Valentino Rossi

Geonerd said:

Agree. The engine is about the only thing that hasn't been radically changed, so that's what Flossi and the Boppers have come to fixate on.



IMO, screwing with the V angle will not affect a significant change in the engine's center of mass, rotational characteristics, etc. Barry's linear gyroscopic force that supposedly inhibits the bike from turning is 100% mythical. (Even on an 'L' twin, pistons move forward, pistons move back. Net gain ZERO. With a 4 pot V, you can have them going in opposite directions, so that they completely cancel each other.) As you point out, Honda and Yam are running wildly different engine layouts, and neither company has trouble making the bike work.



IMO, the chassis is fundamentally broken, and no one, not even the self-anointed Setup Gods, have a frigging clue what to do about it.

Click to expand...

The forces don't just cancel each other out, not even in the twin engine do they cancel out, plus there is a crankshaft spinning in the bike. Ever hear of torque steer? I've put both formulas on here before but I wont bother to do it again if people are only going to speculate about what happens in an engine. The balance that the rest of the world is talking about has nothing to do with engine internals and everything to do with balance of the bike and the geometry they can use in the chassis. They didn't build a long bike because they felt like it, they did it because that engine layout takes up a lot of space. The number one complaint about the bike has been that the front and rear of the bike can't work together because the bike isn't balanced. Suzuki already went through this in GP. If the rest of the grid was still playing old school point and shoot the duc would be fine, but the big bikes don't need to be ridden like that anymore and it's no longer the fastest way round the track. It doesn't matter what kind of tires you put on the Duc it will never be as agile as the honda and yamaha until they make it shorter. Go ride a bike with an extended swingarm and check it out for yourself, if you want to dismiss that than you can easily go look up the wheelbases for the bikes and see that they have shrunk, even with the switch back to 1000 they are running the same small wheelbase of the 800 era.

hawkdriver said:

The forces don't just cancel each other out, not even in the twin engine do they cancel out, plus there is a crankshaft spinning in the bike. Ever hear of torque steer? I've put both formulas on here before but I wont bother to do it again if people are only going to speculate about what happens in an engine. The balance that the rest of the world is talking about has nothing to do with engine internals and everything to do with balance of the bike and the geometry they can use in the chassis. They didn't build a long bike because they felt like it, they did it because that engine layout takes up a lot of space. The number one complaint about the bike has been that the front and rear of the bike can't work together because the bike isn't balanced. Suzuki already went through this in GP. If the rest of the grid was still playing old school point and shoot the duc would be fine, but the big bikes don't need to be ridden like that anymore and it's no longer the fastest way round the track. It doesn't matter what kind of tires you put on the Duc it will never be as agile as the honda and yamaha until they make it shorter. Go ride a bike with an extended swingarm and check it out for yourself, if you want to dismiss that than you can easily go look up the wheelbases for the bikes and see that they have shrunk, even with the switch back to 1000 they are running the same small wheelbase of the 800 era.

Click to expand...

Besides this current Ducati and Suzuki, there have been othe 90 degree V4's that have been agile no? The RC30 and 45

hawkdriver said:

The forces don't just cancel each other out, not even in the twin engine do they cancel out, plus there is a crankshaft spinning in the bike. Ever hear of torque steer? I've put both formulas on here before but I wont bother to do it again if people are only going to speculate about what happens in an engine. The balance that the rest of the world is talking about has nothing to do with engine internals and everything to do with balance of the bike and the geometry they can use in the chassis. They didn't build a long bike because they felt like it, they did it because that engine layout takes up a lot of space. The number one complaint about the bike has been that the front and rear of the bike can't work together because the bike isn't balanced. Suzuki already went through this in GP. If the rest of the grid was still playing old school point and shoot the duc would be fine, but the big bikes don't need to be ridden like that anymore and it's no longer the fastest way round the track. It doesn't matter what kind of tires you put on the Duc it will never be as agile as the honda and yamaha until they make it shorter. Go ride a bike with an extended swingarm and check it out for yourself, if you want to dismiss that than you can easily go look up the wheelbases for the bikes and see that they have shrunk, even with the switch back to 1000 they are running the same small wheelbase of the 800 era.

