Michelin's Last Stand

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Sep 19 2008, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The funny thing is that in many ways a more restricted regulation and a fixed formula over years would probably lead to more development as they don't have to focus on designing new engines every year and make up those huge gains to optimize to what ever formula is active that current year but use imagination and resources to find samller improvements on a allready well known formula. In the long run that might gain the rest of us more than lots of changes ever second year.

I disagree. Ducati made huge leaps foreward starting the 800cc era because of their superior fluid dynamics, and development in engines is generally focused on minimizing losses and improving the quality of combustion. An engine freeze such as we see in F1 has eliminated these areas of development, meaning the imporvements they can actually make are minimal.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Sep 19 2008, 05:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Good point actually because it can easily go both ways. I agree that careful restrictions could lead to some improvements in the relevance of technology being developed, but unfortunately the technology restrictions that are most commonly discussed are almost exclusively for "closer racing".

That's true and resent history shows that they have been to hasty to introduce new regulations.
And of course that's what I ment about careful. No control ECU just ban most of the input and probaly the fly by wire systems and there will be a limitied TC system that have lots of potential even for road bikes. It's also easy to enforce. Wires from that kind of sensors must go exclusivly to a separate and isolated telemetrics system.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Sep 19 2008, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A lot of people like to talk about how placing restrictions on electronics and returning to 990cc displacement will spell the end of all the development and technology that filters down to road bikes. It's not as if development will fully stop. There is still a lot that can be experimented with a 990, things that I can't comprehend. I am not as familiar with the 500s and their development relationship with road-going bikes but I have to assume that even in the twilight of their time, bits were still being discovered that translated to the bikes that made it to the street.

Am I quite off the mark?

I would say no. Logic tells us there's a vast back-log of usable technology that can still filter down (albeit in a watered down form) to street bikes. There are great prototype cars that have been around forever - that the car manufacturers use to whet our appetites - but mostly what we get is cars that look like vitamin pills with wheels. Big technology always withholds a back-log of bells and whistles, to keep everybody hungry - and of course, to keep the product affordable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Sep 19 2008, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I disagree. Ducati made huge leaps foreward starting the 800cc era because of their superior fluid dynamics, and development in engines is generally focused on minimizing losses and improving the quality of combustion. An engine freeze such as we see in F1 has eliminated these areas of development, meaning the imporvements they can actually make are minimal.

Ah, you got me wrong. Freeze the regulations, NOT the development. F1 engine freeze seems utterly stupid and got me truly puzeled.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Sep 19 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ah, you got me wrong. Freeze the regulations, NOT the development. F1 engine freeze seems utterly stupid and got me truly puzeled.

Yea it is a rediculous idea. I think if the rules were made carefully, with a bit of foresight but sensible limitations then development could be considerably more relevant. But then these changes probably would have no effect on the quality of racing and wont get backed by anyone because of the potnetial complications with policing it. With racing and budget issues being commonly addressed with "Freeze this" or "control that" we end up with something which intends to make the racing better by eliminating development and therefore leveling the field. I don't think its wise.

Tom you made the point that companies race to advertise and to develope technology. I would say that advertising would need to take precedence and technology would be a close second. Tom this is an ongoing arguement that you seem to not quite grasp. I will put it plain and simple. If no one watches there is no advertisement. No advertisement equals no money. No money equals no advancement in technology. Satisfy the fans first then the money will come. Satisfy the fans at all costs?? Not quite sure about that one, there definitely need to be a close balance. Can someone supply viewership over the last 10 years? It's sad to say that most fans could give a .... about the details of the technology. They go to the races to see just that, a race. Not a parade. My wife is a perfect example of an average fan. She knows the riders and bike manufacturer but that is about it. She watches the races and then when the parade begins she loses interest and walks away. She seems to be awtching the WSBK and 250cc races more. Rossi seems to know where the problems lie with todays racing. He loves to battle, like the Laguna race. I haven't seen him that giddy in a long time. But it seems with the advancement of technology and the new 800cc class racing has changed for the worse. Hence his desire to change back. For the riders sake and the fans sake, it only makes sense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Sep 19 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tom you made the point that companies race to advertise and to develope technology. I would say that advertising would need to take precedence and technology would be a close second. Tom this is an ongoing arguement that you seem to not quite grasp. I will put it plain and simple. If no one watches there is no advertisement. No advertisement equals no money. No money equals no advancement in technology.

