- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
- Location
- Pangea
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
hopefully you'll head back to 27.com permanently, where you belong. He's got a forum too, you can bone without resistence! Imagine
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
- Location
- Pangea
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
- Location
- Pangea
right. All this and up to that point Stoner hadn't won a motogp race at all! Ok then so your opinion, which was a categoric yes
loris crashed on lap seven whilst making massive inroads to the
leaders
Which could well be why he crashed - reminder of a more recent event perhaps
A good and fair assessment
And your assumption is based on the Ducati being rideable for Rossi in that year in terms of engine etc?
See it is about asusmptions so here goes.
See if I understand you correctly from a number of posts over the last few years - Rossi is as near to god on a motorcycle and within the development of a motorcycle as any man, person, dog or cats left nipple has ever been and ever will be.
So, by extension the Yamaha of 2007 having been developed by Rossi inc throughout 2006 should have been a motorcycle par excellence (ok, a slight dramatisation there but it still would have been bloody good). We also now know from comments of Capirossi, Dovioso and seemingly begrudging from Rossi himself that Stoner has a unique style that allows him to exit a corner and re-apply the throttle sooner by getting the bike upright faster, thus improving corner exit drive. So, by extension he on the Yamaha would have been reaching his terminal speed faster than others and therefore had a greater gap down the straight which would have been tougher to catch/pass irrespective of the speed differential of the Ducati.
Further, if the Ducati were able to get past there is real possibility that the nimble handling of the Rossi developed Yamaha would have proven to much for the still under Rossi development Ducati with the unpreferred engine. Certainly Rossi may have been able to fight him off for a few laps but it is my assertion from 2011 year to date that Stoner does have racecraft ability (early days but signs positive) and thus would have utilised it to a degree to compensate for the lower speed down the straight (a speed that would have had less effect given his greater corner exit).
Now, as to the Honda, well IMO it is no dog, and has always had a relatively good engine package in need of the rider to take advantage of it and Stoner having shown propensity to simply get on and go fast would have achieved far more on it at that time.
We could go on and hypothesise all we want but the over-riding fact (and yes it is a fact) is that one will never know as one cannot rewrite history and if we were to ask the riders they would not doubt their abiliity
Gaz
This is the third time I've posted this. In English it means I don't disagree with loris or rossis assesment what part of NO do you not understand?
The puppets definately got it over this one....
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
- Location
- Pangea
So this.......
"And of course I don't disagree with loris or vr's assesment however irrelevent." (nice use of a double negative there BTW)
was your response to a YES or NO question......sorry - my bad.
Well since we FINALLY now have an admission that your answer to the question is NO.......
I can therefore conclude that we have irrefutable evidence that Talpa is full of ....
"And of course I don't disagree with loris or vr's assesment however irrelevent." (nice use of a double negative there BTW)
was your response to a YES or NO question......sorry - my bad.
Well since we FINALLY now have an admission that your answer to the question is NO.......
I can therefore conclude that we have irrefutable evidence that Talpa is full of ....
some good points, however the Yamaha had serious rear traction woes in 2007 with michelins, (and still currently) which would have potentially hampered Stoners ability to pick it up under acceleration as fast as you think he could have.
The Honda was not good into turns in 2007 at all, particularly for Nicky who's issues were all too apparent back then. As Stoners strength is not corner entry this could have proved quite a challenge.....
Rossi is still the best developer out there, unfortunately in pre season 2006 he dropped the ball and spent too much time ....... around in cars. The absence of one furwasawa in 2006-07 was along with michelins corporate woes were probably the most crucial factors in them being caught out back then.
And some arrogance
This comment, and others from some of the proper boners afterwards, kind of sum up where the argument has gone......really off rails.
The original point was made to simply stop using the two debutant ducati seasons as if they are equal....when nobody can really run their gums on that one because they are clearly not equal.
Its not about proving who would have been champ on what bike in what season really....
Its about rossi not currently having the tools that the 2007 bike had.....or maybe a rephrase is in order. Rossi not having the tools over the rest if the grid like the 2007 duc had.
Actually go back to my original argument and you will see that i simply thought he could podium with the extra power the 2007 bike had over the rest.
And in addition to that if you want to bring in 07/08 bridgestones and lack of front end issues then it would have been mickey mouse.....this is something that didnt really need to arise and comes about from over defensive fools always feeling that they need to jump the gun.
But in light of whats currently being argued, the simplest way of coming to a conclusion is this:
Three questions based on the bikes...
