Noyes Notebook: Shuhei Nakamoto Interview

mylexicon said:

. Prior to 2008, the company was outspoken about their ambitions to showcase technology by beating Valentino Rossi. However, I believe Bridgestone could have sought Rossi's services as compensation for sacrificing the technologies they had developed for 800cc competition.



I suppose that Rossi's competitive nature, Bridgestone's contingency plans, safety concerns, and Dorna's commercial ambitions probably all contributed to the 2007 tire meetings and Rossi's switch to Bridgestone. If the tire meetings were caused by multiple factions with multiple agendas it would certainly explain why the GPC are nearly as divided on the issue as PS members. However, I have noticed that the line of demarcation on this board tends to depend on pro-Stoner or anti-Stoner factions. The GPC has much stranger bedfellows regarding the tire issue.

Click to expand...

Rossi didn't give Michelin the chance for 2008, he changed jerseys with a speed only bested by the rate at which his loyalty to his long term tyre supplier evaporated.



Rossi can never be fully blamed for the tyre war outcome, nor can he make himself independent to it. For that matter, nor can Dani, Puig, Honda, Yamaha and so on and so forth. I may be mixing my metaphors but the crux of much of our banter is whether it was the goat that broke the camels back.



Given the switch to single tyre supplier in F1, WSBK and so on it was inevitable (I guess)



Apart from riding bikes in dirt is there any world level series of motorcycle racing that still uses multiple tyre manufacturers?

Andy Roo said:

Rossi didn't give Michelin the chance for 2008, he changed jerseys with a speed only bested by the rate at which his loyalty to his long term tyre supplier evaporated.

Click to expand...

Two I'm not getting today Andy... Isn't the point of multiple tyre manufacturers, wait for it.... CHOICE? Do you lambaste Stoner for switching from LCR to Duc? Was that a "loyalty" issue or one of wanting to be on the best kit available? Why would "loyalty" factor into a racers decision regarding (what they believe to be) the best equipment? Michlin's time of SNSs was over and a new era was dawning... Do you really think loyalty had anything to do (or should have anything to do with) with Vale's or Dani's (ultimately correct) decisions?

Mick D said:

Two I'm not getting today Andy... Isn't the point of multiple tyre manufacturers, wait for it.... CHOICE? Do you lambaste Stoner for switching from LCR to Duc? Was that a "loyalty" issue or one of wanting to be on the best kit available? Why would "loyalty" factor into a racers decision regarding (what they believe to be) the best equipment? Michlin's time of SNSs was over and a new era was dawning... Do you really think loyalty had anything to do (or should have anything to do with) with Vale's or Dani's (ultimately correct) decisions?

Click to expand...

I think there was too much haste, a question of individual contracts must be raised (although I have no knowledge of that, purely speculative) and removing the rhetoric from my post the very sudden shift and abandonment of teammates to Michelin (eschewing of some riders) and splitting (walling) of pit garages showed in my opinion that the evolution of the tyre status was not a flow or orderly transition from one situation to the other.



It was driven by a single WC at that time and the offer by Ducati to go to Michelin when everyone else jumped to Bridgestone was in the correct spirit. It was an attempt to not throw the baby (or bibendum) out with the bathwater and keep the ideal of prototype racing and development alive.



It is a feature of motorcycle racing that technologies (like multiple compound tyres) find their way to the market and street far more quickly and cost effectively than on any four wheeled device. Prototype racing has gifted motorcycle riders with some awesome capabilities.



Taking it back to Rossi he has always demanded loyalty and first class treatment, he left Honda because they didn't regard him as highly as he wished to be, in that they sought to attribute their engineering to the many titles and not as much to Rossi's riding. He demanded that he receive inequitable but favourable allocation of equipment in Yamaha and left when Yamaha gave his young teammate equal equipment. Loyalty is social good faith provision that cuts both ways.



It is custom that a rider serves out his contract and then changes either bike or some component in a way that is hopefully polite and definitely planned. Everyone can plan, new equipment and riders can be signed, negotiations take place and so on. The comparing of a rider changing team at expiration of a contract is not comparable to the changing of horses mid stream panic that the Bridgestone stampede was.

