Nicky?

now hayden is no threat to rossi i can be nice
i dont think we have seen the last of his tallent,he is to good to join the hasbins yet. there is obviously a problem with the bike although i would love to no the difference between the 2 repsol bikes if any. i thinks he has ...... any chance of a high championship place this year but if honda get it right or he defects to say ducati next year he may come back with a bang.
bit of a side note.. i bet gibbers is pissed he had to retire looking at stoners bike. mabe hayden will go for capis ride if he retires at the end of the season.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ May 8 2007, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>now hayden is no threat to rossi i can be nice
i dont think we have seen the last of his tallent,he is to good to join the hasbins yet. there is obviously a problem with the bike although i would love to no the difference between the 2 repsol bikes if any. i thinks he has ...... any chance of a high championship place this year but if honda get it right or he defects to say ducati next year he may come back with a bang.
bit of a side note.. i bet gibbers is pissed he had to retire looking at stoners bike. mabe hayden will go for capis ride if he retires at the end of the season.
Good post Rog. But I don't think Ducati will offer him the ride keeping in mind they like their rider that looks like a 12 year old boy. And as I see it, there are two 12 year old looking boys in 250s doing pretty well.

As far as Sete, man I can only wish he would have come back to win one more. Ooo that would have been so sweet, especially if he would have bested your boy Rossi. But dangerous Stoner took care of that, didn't he...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ May 8 2007, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Good post Rog. But I don't think Ducati will offer him the ride keeping in mind they like their rider that looks like a 12 year old boy. And as I see it, there are two 12 year old looking boys in 250s doing pretty well.

Assuming that Loris retires will Ducati make a specially large effort to get an Italian on board, or just get the best rider they can?

Hayden has a lot of problems:

1. The first problem is well.......#1. He was already catching .... after last season (a shame b/c he would have won Valencia if Valentino didn't fall on his own sword), then he takes the #1 plate and puts it over the 69........not cool.

2. He doesn't ride properly built motorcycles well. AMA superbikes are fast, and poorly set up relatively speaking. The last year of the 990's they were beasts. Late in the race the slid all over the track, they had to be muscled for 20+ laps. The little ones lost pace late in races and the bigger stronger riders lasted the race. Attrition got rid of most of the pretenders who didn't work on fitness.

3. Honda are stupid. After Nicky won Repsol CBR 1000's were selling for MSRP or higher. I admire them for refusing to follow the greenbacks but they don't have much common sense in the Honda paddock. Nicky needs to go to the make that makes the least roadworthy most beastly machine and wrestle it around the track.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ May 8 2007, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Assuming that Loris retires will Ducati make a specially large effort to get an Italian on board, or just get the best rider they can?

i vote Vermy/Stumpy!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ May 9 2007, 01:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Hayden has a lot of problems:

1. The first problem is well.......#1. He was already catching .... after last season (a shame b/c he would have won Valencia if Valentino didn't fall on his own sword), then he takes the #1 plate and puts it over the 69........not cool.

2. He doesn't ride properly built motorcycles well. AMA superbikes are fast, and poorly set up relatively speaking. The last year of the 990's they were beasts. Late in the race the slid all over the track, they had to be muscled for 20+ laps. The little ones lost pace late in races and the bigger stronger riders lasted the race. Attrition got rid of most of the pretenders who didn't work on fitness.

3. Honda are stupid. After Nicky won CBR 1000's were selling for MSRP or higher. I admire them for refusing to follow the greenbacks but they don't have much common sense in the Honda paddock. Nicky needs to go to the make that makes the least roadworthy most beastly machine and wrestle it around the track.

1. It's Hayden's right to have the #1 plate. It's also what Honda wants, and it's totally cool. Personally I think the "Number don't l1e" was stupid as it might backfire, but that's a different storry.

2.1 What has AMA to do with motoGP?
2.2 I think Pedrosa made any suggestion that size matters to shame last year. I saw no sign of him fading at the end.
2.3 It's not like 210 bhp vs 240bhp is not enough to brake loose the tire. The bikes were sliding around more due to inferior traction control.

3.1 I don't know how this works in the US, but here the dealers decide their price. They may or may not be Honda only resellers, but none are directly linked to Honda. But they often have a contract on price into the shop, only regulated by currency changes.
3.2 Hayden need a better bike, not the worst. And what you descibe is the worst. The focus in motorsport for the last 10 years or so, has been driveability, and it has paid off big time. In WRC the package with a 300BHP and a good chassi are much faster than the 700bhp beasts some while ago. They welcome increase in power but not at the cost of drivability. Look at Aprilia's Cube. Powerfull and fast on the straight but hopeless everywhere else.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ May 10 2007, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. It's Hayden's right to have the #1 plate. It's also what Honda wants, and it's totally cool. Personally I think the "Number don't l1e" was stupid as it might backfire, but that's a different storry.