Click to expand...

I had in mind the Coriolis forces that supposedly arise from having the front two pistons zipping forward and back (as opposed to up and down.) Some, such as Barry the Sheepshagger, have argued that this effect inhibits the bike's yaw motion. Further, this notion has, to some degree, become folded into the general 'demand' for a new engine layout. I was thinking about it the other day and realized that any rotational momentum stolen by an advancing piston would be given back a few milliseconds later.



The gyro effects generated by the various spinning parts are well known and very real.

Jumkie said:

Furusawa praising Rossi, now that is news. Oh he is too good for Ducati. Wow, talk about spin. Ah yes, he is telling them exactly what is wrong with the bike, the only problem is he is speaking in Jiberish (I'm trying to be funny here, perhaps unsuccessfully), and none of the stupid engineers speak that language. Dumb ... engineers!

Click to expand...

I don't know that this is an argument. You're implying that Furusawa (one of the greatest minds in the modern era of GP racing) is not being sincere, but you have no evidence or information to suggest that's the case.



You said his development skills were weak. Furusawa, one of the greatest engineers in GP history, suggests his development skills are excellent. He directly contradicts your claim, so either you're wrong or he's wrong. You claim Furusawa is wrong or lying, without citing any evidence - it's like that, just because you say so. Furusawa is wrong because he has a close personal relationship with Rossi. That's a weak argument because...



"Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".

The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it."





Listen mate, it won't reflect on you poorly if you admit that you were off-base in your criticism. A wise man is one who recognises when he's wrong.

Jumkie said:

Well good sir, I base it on VRs stint at Ducati.

Click to expand...

But I've already discussed that in my previous post. You didn't address any of my points.

Jumkie said:

You can start by breaking down all the articles that have reported THE RADICAL changes they have made.

Click to expand...

Radical, but ineffective. Rossi has commented that the astonishing thing about all Ducati is that every single chassis change (aluminium twin spar, frameless[carbon or aluminium]) didn't change the essential understeering character of the bike. He said despite these changes, the consistent thing was the understeer. Clearly, the solution by the engineers' to the rider's feedback has not been effective. Rossi is not an engineer and is not competent to consider frame dimensions, stiffness and material.



Whether or not the changes were radical or not has no bearing. It merely suggests that Ducati are working hard to fix the problem. It doesn't suggest that the solutions were correct.

mad mick said:

Rossi had his day. He has tasted success and achieved everything that can be achieved in the sport. But he can't let go. His fans can't let go. No disrespect to him and his achievements, but hanging around longer is gonna hurt him more. It's not like he is sitting in a comfy car cockpit - he has to throw a bike around, and he is starting to look crippled on that bike. Next year the young Marquez joins the grid - he will probably be the first of the "next generation" of champions. Rossi is too old for this now. He doesn't even belong to the pre-Marquez era (Lorenzo/Stoner era) - he belongs to the era before that, and did a great job to cross eras up until this point. But it's time to face the inevitable - that we ALL get old. Even the great Rossi.



However, this is all just my opinion and I could be wrong, of course. It will require an inspired comeback of miraculous proportions, plus a full factory ride (Honda or Yamaha) with favour and support over team-mate to disprove this opinion, I believe. Even, hypothetically if he did recieve best bike and full favoured support, is the great Rossi capable of returning to his glory days? Certainly. Is the aging 2013 Rossi capable of that? We will see...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I stand on this argument. As you say, it's a tough call.



To ride a bike fast, you need to be very confident with the bike. Youth, and the sheer desire and hunger that is associated with it, helps a lot too.



I don't think Rossi's physically too old, but I think the leg-break has curbed his willingness to push a bike. It's difficult to judge, because he did perform well at Yamaha in 2010 after his broken tibia, even with that shoulder issue. I think the Ducati has hurt his confidence, as has the leg injury. However, that doesn't mean it can't be recovered.



