Pedrosa improves on first outing on B-stones

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mumu37 @ Sep 3 2008, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>.. Why no, "we cannot supply additional riders in the grid as we are at our maximum capacity, but we make exception because we were forced too" or something like "having Dani on board will give us more data so we can kick Michelin out of the sport for good" or something...

I think its because this split has been handled better than last years. Things will run smoother if you don't feed the press.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Sep 3 2008, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I understand that you think the media "were blowing it out of proportion and made a load of guesses as to what was said" with regards to Rossi's tyre change. But what i am asking you is, why do you believe that when Dani changed tyres they decided not to do these things? Why would they give him a break, he is the second most covered rider on the grid, the main hope of a major nation in the sport, and a reputation as the enemy. Why would the media not take the same approach to reporting Dani's tyre change as they did Rossi's and as they do to every other story they can get their hands on.

Now that's a completly different discussion than what I brought up. The media focus were a lot heavier with Rossi, that was my point.
As to why, there are several reasons:
- Pedrosa is not as popular, by a margine.
- It all happened faster
- More openness in the process as Repsol came out and said they were the catalyzer in the process.

So, if you want me to say it was handleled better, I have no problem with that. Not very strange really, considering the circus last time. A main reason for better handling, was the Repsol and HRC fully supported Dani this time. Two of the most powerfull parts in MotoGP not only gave their full support but even felt they owed him for last time around when they turned down his request. Rossi didn't have that kind of support. Not in power and not as willingly. That made last year's process more difficult and opened for more speculations.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Sep 3 2008, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Now that's a completly different discussion than what I brought up. The media focus were a lot heavier with Rossi, that was my point.
As to why, there are several reasons:
- Pedrosa is not as popular, by a margine.
- It all happened faster
- More openness in the process as Repsol came out and said they were the catalyzer in the process.

So, if you want me to say it was handleled better, I have no problem with that. Not very strange really, considering the circus last time. A main reason for better handling, was the Repsol and HRC fully supported Dani this time. Two of the most powerfull parts in MotoGP not only gave their full support but even felt they owed him for last time around when they turned down his request. Rossi didn't have that kind of support. Not in power and not as willingly. That made last year's process more difficult and opened for more speculations.

So we agree afterall, lovely

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mumu37 @ Sep 3 2008, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I can't seem to find any press release from Bridgestone since the move... All we have reported is that Dani was fast on practice, Repsol claimed responsibility for the switch, and that apparently, Dani was thankful to Michelin and they parted in 'good terms' ... Why no, "we cannot supply additional riders in the grid as we are at our maximum capacity, but we make exception because we were forced too" or something like "having Dani on board will give us more data so we can kick Michelin out of the sport for good" or something...
well you know what honda are like with there contracts, theres probably a clause forbidding bridgstone from saying anything at this stage like there rider contracts.