2.1 What has AMA to do with motoGP?
2.2 I think Pedrosa made any suggestion that size matters to shame last year. I saw no sign of him fading at the end.
2.3 It's not like 210 bhp vs 240bhp is not enough to brake loose the tire. The bikes were sliding around more due to inferior traction control.

3.1 I don't know how this works in the US, but here the dealers decide their price. They may or may not be Honda only resellers, but none are directly linked to Honda. But they often have a contract on price into the shop, only regulated by currency changes.
3.2 Hayden need a better bike, not the worst. And what you descibe is the worst. The focus in motorsport for the last 10 years or so, has been driveability, and it has paid off big time. In WRC the package with a 300BHP and a good chassi are much faster than the 700bhp beasts some while ago. They welcome increase in power but not at the cost of drivability. Look at Aprilia's Cube. Powerfull and fast on the straight but hopeless everywhere else.

What does WRC have to do with Motogp? Why doesn't that sound ridiculous when you ask similar questions?

Actually that is a good question in this case, because racing on loose surfaces is entirely different than racing on tarmac. At least in my example I compared motorcycles to motorcycles and tarmac racing to tarmac racing. Oh well, maybe it's related to cultural differences in reasoning.

2.2 You saw no signs of Pedrosa fading. How about the crashes he had late in races when the front end would tuck, because his little baby arms couldn't continue to countersteer til race end. Or the time he torpedoed Nicky because he isn't big enough to sit way back on the seat and keep the tail down under hard braking. Same thing goes for crashey Stoner, he was even worse.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ May 10 2007, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What does WRC have to do with Motogp? Why doesn't that sound ridiculous when you ask similar questions?

Actually that is a good question in this case, because racing on loose surfaces is entirely different than racing on tarmac. At least in my example I compared motorcycles to motorcycles and tarmac racing to tarmac racing. Oh well, maybe it's related to cultural differences in reasoning.

2.2 You saw no signs of Pedrosa fading. How about the crashes he had late in races when the front end would tuck, because his little baby arms couldn't continue to countersteer til race end. Or the time he torpedoed Nicky because he isn't big enough to sit way back on the seat and keep the tail down under hard braking. Same thing goes for crashey Stoner, he was even worse.

I think the comparison was to show how driveability is the key to speed, not just more power. It may be a very different sport but the point holds true.

And Pedrosa's Hayden take out happend right at the start of a race so wouldn't be caused by him fatiguing, so other than that he made what, 1 racing error in Turkey. Thats not bad for a rookie of any size.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ May 10 2007, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think the comparison was to show how driveability is the key to speed, not just more power. It may be a very different sport but the point holds true.

And Pedrosa's Hayden take out happend right at the start of a race so wouldn't be caused by him fatiguing, so other than that he made what, 1 racing error in Turkey. Thats not bad for a rookie of any size.

Just adding to Tom's reply here. As he said, the WRC example was realted to motorsport driveability. I could just as well use the old 2strokes.
Only Doohan could handle the screamer. When Doohan was out of the picture Criville wanted top end, got it, and the bike unhadlable except for Rossi. Drivability is the key to winning. My question came because I didn't see any link between the AMA and motoGP. If it was Hayden once winning there, I think it was a bas one as thats quite a few years ago now. He has had plenty of time to adjust to the refined HRC motoGP bikes by now.

Pedrosas front wheel thing, and casey's is atually the same thing Honda strugle with now. Haydens Bruno bike were much better in that regard, but somhow they got it back this year, even worse. The two rookies couldn't adapt from 250 style heavy front wheel loading racing style, to a washy Honda 990 front. Add to that Pedrosas rather risky way of taking the inside line, and sit back and wait for disaster. But it got nothing to do with they not being able to handle the bike because of size.
Stoners success this year is not about the smaller 800 but rather a bike that fit his style better. A reliable front chassi, and the fantastic stone-front was obviously his recipie for success.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ May 10 2007, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Double post

The comparison between WRC and Motogp was easy to understand but thanks for the clarification. I was being sarcastic because rejecting a reference to AMA superbikes while making a comparison to WRC, is a work of masterful reasoning I will never be fortunate to comprehend.

