The next step for Ducati is an alien

mylexicon said:

Rossi deserves little or no credit for provoking change or fixing Ducati's woes. Anyone who asserts the contrary is just dealing with the bargaining stage of grief.

Click to expand...

OK, you hit it on the head! You're right. Anyway, there's no reason to continue this discussion.

michaelm said:

Given the control tyre and engine rule, where do you think Ducati were going to go? Back to the trellis frame which they already knew was obsolete and would probably also have been problematic with the engine rule? A chassis made out of green cheese perhaps?

Click to expand...

Like I stated before "In my opinion, the program would have begun much later."

michaelm said:

but crediting him with turning Ducati around is stretching things IMO.

Click to expand...

As Budoist opined earlier, and knowing how Italians are, I would have imagined Ducati doing whatever possible to keep away from building an aluminum twinspar frame. They're over 20 years behind the Japanese in that technology, and it's not a battle they would want to enter in. However, that's not a sufficient answer for some people.

HEISMAN said:

As Budoist opined earlier, and knowing how Italians are, I would have imagined Ducati doing whatever possible to keep away from building an aluminum twinspar frame. They're over 20 years behind the Japanese in that technology, and it's not a battle they would want to enter in. However, that's not a sufficient answer for some people.

Click to expand...

Ducati Corse were an artisanal operation which couldn't build 2 trellis frame bikes that were the same, and had no facilities to fabricate aluminium, among the reasons they went CF. If you wish to add that Rossi proved that contracting out chassis manufacture (and possibly design as you say, although that wasn't the story they gave out at the time) to FTR wouldn't work, in addition to proving that the CF chassis couldn't be made into a Yamaha/made to work with the control tyre, you may have a point. No doubt that Valentino and JB not being able to fix the bike despite everything they had achieved elsewhere was a rather strong indication that the problem was intrinsic to Ducati +/- related to regulation changes rather than deficiencies in their riders which was Ducati's previous self justification.

I would give most of any credit due for the current bike to Gigi (who had previously been involved with several successful aluminium twin spar race bikes at Aprilia) and Dovi though, as I have said, given that Gigi has overseen design and Dovi has been the rider consistently involved in development.

michaelm said:

Basically the engine limitation rule severely limited Ducati's capacity to make changes to the chassis in season. Maybe they didn't much anyway, as I think Stoner may have said at one time, but if so this was part of their problem.

Rossi fans have his entire career other than his time at Ducati on which to base their esteem of him, it is the greatest of all time, and he has added to his reputation even further since his return to Yamaha, particularly by his performances this year at age 36, but crediting him with turning Ducati around is stretching things IMO. He essentially decided that Ducati was a bridge too far in the time remaining to him, and decided not unreasonably to return to Yamaha. Gigi has led the design, and Dovi the development, of the current bike.

Click to expand...

IIRC, Ducati introduced the destroked 1000cc engine in 2011. The 1000cc engine was designed for the aluminum frame. The engine freeze didn't take effect until 2014, I think. It seems Ducati were developing quite a bit, but the development wasn't going anywhere. Manufacturing prowess might have been part of the problem. The employees were definitely not working together, either.

mylexicon said:

IIRC, Ducati introduced the destroked 1000cc engine in 2011. The 1000cc engine was designed for the aluminum frame. The engine freeze didn't take effect until 2014, I think. It seems Ducati were developing quite a bit, but the development wasn't going anywhere. Manufacturing prowess might have been part of the problem. The employees were definitely not working together, either.

Click to expand...

I think they started limiting the number of engines per rider and sealing them etc in the latter half of 2009. They might not have got down to 5 per year till 2014.

Heisman may be right, that Ducati went to a conventional chassis a little earlier because of Valentino, but I don't think he had much intention of hanging round to see it through for very long for which I don't blame him given the stage of his career and the re-structuring necessary at Ducati if they were to compete with Honda and Yamaha using a conventional chassis. I think Marlboro man was having a fair influence on how the team was being run as you have said; I guess Ducati were heavily dependent on the Philip Morris money then. I can't think of anything good for which he was responsible, but amazingly for me anyway he has ended up in a major role at Ferrari F1.

michaelm said:

I think they started limiting the number of engines per rider and sealing them etc in the latter half of 2009. They might not have got down to 5 per year till 2014.