Andy Roo said:

Taking it back to Rossi he has always demanded loyalty and first class treatment, he left Honda because they didn't regard him as highly as he wished to be, in that they sought to attribute their engineering to the many titles and not as much to Rossi's riding. He demanded that he receive inequitable but favourable allocation of equipment in Yamaha and left when Yamaha gave his young teammate equal equipment. Loyalty is social good faith provision that cuts both ways.



It is custom that a rider serves out his contract and then changes either bike or some component in a way that is hopefully polite and definitely planned. Everyone can plan, new equipment and riders can be signed, negotiations take place and so on. The comparing of a rider changing team at expiration of a contract is not comparable to the changing of horses mid stream panic that the Bridgestone stampede was.

Click to expand...

Well Andy, Rossi DID wait till his Michelin contract was done. Dani didn't. So no issue for you with Rossi switching, right? The fact that he didn't wait to get the tyres of the future (face it, Michlin was done - their biz model for mgp was well past its best before date, IMHO, and yes I have read all of Lex's posts!!) is hardly a negative for a rider - wanting and using whatever leverage you have (it is OK, to use leverage right? Or is that another no no?). Do we all remember Cal's fits earlier this year regarding brakes and his using his leverage to get Tech Trois to pay for them right, and Cal is hardly a mgp power broker!



As to the Rossi/Honda divorce you cannot change the facts Andy. Rossi was, without out a doubt Honda's highest regarded rider and getting all the benefits that bestows. He did not have an issue with that ( he saved that for his divorce with Yamaha... LOL) His issue was that Honda regarded (and continues to regard) the bike higher that the rider. Not that dissimilar to Casey's dissatisfaction with Ducati before moving to Honda ironically!

mylexicon said:

I think the debate hinges on Rossi's switch to Bridgestone. Sadly, the details of Rossi's switch will probably never be known, nor will the cause of the switch be traced to a single conclusive event.



If Rossi demanded Bridgestone tires to increase his income earning potential following the tax scandal with Italian authorities, I'd say that Casey Stoner was deliberately targeted during the emergency meetings of 2008 b/c Rossi's sole motivation is gaining a competitive advantage on Rossi. However, I think the tire meetings could have been influenced by equally powerful, yet less-biased, demands from other parties. The FIM and Dorna may have had insurance problems regarding the circuit homologation safety specifications, which were rendered inadequate by the rapid increase of cornering speeds. It is also possible that Bridgestone may have done an about face. Prior to 2008, the company was outspoken about their ambitions to showcase technology by beating Valentino Rossi. However, I believe Bridgestone could have sought Rossi's services as compensation for sacrificing the technologies they had developed for 800cc competition.



I suppose that Rossi's competitive nature, Bridgestone's contingency plans, safety concerns, and Dorna's commercial ambitions probably all contributed to the 2007 tire meetings and Rossi's switch to Bridgestone. If the tire meetings were caused by multiple factions with multiple agendas it would certainly explain why the GPC are nearly as divided on the issue as PS members. However, I have noticed that the line of demarcation on this board tends to depend on pro-Stoner or anti-Stoner factions. The GPC has much stranger bedfellows regarding the tire issue.

Click to expand...

No doubt that those convinced of rule changes aimed against stoner are largely stoner fans as I am.



Sure safety concerns are actually serious for all players, including dorna and the msma whatever anyone may think of them in general.



For me it probably got caught up in all the stoner only won because of advantages stuff which I am over now. Stoner himself, not known for his reticence, made no complaint about the tyre changes whilst at ducati, and talk that the control tyre disadvantaged ducati was mainly or wholly after he left, as I recall.



I am sure valentino doesn't mind money and may have been keen to make more after the tax thing, but I think his main motive was to win as many more races and titles as he could in the shortening time he had left, and probably to surpass agostini's total win and premier class championship tallies. He didn't need to do this, and it probably still won't matter in the long term if he doesn't.