I think if he's on a Yamaha or Honda next year, he'll be competitive.

RCV600RR said:

I'm not sure where I stand on this argument. As you say, it's a tough call.



To ride a bike fast, you need to be very confident with the bike. Youth, and the sheer desire and hunger that is associated with it, helps a lot too.



I don't think Rossi's physically too old, but I think the leg-break has curbed his willingness to push a bike. It's difficult to judge, because he did perform well at Yamaha in 2010 after his broken tibia, even with that shoulder issue. I think the Ducati has hurt his confidence, as has the leg injury. However, that doesn't mean it can't be recovered.



I think if he's on a Yamaha or Honda next year, he'll be competitive.

Click to expand...

One thing is crystal clear, Rossi of course needs a factory Honda or Yamaha to win in current Motogp



Unless someone has seen anything other than one of these two bikes win in the last 2 years?

BarryMachine said:

Hmmmm?? I wonder ? .....



Did they change the tyres around the end of 2010/beginning of 2011?



Cos before that time Ducati was a bike that was good for regular podiums and occasional wins.



Post 2010 its has been a bike that is good for bugger all podiums.



I wonder why? Is it the tyres as you suggest?



Certainly about that time the Honda got real good!



I wonder what tyres Casey Stoner has on his tractor? lets see how that performs next year!??

Click to expand...

If I had to hazard a guess I would say they changed them around '08...



Take Stoner out of the picture (Guy is freakishly fast on everything) and look at his teammate, then look back to '07 Caparosi. Post '07 the thing has been pig for everybody not named Casey.

HEISMAN said:

Besides this current Ducati and Suzuki, there have been othe 90 degree V4's that have been agile no? The RC30 and 45

Click to expand...

I don't think very highly of the RC 45 and it needs to be compared against it's own competition just like the Duc is compared against todays competition. Some want to blame the tires but the truth is the Ducati still has not shrunken enough from it's 990 days. Like I said before the bikes have become much smaller and it's easy enough to use google and see that the bikes have much smaller dimensions. So if you go back and see the bikes have become smaller and take what became yamahas strategy during the 990 and 800cc era you can see how Ducati got left behind.

This is from 2008, Yamaha

[font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]“We have had to work a lot on the chassis setting and we have also changed the geometry of the bike in order to get a good balance with the tyre character. since we moved from 990cc to 800cc higher corner speed is needed in order to get faster lap times and to win. Therefor we have tried many different chassis settings in order to find the best of bike geometry, centre of gravity, rider position, wheel-base length, chassis stiffness and so on.”[/font]

Click to expand...

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]

“Whichever the engine configuration may be, inline or V-formation, targeted weight distribution should be no different, about 50/50. It could be a fraction of that at either end, but I am not going into that,” Furusawa said. “I believe the inline engine is more advantageous when fitted within a shorter wheelbase, which is more agile. In the V-configured engine, the rear bank tends to shift the mass rearward, which must be offset by lengthening the wheelbase.”​

[/font]

Click to expand...

If you watch the races I'm sure you can plainly see which bike is the best at turning and which bike isn't even capable of keeping up in the turns.

hawkdriver said:

I don't think very highly of the RC 45 and it needs to be compared against it's own competition just like the Duc is compared against todays competition. Some want to blame the tires but the truth is the Ducati still has not shrunken enough from it's 990 days. Like I said before the bikes have become much smaller and it's easy enough to use google and see that the bikes have much smaller dimensions. So if you go back and see the bikes have become smaller and take what became yamahas strategy during the 990 and 800cc era you can see how Ducati got left behind.

This is from 2008, Yamaha





If you watch the races I'm sure you can plainly see which bike is the best at turning and which bike isn't even capable of keeping up in the turns.

Click to expand...