1, Was the 2007 ducati engine wise the fastest over its grid, compared to the current duc.......answer yes(or .... yea).
2, Did the 2007 ducati have the best tyres of that time, and an advantage over what the current duc has over the current grid?......answer yes.
3, Did the 2007/2008 ducati have a problem with the front end like the 2010/2011 bikes seem to have.......answer no.
Any other argument about "who is the better rider" is absolutely pointless, because they could be identical riders down to the last strand of dna, and yet taking the above factors onboard....the on track results would differ.
No is the answer BUT......hanging your side of the argument on such things is pointless, let me explain...
Yes rossi may have said that when asked about caseys speed, but i suggest that you get off your pc go fire up one of the many races from 2007/2008 and just watch some of the battles.
Seeing as i watched it just recently, and as its even more pertinent due to the 08 duc not having as much power over its rivals as the 07 bike, Laguna 2008 showed with absolute certainty that what you are saying holds very little weight. Against the 2008 duc at laguna rossi would exit some of the corners clearly faster, yet stoners bike would ALWAYS close the gap before the next corner....AFTER he exited slower. The main reason casey couldnt get past in the end is because rossi was braking late and making masterful use of the racing line.....but the duc power is what really kept him up there when rossi was cornering better at parts of the track, AND braking later.
Dont beleieve me go and watch laguna 08, and try and watch the eurosport coverage and listen to randy mamola comment constantly on this very thing, whilst its actually happening in front of your own eyes.
Thats very telling as the 2008 duc was still the strongest, but by nowhere near as much as in 2007.
So sorry that you thought that your point was all conquering, but it was actually barely worth answering.
The simple fact is that when the duc and yam at laguna in 2008 were cornering at a quite similar speed the power of the duc would make up for any of the exit speed shortcomings of casey. With video proof and a commentary to go along with it.......thats 2008.......so what would 2007 have been like? Well we already know.
You are a bonafied, bonetastic, boney, boner.....better?
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
- Location
- Pangea
It was obvious the Duc had PLENTY of grunt....no argument there!
Yet noted tester Alan Cathcart rated the Duc the third best bike behind the Honda and Yamaha.
Why is that? Do you believe he was incorrect and if so why?
And why was the Factory Ducatis No1 rider Loris Capirossi unable to replicate Stoners results and in fact had difficulty even getting on the podium let alone winning a race (the one race he did win in 2007 at Motegi was a lottery result due to a mid-race rain interruption)
If the bike was so dominant he should have also been dominant right?
No doubt Ducati did a brilliant job with their Bridgestone collaboration and the BS rubber suited Casey but yet again where was Capirossi with the same advantages? And if the BS rubber was so dominant surely Michellin couldnt have gotten 2nd and 3rd in the champioship could they if BS was soooooo good?
All of these are reasonable assertions but far from definitive answers. When you take into consideration what the other Ducati and/or Bridgestone riders were able to achieve it actually infers the opposite of what you are suggesting...so again there are no clear cut or definitive answers to these questions.... just opinions and conjecture.
Catalunya 2007 being a good example....Stoner passed Rossi many times in fast sweeping corners NOT just on the straight due to acceleration advantages of his bike as many have suggested.
BOTH Stoner and Rossi are supremely talented racers....Rossi has the benefit of vast experience to draw upon and has proven time and again he can ride at the limit and make very few mistakes and therefore dominate and secure world championships in much the same way Stoner has proven he is a freak who can extract the absolute maximum performance from any motorcycle and get to warp speed instantly once on track on a bike so far no one else can ride. Both deserve the utmost respect for their talent on two wheels.
Pffff where to start, ok here goes:
You are still flogging a dead horse with this really, what the 2007 riders acheived or didnt acheive is besides the point, as the argument is absolutely not about wether or not stoner deserved the title in 2007 or had the best bike in 2007.
The argument is regarding the 2011 duc solely comapred to the 2007 duc.....i wonder where Alan Cathcart would rate the 2011 duc comapred to the others.
You are talking as if we are comparing the 2007 honda and yamaha vs duc overall. No we are talking about the 2007 ducati package vs the 2011 ducati package....the ONLY time the 2007 yam or honda comes into the picture is when comparing them to what those teams have now. So basically speaking, those teams in that season were a lot weaker than what they currently are.
A more fitting comparison is the 2007 yamaha/honda to the 2011 yamaha/honda.....but this is pointless beyond proving that the ducati in 2007 had less competitive competition than it does now.
