The Japanese...

JPSLotus said:

The new fangled, gizmo'd, Yamaha R1 has a hard time handling the Kawasaki, Ducati, and even Fireblade in WSBK.

Regarding Lorenzo, it's because Ducati think differently than Honda.

Listen, bottom line is, you're not winning a title without a quality bike in GP. Does the rider matter in some instances? Sure. But there are very very few riders who have ever mattered as much as, if not more than the bike. Rossi is not one of those truly elite riders as the Ducati stint showed this.

Click to expand...

True, the R1 is struggling more in WSBK than I thought it would. But I cut it some slack because it's the newest bike on the grid.

You're not winning a title without a quality bike or rider in GP. You cannot take a rider from the back of the grid, stick him on Lorenzo's M1, and expect the same amount of wins.

Wasn't it around the time Rossi had switched to Yamaha that he (and Burgess) made the 80/20 claim? Back then, there wasn't as much trick electronics on the bikes so rider skill was even more of a factor. Now the bikes know where they are on track and adjust mapping for each corner.

moto vudu said:

True, the R1 is struggling more in WSBK than I thought it would. But I cut it some slack because it's the newest bike on the grid.

You're not winning a title without a quality bike or rider in GP. You cannot take a rider from the back of the grid, stick him on Lorenzo's M1, and expect the same amount of wins.

Wasn't it around the time Rossi had switched to Yamaha that he (and Burgess) made the 80/20 claim? Back then, there wasn't as much trick electronics on the bikes so rider skill was even more of a factor. Now the bikes know where they are on track and adjust mapping for each corner.

Click to expand...

I don't think the new electronics are that sophisticated, maybe someone knows.
Still takes a great rider to win, no matter how good the bike is.

moto vudu said:

I believe Rossi/Burgess was using the 80/20 ratio when talking about the importance of the rider. If it's only the bike, why did Ducati want Lorenzo and why would the RCV be a failure if it weren't for Marquez?

Click to expand...

It's very much about both, but a rider can make a substantial difference. Look no further than Stoner in comparison to Rossi at Ducati and you have a perfect example.

Cool Blue said:

Maybe Honda just want a focal point in their organization for struggling to achieve perfection and to learn about ALL aspects of that process, including engineering and personal struggle and of course winning. Then they can use the learnings and the example to inspire everybody involved in their value chain and aggressively and continuously develop the culture of their organization.

To me, that's immensely valuable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

True nuff.
But I see them as losing a lot of focus over the last couple of decades. In cars and in bikes. For the road, that is.
Used to do things like the paradigm breaking CBR900 and crazy engines such as the S2000 donk (all those revs and ULEV??).
Now?
Having worked with them a couple of times, I was puzzled by their approach to problem resolution. While I agree that the racing philosophy may provide an overarching company narrative, I never saw it. Just another huge auto company. (Not that I think the race dept has anything much to do with the regular production stuff)

Dr No said:

True nuff.
But I see them as losing a lot of focus over the last couple of decades. In cars and in bikes. For the road, that is.
Used to do things like the paradigm breaking CBR900 and crazy engines such as the S2000 donk (all those revs and ULEV??).
Now?
Having worked with them a couple of times, I was puzzled by their approach to problem resolution. While I agree that the racing philosophy may provide an overarching company narrative, I never saw it. Just another huge auto company. (Not that I think the race dept has anything much to do with the regular production stuff)

Click to expand...

Good post, and I largely agree. Misread it and thought you were referring to the CB900F as opposed to the blade. Actually the CB9 as very much a response to the Z900 and Zthou' - a consequence of the arms race of the seventies even though Kawasaki had traditionally tended to follow Hondas lead and outdo the smaller factory. It also culminated in Kawasaki producing the six pot Z1300 which despite it's dire handling, consumption and reiability was far better looking than the CBX (assuming pipe organ motorcycles are your thing).

