As if this hasn't been debated on this forum, right? You don't do well with nuance, do you. It’s high-level order thinking, something that is routinely lost with you Talps. You are in no position to demand anything, since its you who have ignored the countless explanations by more eloquent members here than me. But here is for those following the thread. Stoner was the third choice for Ducati in 2007. What does this tell you about his influence on the development of the GP7 and the tires that drove its development? Very near zero. The tire that had been developed in concert by Bridgestone and Ducati was a long road with the plan to develop a tire that worked under a wide range of conditions (I've said this way before this thread). They forewent immediate gratification by giving up results in exchange of developing a tire. (Incidentally, those claiming Lorenzo benefited from the laurels of Rossi development as if it were a crime, and as if this had been completely the case, must recognize that Rossi benefited from years of Bridgestone development that he got in an instant during a fit of demand).
This development resulted in an excellent tire in 2007. This again had zero to do with Stoner. However, in 07, Stoner benefited from this tire that was at the time not exactly head and shoulders above the Michelin, though many have tried to claim this. One need only look to the second race of that season, where the podium had three Michelin riders. So it was still a work in progress (though some would like us to believe the Bstone was some magical silver bullet). Talpas would like to point to the Bstone as the "unfair advantage" but the reality is, it was still a tire developing, if anything was near par. The difference was Stoner's ability to adapt to a tire and motorcycle with fierce success! (Today, any remaining detractors need only look back a few weeks for evidence). It really is amazing that we would need to rehash this for you Talps, but one only need to look at the performance of the other Ducati's to have an idea what made the difference--Stoner. All the Ducati's were fitted with the same Bristones, and they were all on top of the speed trap charts. But only one dominated!
Now here is the meat and potatoes. The question is posed above, was this a consequence of an unfair advantage, similar to those of Rossi. The answer is NO! Stoner did NOT lobby for these changes nor participate in its development (fact); the reverse is true in the advantages that Rossi benefited from. The development of the Saturday-Night-Special was specifically from Rossi’s feedback. It was an exclusive arrangement for top riders, and it was a service that was offered to others at a price that limited its participation. Even then, when others paid, they felt they had not received "the good stuff". So many teams opted out, as they felt it was fixed. This is of historical record how the teams felt, though you will not find it in an official Michelin press release, however, journalist such as Randy Mamola have said as much in his Alpinestar articles.
Now what Talps? How are you going to deny it or not accept the truth? Will you overlook the nuance of one man have no participation in garnering the advantage while the other decidedly lobbied for it? This is not new, I’ve said it before. You just want to have people repeat it to you right? Ok, here it is. Now go on and burry your head in the sand, or twist what I just said.