Heisman may be right, that Ducati went to a conventional chassis a little earlier because of Valentino, but I don't think he had much intention of hanging round to see it through for very long for which I don't blame him given the stage of his career and the re-structuring necessary at Ducati if they were to compete with Honda and Yamaha using a conventional chassis. I think Marlboro man was having a fair influence on how the team was being run as you have said; I guess Ducati were heavily dependent on the Philip Morris money then. I can't think of anything good for which he was responsible, but amazingly for me anyway he has ended up in a major role at Ferrari F1.

Click to expand...

I heard Marlboro was threatening to yank all of their funding from Ducati if they didn't start building a bike that could be competitive. Not sure how true it is, but I'd guess it has a ring of truth to it, and would explain heavily what the impetus to getting their ducks in order.

michaelm said:

but crediting him with turning Ducati around is stretching things IMO.

Click to expand...

I think that it depends greatly on how you interpret certain things. For example, I rarely see people give Rossi and Burgess enough credit to legitimately say that they were responsible for "turning Ducati around". However there is ample evidence that their input (as a more successful team than Gigi, who you give plenty of credit to) and both the public and corporate pressure applied as a result of the lack of success experienced during their pairing led to the start of a dramatic technological and cultural shift in Ducati that Gigi was able to capitalize on at the start of his tenure.

Case in point:

michaelm said:

Ducati Corse were an artisanal operation which couldn't build 2 trellis frame bikes that were the same, and had no facilities to fabricate aluminium, among the reasons they went CF.

Click to expand...

I am curious as to what their facilities and experience was with carbon fiber prior to that experiment. I don't recall reading anything much about them having vast experience with those dark arts, certainly no more than with aluminum and twin spar. If they had little to no experience with carbon fiber frames prior to this experiment (which is what everything I have read so far would lead me to believe) then you cannot say they went to CF because they didn't have facilities or experience with aluminum because in both cases they had to make a financial and knowledge/time investment in either.

To my mind, the truth lies in your first statement. Ducati's culture was very artisan, and there was a certain amount of corporate pride in being able to do something different and have success. Limited success with the tube trellis bike, and huge success with the desmodromic system that led to the other manufacturers developing their pneumatic systems. With everyone else using aluminum twin spar frames, Ducati was looking for an advantage by thinking outside of the box and all the reports that I read were that they were extremely reluctant to abandon that way of thinking until it became obvious that the (very expensive) Rossi/Burgess-Ducati pairing was going down in flames.

I would give most of any credit due for the current bike to Gigi (who had previously been involved with several successful aluminium twin spar race bikes at Aprilia) and Dovi though, as I have said, given that Gigi has overseen design and Dovi has been the rider consistently involved in development.

Click to expand...

To be fair, I would give most of the credit to Gigi as well. I do find it interesting that you choose to give virtually no credit to the team that forced Ducati to abandon their entrenched position that the frameless carbon fiber concept was the way to go (a position backed up by their most successful rider to date). Without the pressure to change to the twin spar design during the Rossi/Burgess era, it is debatable whether Ducati would even have been looking at Gigi to begin with. As you said, he "had previously been involved with several successful aluminum twin spar race bikes" - but that only made him desirable after Ducati made the technological and cultural shift to an aluminium twin spar design. Once that shift was made, what they needed was someone with the expertise to bring out the most of that program and they had a wide pool to choose from. But I don't think you can under-rate the contribution (and associated level of effort) of getting them to admit that they needed to make that change and then start along that path.

I've throughly enjoyed this discussion gentz. No lazy responses, and all well argued. Good stuff.

HEISMAN said:

You're free to call it whatever you want.

This is what I said though, "he finally spurred Ducati to begin changing the bike in order for it to be where it is now."

Click to expand...

I think in the end the best spin you can put on it is that Rossi failed so miserably to live up to expectations despite all the zillion dollar bandaid fixes and the mad scrambling of Ducati's R&D dept. - that Ducati was so spectacularly embarrassed with the massive failings that they finally got their .... together (after Rossi went back to being competitive on the Yamaha - disallowing Ducati from blaming the failure to podium on Rossi's advanced age) and began to produce something that could begin to get riders to the podium eventually without extra engines or extra gas. Given what a dark time Rossi's misadventure with Ducati was.... I don't know why his the faithful minions keep revisiting it. It reminds me of Shia's on the day of Ashura when they whip themselves with chains to express their grief over how sad they are that Ali doesn't get respect from the rest of the Muslim world... slightly less masochistic than being a Cubs fan.