What on earth are you talking about? I can quite easily grasp the need for veiwers to keep the sport going.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Sep 19 2008, 08:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What on earth are you talking about? I can quite easily grasp the need for veiwers to keep the sport going.

And what would bring in more viewership? 990's and limited to no TC, I'm glad we agree then

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Sep 19 2008, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And what would bring in more viewership? 990's and limited to no TC, I'm glad we agree then

See we disagree on what the solutions could be, and where the line of technology should be drawn.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Sep 18 2008, 07:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Late in the article Rossi is quoted as stating that he prefers the 990's, no TC and a single spec tire. Well of course he would since it would garrantee him titles. The other teams, not having Rossi at the helm, want technical means to even up the advantage or what is the use of racing with Rossi in the series.


I disagree gsfan. I remember a certain sombody winning the title on a 990 other than rossi. Stoner was no slouch on them, and it's not like Pedrosa sucked.

While I think Rossi is the most talented rider on the grid, I still believe the other riders have a shot at winning the title outside of just Rossi.

Well we can get into the whole discussion of losing a title vs. winning a title if you want. I just think Rossi wants to ride man to man against anyone and everyone and the outcome is not appealing to any other team since they are almost guaranteed to lose. Probably not that appealing to the lessor riders which are the majority and they aren't riding around just to make him look good they want to win. You can't roll back time and no one seems to have any faith that things will even out in spite of the evidence that things are fairly even as this year draws to an end. Next year the marquee riders will be on potentially very similar machinery (as in able to win) and tires in the total absence of a spec tire rule and with 2 years of 800cc engine development which has come a long long way. Rossi will get his wish of racing on equal stuff and the fans will enjoy. That is what I really think. Compare things now to the spring of '07 and tell me differently if I am wrong.

I have a few friends that watch the races with me and always make the mistake of thinking the race winners are the best racers and those behind them are not that good. This is often a mistake of the casual observer and of course a mantra of self imposed ignorance by those fans whose riders happen to be the darlings of the sport.

Again here this article reminds us of the WWF & dastard political nature of this sport. Back door deals, blatant conflicts of interest, coercion wrought by extreme favoritism, ratings driven decisions passed off as safety concerns, favoring one while impeding the other of a team, etc. etc. In the age of instant media and investigative reporting, these revelations shed light and question the authenticity of past results (which are not new here but rather an ongoing disclosure of the above mentioned nature of the sport under present direction).

Now as a Hayden fan, my perspective prompted me to point out some of these inconsistencies detrimental to my rider. Yet despite the facts, it’s been an ongoing familiar discussion to debate the existence of results effect by access to equipment; with fairly the same people dependent on their inclination for their respective riders. In other words, its the same people arguing for and against their rides regardless of what comes to light; sticking their heads in the sand or singing praises to their rider when it suites. Most of us have done it with few exceptions (I say this because there are actually a few fair and balanced member on this form, Mr. Shupe, Gaz, Rising Sun and other come to mind). But again, as a Hayden fan, we have been behind the eight ball ever since our guy won the title. Interestingly, though he didn’t do it in "enough convincing" manner for his detractors (as if there is a prescribed way to win a world title, less anybody forget the mass .... talking that appeared during that time); However, the next guy in 07 did and in devastating fashion contrasting the previous title holder, yet again, the same detractors came hollering the same old claims from the previous year.