Stoner rode the duc when no other rider could in 2007.....however how would the other riders(not just stoner) perform in 2007 if you threw in michelins, front end woes, and no significant power advtange.
This is why its utterly pointless taling about capi, and later on melandri.
Its an obvious fact that the duc is a hard bike to master.....it was then, it is now. BUT then it had more tools over the rest.
Just apply those three facts regarding the 2007/2011 ducs to the other riders.
The simple answer is that bridestone not only suited stoner but also rossi in 2008. As for capi, he didnt get on with the bike full stop, so bridgestones were hardly going to be enough to help him.
I never actually said that BS was "soooooo good" that it alone would elevate capi to victory lol, all i said was that its one fact of three that differentiates the 2007 bike in a positive way from the 2011 bike.
They were good enough to completely take over in the end.
I'd say a little more than reasonable.
Power, rubber, and no obvious front end problems.
Despite what other riders did in 2007, they were not also having to deal with worse rubber, front end woes, and less power.....
However you look at it the 2007 had move positives than the current duc has. Its still a problem bike, its still hard to get results on, but its also not the rocket it was....along with having no great rubber to aid things. Did i also mention the front end?
Of course every bike/rider combo has strong and weak sectors of tracks, but see its kind of missing the point.
If you are putting stoners speed down to cornering alone....then why was his duc always up rossi's backside at every corner even at parts when he clearly exited the previous corners slower than the yamaha at laguna 2008?
One reason: power.
And the margins of power were far less in 2008.
The last part of your post i entirely agree with.
You are still flogging a dead horse with this really, what the 2007 riders acheived or didnt acheive is besides the point, as the argument is absolutely not about wether or not stoner deserved the title in 2007 or had the best bike in 2007.
The argument is regarding the 2011 duc solely comapred to the 2007 duc.....i wonder where Alan Cathcart would rate the 2011 duc comapred to the others.
You are talking as if we are comparing the 2007 honda and yamaha vs duc overall. No we are talking about the 2007 ducati package vs the 2011 ducati package....the ONLY time the 2007 yam or honda comes into the picture is when comparing them to what those teams have now. So basically speaking, those teams in that season were a lot weaker than what they currently are.
A more fitting comparison is the 2007 yamaha/honda to the 2011 yamaha/honda.....but this is pointless beyond proving that the ducati in 2007 had less competitive competition than it does now.
Stoner rode the duc when no other rider could in 2007.....however how would the other riders(not just stoner) perform in 2007 if you threw in michelins, front end woes, and no significant power advtange.
This is why its utterly pointless taling about capi, and later on melandri.
Its an obvious fact that the duc is a hard bike to master.....it was then, it is now. BUT then it had more tools over the rest.
Just apply those three facts regarding the 2007/2011 ducs to the other riders.
The simple answer is that bridestone not only suited stoner but also rossi in 2008. As for capi, he didnt get on with the bike full stop, so bridgestones were hardly going to be enough to help him.
I never actually said that BS was "soooooo good" that it alone would elevate capi to victory lol, all i said was that its one fact of three that differentiates the 2007 bike in a positive way from the 2011 bike.
They were good enough to completely take over in the end.
I'd say a little more than reasonable.
Power, rubber, and no obvious front end problems.
Despite what other riders did in 2007, they were not also having to deal with worse rubber, front end woes, and less power.....
However you look at it the 2007 had move positives than the current duc has. Its still a problem bike, its still hard to get results on, but its also not the rocket it was....along with having no great rubber to aid things. Did i also mention the front end?
Of course every bike/rider combo has strong and weak sectors of tracks, but see its kind of missing the point.
If you are putting stoners speed down to cornering alone....then why was his duc always up rossi's backside at every corner even at parts when he clearly exited the previous corners slower than the yamaha at laguna 2008?
One reason: power.
And the margins of power were far less in 2008.
The last part of your post i entirely agree with.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
- Location
- Pangea
Pffff where to start, ok here goes:
You are still flogging a dead horse with this really, what the 2007 riders acheived or didnt acheive is besides the point, as the argument is absolutely not about wether or not stoner deserved the title in 2007 or had the best bike in 2007.
The argument is regarding the 2011 duc solely comapred to the 2007 duc.....i wonder where Alan Cathcart would rate the 2011 duc comapred to the others.
You are talking as if we are comparing the 2007 honda and yamaha vs duc overall. No we are talking about the 2007 ducati power vs the 2011 ducati power....the ONLY time the 2007 yam or honda comes into the picture is when comparing them to what those teams have now. So basically speaking those teams in that season were a lot weaker than what they currently are against ducati.
