Preziosi resigns from Ducati

By the by... still waiting for a pristine professional sport/league to model MGP after... You'd think with all the bitchin' a certain someone could at least offer up a semi-cohesive essay/white paper on how to reduce/eliminate the favouritism/politics he considers endemic and detrimental to our favourite motorsport...

^ proof that an inept person doesnt know when theyve lost a debate. Breathtaking. Ur last posts were so weak i figured u were happy to run along with tail between legs. Ur of no interest to me Mick because ur debate skills are pathetic. I accept this may not be ur fault.

Debate? I'm surprised you even know the word... since we already determined we are in agreement that MGP is flavoured by favouritism and politics I am curious as to what you think you won.


 


Inept... hmmm, inept would definitely apply to interminable criticism without positing an effectual alternative, and the notion that your rote repetition of known inequalities has garnered the 'attention' of a self-described lower-eschelon MGP journalist (sorry David!) in support of your theory that you are actually doing something other than barking to hear your own voice is laughable.


 


 
<p style="margin-left:0px;I do have pathos for your belief that incessantly repeating a universal truth of modern professional sports on a fan forum is a form of activism though...
<p style="margin-left:0px; 
<p style="margin-left:0px;Anyway, if you've can't produce the cajones and intellect necessary to post a coherent response to my reasonable request to hear your thoughts on changing the status quo of the profit-driven, entertainment-biased, political favouritism of the professional sport milieu, rather than your usual criticism and personal insults, I'm afraid it is you who has his tail between his legs.
<p style="margin-left:0px; 
<p style="margin-left:0px;Carry on yipping my little chihuahua!

Hell, I'm feeling generous this morning... I'm gonna toss ya a little bone to chew on Chloe... 


 


1. Define the broad issue and focus on a specific concern


 


Let's use the phrase 'favouritism' to define our primary issue. The next question would be favouritism to what or whom by whom? Riders? Teams? Manufacturers? Certainly favouritism towards certain riders and teams have been a perceived concern. Favouritism towards certain teams seems to be a non-issue. Let's go with real and/or perceived favouritism towards any individual rider by the organising body as our primary concern.


 


2. Define the goal


 


This is trickier than it sounds. Is the goal to create a TRULY level playing field for all current or potential riders or simply to eliminate real and/or perceived favouritism of individual riders? Let's shoot for a truly level playing field for all riders. This would mean equal access to available seats for all potential riders regardless of race, nationality or financial backing, with minimum bike and rider weight of say 175lbs (if you're tiny then you're gonna have to wear weights - if you're huge deal with it!). If there are 24 seats available then the 24 fastest riders are selected from the pool of applicants by riding identically prepared SATELLITE MGP bikes on the first day of testing. The next 6 fastest riders make up a pool of available riders in case a rider is injured during the season. If a team's rider from the previous season doesn't make the cut - TFB, they gotta hire one of the 24 fastest. Teams then 'draft' their riders from the pool of 24 based on their finishing order from the previous season - one pick per team, twice though the order (might be fun to do it in reverse order - worst team picks first, but I see many potential problems with that...). Theoretically the champion team would would end up with the first and thirteenth fastest riders, second place team with the second and fourteenth and so on. No trading or selling of draft picks allowed. The fastest riders are spread over the top few teams... strong, committed teams are rewarded. Riders base pay would be equal for all 24 riders. Big, clearly defined bonuses for performance - equal for all riders (say $250,000 for race win, $100,000 for second, $50,000 for third...). All new parts and design updates must be made available to each rider on a team (no special bits for special riders). The organising body can only communicate with teams and manufactures directly. Communication between riders and the organising body only through a three person, independent board of stewards. Voila! Talent and skill based level playing field. 


 


3. Define potential problems and solutions


 


The one that jumps out right away is in the marketing and promotion of the sport. Although we've levelled the playing field based on talent and skill we all know that talent and skill come with a rainbow of personalities, some more suited to promo work than others, some just have more of the  je ne sais quoi of stardom. No way to level that...


 


Anyway, though meant as a bone for my so-cal chihuahua, I'm sure you'll all have a go! How would you eliminate favouritism and level the field for riders? What are the issues I missed? Have at it!!

Just thought of another potential problem. National representation... Not many Aussie's would watch if the 24 fastest riders were all Spanish, eh! Not many Spaniards would watch if all the riders were South African... hmmmm.

Don't think it was the riders. 


 


If Dorna, the sponsors, the cash flow is majority Spanish they would never really tolerate a multi year domination by an Australian or American or...whoever. 


 


If there were an Australian company that could toss money at a factory team like Repsol does then it would have been tolerated. 


 


Money talks. 


 


Perfection is each rider arriving with the number of national sponsors supporting him, then it's effectively like buying seats. But winning is good so you buy good riders seats right???? But right now the majority of the cash comes from a few European nations. 


 


Perfection just can't happen, 


 


 


However the worst thing that could happen to motogp is the standardisation of SBK rules over the globe, imagine if the USA picked up and started on the same tech rules as WSBK? Motogp would shrink quicker than Pedrosa's nuts. 