Mick D said:

Well Andy, Rossi DID wait till his Michelin contract was done. Dani didn't. So no issue for you with Rossi switching, right? The fact that he didn't wait to get the tyres of the future (face it, Michlin was done - their biz model for mgp was well past its best before date, IMHO, and yes I have read all of Lex's posts!!) is hardly a negative for a rider - wanting and using whatever leverage you have (it is OK, to use leverage right? Or is that another no no?). Do we all remember Cal's fits earlier this year regarding brakes and his using his leverage to get Tech Trois to pay for them right, and Cal is hardly a mgp power broker!



As to the Rossi/Honda divorce you cannot change the facts Andy. Rossi was, without out a doubt Honda's highest regarded rider and getting all the benefits that bestows. He did not have an issue with that ( he saved that for his divorce with Yamaha... LOL) His issue was that Honda regarded (and continues to regard) the bike higher that the rider. Not that dissimilar to Casey's dissatisfaction with Ducati before moving to Honda ironically!

Click to expand...

Never had an issue with rossi switching, it was at year's end as you say, pedrosa/puig switching midseason is what killed michelin, who may have died anyway. Taking ducati's tyre away after years of development if that is what happened I saw as unfair, but as lex says other considerations could have applied. Lex's original argument if I recall was that stoner's dominant win at qatar 2008 was a precipitant though.

Mick D said:

Well Andy, Rossi DID wait till his Michelin contract was done. Dani didn't. So no issue for you with Rossi switching, right? The fact that he didn't wait to get the tyres of the future (face it, Michlin was done - their biz model for mgp was well past its best before date, IMHO, and yes I have read all of Lex's posts!!) is hardly a negative for a rider - wanting and using whatever leverage you have (it is OK, to use leverage right? Or is that another no no?). Do we all remember Cal's fits earlier this year regarding brakes and his using his leverage to get Tech Trois to pay for them right, and Cal is hardly a mgp power broker!



As to the Rossi/Honda divorce you cannot change the facts Andy. Rossi was, without out a doubt Honda's highest regarded rider and getting all the benefits that bestows. He did not have an issue with that ( he saved that for his divorce with Yamaha... LOL) His issue was that Honda regarded (and continues to regard) the bike higher that the rider. Not that dissimilar to Casey's dissatisfaction with Ducati before moving to Honda ironically!

Click to expand...

Well argued. Crow can be sauced a number of ways...it's a bit chewy though, I do have a couple of howevers though...



Didn't know Valentino was done with his Michelin contract!!! I live and learn. It did lead to the ridiculous pit separation and the demeaning of the sport in my opinion. I think that it was expected but not written that Rossi would continue on with Michelin.



In fact my recollection at the time is that Bridgestone didn't want to supply any more riders, as they were happy with the Ducati win and there was some Dorna coercion to fit Valentino and then ultimately Dani.



I have previously posted that the years that Ducati worked with Bridgestone created a proprietary environment and belief for Bridgestone and Ducati, and that Bridgestone were effectively threatened with Michelin being the control tyre as soon as they won one world championship. This is and was an unfair reaction and there is a difference between leverage and blackmail. They are both essentially the same thing, just a question of severity and ethics differs. Bridgestone didn't want to replace Michelin, they wanted to beat them.



If Bridgestone had dug their heels in we would have a Michelin control tyre and the SNS would be with us and the way of the world. There would be no question of Lex's theories (as logical as they are) because Bridgestone would have been shunted out.



And that uncertainty is one of the reasons for the Suzuki Kawasaki withdrawal and it did kill Michelins involvement.



Cast your memory back, we all should be able to remember that Bridgestone didn't want to supply additional teams and riders. Skullduggery there.

B-stone may well have only wanted to supply Ducati BUT... I believe the rule for tyre manufacturers at the time was that if they were supplying one rider or team or whatever, they HAD to haver the resources to supply the entire grid. Bridgestone really did NOT have the choice of being an exclusive supplier to Ducati, once they joined the game they had to supply whoever asked for the tyres (contract dependant of course - except for Dani...).