I digress. The only thing that I would point out is in respect of your last sentence. In the RC211v project, Honda took the unprecedented decision to do precisely that - merge production with the race department because aside from the military scale campaign in launching the motorcycle, with the move to 4 stroke, the objective was to produce a road going counterpart from the off. Although notionally the initially indomitable V5 was in my opinion one of the greatest racing motorcycles ever produced in reality, behind the mythology, its superiority was down to the scale of the operations, Yamaha and Suzuki producing also rans and a grid half populated by last years defunct to strokes. Because HRC did not have total autonomy the V5 lacked the finer acute adjustment and although forgiving, the sharper refinement and parameters of its thoroughbred prototype predecessors.

As far as I've ascertained, there may have been some consideration of Honda's production techniques in the RCV design. And it was definitely a rather mundane (from a novel-design point of view) design. But from the little I know, the production requirements were guidelines only, informing the design, not constraining it.

Dr No said:

True nuff.

But I see them as losing a lot of focus over the last couple of decades. In cars and in bikes. For the road, that is.

Used to do things like the paradigm breaking CBR900 and crazy engines such as the S2000 donk (all those revs and ULEV??).

Now?

Having worked with them a couple of times, I was puzzled by their approach to problem resolution. While I agree that the racing philosophy may provide an overarching company narrative, I never saw it. Just another huge auto company. (Not that I think the race dept has anything much to do with the regular production stuff)

Click to expand...

Even if it doesn't go in so much maybe it still goes out: in terms of the personality of the brand; it's definitely a focal point for that. I mean, the personalities and politics in MotoGP are always fierce but, from my lay perspective, Honda delivers this pretty well.

I mean, making the machine super stable and easy for Vale to ride is pretty insipid compared to making it a raging beast that is unbeatable IF AND ONLY IF you are a once in a ....... generation precocious genius (cough) Stoner... Marquez....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, in that, you work for Honda, you work for a racing company, it rubs off in one way or another.

Or you could work for say...Toyota. With no image of love for motorsport (aside from a legacy of cheating in WRC and a fruitless F1 campaign)...or GM. Who put bans on motorsport involvement. Had a pissy effort at Le Mans before dumping it.

Dar-bull.

Dr No said:

As far as I've ascertained, there may have been some consideration of Honda's production techniques in the RCV design. And it was definitely a rather mundane (from a novel-design point of view) design. But from the little I know, the production requirements were guidelines only, informing the design, not constraining it.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The point that I'm making is that the project was formidable in size and undertaking resulting in the merging of the departments which was hitherto unheard of. It also followed a very different philosophy, introducing production methodology into a prototype paradigm and the designs upon a road going counterpart certainly had profound implications for this resulting in a series of compromises. The initial feedback from VR and JB was that the RCV lacked the scope of the NSR500 and it was very much attributed to this. The advantage was a 'well mannered' bike and the ultimate in rideability with a smooth linear power delivery that you would expect to contrast with the temperamental peakiness of the strokers.

Remember the infamous NR500? Although their approach to the project as very much a tabula rasa Honda had learnt from those mistakes and very much with marketing in mind wanted to avoid the conflation of too many new and nascent technologies. However, HRC were keen to invoke the earlier concepts of mass centralisation from the V6 FXX experiment which is why Tomoo Shiozaki was chosen as project lead. I remember reading an interview with him in Motorcycle Racer I think in which he felt that onerous production objectives stymied some of the the freedom and creativity - the latitude - of the designers; this being the case it's frightening to think how even more formidable it could have been - particularly in the the hands of VR.

One massive advantage was this simplicity and its comparative ease to work on. Another objective was to provide engines for satellite teams and reliability and durability was paramount. Also, as I recall the injection system was very revolutionary and there was a new pro-link swing arm assembly which was very clever because it was anchored to either end of the shock as opposed to the chassis.