J4rno and other boppers will disagree, but it looks like Ducati did actually do some development based on Rossi's feedback.  Unless Nicky is a bold faced lier.  Which isn't impossible to accuse him of, as I even recently read some article that accused Mother Teresa of not being as "good" as people thought, since, according to the accuser's logic, she could have done more...


 

<p style="margin-left:0px;Question: Is it a little bit easier this year to develop the bike? Are you working a little bit under the radar because you don't have the most popular guy in the sport on the team?
<p style="margin-left:0px; 
<p style="margin-left:0px;HAYDEN: Well, I really feel like we need to move on past the two years with Valentino and we didn't get the results that we wanted. Some of it there was a lot of pressure on the teams and the engineers and at times maybe we tried too hard and tried to make progress too quick. Probably maybe even took a few steps backward without even making any real progress. But then again, it had a lot of benefits. <span style="font-size:14px;When he talked, people listened, and he did get stuff done in a hurry. So I would say it went both ways with us.
<p style="margin-left:0px;http://motomatters.com/interview/2013/03/16/ims_press_release_nicky_hayden_on_ducati.html

Click to expand...

Why disagree, of course Ducati (Preziosi) based the post-2011 development on Rossi. Why hire Rossi if you don't want to listen to him? It doesn't take a genius to understand that... uh Jum?


But now Rossi is gone, Preziosi as well, so they (Gobmeier) are also theoretically free to explore other directions.  But it seems that for the moment they  do not have any new ideas different from Preziosi's. They are actually testing now the upgrades that should have been implemented in 2012 according to Preziosi's plan -- but these upgrades where put in standby during the Audi takeover.


I think firing Preziosi was a mistake. But one way or the other, I really hope Ducati can fight its way back to the podium. 


Go Ducati!  

J4rn0

3459851363701199

Why disagree, of course Ducati (Preziosi) based the post-2011 development on Rossi. Why hire Rossi if you don't want to listen to him? It doesn't take a genius to understand that... uh Jum?


But now Rossi is gone, Preziosi as well, so they (Gobmeier) are also theoretically free to explore other directions.  But it seems that for the moment they  do not have any new ideas different from Preziosi's. They are actually testing now the upgrades that should have been implemented in 2012 according to Preziosi's plan -- but these upgrades where put in standby during the Audi takeover.


I think firing Preziosi was a mistake. But one way or the other, I really hope Ducati can fight its way back to the podium. 


Go Ducati!  

Click to expand...

Agreed

J4rno, this thread must have a truth spell over u or u've come a long way in the right direction on ur takes. Maybe its just the weight lifted from u of no longer having to rationalies' VR performance on the iconic brand, The once realization of a Dream Marriage turned nightmare perhaps has finally wrought a calm in the aftermath of the favorable bail-out divorce court judgement, by the Honorable Judge Carmelo. What ever the reason, suddenly and decidedly u have accepted that Ducati were in fact, making changes for Rossi. I also agree with u that firing Prezi was the wrong thing to do, but honestly, the man suffered enuf. Especially these last two years when the overwhelming, though mistaken, opinion was that Ducati's woes were to be placed squarely on his shoulders (in defense of Rossi).

Now if only u can maintain this truth perspective going forward... Ah, perhaps just a dream.

I always maintained that Rossi was working for Ducati Jum, not the opposite as you insisted... But never mind if you don't get the difference. It's over.

J4rn0

3459851363701199

Why disagree, of course Ducati (Preziosi) based the post-2011 development on Rossi. Why hire Rossi if you don't want to listen to him? It doesn't take a genius to understand that... uh Jum?


But now Rossi is gone, Preziosi as well, so they (Gobmeier) are also theoretically free to explore other directions.  But it seems that for the moment they  do not have any new ideas different from Preziosi's. They are actually testing now the upgrades that should have been implemented in 2012 according to Preziosi's plan -- but these upgrades where put in standby during the Audi takeover.


I think firing Preziosi was a mistake. But one way or the other, I really hope Ducati can fight its way back to the podium. 


Go Ducati!  

Click to expand...

 


Good post.


I hope they start making headway real soon. Motogp needs them competitive.

Rossi still blaming Ducati, Stoner still defending them. From last week at COTA


 


"When you speak with Yamaha and Honda,

but especially with Yamaha, and you say something wrong about the bike,

for the Japanese engineer it is not something bad," Rossi said. "It is

something positive because they understand the way to improve the bike,

and with Ducati this doesn't happen.




"So when you say you have a problem, first the Ducati guys don't

trust you 100 percent. And secondly, they are quite angry because you

say the bike has a problem."




Longtime paddock observers and media whispered last season about

stare-downs between Rossi and former Ducati technical boss Filippo

Preziosi during preseason testing and early in the season. The story has

it that an emotional Rossi often would tell Preziosi about a problem he

felt through his hands, feet and butt on the bike, and

engineer-to-the-core Preziosi coldly would deny such a problem existed

because it didn't show up in the team's telemetry data.




