Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
Jeez Mike, what do you expect from a guy whose screen name is Kant? Kant was a legendary sophist; a polite term meaning ........ artist.
Jeez Mike, what do you expect from a guy whose screen name is Kant? Kant was a legendary sophist; a polite term meaning ........ artist.
I'm somebody on the internet.
I wished to use Silverstone, Austria & Sepang as examples, since they featured non-Yamaha/Honda riders on the top step in regular conditions. The LCR Honda is a factory bike run by a satellite team - its an example of competitiveness only insofar as it demonstrates the improved equipment available to the satellite teams today.
Specifically, as far as Silverstone is concerned, Marquez's DNF was an entirely unforced error. Marquez was there to win the race, like Crutchlow. He failed to keep it upright, Crutchlow did.
Had the championship been undecided at that point, he may have indeed raced differently - and settled for second place behind Crutchlow (just as he settled for second place behind Miller at Assen).
The 'whinging and whining' was the par for the course. It changed the status quo. Worked for the riders involved - who returned to competitiveness without any regulations being breached.
A tyre switch by Ducati would have been great for Michelin but it would have decisively sunk Stoner's prospects for the foreseeable future. From having a package that he was delighted with he'd have gone to having the worst one on the grid (exclude the DNSes and Stoner would have finished 2009 just 16 pts behind Rossi - despite his health in the early part of the season).
Just a few sentences back - wrt the proposal to accommodate Michelin at Ducati at Stoner's expense resulting in a less competitive grid.
I have expressed that concern - specifically about the smaller manufacturers (like Aprilia & KTM) having to foot the expense of changing the bikes to suit the available tyres while the likes of HRC get suppliers to deliver tyres to suit their bikes.
Its basically justifying a situation where the wealthiest outfits pay the least.
I 'seemed to wish to sound a little condescending' and dismissive towards purists?!
Well at least you never heard any condescension from the purists, right? And what's it like.. four people now, so-called 'old-timers', who've dismissed my opinion on the money brought in by the single tyre contract (10% of the entire annual revenue), as coming from someone on Dorna's payroll?
I mention WSBK because its primarily a production derived series with a tenth of MotoGP's viewership, dominated by a manufacturer that dropped out from the latter event because it couldn't afford the participation costs. Costs that had forced the inclusion of the production-derived CRT class in MotoGP just to retain a decently populated grid.
With google skills and a propensity to be condescending ............. but you have an agenda here no doubt
I should add, no probs there but I do find it interesting as to your main points (those on which you focus)
Not according to Cal.
He does say that they start the same but support will drop off as the year develops due to parts being filtered slower
Everyone who wins a race is deserving, sometimes however circumstances combine.
Cal's win was a long time coming and no doubt he had been copping absolute .... from Miller as Jack beat him to the win.
Off our discussion, but I enjoyed that win for Cal as I personally believe that he can win plenty of races but not a championship and no, I do not say that for tyres or bikes, but IMO, he is not lacking in the two critical areas of self belief and ability.
The prior race was the start of it all but we shall never know, although I do readily stand by it being an anomoly to suggest that Cal's win showed that the tyres were making that satellite team more competitive that weekend.
Absolutely, and goes a large way to showing that with position comes power that can be used to one's benefit if allowed by an operating body that may be a little weak or subservient to the mighty dollar
We will never know as it was not allowed to happen.
He may have gone to a worse package, but again, look at the history and you will see that Bridgestone worked with teams and made a competitive package, thus it is far from the realms of possibility that Michelin may have been able to work with less teams (remembering the many that went to Bridgestone), and with less teams to concentrate, they may have been able to develop a great tyre. No way this would have happened overnight (short of blind luck), but history showed it has been done in the past so it could readily be done again if people worked top the aim.
In the end, we shall never know as it was not allowed to happen
Still don't see where I ignored it ...... but hey, colour me blind
I must be misinterpreting your intent as what I see from you have been concerns that a tyre war may increase costs to the smaller teams by those teams having to buy tyres - admittedly here - but if you meant by your comments that the smaller teams costs increase not just due to the need to potentially buy tyres but moreso to the costs associated to changing their bikes - then we are on a similar page but perhaps on different sides (with our tyre war opinions)
.... no, purists can be as condescending as the best of them ............ and hell yes it is real as some of the .... spouted by all sides (and I include myself) is just that, condescending ........ theories.