I know yer all in love with Vale and can't accept it when anyone doesn't praise his every move - but believe me when I say I'm not a hater. It's just that I don't belong to The Church Of Rossi. He is what he is - with all his flaws.

budoist said:

I think that it depends greatly on how you interpret certain things. For example, I rarely see people give Rossi and Burgess enough credit to legitimately say that they were responsible for "turning Ducati around". However there is ample evidence that their input (as a more successful team than Gigi, who you give plenty of credit to) and both the public and corporate pressure applied as a result of the lack of success experienced during their pairing led to the start of a dramatic technological and cultural shift in Ducati that Gigi was able to capitalize on at the start of his tenure.

Click to expand...

Let's look at the stats.

5 seasons before Rossi - 28 wins, 1 rider champ, 1 mfg champ
5 seasons after Rossi - 0 wins, 0 rider champ, 0 mfg champ

Only a vindictive hater could withhold praise for such a stunning turn around. Gigi really lucked out when he inherited Ducati :spin:

Keshav said:

I think in the end the best spin you can put on it is that Rossi failed so miserably to live up to expectations despite all the zillion dollar bandaid fixes and the mad scrambling of Ducati's R&D dept. - that Ducati was so spectacularly embarrassed with the massive failings that they finally got their .... together (after Rossi went back to being competitive on the Yamaha - disallowing Ducati from blaming the failure to podium on Rossi's advanced age) and began to produce something that could begin to get riders to the podium eventually without extra engines or extra gas. Given what a dark time Rossi's misadventure with Ducati was.... I don't know why his the faithful minions keep revisiting it. It reminds me of Shia's on the day of Ashura when they whip themselves with chains to express their grief over how sad they are that Ali doesn't get respect from the rest of the Muslim world... slightly less masochistic than being a Cubs fan.

I know yer all in love with Vale and can't accept it when anyone doesn't praise his every move - but believe me when I say I'm not a hater. It's just that I don't belong to The Church Of Rossi. He is what he is - with all his flaws.

Click to expand...

Oh ok...you're issue is not with Rossi then Good to know. My bad

budoist said:

I think that it depends greatly on how you interpret certain things. For example, I rarely see people give Rossi and Burgess enough credit to legitimately say that they were responsible for "turning Ducati around". However there is ample evidence that their input (as a more successful team than Gigi, who you give plenty of credit to) and both the public and corporate pressure applied as a result of the lack of success experienced during their pairing led to the start of a dramatic technological and cultural shift in Ducati that Gigi was able to capitalize on at the start of his tenure.

Case in point:



I am curious as to what their facilities and experience was with carbon fiber prior to that experiment. I don't recall reading anything much about them having vast experience with those dark arts, certainly no more than with aluminum and twin spar. If they had little to no experience with carbon fiber frames prior to this experiment (which is what everything I have read so far would lead me to believe) then you cannot say they went to CF because they didn't have facilities or experience with aluminum because in both cases they had to make a financial and knowledge/time investment in either.

To my mind, the truth lies in your first statement. Ducati's culture was very artisan, and there was a certain amount of corporate pride in being able to do something different and have success. Limited success with the tube trellis bike, and huge success with the desmodromic system that led to the other manufacturers developing their pneumatic systems. With everyone else using aluminum twin spar frames, Ducati was looking for an advantage by thinking outside of the box and all the reports that I read were that they were extremely reluctant to abandon that way of thinking until it became obvious that the (very expensive) Rossi/Burgess-Ducati pairing was going down in flames.



To be fair, I would give most of the credit to Gigi as well. I do find it interesting that you choose to give virtually no credit to the team that forced Ducati to abandon their entrenched position that the frameless carbon fiber concept was the way to go (a position backed up by their most successful rider to date). Without the pressure to change to the twin spar design during the Rossi/Burgess era, it is debatable whether Ducati would even have been looking at Gigi to begin with. As you said, he "had previously been involved with several successful aluminum twin spar race bikes" - but that only made him desirable after Ducati made the technological and cultural shift to an aluminium twin spar design. Once that shift was made, what they needed was someone with the expertise to bring out the most of that program and they had a wide pool to choose from. But I don't think you can under-rate the contribution (and associated level of effort) of getting them to admit that they needed to make that change and then start along that path.