The Preziosi Principle gained moral support from the other side of

the Earth last weekend. Casey Stoner, the only consistent winner on a

Ducati during the MotoGP era, told media while visiting the Australian

Grand Prix Formula One race that Rossi was inflexible in his approach at

Ducati in 2011 and 2012.




Stoner said the unique characteristics of the Ducati, especially the

carbon-fiber chassis from 2009-11, required riders to change their style

to adapt to the bike. It wasn't Ducati's responsibility to change the

bike to suit Rossi, Stoner said.




"His mistake was that he wanted to adapt the bike to his riding style and not vice-versa," Stoner said of Rossi.

"His mistake was that he wanted to adapt the bike to his riding style and not vice-versa," Stoner said of Rossi.


 


Funny because I remember when he first got to Ducati, he said that he would have to adjust his style, but as we could see, he couldn't.  If he was younger he probably could have.  So he was left no choice but to change the bike.  However, didn't Ducati want the bike to become more adaptable like the Yamaha so more riders could be more successful on it?

HEISMAN

346049

However, didn't Ducati want the bike to become more adaptable like the Yamaha so more riders could be more successful on it?

Click to expand...

A common refrain. Is there a quote from Ducati to this effect - pre Valencia 2010, that is?

True.  Pre-2010 most likely not.

HEISMAN

3460701363816073

True.  Pre-2010 most likely not.

Click to expand...

 


Heisman, you caved to my friend Doc N's challenge too easily.  "A common refrain.", haha, this not so subtle suggestion was backed up as much as your statement, that is, not at all.  However, I would contend your point was in fact the case: Ducati did want to make their bike rider adaptable.  If the requirement of proof is by way of an official Ducati press release, then (without the luxury of BJC's favorite pass time perusing wiki) I doubt you find such official pronouncement, that does NOT mean there is plenty of evidence to be sure.  The answer is yes, the general consensus was that Ducati did want to make their more "rider friendly", and it seems they were making progress, as both riders were starting to see some gains in that regard prior to 2010.  The only way to judge this of course was to see how the 'other' rider was doing, as Casey was not a good measure of this "rider friendly" index since he is truly an "alien".  But I would say, Nicky's string of 4ths, was evidence that the direction was toward making the bike "adaptable" for mere mortals.  I'm not going to go digging through exact quotes, but I remember Casey mentioning they went from screamer to bang for precisely this concept of making the bike more 'user friendly'.  And I will say without the aid of googling that it was reported more than once this general concept that the bike was being developed to aid the performance of riders without the birth name Casey Stoner.


 


I read your post earlier, and I wanted to say you made a good point surrounding VR and CS's latest spat.  However....(and you should have known there was going to be a 'however' by me, hahaha, brace yourself, this is going to sting a bit...) what I found most interesting was Rossi's shamelessness of still wanting to discredit Ducati for his awful performance during his two year stint.  I'm actually a bit surprised by it, as knowing how media cunning he is regarding messaging, that one would think he would never want to remind anybody about his horrible record at Ducati, even if it was to place hardly credible blame on the manufacture.  Especially knowing that Ducati revamped the entire project under his direction, turning the bike into a Jap-clone (again, supporting your assertion that Ducati tied to make it more like the Yamaha).  Bottom-line is they actually did to everything VR asked, and quickly to boot (see Nicky's latest interview), and the project still failed.  I wouldn't say he has some balls to cast blame at Ducati as he has done with his latest comments, no sir, that is not 'balsy', that is SHAMELESS.  


 


Sorry dude, I know hes your boy.  I still love you and you're still invited to Austin.   :lol:

Haha I got it man!  Well I agree with both of you.  As I see it, as an Italian, we tend to do things begrudgingly.  For instance,  you may call me to do you a favor, let's say for the 100th time.  I will give you .... during the whole ride and complain, but I will still do it.  In other words, yes the Ducati engineers were probably difficult to work with, but they did try to make the changes as requested.  They just weren't fast enough (because of the whole Audi thing I'm assuming).  


 


Hence why Rossi came back to Yamaha, since he knows he only has a couple of years left in him and doesn't want to spend the next 2 years developing the Duc any further. Personally I'm disappointed he went back to Yamaha, but he put his career first and that's what happened.  It would have bee nice to see a happy medium reached between him and the bike, but that ....'s for fairytales.  


 


Oh man...I so would love to go t Austin, but 2013 is proving to be the bain of my existence.  Hopefully by summer things will be looking up.

I think Rossi put Ducati on the right track after all, but too little too late. Rossi (whose performance has been declining since 2010, even on the Yamaha) never imagined it would take so long, and could never wait another two years. The Audi takeover slowed things down even more. Stoner left when he saw the bike wasn't developed enough, while Honda and Yamaha were improving constantly, and it was becoming too difficult winning against them. Rossi's and JB's real failure was that they misjudged the situation: they thought they could be as fast as Stoner on the Ducati, and then improve from there. But found themselves on a bike that was fast only in the wet, while on the dry it was lagging 4 years behind the competition and needed a major redesign because of rules/tires changes.


We could say Stoner sold them a lemon, by making it look more competitive... 

That was an insightful post... until the last sentence. If winning races isn't competitive, what is?