It was reported that Michelin are paying 25million Euro for five years (I have not found confirmation of if this is per season or 5million per season and to be honest, couldn't care less) so not sure how that goes as 10% but assume it must appear in an article somewhere so like all things in print (as Fox), it must be real.
CRT was a joke concept (IMO) and whilst perhaps the intent was good (more bike on a small grid), the execution of it has harmed both MotoGP (that has thankfully recovered) and WSBK.
WSBK however is seemingly dying at the moment which is unfortunate as it used to get similar levels of track attendances in many parts of the world than does MotoGP (Oz for example would be similar numbers) and in Oz was shown as widley as MotoGP for many years
As for the manufacturer, well let us be honest, they come and go often from sports and will always use the cost excuse and whilst no doubt at times that is likely the true cause, often it may well be but a factor so personally, I do not place much when anyone says (any sport) 'we are pulling out because the cost is to much', as that cost has increased year on year and will continue to do so
Last edited:
What would that agenda be? And what Google 'skills'? You just type in a query and it responds with a list of relevant items. A very simple, intuitive tool and yet for some reason, people (and I'm talking in general, not about you) seem to find that beneath their dignity - as if reading a news report/article after its been archived somehow reduces its worth and lessens the value of the opinion formed by it (an attitude that I find condescending).
Its not a factory squad, sure. Fortunately, its not an open-class Honda either. And the grid as a whole is more competitive than its been in years.
For the last couple of years, Tech3 have run year-old bikes as have Pramac & MarcVDS, with Aspar & Avintia bikes two years old. This year, in contrast, the MarcVDS machines are all 2017 spec, Pramac is running one GP17 and only Baz & Abraham are on two year old bikes (and if I'm not mistaken, the plan is to ensure that nobody is forced to run GP16s next year).
That's a good team and great rider having to pay the price for bringing Michelin backed to competitiveness - a venture that may not have yielded results for years. And even if did, would have become accessible to the remainder of the grid within a season. Also has a financial impact on rest of the grid.
Economically it doesn't make sense but even from a fan/spectator's perspective, I don't think anyone is as invested in Michelin's fortunes as they are in how Ducati and riders like Stoner do.
Two different points and I made both of them in my previous posts on the issue -
1. Satellite teams (Tech3, Pramac, MarcVDS); the loss of revenue from the single tyre contract will have a knock-down effect on all teams - half their funding comes from Dorna. Thereafter they will need to arrange for their own tyres in an environment where suppliers are more interested in the advertising with the frontrunners i.e the ones well covered by the cameras both on & off the track.
2. Smaller factories (Aprilia, KTM, Suzuki); they'll be forced to adapt their bikes for whatever tyres are available to them while the tyre suppliers take their cues from the big factories (who thus have to pay less).
Surely the financial aspect should matter to everyone here. Its not just Bridgepoint, it affects everyone in the sport including the riders & the teams.
Source: David Emmett. Figures from 2013.
Total MotoGP revenue: ~€200 mil per year.
Bridgestone tyre contract: €22 mil per season.
The economic scenario has improved since then and viewership is up, so Michelin would definitely be paying more than Bridgestone did, but the sport's revenues are up as well (€335 mil in 2016, but includes all Dorna ventures) so the contribution of that revenue stream is unlikely to have changed with the switch in suppliers.
Michelin is probably paying €25-30 mil per season right now for exclusive rights over the event.
Nobody liked the CRTs but they were a response to financial pressures at the time, the alternative being to run a grid with 12 bikes - and I'll let you decide which one's the bigger joke.
Come on, you know, the line that you have chosen to push/pursue as you do seem to have a specific agenda that has been raised a few times - that being to minimise any criticism of DORNA amongst other aspects of the organisation.
As for google, I recommend boolean type searching using a variety of search engines ...........
FWIW, archived news articles are also just that, archived where much of what you find difficult to accept here (or continually debate) is opinion based on experience of many years watching the sport. Just as to discount an archived new article may to you be condescending, many will find that to discount experience and opinions borne from decades of watching the sport as condescending and yet, it happens
Back to this ........... competitive
2016 saw the most winners in many years, that I will give you but it does not mean that it will or even has carried to 2017 for as I have said many times, 2016 saw a large number of changes that worked together across a year to produce positive results, but 1 year is way to small a sample to determine if the changes have been successful.
Bit like people who say that athlete A is back in form after they have had one good performance after a multitude of average performances, one needs consistency before one can say form is back
So?