I largely agree with you. The ducati 800 was a developmental dead end both because it relied on exploiting a power advantage which is no longer very significant with the 1000 formula, although the mechanical efficiency of the desmo valves may still give them something given the fuel restriction, and exploiting that performance was very difficult requiring a unique riding method that conventional riders no matter how good have not been able to replicate. The tyres were important for this though, and capirossi could ride the thing to an extent with the original bridgestones.



Ironically ducati appear not to have believed their own narrative, after stating they designed the bike to beat rossi because they believed he could not be beaten riding his style on a conventional bike, they tried to make the bike back into one on which he could beat other riders riding corner speed, who were riding either the yamaha he had perfected, or the honda where his contribution was probably still present to an extent. They probably do need to make the engine more compact to compete in the current formula on the current tyres, but like others I see their hopes of catching up with honda and yamaha playing their own game with several decades head start as fairly forlorn.

hawkdriver said:

This is from 2008, Yamaha

Click to expand...

You skipped very important parts of that article.



http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/5586



Now you've gone back to static weight distribution. Whether its a 90 or 75 degree does not prevent the rear bank shifting mass rearwards. Pretty much what Geo already said. Whats the difference between a Honda and a Yamaha?

He observed that it somehow felt a little short of acceleration but, in fact, had better lap times. His riding style on the successive Hondas had been very aggressive, often wildly sliding the rear tires. His instinct told him that the old technique would not make the Yamaha go faster, but that he should adjust to a smoother style.

Click to expand...

Rossi actually said it felt slow. But the laptime convinced him. Why was the laptime so fast with the crossplane? Apparently its a little complicated, suffice to say your enemy no. 1 Barrymachine seems to have been closer than you to understanding what its all about. The twin pulse Ducati might be about as far away from this as possible.

A typical road vehicle inline four may go up to about 7000 rpm on the high end, which is well within the engine’s effective combustion torque zone. In the MotoGP application, winding to 15,000 rpm, inertial torque would be significant. The rider must make best use of the signal buried deep within a large noise, and that would do no good to the essential connectivity between the throttle and rear tire.



Furusawa used the basics to illustrate his point; a single-cylinder engine does not turn as smoothly as might be imagined. It runs faster at top dead center (TDC) and bottom dead center (BDC), because the piston and crank pin are perfectly aligned, thus the crank exerts no effect. With the crank at 90 and 270°, the crank pulls, fluctuating revolution.



His theoretical SNR graph shows a 180° engine model at wide-open 15,000 rpm, assuming no fluctuations in rpm, in which noise/inertia torque is greater than signal/combustion torque. The compounded torque value that drives the motorcycle is, therefore, reduced. In the 90° crank engine, noise/inertia torque is almost negligible; what little is there is generated by the leaning connecting rods. Net driving torque nearly matches the value of combustion torque and is efficiently transmitted to the rear tire at the rider’s command.

Click to expand...

birdman said:

You skipped very important parts of that article.



http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/5586



Now you've gone back to static weight distribution. Whether its a 90 or 75 degree does not prevent the rear bank shifting mass rearwards. Pretty much what Geo already said. Whats the difference between a Honda and a Yamaha?



Rossi actually said it felt slow. But the laptime convinced him. Why was the laptime so fast with the crossplane? Apparently its a little complicated, suffice to say your enemy no. 1 Barrymachine seems to have been closer than you to understanding what its all about. The twin pulse Ducati might be about as far away from this as possible.

Click to expand...

I've been saying it's the static weight all along, go look again. I was just letting Geo know that he is wrong about the internals balancing themselves just because it's a 90 degree engine. This is exactly what I said previously about the bike.

[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif] The balance that the rest of the world is talking about has nothing to do with engine internals and everything to do with balance of the bike and the geometry they can use in the chassis.[/font]

Click to expand...