Click to expand...

This probably isn't worth fighting about, you and Heisman are not denigrating other riders and are I guess entitled to put whatever slant you wish on Valentino's Ducati adventure as pretty well everyone does in regard to their own fandom.

To a non-Rossi fan your argument seems like a strange backwards one though, and my perspective is pretty similar to Keshav's, particularly since when Rossi was at Ducati the efforts made with the aluminium chassis development looked fairly haphazard at best, doubtless significantly related to lack of any history with or expertise in designing/manufacturing conventional aluminium chassis at Ducati then.

My understanding of the CF thing was that they wanted a continuing point of difference as the trellis frame had previously offered (they intended to go CF with their road bike as well if you recall), they thought their best chance of competing was with something radical of their own rather than trying to match the Japanese with their expertise and decades of experience with conventional chassis at their own game, and that they had technical co-operation with Ferrari who did have CF expertise. I think it was also considered easier for a boutique operation to set up in CF rather than aluminium fabrication. Stoner said that the 2009 bike was fine, not the 2010 bike for which they made major changes. The retrospective consensus also seems to be that the control tyre was becoming less and less suited to any radical concept and to Ducati's bikes in particular, and the engine rule basically made the integrated engine concept very problematic as I have said.

I think Valentino did resolve the front end lose problem with the CF bike btw, but then found the bike still wouldn't turn and could not be ridden fast enough to compete with the Japanese bikes.

I don't drink all the Stoner/Ducati koolaid, also btw, no way did Valentino take over a bike competitive for the championship in 2011; the bike had achieved 3 wins and a second in 4 of the last 7 races of 2010 in Stoner's hands, but he also managed 3 dnfs in those 7 races, no way to win a championship as MM is currently demonstrating.

michaelm said:

and are I guess entitled to put whatever slant you wish on Valentino's Ducati adventure as pretty well everyone does in regard to their own fandom.

To a non-Rossi fan your argument seems like a strange backwards one though

Click to expand...

I am curious, what makes you say that I am a Rossi fan? For the most part I've tried to state only what I have been able to read and follow and I try to clearly point out the areas where I make my own inferences. I at no point indicate that I thought Rossi's time at Ducati was anything other than an unmitigated failure (which is why I laugh at lexicon's sarcastic comment, intimating that I think otherwise), so I am not sure what slant is intended.

mylexicon said:

Let's look at the stats.

5 seasons before Rossi - 28 wins, 1 rider champ, 1 mfg champ
5 seasons after Rossi - 0 wins, 0 rider champ, 0 mfg champ

Only a vindictive hater could withhold praise for such a stunning turn around. Gigi really lucked out when he inherited Ducati :spin:

Click to expand...

There was nothing lucky about Gigi's position at Ducati. The most brilliant thing he did in fact, that has led to Ducati's current ability to run at the front within the given rules, was force Ducati to give him the power to gut the entire program and rebuild it as he saw fit. And he did. From what I read he changed the entire culture at Ducati regarding the communication loop from rider to engineer. I seem to recall statements to the fact that Ducati manufacturing engineers weren't even going to the racetrack, and so were either not getting the full story from the pit crews or were dismissing that feedback based on the isolated data that they were able to see. That doesn't happen any more and anyone who was too enmeshed in the old way of doing things was invited to seek employment elsewhere.

If you were to attribute a "luck" statement to what I'm saying, I would say that Ducati was the lucky one; lucky that they had made the switch to an aluminum twin spar chassis that made someone like Gigi an attractive prospect in the first place, and made their project an attractive proposition to someone like Gigi who had some expertise in the field.

My post illustrates that no turn around occurred, and whatever Rossi-Burgess were doing was not particularly useful or results-oriented.

Yet, you still gush about the accomplishments that took place during the blight on Rossi's legacy.

I agree with Kesh. The best you can do is leave it alone, and let it be forgotten.

Interesting reading here.