As far as the driveability of the machine, clearly it is the best way to go fast. All you have to do is look at the bike winning all the races this year. It is the most balanced bike on the grid. It isn't the fastest but it is the nimblest most driveable chassis on the grid

Driveability is a great way to go fast, but not a great way to go fastest.

Would you say the 800's are more or less driveable than the 990's? The answer to that is obvious. Now compare Hayden's and Pedrosa's performance this year. Hayden clearly benefited from a more unruly bike with lots of power that was difficult to ride. As the 990's got more and more beastly, Nicky would have gotten better and better.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ May 11 2007, 05:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As far as the driveability of the machine, clearly it is the best way to go fast. All you have to do is look at the bike winning all the races this year. It is the most balanced bike on the grid. It isn't the fastest but it is the nimblest most driveable chassis on the grid
He he, I saw that comming.
Point taken.
But non the less, the Ducati has allways been hard to handle up to this year, now it is much better and have kept or increased the power advantage. My guess is that they just kept an advantage not increased it, but wastly improved on engine management, traction control and chassi, enabeling the power to come to full use for the first time.
The Ducati has become a lot more driveable and the best prof of that must be crashy himself suddenly the bright shining star.
And finally, who says the Ducati isn't the best there is now even in chassi?
Everyone assume the Yamaha got the best chassi but have anyone tried swaping bikes? Edwards doesn't seem to have much of an advantage in the curves or under braking?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Driveability is a great way to go fast, but not a great way to go fastest.

Would you say the 800's are more or less driveable than the 990's? The answer to that is obvious. Now compare Hayden's and Pedrosa's performance this year. Hayden clearly benefited from a more unruly bike with lots of power that was difficult to ride. As the 990's got more and more beastly, Nicky would have gotten better and better.

But thats where you miss the point, they wouldn't get beastier, the would be tamed much in the same way as the 800. The difference we see today is just as much due to chassi development, engine management with traction control and tire development.
Besides, it's an open question if Hayden would benefit. Among those still on the grid only Rossi and Capirossi have proven the they can tame beasts. Despite less power the first 990s where more of a beast than the last one, with less traction control and ruogher engine electronics. And before that there were the 500s.

I only take exception to using the word "drivability". I would prefer "usability". Yeah it's a stupid semantics issue, but in my mind, the most drivable bike would have 10hp and training wheels.

I agree that usability is extremely important because Ducati didn't have useable power until the FIM made the engines smaller.

I agree also that Ducati does have a good chassis at this time. Those crazy Italians are obsessed with trellis frames. They didn't work with 990's b/c they can't handle the power, but they seem to work fantasticly for the time being. If Ducati don't do more chassis work, they will be slow when the power comes up.

If you leave physics out of the equation the 990's would have gotten easier to ride. The strain put on a person's body by exponential performance growth in the 990 class, outweighed any nice things they could have done to keep you from crashing imo. Top speed and acceleration out of the corners was the name of the game in the 990 class. You have to be a beast to decelearate and countersteer that kind of power. I'm not sure they can put power steering on motorcycles..............yet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ May 12 2007, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I only take exception to using the word "drivability". I would prefer "usability". Yeah it's a stupid semantics issue, but in my mind, the most drivable bike would have 10hp and training wheels.
Call it what ever you like, I just following the standard expression.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I agree also that Ducati does have a good chassis at this time. Those crazy Italians are obsessed with trellis frames. They didn't work with 990's b/c they can't handle the power, but they seem to work fantasticly for the time being. If Ducati don't do more chassis work, they will be slow when the power comes up.

Where's your take on that? The original 990s probably didn't have more power than the 800s and were by far much slower. Why wouldnt the Ducati work then?
This is not at all about trellis strength. They are exactly as strong as you build them and they can easily cope with double the power, with som added weight. If anything the ducati frames are AFAIK made of CrMo steel. That give the frame a very different flex from the Deltabox alu. Alu is a very dead material, small flex and even dampening that. CrMo is more spring like. But bikes need flex and how much and where is one of the huge mysteries in bike constuction. A strongly doubt they couldn't get it right with the 990 because of power, I find it much more likely that they by hard work or coinsidence got it a lot better this time around.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>If you leave physics out of the equation the 990's would have gotten easier to ride. The strain put on a person's body by exponential performance growth in the 990 class, outweighed any nice things they could have done to keep you from crashing imo. Top speed and acceleration out of the corners was the name of the game in the 990 class. You have to be a beast to decelearate and countersteer that kind of power. I'm not sure they can put power steering on motorcycles..............yet.
The power doesn't make it harder to steer, the running mass in the engine does but that's quite constant or even lighter as development goes on.
Power was not the game with the 990.
- Rossi won the title with an underpowered Yamaha.
- Last season saw the smallest differences in power, and that tells me everyone was more or less on the same power because they can hardly use any more. The powering out of turns has from the beginning been limited by grip so no added power will help there until a couple of generations of super rubber are invented.
Same goes for the strain on the person riding the bike. The strain is limited by tire grip, not by engine power. These beasts only use full power at high speed straight forward, and that's not where the riders meet the maximum strain. Braking probably better and harder with the new 800s, resulting in higher maximum strain on the rider than before.