Very different from what Barry is talking about and me and him disagree about the engine being able to produce enough of any force to make the bike unbalanced. I'm talking about the 90 degree engine taking up to much space in the chassis to effectively reduce the wheelbase. Like I said Ducati have a long bike because they have to, the engine is simply to spread out. The Honda has a much more narrow v angle and can produce a more compact bike with a smaller wheelbase. If you can't see that the Yamaha can handle better than the Honda than I can't help you but you can go look up some CS articles and read what he says is the difference between the two bikes. When the tires changed Ducati wasn't screwed the Honda and yamaha simply started evolving to what was required to win in the 800cc era. You can see from the previous Furusawa quote that they started to focus on corner speed and at the same time Honda started to refine the mass centralized midget bike. Ducati is still doing the 990 point and shoot style bike and it's why they can't turn. Make the bike smaller and more balanced like the Japanese have done and the bike will do better. If you don't believe me you can go look for yourself and see that the Japanese bikes all have a much smaller wheelbase compared to their 990 predecessors. Of the two remaining Japanese bikes the wheelbases are the same as hat they had during the 800cc era so the bikes have bigger engines but they are still set up for the improved corner speeds of the 800s. The way you keep going on and on about engine internals, did you even read what I've written and you told me to go read spalders book, have you even opened it.

hawkdriver said:

Very different from what Barry is talking about and me and him disagree about the engine being able to produce enough of any force to make the bike unbalanced.



If you can't see that the Yamaha can handle better than the Honda than I can't help you

Click to expand...

Well someone forgot to tell Furusawa because he appears to have spent a massive amount of time researching and developing engine internals based on a theory that the crossplane design enhances the vital link between rider's wrist and rear tire. He talks about all sorts of internal engine forces that I definitely do not understand, yet neither does Prezi apparently. Rossi is currently pissed because Prezi cannot duplicate a Yamaha feel.



Furusawa also claims an I4 static weight distribution advantage that a V4 can never match, no matter whether its a 90 degree or a 75 degree. Its either all four cylinders canted forward or two forward two back. Another reason Rossi is pissed because Prezi cannot make the Duc handle as his old Yam I4 did.



You have confirmed what many including myself also believe, that the Yamaha appears to handle better than the Honda, yet you voted Honda the better factory bike, right beside Jumkie? Barry happened to vote Yamaha, citing the brilliance of their designs. I dont need to read Spalding's book to agree the Yamaha looks better. Have you changed your vote?

Quote HEISMAN,,Besides this current Ducati and Suzuki, there have been othe 90 degree V4's that have been agile no? The RC30 and 45







The RC30 was ok as it had no power to upset what in its day was a good chassis, the RC45 had a lot of power (the most seen at WSB at that point) and it handled like a barge,understeerded and ran wide at every turn, sounding familier??

birdman said:

Well someone forgot to tell Furusawa because he appears to have spent a massive amount of time researching and developing engine internals based on a theory that the crossplane design enhances the vital link between rider's wrist and rear tire. He talks about all sorts of internal engine forces that I definitely do not understand, yet neither does Prezi apparently. Rossi is currently pissed because Prezi cannot duplicate a Yamaha feel.



Furusawa also claims an I4 static weight distribution advantage that a V4 can never match, no matter whether its a 90 degree or a 75 degree. Its either all four cylinders canted forward or two forward two back. Another reason Rossi is pissed because Prezi cannot make the Duc handle as his old Yam I4 did.



You have confirmed what many including myself also believe, that the Yamaha appears to handle better than the Honda, yet you voted Honda the better factory bike, right beside Jumkie? Barry happened to vote Yamaha, citing the brilliance of their designs. I dont need to read Spalding's book to agree the Yamaha looks better. Have you changed your vote?

Click to expand...

Does the Yamaha have the acceleration of the Honda? No it doesn't, they are both compromises and they both have there own strengths and weaknesses.

You keep on bringing up the Yam engine when again I'm talking about bike balance and geometry and not engine characteristics. Ducati have already experimented with a screamer, big bang, long bang and I'm sure all kinds of other firing orders.