But here, in this article we find a reminder that it is more important to cater to the fan favorites than it is to level the playing field. Now saying stuff like this make it an easy target and out come the labels of ‘hating’ on the darlings for which the sport is catering to; and so as has been my experience, one is labeled a ‘hater’ one way or the other. As if this label somehow negates the reality that yes, riders like Rossi and Pedrosa have enjoyed a level of favoritism not offered to other riders.

But to the rider’s credit (like Rossi & Pedrosa), it’s NOT their job to govern the sport. One quote that was refreshing was Rossi saying he thought it was time for a spec/control tire (though of course this comes a year or more later after being given the Bstones) but at least he is calling to level the playing field when it comes to tires…now. Peders/Puig camp is a bit dastardlier, with Dani’s outburst teleprompted to him by Puig, and HRC’s collusion of circumventing their contract by giving Nakano the exact Pedro’s spec factory bike to test the Bridgestones in race conditions (sneaky .......s). To Lex’s credit, we all wondered why, while he constructed a conspiracy theory later to be given some credence.

So, are these the best riders on the best equipment in the world? My answer: well perhaps the top few. Is it fair to question the success or lack of it from riders who are either recipients of favoritism and those victimized by it detrimentally? My answer: Yes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Sep 19 2008, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I have a few friends that watch the races with me and always make the mistake of thinking the race winners are the best racers and those behind them are not that good. This is often a mistake of the casual observer and of course a mantra of self imposed ignorance by those fans whose riders happen to be the darlings of the sport.

Very true, but the simplification is based on a real tendancy. Most would agree (or maybe they don't, speak up) that the rider remains the single most singnificant input (albeit decreasingly so) to results. Additionally a lot of fans as well as casual observers are calling for the human element to be increased.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Sep 19 2008, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So, are these the best riders on the best equipment in the world? My answer: well perhaps the top few. Is it fair to question the success or lack of it from riders who are either recipients of favoritism and those victimized by it detrimentally? My answer: Yes.

That is a pretty well put paragraph there Jum. You could write a book on this. When put into MOTOGP does that automatically assume best rider, best equipment status? Best equipment, without a doubt. Best riders, no way. And I think thats what you are saying in the second half of your paragraph?? I would like to think that most of the riders in MOTOGP are the best in the world but there are some that are questionable. Hence the threads like, who shouldn't be in MOTOGP, who is losing their rides, whos moving up, Ben spies to motogp, etc. I can't help but wonder if there is a rider out there that may be better than say, Rossi but wasn't given the same chance, didn't have the same connections or opportunites. Not only that MOTOGP is a team sport per say. Would Rossi be where he was if he didn't have JB or the rest of his crew. Would Pedrosa be where he was if he didn't have Puig guiding him along?

It also is obvious that satelite teams since the move to 800cc's are not even close to winning. It's proven that their equipment is not anywhere near the top 4. But the rider in 5th managed to get there on a far inferior bike and inferior tire man. He may even be better than Rossi but hasn'tbeen given the same oppurtunities

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Sep 19 2008, 10:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That is a pretty well put paragraph there Jum. You could write a book on this. When put into MOTOGP does that automatically assume best rider, best equipment status? Best equipment, without a doubt. Best riders, no way. And I think thats what you are saying in the second half of your paragraph?? I would like to think that most of the riders in MOTOGP are the best in the world but there are some that are questionable. Hence the threads like, who shouldn't be in MOTOGP, who is losing their rides, whos moving up, Ben spies to motogp, etc. I can't help but wonder if there is a rider out there that may be better than say, Rossi but wasn't given the same chance, didn't have the same connections or opportunites. Not only that MOTOGP is a team sport per say. Would Rossi be where he was if he didn't have JB or the rest of his crew. Would Pedrosa be where he was if he didn't have Puig guiding him along?