But until that time no tyre manufacturer had to supply the whole grid. Michelin could supply fantastic tyres but there was never any obligation imposed on them to give their SNS tyres to every rider. Dunlop likewise were still in the fray at that time, did anyone realistically think that they would be asked to supply the whole grid?



The tyres were competitive until Bridgestone won.



After this the competition between the tyre manufacturers was stopped by Dorna. Cui Bono? Who gains?



Despite the contractual nature imposed on Bridgestone it looked like a safety clause for Dorna as there was no precedent whatsoever for this to happen other than words on a page somewhere, words that did not come to fruition until '07 '08. Why did this highly irregular and unusual act occur?



They may have been using one of Lex's analogies in freefall, but the decision to pull the ripcord was to the benefit of just a few, and was deeply unorthodox based on historical precedent.



We may never know the facts, and even those close to the action such as David are just offering analysis (opinion) as we are based on what (they) we see. We all have a different answer, I see the irregularities and change in position against the previously favoured open competition between the tyre manufacturers as evidence of some coercion and favouritism.

Why did this highly unusual and irregular event occur?



I believe the nature of the 800 cc formula dictated one line, or corner speed centrices, which in turn killed tyre wars. Bstone won the first 800 championship, after a season the riders knew the future of the sport was corner speed - Bstone obviously provided that, Casey's incredible season and championship attested to that, so everyone wants the greener grass, as it were!! Once the top three at the time, Casey, Vale and Dani were on the stones everyone was gonna want 'em. We can do this all day and night Andy, I can explain any of the recent events in mgp without Machiavellian conspiracies!!

Mick D said:

Why did this highly unusual and irregular event occur?



I believe the nature of the 800 cc formula dictated one line, or corner speed centrices, which in turn killed tyre wars. Bstone won the first 800 championship, after a season the riders knew the future of the sport was corner speed - Bstone obviously provided that, Casey's incredible season and championship attested to that, so everyone wants the greener grass, as it were!! Once the top three at the time, Casey, Vale and Dani were on the stones everyone was gonna want 'em. We can do this all day and night Andy, I can explain any of the recent events in mgp without Machiavellian conspiracies!!

Click to expand...

Not sure stoner really rode corner speed in 2007 though.



No doubt bridgestones were the better tyre overall in 2007, if not at all tracks. Rossi I think complained of tyre durability issues among other things. I don't remember bridgestone's dominance being anticipated though, the michelin having been the tyre to have for quite some years. One view was that bridgestone were accustomed to making tyres suited to a variety of tracks, while michelin had been making sns tyres tailored to individual tracks for their main customers, and didn't or couldn't make a multi-purpose tyre in the non-sns paradigm which started at the same time as the 800 formula.



The crux of the thing was that the ducati was co-developed with a high tech multi-compound tyre which obviously particularly suited stoner who famously couldn't ride the michelin front for lcr in 2006, or the michelins he was given anyway, and this tyre was removed with the advent of the control tyre and perhaps before, with the benefit of hindsight possibly for reasons (safety/limiting speed, cost etc) other than stopping stoner as lex has said. As a stoner fan it looked a little fishy at the time.

michaelm said:

Not sure stoner really rode corner speed in 2007

Click to expand...

Casey was deceptive that way... Because of the unique riding style demanded by the Duc and Casey's own unique, almost incomprehensible talent nobody really noticed that Casey gave nothing away mid corner despite his ability to enter and exit corners in a way no else could with the hard carcass stones.

All this says is: bring back the tyre wars. All this chatter about technology killing the game. Yet it's all that's yabbered about...spec series . w00t

The contract with the tyre supply was not between Rossi and Michelin it was between Yamaha and Michelin. Rossi may have had personal sponsorship but that is a different issue. If the contract between Yamaha and Michelin was finished then why was Lorenzo left on Michelins in 2008?