So we can agree that a compact engine can give a shorter wheelbase which is required for a an agile bike with good handling, now why can't you put two and two together and see that the more narrow the engine the shorter the wheelbase and in turn the better handling. So even though you can't match what the I4 in balance and geometry you can get a lot closer by running a smaller angle than 90 degrees, what honda does. The I4 gives up a few things to the V4 so there is no perfect engine, but you don't see any other 90 degree V4 engines on the grid. I don't need to change my vote as the vote was on best factory bike and not best handling bike, you seem to only be able to think in absolutes, but there is a lot more to these bikes than just handling. The Honda outperforms the Yam in other categories.

thedeal said:

Quote HEISMAN,,Besides this current Ducati and Suzuki, there have been othe 90 degree V4's that have been agile no? The RC30 and 45







The RC30 was ok as it had no power to upset what in its day was a good chassis, the RC45 had a lot of power (the most seen at WSB at that point) and it handled like a barge,understeerded and ran wide at every turn, sounding familier??

Click to expand...

Yep the RC 45 was a dog and the RC 51 was much much better statistically. I think Honda learned a lot from those two bikes. The RCV was up next and the engine angle was reduced to 75 degrees

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]Honda have admitted that the internals of their[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]RC211V started off very similar to their RC45 superbike[/font]



[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]Honda has confirmed that the basic specifications of the engine were[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]similar to the RC45 race bike. An RC45 and additional front cylinder[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]would displace 936cc, and its power output would be more than enough[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]as a starting point for a 990cc MotoGP engine - somewhere in excess of[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]200bhp. It would be relatively simple to stroke the engine slightly to[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]attain the maximum 990 capacity...[/font]



[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]With the basic specifications closely related to the original RC45[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]that had a 72mm bore and a 46mm stroke, simply adding a fifth cylinder[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]would get a 936cc engine, and stretching the stroke 2.5mm would take[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]us to 987cc[/font]



[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]The whole big bang theory is so complex that we have given over an[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]entire chapter to the subject, so suffice it to say here that Honda[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]had it from the start. The choice of V-angle at 75.5° meant that the[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]front cylinders could be held sufficiently clear of the front tyre to[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]allow the engineers to look for optimum weight distribution without[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]the front tyre hitting the radiator or the front cylinder bank.[/font]



[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]It allowed (using a new Honda patent) for the fifth cylinder to[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]provide the balancing function necessary to avoid the use of a[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]power-sapping balancer shaft. Add that to the advantages of fitting it[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]into the chassis mentioned above and you have an engine that is sheer[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]brilliance[/font][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]

Click to expand...

[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]The best part of this entire debate is that when Honda built the RC51 to prove that they could beat Ducati with a twin of their own the fist thing they did was [/font]to get rid of the front mounted radiator so they could jam the engine as far forward as possible and the rest is history.

Better statistically because it raced for only a few years and then Honda bolted when it began racing 4-Strokes in MotogGP

RC45 Racing

While the RC45 was a superb road bike, its main aim was of course, to win races. It has to be remembered that the RC45 had to win one thing more than any other, and this shows in its design -- the Suzuka 8 Hours Endurance Race.



The RC45 stayed at top level endurance racing for over seven years from 1994 until 2000. In that time it won the 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 1999 Suzuka 8hr races, and finished 3[sup]rd[/sup] in 1996. It also won the World Endurance championship twice to go hand in hand with its one World Superbike championship in 1997.



HRC continually developed the RC45 over these years and many of their parts were made available in the form of HRC kits to the public. This is covered in the tuning section.

Click to expand...

I think it did it's job pretty well.



http://force-v4.com/racing/

Talpa said:

One thing is crystal clear, Rossi of course needs a factory Honda or Yamaha to win in current Motogp



Unless someone has seen anything other than one of these two bikes win in the last 2 years?

Click to expand...

Sept 19th 2010



Oct 3rd 2010



Oct 17th 2010



Just sayin

It seems that [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Prezi [/font]is ignoring what Rossi is saying because he feels he knows best, yet apparently he's more an engine guy than chassis so if the design is up to him then he clearly doesn't understand the chassis side well enough to be able to fix the issues Rossi is telling him about.