As it pertains to Ducati and Rossi, what I will say is this, the partnership is not something that can be rationalized into nothing more than a blip on the radar. I've personally felt it is a serious mark against him. Part of the measure of a rider or a driver, is how committed they are to a team. I've always viewed the Ducati adventure as a case where he had no interest in sticking around to try and build something there. Part of the mark of greatness is the willingness to try and build something great. As much as I dislike Michael Schumacher, what he did at Ferrari in the 90s was what Rossi had the opportunity to do at Ducati. Yes he was a bit older than Michael was, 32 to Michael's 27. But in terms of legacy, if he managed to not only redirect the focus of engineering at Ducati, but turned the Desmosedici into a multiple championship winning bike that didn't require Casey Stoner to have success, that would have been in my opinion, an insane legacy to have. Michael is best known for jumping to a team in 1996 that hadn't won a driver's title since 1979, and hadn't won a constructor's title since 1983. He also had the drive and motivation to build something in a team that was much like Ducati by the early 90s; holding onto the belief their legendary V12 engines could deliver championships, pursuing chassis design that was not capable of beating the top teams, all while hampered by that very Italian management structure...oh to say nothing of their chief designer in John Barnard opting to live in England rather than Italy. They put the driver in place along with the technical staff, and they worked their ..... off to build something.

There's a part of me that simply cannot respect that cut and run ..... I can respect his talent, but I question his commitment on some level because of that episode. Yeah I get he didn't want to stick around for a rebuilding project, but he never should have gone there from the get-go if he wasn't interested. I know Rossi is about as driven a competitor as there has ever been in grand prix motorcycle racing, and his legacy has been his main motivator....and he believes winning grands prix is the best way to cement that legacy, but so is building something great at a place like Ducati which was not the well-oiled operation Honda and Yamaha have been for decades. Sure he achieved amazing things with both manufacturers especially with his switch to Yamaha, but that Ducati adventure can't simply be ignored or trivialized as a misstep, and one that happened to set Ducati on the path to redemption even if he didn't stick around.

Maybe that makes me a piece of .... for holding it against him, but I personally can't just look past it and shrug while saying, "Oh well .... happens."

budoist said:

I am curious, what makes you say that I am a Rossi fan? For the most part I've tried to state only what I have been able to read and follow and I try to clearly point out the areas where I make my own inferences. I at no point indicate that I thought Rossi's time at Ducati was anything other than an unmitigated failure (which is why I laugh at lexicon's sarcastic comment, intimating that I think otherwise), so I am not sure what slant is intended.

Click to expand...

Forgive me for making assumptions . OK you are then just a disinterested party making an argument that doesn't stand logical scrutiny.

What proof do you have that the CF chassis was the problem, or to be more precise in what way did Valentino demonstrate that it was the problem, if you want to eliminate any assumptions btw? As I said iirc they fixed the front end lose problem, which was only really a feature of the 2010 bike rather than the 2009 bike anyway, before switching to the aluminium chassis.The turning problem remained with the various Rossi/FTR efforts and wasn't resolved till the current Gigi led re-design.

JPSLotus said:

Interesting reading here.

As it pertains to Ducati and Rossi, what I will say is this, the partnership is not something that can be rationalized into nothing more than a blip on the radar. I've personally felt it is a serious mark against him. Part of the measure of a rider or a driver, is how committed they are to a team. I've always viewed the Ducati adventure as a case where he had no interest in sticking around to try and build something there. Part of the mark of greatness is the willingness to try and build something great. As much as I dislike Michael Schumacher, what he did at Ferrari in the 90s was what Rossi had the opportunity to do at Ducati. Yes he was a bit older than Michael was, 32 to Michael's 27. But in terms of legacy, if he managed to not only redirect the focus of engineering at Ducati, but turned the Desmosedici into a multiple championship winning bike that didn't require Casey Stoner to have success, that would have been in my opinion, an insane legacy to have. Michael is best known for jumping to a team in 1996 that hadn't won a driver's title since 1979, and hadn't won a constructor's title since 1983. He also had the drive and motivation to build something in a team that was much like Ducati by the early 90s; holding onto the belief their legendary V12 engines could deliver championships, pursuing chassis design that was not capable of beating the top teams, all while hampered by that very Italian management structure...oh to say nothing of their chief designer in John Barnard opting to live in England rather than Italy. They put the driver in place along with the technical staff, and they worked their ..... off to build something.

There's a part of me that simply cannot respect that cut and run ..... I can respect his talent, but I question his commitment on some level because of that episode. Yeah I get he didn't want to stick around for a rebuilding project, but he never should have gone there from the get-go if he wasn't interested. I know Rossi is about as driven a competitor as there has ever been in grand prix motorcycle racing, and his legacy has been his main motivator....and he believes winning grands prix is the best way to cement that legacy, but so is building something great at a place like Ducati which was not the well-oiled operation Honda and Yamaha have been for decades. Sure he achieved amazing things with both manufacturers especially with his switch to Yamaha, but that Ducati adventure can't simply be ignored or trivialized as a misstep, and one that happened to set Ducati on the path to redemption even if he didn't stick around.