The objective was a race bike that could be easily emasculated for a road going counterpart but although innovative, in so doing traded the complexity and precision adjustment of a prototype for accessibility and all round functionality and user friendliness.

I'll trawl through my back issues and try to find the Shiozaki article when I get home.

JPSLotus said:

Honda is pursuing something on the engineering side with the RCV that is incomprehensible to most fans of GP who buy into the adage of win now, win always. Winning is a byproduct of their engineering exercise. Understanding Honda's philosophy is more important as this is how Honda has done it for as long as they have built grand prix motorcycles. They do not build them with public understanding involved. They've designed some clunkers in the past, but when they get it right, their bikes are unbeatable.

Regarding the mention of Cal Cuntslow, he really is bad enough to crash 4/5 races. Pedrosa hasn't done .... since 2012, not sure why anyone thinks he might be doing something more.

Click to expand...

Don't forget old crash test dummy Cuntslow is so gifted he could teach you a thing or two about doing your own job!

pyeman said:

Don't forget old crash test dummy Cuntslow is so gifted he could teach you a thing or two about doing your own job!

Click to expand...

If only Repsol Honda had seen the unrivaled talent of Cal Crutchlow and signed him instead of re-signing the midget.

Who was it that did that post on Danny? They were bagging him for his contribution and saying if he wasn't in MotoGP he would struggle to get a job as an extra in Star Wars? I think it was a bit mean but ....... funny. Was that one of yours Jums?

Cool Blue said:

Who was it that did that post on Danny? They were bagging him for his contribution and saying if he wasn't in MotoGP he would struggle to get a job as an extra in Star Wars? I think it was a bit mean but ....... funny. Was that one of yours Jums?

Click to expand...

No, it was George Lucas.

I don't condone this but...

Just as a tick works tirelessly to find a suitable position on it’s host, so too Pedrosa worked hard to get to MotoGP. Being Spanish, he enjoyed support and financial backing not available to many other nationalities, but he had both the ability and work ethic to make it. The point is that in the eight years he’s been there, he hasn’t contributed much beyond riding the bike. As a personality, he’s given nothing to the sport the way the likes of Rossi, Edwards, Hayden, Capirossi, etc have over the same period. Pedrosa’s contribution to MotoGP is all about Pedrosa. And without MotoGP, what would Dani Pedrosa be? A motorcycle courier? An author of children’s books? A midget in an Ewok costume in the next Star Wars movie?


http://www.bikeme.tv/index.php/dani-pedrosa-motogps-biggest-parasite/

Lol, he's 8th on the all time GP winners list, hardly a slouch even though his season so far is not great at all. With less injuries he could possibly have had a couple of , I still think he can if the bike can be improved and he stays healthy.

Cool Blue said:

I don't condone this but...

Just as a tick works tirelessly to find a suitable position on it’s host, so too Pedrosa worked hard to get to MotoGP. Being Spanish, he enjoyed support and financial backing not available to many other nationalities, but he had both the ability and work ethic to make it. The point is that in the eight years he’s been there, he hasn’t contributed much beyond riding the bike. As a personality, he’s given nothing to the sport the way the likes of Rossi, Edwards, Hayden, Capirossi, etc have over the same period. Pedrosa’s contribution to MotoGP is all about Pedrosa. And without MotoGP, what would Dani Pedrosa be? A motorcycle courier? An author of children’s books? A midget in an Ewok costume in the next Star Wars movie?


DANI PEDROSA - MOTOGP'S BIGGEST PARASITE - BIKE ME!

Click to expand...

Harsh, but hilarious, and also with some truth.

Only thing is, I would not agree with the author's assertion that Edwards and Capirossi all have somehow given more. Edwards has forever been a worthless sycophantic .... of Rossi's. Capirossi wasn't exactly the most endearing individual. Him being a safety advisor is high comedy.

Found a picture from Dani Pedrosa's recent family reunion.

I'm tagging Loris. Front row, second from left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk