Friz, take a deep breath -- what I was comparing was the improvement of the fastest Yamaha (Lorenzo 1.2 seconds faster than himself) against the improvement of the fastest Ducati (Rossi 1.6 seconds faster than Stoner last year).
The point was if Rossi was trying hard enough, and if the Ducati has improved or gone backwards. The numbers tells us that Vale is trying hard enough and that the Ducati has improved, although not enough to stay with Honda and Yamaha. Period.
All the rest is the usual nonsense. I'm trying to discuss data precisely to stay away from that.BTW I did mention the resurfaced track -- it was the same this year both for Lorenzo-Yamaha and for Rossi-Ducati, wasn't it -- so the comparison automatically takes the track variable into account.
I'm quite calm J4rn0. Thanks for your concern.
Your data is flawed & you know it. You looked for data that would suit your argument but ignored any other logic that went against it.
I just gave you a very valid argument as to your flawed logic regarding past years times.
According to your own data, Stoner would have finished over 30 seconds behind Rossi on last years bike. I say poppy .....
I also say poppy .... to last years bike being over 30 seconds slower over race distance than the new bike around Mugello.
If they had found 1.6 seconds per lap from last years bike they would have won their home GP in a canter.
The results are the only thing that counts. Right now they are nowhere.
Edit - Most of the riders in Mondays test are also 6 tenths to one second faster than they were in Sundays race & 6 or 7 tenths faster than they were in qualifying.
If you can't see how flawed your argument is, then it's because you refuse to.