A more fitting comparison is the 2007 yamaha/honda to the 2011 yamaha/honda.....but thats all pointless dont you see?
Stoner rode the duc when no other rider could in 2007.....however how would the other riders(not just stoner) perform in 2007 if you threw in michelins, front end woes, and no significant power advtange.
This is why its utterly pointless taling about capi, and later on melandri.
Its an obvious fact that the duc is a hard bike to master, that is not the point.
The simple answer is that bridestone not only suited stoner but also rossi in 2008. As for capi, he didnt get on with the bike full stop, so bridgestones were hardly going to be enough to help him.
I never actually said that BS was "soooooo good" that it alone would elevate capi to victory lol, all i said was that its one fact of three that differentiates the 2007 bike in a positive way from the 2011 bike.
I'd say a littl emore than reasonable.
Power, rubber, and no obvious front end problems.
Despite what other riders did in 2007, they were not also having to deal with worse rubber, front end woes, and less power.....
However you look at it the 2007 had move positives than the current duc has. Its till a problem bike, its still hard to get results on, but its also not the rocket it was....along with having no great rubber to aid things. Did i also mention the front end?
Of course every bike/rider combo has strong and weak sectors of tracks, but see its kind of missing the point.
If you are putting stoners speed down to cornering alone....then why was his duc always up rossi's backside at every corner even at parts when he clearly exited the corners slower than the yamaha in 2008?
One reason power.
And the margins of power were far less in 2008.
The last part of your post i entirely agree with.
My reponse to your entire post (which by the way I have not fully read as I simply cant be ...... - no insult intended its late and I am going to bed) would be to point out the fact that the last 3 world championships have been won by the bike with possibly the weakest engine of the three main protagonists (Honda, Yam, Duc).
The Yamaha has NOT had a dominant powerplant yet has won 2008/2009/2010 and currently leads this years world championship.
This apparent anomaly makes a mockery of your assertion that the bike with the most power will always win. There are innumerable factors needed to win and having the "fastest" or "most powerful" powerplant is NOT a prelude to success as you have alluded to previously.
Goodnight
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Location
- home
Stop interrupting the flow of the thread......we are not going into that crap
Who is 'we'?
'You' brought the crap up, so I'm asking 'you' to go into it. Mind you, so is Arrabiata.
So please, go ahead, explain. Or continue to deflect, ignore and try to weasel your way out.
Or stun us all, grow a pair, and say that it was a dumb thing to say and that you shouldn't have said it.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
- Location
- Pangea
double
My reponse to your entire post (which by the way I have not fully read as I simply cant be ...... - no insult intended its late and I am going to bed) would be to point out the fact that the last 3 world championships have been won by the bike with possibly the weakest engine of the three main protagonists (Honda, Yam, Duc).
The Yamaha has NOT had a dominant powerplant yet has won 2008/2009/2010 and currently leads this years world championship.
This apparent anomaly makes a mockery of your assertion that the bike with the most power will always win. There are innumerable factors needed to win and having the "fastest" or "most powerful" powerplant is NOT a prelude to success as you have alluded to previously.
Goodnight
And we go full circle back to the old handling debate.....which was actually never a debate, as nobody has ever questioned the absolute importance of handling across all bikes.
Why we are still talking about yamaha or honda as title winners is beyond me.
The whole debate is 2007 duc vs 2011 duc.
However in response to that the big difference being that in 2007 the ducati wasnt just more powerful, it was embarrassingly so.
The yamaha is the best handler i dont think anyone can deny this, but it is a FACT that in 2008 they came through with pneumatic valves and improved power.....and it sufficiently closed the gap to alow them to win the title that year......well that and some briilliant individual performances, however without the improved engine see 2007.
And as for the last part your quote:
"This apparent anomaly makes a mockery of your assertion that the bike with the most power will always win."
When did i ever say the bike with the most power will always win? talk about a dramatic twisting of what someone has actually said.....that one takes the biscuit.
How was it dumb when you just admitted to being a boner with your very last post, and in that second proved my categorising of yourself........"think mcfly think."
Why ask such an obvious question for goodness sake.....i sense some kind of rehashed opinion coming thats already been discussed.
No the 2007 obviously wasnt necessarily the best bike, but again(if this is what you are alluding to?) you epically fail to see the point.
It was a better bike than the 2011 duc over the comaparative grids....for proof of this see stoners 2007 results vs stoners 2010 results.
Similar threads