It also is obvious that satelite teams since the move to 800cc's are not even close to winning. It's proven that their equipment is not anywhere near the top 4. But the rider in 5th managed to get there on a far inferior bike and inferior tire man. He may even be better than Rossi but hasn'tbeen given the same oppurtunities

What you suggest in general is of course true. There are young ones on their way up that hasn't got the recognition yet and there are many many others that weren't given the oportuneties.
As the above is true it's also true that there are better riders than some of those on the current MotoGP grid. How many is hard to estimate so I won't even try. Dovi IS an interesting subject and I expect him to challenge for the title in a year or two, but we don't know. How many other wonderboys havn't we seen fail in the top class? Look at Biaggi as the prime example. God in 250 challenger but never more in the top class. Unless Pedrosa win next year I suspect he will become one of those failures.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Sep 19 2008, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That is a pretty well put paragraph there Jum. You could write a book on this. When put into MOTOGP does that automatically assume best rider, best equipment status? Best equipment, without a doubt. Best riders, no way. And I think thats what you are saying in the second half of your paragraph?? I would like to think that most of the riders in MOTOGP are the best in the world but there are some that are questionable. Hence the threads like, who shouldn't be in MOTOGP, who is losing their rides, whos moving up, Ben spies to motogp, etc. I can't help but wonder if there is a rider out there that may be better than say, Rossi but wasn't given the same chance, didn't have the same connections or opportunites. Not only that MOTOGP is a team sport per say. Would Rossi be where he was if he didn't have JB or the rest of his crew. Would Pedrosa be where he was if he didn't have Puig guiding him along?

It also is obvious that satelite teams since the move to 800cc's are not even close to winning. It's proven that their equipment is not anywhere near the top 4. But the rider in 5th managed to get there on a far inferior bike and inferior tire man. He may even be better than Rossi but hasn'tbeen given the same oppurtunities
I feel that the alice team if they had really decent riders would be easily capeable of topping the podium.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ROCKGOD01 @ Sep 19 2008, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I feel that the alice team if they had really decent riders would be easily capeable of topping the podium.

Many would say the same about the Tech 3 team. Maybe Honda have stretched themselves too thin. Oh my god, hold on

Dorna/Ezy agreed to comply with Honda and move to the 800cc design as long as they would supply at least 6 bikes on the grid. Honda thought that it would be simple, but Ducati showed that they were going to have to put in that much more of an effort. Also, their pneumo engine was a disaster early on. They found themselves running thin in supplying teams and funds for research and are just now showing signs of catching up.

Lex files

Here are a few quotes from the article I thought were interesting:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>In an unprecedented display of unilateral brinksmanship, Alberto Puig, who, in addition to other duties in the employment of both Honda and Dorna, is Pedrosa’s manager, tried to organize a protest among Michelin riders

When Manel Arroyo was asked if this might be a conflict of interest, this was his reply:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Manel Arroyo about Puig’s variety of hats, Arroyo replied, “There is no conflict. Alberto has an office in the Dorna HQ...

Arroyo went on to admit that in the past he himself, on behalf of Dorna, acted as manager for former 500 World Champion Álex Criville

Wow, breathtaking. So when asked if he thinks this is a shady relationship his reply is, nah, nothing strange about Puig’s relationship with Dorna and one of its competitors, look at me, I did the same ...... thing, I helped a Spanish rider while working for the Spanish governing body, (and Spanish sponsor) and I’m not crooked, right? WTF

Ah, what can you say really except laugh.


The quote below reminds me of the sheep waiting for the press release by Honda admitting what the rest of us already knew.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Honda’s politically correct reply to all questions on the subject was to say that the bike was not built for any specific rider, but that it was “a compact bike for compact riders.” Honda even recognized that the bike was smaller than would have been ideal for then reigning World Champion Nicky Hayden.
Yeah, no ..... (Do we sill have any members on board Honda's spin machine?)