So, to sum it up, the only reason why a 990 would be harder to ride is the added rotation mass, and while it does make a difference, there are limits to how much a difference 190cc does. Adding that the rotational mass would probably be less as development goes on, not more.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ May 12 2007, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I only take exception to using the word "drivability". I would prefer "usability". Yeah it's a stupid semantics issue, but in my mind, the most drivable bike would have 10hp and training wheels.
Call it what ever you like, I just following the standard expression.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I agree that usability is extremely important because Ducati didn't have useable power until the FIM made the engines smaller.

I agree also that Ducati does have a good chassis at this time. Those crazy Italians are obsessed with trellis frames. They didn't work with 990's b/c they can't handle the power, but they seem to work fantasticly for the time being. If Ducati don't do more chassis work, they will be slow when the power comes up.

Where's your take on that? The original 990s probably didn't have more power than the 800s and were by far much slower. Why wouldnt the Ducati work then?
This is not at all about trellis strength. They are exactly as strong as you build them and they can easily cope with double the power, with som added weight. If anything the ducati frames are AFAIK made of CrMo steel. That give the frame a very different flex from the Deltabox alu. Alu is a very dead material, small flex and even dampening that. CrMo is more spring like. But bikes need flex and how much and where is one of the huge mysteries in bike constuction. A strongly doubt they couldn't get it right with the 990 because of power, I find it much more likely that they by hard work or coinsidence got it a lot better this time around.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>If you leave physics out of the equation the 990's would have gotten easier to ride. The strain put on a person's body by exponential performance growth in the 990 class, outweighed any nice things they could have done to keep you from crashing imo. Top speed and acceleration out of the corners was the name of the game in the 990 class. You have to be a beast to decelearate and countersteer that kind of power. I'm not sure they can put power steering on motorcycles..............yet.
The power doesn't make it harder to steer, the running mass in the engine does but that's quite constant or even lighter as development goes on.
Power was not the game with the 990.
- Rossi won the title with an underpowered Yamaha.
- Last season saw the smallest differences in power, and that tells me everyone was more or less on the same power because they can hardly use any more. The powering out of turns has from the beginning been limited by grip so no added power will help there until a couple of generations of super rubber are invented.
Same goes for the strain on the person riding the bike. The strain is limited by tire grip, not by engine power. These beasts only use full power at high speed straight forward, and that's not where the riders meet the maximum strain. Braking probably better and harder with the new 800s, resulting in higher maximum strain on the rider than before.

So, to sum it up, the only reason why a 990 would be harder to ride is the added rotation mass, and while it does make a difference, there are limits to how much a difference 190cc does. Adding that the rotational mass would probably be less as development goes on, not more.

The main reason the 990's were harder to ride will be inferior electronics and different tire construction.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ May 13 2007, 02:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The main reason the 990's were harder to ride will be inferior electronics and different tire construction.

While I do agree I was kind of assuming the continued developement of the 990. If so the electronics and tire development would follow the current 800 development. That leavs rotational mass as the main difference.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ May 13 2007, 01:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>While I do agree I was kind of assuming the continued developement of the 990. If so the electronics and tire development would follow the current 800 development. That leavs rotational mass as the main difference.

well i guess that figures, assuming that the tire and electronic development proceeds at a constant rate. I think there has been a large jump in tire technology which has been allowed due to the reduced power engines giving the tires less stress and heat problems.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ May 13 2007, 04:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>well i guess that figures, assuming that the tire and electronic development proceeds at a constant rate. I think there has been a large jump in tire technology which has been allowed due to the reduced power engines giving the tires less stress and heat problems.

On the other hand the electornics would have had a closer focus if they continued with the 990s.

Just nit picking really. At the bottom line, I don't think Nicky would have any particular advantage on the 990 compared to others, and surly not on the worst beast on the track, witch is close to what he has got now. A slow turning beast with no feel.