They start the year the same but are not supported the same (to use Cal's comments, the parts filter down slower), thus as the season progresses the gaps may increase in terms of performance capability
Economically it could make sense under the right agreements between the parties involved as, after all, all manufacturers are in this sport to develop for their road based items with brand awareness ets being a slight side benefit.
Thus, if there was cake to be had at the time, Michelin may have wanted to work with Ducati (or Suzuki or whomever) to eat that cake.
The Ducati thoughts have been well documented as have Stoner's comments of the time.
Never ignored at all but you seem to keep ignoring my points.
1. You assume that the satellite teams will need to make their own arrangements whilst overlooking the possibility that a competing tyre company may be willing to work with and develop tyres suitable for their machinery. In actuality, it may be quite beneficial were (as example) Michelin to work with (again, example) Tech 3 to develop a Michelin tyre that works on their Yamaha whilst the factory runs Bridgestone. Of course this may well be contract dependent on Yamaha not stipulating a tyre manufacturer, which if that were to be done then becomes a Yamaha requirement to ensure it happens.
2. Back to my comment that you may not have answered - and this is not happening now?
Micheling today would only be listening to very few riders/teams for input, and it would be the largest, loudest teams so KTM will continue to have to accept that which they will be give where competition could or may make them very attractive to a lesser tyre brand which could well benefit KTM.
With regards funding, tyre company dollars are but a small part of total funding and whilst DORNA does subsidise some teams the money is not purely from tyre company involvement but many aspects
The financial aspect of the sport is important to all here but we have also seen this come and go across many decades where the dollars coming in will drop, then increase, drop and then increase along with the world economy and other financial aspects.
The fact is that this is an expensive sport and yet it has survived many years of open class competition, including periods where we had larger grids, more suppliers and so forth.
There were other alternatives ............ just that DORNA did not wish to push the factories to hard for fear of losing their input/dollars at the time
As for grid sizes, well have 16 is not ideal but is have 24 where 8 or so cannot get close to the top 6 any better?
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
I still hold out hope that if the Ducati experiment doesn't work out for Jorge he ends up at Repsol.
Absolutely.
Even what you google from a particular address varies according to previous searches, archives crash all the time (I am told the first http page is no longer extant) and some things are buried much deeper than others. Iirc Ben, the founder of this forum, as part of his actual profession had expertise in ensuring website prominence, which this site seems to continue to validate as it comes up near the top wherever in the English speaking world you google "MotoGP forum".
Last edited:
Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Last year's US presidential election outlined how woeful Google is in today's world when it comes to search results and the trustworthiness of them. The results can be properly manipulated so less than reliable information shows up higher in the results. Few people know how to properly use search engines, and assume Google is the end-all-be-all...which it never has been. While I use Google a lot, it's not my go-to source for high quality information. Knowing the context of the information you find can also be highly important, something JKant has not yet learned. I'm of the belief that Kant is particularly binary in his thinking. He prefers things to fall into either black or white categories and becomes flummoxed when confronted with gray areas that happen to comprise a rather large segment of life in itself. Hence the constant moving goalposts or refusal to acknowledge what cannot be debated.
Google is fine for basic information if you know where and what to look for. But for example, it will never replace the major science databases out there among various other databases that are having information validated prior to the addition of it within a database. Standards are nearly non-existent with Google, not so with the commercial database products being used by universities and corporations.
Google is fine for basic information if you know where and what to look for. But for example, it will never replace the major science databases out there among various other databases that are having information validated prior to the addition of it within a database. Standards are nearly non-existent with Google, not so with the commercial database products being used by universities and corporations.
Joined Aug 2007
11K Posts | 3K+
Pomona NY
Indeed. I've been utilizing the Google AdWords campaign system for years for my own business and if you have enough money, it's child's play to manipulate results. Companies that make fortunes through click bait links don't blink an eye when it comes to spending big bucks to achieve high rankings on Google and more often than not, the stuff that attracts the most traffic is that which is the most egregious .........
Google Scolar is somewhat better for professional applications, although unless in a hurry I use PubMed.
The problem even with what you find with "normal" google is context as you say, as well as having the background to understand/regard critically what you find.
JKant seems to me to be no less biased than anyone else on here, and to have formed conclusions about past events based on his disagreement with a number of posters on here about current events, hence taking a contrary view to those posters in regard to events he didn't even observe.