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Honda surprised many after the USGP by gifting Japanese MotoGP regular Shinya Nakano with the use of a factory RC212V, identical to that of Dani Pedrosa.
Well Lex, many of us wondered why, but your conspiracy theories aren’t that crazy after-all, eh.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>In my 30 years following Grand Prix racing I don’t remember a factory rider ever speaking out against Michelin the way Pedrosa did after the race, calling them “arrogant” and saying the tires were so bad that he was humiliated.
The sad thing is, they caved into his outburst. This speaks volumes of the state of MotoGP's leadership. (Not to mention the unsportmanship conduct allowed by these prima Danis).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>There is another question that needs to be asked first: do the riders in MotoGP who are calling for a control tire system fully understand that under such a system no special tires will be available for anyone?

MotoGP riders like Valentino Rossi and Dani Pedrosa have become accustomed to demanding tires suited to their styles and preferences.

The author is giving the benefit of the doubt everybody will get the “same” spec tire. I doubt it (my cynical bias side), so perhaps this is reason enough to call for a control tire without giving up any advantage for the who is whos of the sport. After-all, they have been assured by past Ezy/Dorna's behavior that they will continue to get "EXTRA equal" treatment.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Obviously many in the elitist MotoGP paddock will be embarrassed by previous condemnation of single-tire racing, but journalists will remind those who were most outspoken in the past, especially people like Dorna CEO Carmelo Ezpeleta, of the scorn he heaped upon World Superbike for making the change to a single-tire rule.
For years the media have been the lap dogs of the scadalous dealings of Dorna, its refreshing to hear at least one reporter might take them to task. But I seriously doubt those culprits will feel any shame, and who cares really since most of us will continue to accept it as sheep.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Last year, driven by Valentino Rossi’s demands and the need of the championship to have the Italian running at the front, Dorna CEO Carmelo Ezpeleta coerced Bridgestone to provide Rossi with tires, threatening the Japanese giant with a single tire series. In fact, Ezpeleta formulated and presented the proposal but withdrew it when Bridgestone and Michelin bosses agreed to a series of compromises

Several threads have debated what was summarized above. One side of the debaters accepted the above summary as fairly true, while the others denied its very existence, and waited for the press release by Ezy admitting back door deals. Where might that ladder group's motivation denying events as stated above come from?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>We still don’t know all the details of the horse-trading that went on between Dorna and the two tire companies, but the original demand from Dorna was for Bridgestone to supply tires for Dani Pedrosa as well, but apparently not for Nicky Hayden.

Ah, its nice to know they had the former champ’s best interest in mind all the time; NOT, (makes me wonder what other .... was not detected or swept under the rug). We can only speculate what the last two seasons would have looked like had they treated Nicky with the respect a champion deserves (of which only three exist on the current grid.)


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Rossi, unquestionably the most popular motorcycle racer in the world, demanded Bridgestone tires and, through direct intervention by Dorna, got them. Pedrosa, however, was forced by Honda to put his faith in Michelin.

Rossi, however, in spite of enjoying the advantage of being a Bridgestone rider, said that he believed it was time to go to a single tire system. Rossi also favors controlling ECU’s and either eliminating or neutralizing traction control.

Rossi believes that the best formula would be to go back to 990cc and ban traction control. Dorna has the power to impose a control tire system, a ‘commercial’ matter

Well Rossi has reassured some of my faith, though I’m not ready to bestow sainthood on him, but I will give him tempered kudos for a willingness to give up some bit of an advantage over the remaining Michelins rider; two of which would pose a credible threat (Lorenzo and Dovi; keeping in mind Peders, Stoner, and Hayden are now on Bstones anyway). I would also like to see a return of the 990 formula, however, such a move would serve to disrupt the Ducati factory much more than Yamaha & Honda in my opinion. So I would question a bit of motive there. But all things considered, I would welcome such a move.

Why is it that only us Hayden supporters buy into this stuff?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Sep 19 2008, 11:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why is it that only us Hayden supporters buy into this stuff?

Coincedence