For brand recognition, marketing. And that's barely scratching the surface of possible reasons for competing. But yeah, obviously to maybe hopefully one day win.

I doubt the tire R&D egg heads locked away in the dirty back rooms of tire development are dreaming of standing on the top step of the podium, or to say ha ha beat you Michelin (or vise versa). The eggs heads probably have more personal goals. A pay rise is a fairly obvious one. A promotion would be nice.

Observation: Bridgestone were there to beat Michelin. So to achieve this goal they decided to supply Ducati, Suzuki and Kawasaki. Any alarm bells going off yet? They choose to work with the teams with the least number of wins. Wouldn't it have been more logical to work double time in striking up a deal with either Factory Honda or factory Yamaha, so they would have a reasonable chance to beat Michelin?

A little tire story for you. Some Michelin tire R&D guy heard from the riders the 17 inch tire was stable but not so agile. So he gave them a 16 inch tire, which was agile but not stable. He thought what can I do? A light went on in his head and he rolled out a 16.5 inch tire. Highly excited and proud of this development, he quickly showed his boss, who now also excited rushed the tire out to the best team and the best rider expecting much praise for all the upcoming wins they would achieve against the other evil tire competitor. The top rider, a young Italian rider by the name of Valentino Rossi, says meh? Don't really like it, think Ill stick with my proven winning SNS 17 inch thanks very much. Go find yourself another guinea pig to experiment on I'm here only to win.

The tire guys are suddenly deflated (see what I did there). There say, damn if we cant work with the best, if he rejected our radical proposal, how can we be winners? The boss says I have an idea. We'll get ourselves a guinea pig. An experimental lab rat. They look around at the teams and riders. Gary McCoy struts past, shoulders back, chest out, hair slicked back, a confident looking man if they ever saw one. He yells out, hey Gary, have I got something for you! Gary tries, Gary likes, Gary wins! All this from a lesser rider and a satellite bike. That other guy, Valentino Rossi, suddenly becomes more interested. He says to the Michelin guy, eh, do they come in SNS?

If you look at motogp history its not uncommon for the more radical and interesting developments actually came from the lesser non winners who were simply more willing to give it a shot.

JKant · Apr 28, 2017

birdman said:
I doubt the tire R&D egg heads locked away in the dirty back rooms of tire development are dreaming of standing on the top step of the podium, or to say ha ha beat you Michelin (or vise versa). The eggs heads probably have more personal goals. A pay rise is a fairly obvious one. A promotion would be nice.

So what are the eggheads up to right now? After Bridgestone declined to put in a bid to renew its contract.

Observation: Bridgestone were there to beat Michelin. So to achieve this goal they decided to supply Ducati, Suzuki and Kawasaki. Any alarm bells going off yet? They choose to work with the teams with the least number of wins. Wouldn't it have been more logical to work double time in striking up a deal with either Factory Honda or factory Yamaha, so they would have a reasonable chance to beat Michelin?

Why did Aprilia choose to work with Espargaro & Lowes instead of working double time to strike up a deal with Marquez & Zarco?

You play the hand you're dealt. Until 2007, the big factory teams had access to customized SNS tyres - Bridgestone didn't turn them down (its record in 2005 & 2006 was relatively modest). Its only after the 2007 season where Bridgestone riders took 12 wins, that the situation reversed with the Ducati team going into the new season as the outright favourite. And I don't think it likely, at that point, that Bridgestone tyre direction was being run as a democracy with Stoner having no more say than the other 8 riders.

If you look at motogp history its not uncommon for the more radical and interesting developments actually came from the lesser non winners who were simply more willing to give it a shot.

Except that tyre development is a zero-sum game.

You can supply tyres to as many teams as request it (with a sufficient lead time for production) but you cannot focus your development on a lesser non-winning team without taking your focus off your winning customer.

Everything that's true for a control tyre field is at least half as true for a field that's serviced by two tyre suppliers - except that in the latter case, there's also a financial incentive to favour the top teams & riders.

michaelm · Apr 28, 2017

JKant said:
So what are the eggheads up to right now? After Bridgestone declined to put in a bid to renew its contract.

Why did Aprilia choose to work with Espargaro & Lowes instead of working double time to strike up a deal with Marquez & Zarco?

You play the hand you're dealt. Until 2007, the big factory teams had access to customized SNS tyres - Bridgestone didn't turn them down (its record in 2005 & 2006 was relatively modest). Its only after the 2007 season where Bridgestone riders took 12 wins, that the situation reversed with the Ducati team going into the new season as the outright favourite. And I don't think it likely, at that point, that Bridgestone tyre direction was being run as a democracy with Stoner having no more say than the other 8 riders.

Except that tyre development is a zero-sum game.

You can supply tyres to as many teams as request it (with a sufficient lead time for production) but you cannot focus your development on a lesser non-winning team without taking your focus off your winning customer.

Everything that's true for a control tyre field is at least half as true for a field that's serviced by two tyre suppliers - except that in the latter case, there's also a financial incentive to favour the top teams & riders.

Except Ducati and Suzuki were far more competitive as Bridgestone teams when there was a tyre war than they were with the Bridgestone control tyre, with which race wins were entirely by Yamaha or Honda factory riders with the exception of Casey Stoner riding a Ducati in 2009 and 2010, for 7 years, or 8 if 2008 is counted as being in the control tyre era, with no non-Honda or Yamaha factory rider wins at all in the years 2011-2015 inclusive, however you may care to theorise about or eulogise the change to the Bridgestone control tyre.

Search

Search

lorenzo to leave ducati?

JKant

Gaz

michaelm

JKant

JKant

JPSLotus

michaelm

JPSLotus

michaelm

michaelm

Calamari

JKant

MigsAngel

Theo

MigsAngel

JPSLotus

almoto

birdman

JKant

michaelm

Similar threads

Recent Discussions