Maybe that makes me a piece of .... for holding it against him, but I personally can't just look past it and shrug while saying, "Oh well .... happens."

Click to expand...

I don't blame him, he probably realised it would be a 4 year project as it has proved to be (and even so they have yet to win a race despite the concessions, which might be different if he was still there) which would have been difficult to contemplate at his then age, and he also quite reasonably likely had doubts that the fairly ramshackle pre-Audi Ducati operation had the resources to support any efforts he might make. He risked finishing his career in the same fashion as Eddie Lawson did at Cagiva, not that this appears to have affected Eddie's legacy.

Interesting that you bring up Schumacher. Is he responsible for Mercedes' current success because he is a 7 time world champion who drove for them a few years ago with mediocre results?

michaelm said:

I don't blame him, he probably realised it would be a 4 year project as it has proved to be (and even so they have yet to win a race despite the concessions, which might be different if he was still there) which would have been difficult to contemplate at his then age, and he also quite reasonably likely had doubts that the fairly ramshackle pre-Audi Ducati operation had the resources to support any efforts he might make. He risked finishing his career in the same fashion as Eddie Lawson did at Cagiva, not that this appears to have affected Eddie's legacy.

Interesting that you bring up Schumacher. Is he responsible for Mercedes' current success because he is a 7 time world champion who rode for them a few years ago with mediocre results?

Click to expand...

I've heard some rumors from a friend who did a lot of work for Daimler that Schumacher was sandbagging at Mercedes so as to not upset Nico Rosberg who was going to be there longer than he was. He knew he was the old man there, and there was little point in upsetting the apple cart by turning Nico into a basket-case when he realized he couldn't keep up with a 40 year old man.

Also Mercedes success is more down to the fact that Daimler's hybrid know-how was far beyond Renault, Ferrari, and now Honda. They spent over 1 billion Euros to develop that engine in the Mercedes, along with 3 years of lead time.

Keep in mind too that Schumacher going to Mercedes was more of a repayment of sorts to Mercedes for the $100K they paid to put him in the seat of the Jordan 191 at Belgium 1991.

JPSLotus said:

I've heard some rumors from a friend who did a lot of work for Daimler that Schumacher was sandbagging at Mercedes so as to not upset Nico Rosberg who was going to be there longer than he was. He knew he was the old man there, and there was little point in upsetting the apple cart by turning Nico into a basket-case when he realized he couldn't keep up with a 40 year old man.

Also Mercedes success is more down to the fact that Daimler's hybrid know-how was far beyond Renault, Ferrari, and now Honda. They spent over 1 billion Euros to develop that engine in the Mercedes, along with 3 years of lead time.

Keep in mind too that Schumacher going to Mercedes was more of a repayment of sorts to Mercedes for the $100K they paid to put him in the seat of the Jordan 191 at Belgium 1991.

Click to expand...

I am actually a big Schumacher fan myself, and realise that Mercedes have a technological edge, kind of my point in drawing the analogy between the similarly great Schumacher and Rossi, neither of whom has much to do with the current Mercedes F1 car and the current Ducati MotoGP bike respectively IMO.

michaelm said:

I am actually a big Schumacher fan myself, and realise that Mercedes have a technological edge, kind of my point in drawing the analogy between the similarly great Schumacher and Rossi, neither of whom have much to do with the current Mercedes F1 car and the current Ducati MotoGP bike respectively IMO.

Click to expand...

I agree with that.

The current Mercedes W06 and last year's W05 were drastic departures from what Mercedes built from 2010-2013. Mercedes frankly couldn't build a car during that period of 2010-13 because they had a group of morons on the technical side. I still am not quite sure what it is that all of the guys they hired did.

If anyone suggested Schumacher was responsible for the modern iteration, I would laugh at them till I passed out.

To bring it back to Rossi and Ducati, I'm failing to see how the GP15 has anything to do with the 11 and 12 that Rossi rode other than being later versions. I do appreciate what HEISMAN has said, but I don't see Rossi and Burgess as being the impetus for change.