Mick D said:

Casey was deceptive that way... Because of the unique riding style demanded by the Duc and Casey's own unique, almost incomprehensible talent nobody really noticed that Casey gave nothing away mid corner despite his ability to enter and exit corners in a way no else could with the hard carcass stones.

Click to expand...

Sure, that was the whole thing, he got the thing through the corners rapidly enough by his unique method to utilise the straight line performance. Not sure you would call it classic cornerspeed riding though, but am prepared to bow to greater knowledge; some including jb and rossi suggest he proceeded by basically nearly crashing in every corner then saving it .

Jumkie said:

Nakamoto is still pissed with the single tire supplier (gifted for the benefit of Rossi). However, I still don't like the reason given to go back to a tire war. He recalls satellite rider Tamada wining in Rio, and as he mentioned it I was reminded of Elias wining in Estoril. I don't think this makes a good case to go with a tire war when some riders are going to get some advantage of tires that other riders will not get given the propensity of the sport to favor only the darlings.

Click to expand...

I've read a bit on here recently about people describing the series as a fix and akin to WWF, that there aren't prototypes and that the racing is boring, but the one thing that (the very, very experienced and motivated) Nakamoto says is needed, you throw out as being unfair and only applicable to 'the darlings'.



It's always going to be the way. He said himself that the satellite teams don't get the support that the factory riders do. It is no different with 'factory' tyres.



In my very less knowledgeable and simpleton world, he speaks a lot of sense. Michelin went through a rough patch, Carmelo's pet project whined and they ...... up the tyre rules.



They could bring back competition with some ground rules - all tyres are pulled from the trucks by an independent (Loris?) authority, tyres alloted to teams by lot.



I wonder how Michelin's road bike tyre sales have faired since they pulled out? I haven't bought any for nearly a decade, but then I don't own a Guzzi any more

Mick D said:

Well Andy, Rossi DID wait till his Michelin contract was done. Dani didn't. So no issue for you with Rossi switching, right?

Click to expand...

Rossi had a contract with Michelin? The contract was up?



Rossi was mid contract with Yamaha, Yamaha were mid contract with Michelin. Neither contract was up.



This must be one of those choose your reality Matrix moments.







Take the blue pill, wake up from the dream to see Motogp for what it really is. Take the red pill, believe whatever you want to believe in the 9 times dreamworld. Actually one of the pills should be yellow.



My memory of that time was Rossi demanded the advantages that Ducati, Suzuki and Kawasaki had worked hard to achieve and deserved to keep. Not only that, when Yamaha refused to break contract Rossi went to his pimp Ezpeleta and threatened to run off to F1 unless he got BS.



The tire war was part of choosing your ride. It would have been very admirable if Rossi had chosen to ride Suzuki with Brdgestone and beaten Stoner fair and square.

mylexicon said:

If you're Dorna, and you're planning to give Rossi Bridgestone tires, why would you get rid of Stoner's spec? If they were trying to handicap Stoner, they would also have handicapped Rossi in the process.



Maybe it's wishful thinking, but no matter how many times I dissect the situation, the tire changes are more profound than cutting into Stoner's lead. Whatever they did convinced Dunlop that MotoGP wasn't worth the investment anymore, and it convinced Bridgestone that optimum contact patch technology needed to arrive in MotoGP.

Click to expand...

Sure, I accepted your argument, was just saying that at the time emotions ran high.



I actually think most of dorna's decisions are well meaning, just that the law of unintended consequences has often operated. I think you argued at the time that the "hypothetical" tyre change in 2008 was in preparation for the control tyre the following year, a decision which was probably made very early and may not have been directed at stoner at all, although his dominance with a perceived bike and tyre advantage may have encouraged the control tyre with the aim of a more level playing field if that was one of the motives. They had also already abolished sns tyres for 2007, certainly not aimed at hindering stoner or helping rossi.



Safety and cost saving reasons easily also could have been involved, although they have only got on to the real cost problem now which is technology other than tyres; the control tyre led to more expenditure on other technology and appeared to increase yamaha's and honda's advantage which I am sure was not the intent. F1 also had a control tyre, and following that lead could have been another reason.