[size="+1"]Ducati MotoGP: Rossi Gets Gold Mine, Hayden Gets The Shaft[/size]

[size="-1"]by staff[/size]

[size="-2"]Monday, July 09, 2012[/size]

[size="-1"]The Italian motorcycle media, which practices more hagiography than journalism with its reports about Valentino Rossi, has depicted Rossi as possibly the most tortured, aggrieved soul in the MotoGP paddock this season.[/size]

[size="-1"]Rossi supposedly has flipped back and forth between wanting to stay and continue to develop the recalcitrant Ducati GP12 into a possible race-winning GP13 or desiring an escape from Ducati Corse because of a lack of an action plan to fix the bike and perceived ignorance of his advice by Bologna bosses.[/size]

[size="-1"]The portrayal of Rossi as a lost soul is a crock of bullsht. Regardless of performance, he still will get a factory bike, earn an eight-figure salary and attract sponsors like ...-deprived photographers to umbrella girls, regardless of which machine he straddles in 2013.[/size]

[size="-1"]Here's the truth: No MotoGP rider is feeling the impalement of an ungreased shaft more than Rossi's teammate, Nick Hayden.[/size]

[size="-1"]Ducati quietly let the contract option for 2006 World Champion Hayden expire at the end of last month, turning him into a free agent. Hayden should be an attractive fit for any factory or elite satellite team in MotoGP, yet his name isn't being tossed about as a key carrot for hungry teams in many media reports about the Silly Season.[/size]

[size="-1"]Hayden turns 31 on July 30, not ancient by MotoGP standards. He is a premier-class race winner. He is a World Champion. He is the top-ranking and arguably most popular American rider in the World Championship, vital for any manufacturer interested in selling bikes in the U.S. He is a tireless test rider, either leading or near the top of the lap charts at every test. He has said and done all the right things at Ducati, which never has put a competitive dry-weather bike under him during his three seasons with the team.[/size]

[size="-1"]But more importantly, Hayden has been better than Rossi this season on the GP12.[/size]

[size="-1"]Hayden has out-qualified Rossi in six of eight races in 2012 and finished ahead of him in four. It's widely known that a flustered Rossi started to use Hayden's setups earlier this season at some races, even if Rossi's ego wouldn't let him completely admit it. [/size]

[size="-1"]So again, why is Nick Hayden on the outside looking in while stories circulate everywhere about Ducati's two-year offer to Cal Crutchlow and possible interest in British rider Scott Redding, who has won a whopping one race in five seasons in 125cc and Moto2?[/size]

[size="-1"]It makes no sense. Better yet, it's nonsense.[/size]

[size="-1"]The recent fall from grace at Ducati MotoGP is nothing short of stunning. This is a team that vied for wins at their first MotoGP race, won races their first season in the class and dominated to win the title in 2007. Since that point they have, if anything, become less competitive as the seasons pass and almost delusional about their lack of progress. Very early on in his tenure as Rossi's Ducati crewchief, Jeremy Burgess surmised that Ducati's problem pre-2011 was that they never analyzed their failures, only their successes. Has that changed at all? It is absolutely remarkable--and so telling--that they apparently feel that what ails the 2012 Ducati MotoGP bike is not any kind of flawed engineering but that they just don't have the right rider on it, other than Rossi, who has been largely trounced by soon to be off the team Hayden. This is alternative reality, bizarro-world level stuff. [/size]

[size="-1"]In the business world, there are firms that specialize in turning around failing companies. Many times the very first change that these firms make in trying to turn a failing business into a successful one is to fire the entire upper and middle management structure of the failing business. Why? Because they know that it's nearly impossible for managers to come up with creative ways of getting out of problems that their bad ideas created in the first place. If they could have fixed it, they would have fixed it. Now it's time for new engineers and new managers. [/size]

[size="-1"]Fire Hayden. The delusions continue.[/size]

[size="-1"]soup [/size]http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Jul/120707feat.htm

I just read that Pig, pretty scathing eh!