- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 9,515
- Location
- Norah Head
The answer is that Stoner went to Ducati at the start of the 800cc era, it's first year so in many ways all that had gone before is or may well have been totally irrelevant given the change of capacity from 990cc. One would expect that there is very little similarity between the two capacity machines in any way so to judge against them is extremely difficult (goes across all manufacturers).
But, that said it was a race winning machine and near championship winner in the hands of Capirex (Bayliss actually won the last 990cc race thus held on it as well).
Gaz
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,631
- Location
- Earth
Stoners problem was when he decided to build a carbon fibre frame. He obviously didn't have all the engineering aspects covered and then when he decided to change the diameter of the Ohlins forks he didn't understand how this would impact the geometry and the flexibility of the carbon fibre head. I don't know why Stoner didn't realise that if he totally redesign the engine to be big bang rather than the screamer that he had been so successful engineering, building and riding at the same time he was engineering these knew forks it was going to effect the front end of the bike. Stoner really needed to just keep his bike more standard rather than go off on these unique paths. I am sure Ducati wouldn't have minded.
Stoners problem was when he decided to build a carbon fibre frame. He obviously didn't have all the engineering aspects covered and then when he decided to change the diameter of the Ohlins forks he didn't understand how this would impact the geometry and the flexibility of the carbon fibre head. I don't know why Stoner didn't realise that if he totally redesign the engine to be big bang rather than the screamer that he had been so successful engineering, building and riding at the same time he was engineering these knew forks it was going to effect the front end of the bike. Stoner really needed to just keep his bike more standard rather than go off on these unique paths. I am sure Ducati wouldn't have minded.
Yeah I get it...
My question wasn't aimed a blaming Stoner for any/all of the Ducati's defencies. On the contrary, he won a world title on it and unless he is some being from the neither regions of space who can at will defy the laws of physics, a total piece of crap bike is not going to win a title. He must have had some input into the title winning bike. I like Stoner for the record, I'm lookng forward to him giving Lorenzo a run for his money next year. I know he didn't physically buid or engineer the bike but like I said before he must have had some input and in asking about the bike before he got on it I was looking for some sort of benchmark. That's all.
Thank you Gaz for answering my question.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,631
- Location
- Earth
Mate, I was taking the piss.
What happen when Stoner got on the Ducati the first time was he asked for the set up to be changed completely. The technicians were baffled by his requests but humoured him. The result was a WC. FP made it well known at the time that Stoners set up was out there in comparison to Capirossi's. All the riders that have come since have said that Stoners settings are useless to them because they can't ride a bike the way he does. Other riders eg. Spies have commented on numerous occasions that they can't understand what Stoner does on the bike. FP commented that they could completely change the set up of Stoners bike and on the second lap he would be right back at the limit and on practically the same pace as the previous set up.
This was part of Stoners problem at LCR. His crew didn't believe his set up and would always want to change it to what they thought was correct and typical.
To be honest I doubt wether Stoner had much if any input into development directions of the bike whilst he has been at Ducati. What he has done has controlled the direction of the set up of his bike. After all, and the point of my piss take in previous post, Ducati like Honda, Yamaha and Suzuki are engineering companies. They engineer motorcycles. The guys who pull on the leathers are riders and they try to refine what the engineers give them within the adjustable parameters of the bike and all of its components.
It's cool, my bad. Some of the .... that gets flung around here makes a little wary
I don't imagine one of the factory riders walks into Yamocati R&D and pulls out a set of blue prints, So why is a big deal made out of some riders being "good developers" if all they are doing is refining the end product? The Rossi/JB M1 being the prime example. How much input did they have? It sounds like Honda on the other hand builds the bike and tells the rider to go fast, end of story. Differnt teams different levels of input? Sorry asking a lot of questions. Still learning.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,631
- Location
- Earth
It's cool, my bad. Some of the .... that gets flung around here makes a little wary
I don't imagine one of the factory riders walks into Yamocati R&D and pulls out a set of blue prints, So why is a big deal made out of some riders being "good developers" if all they are doing is refining the end product? The Rossi/JB M1 being the prime example. How much input did they have? It sounds like Honda on the other hand builds the bike and tells the rider to go fast, end of story. Differnt teams different levels of input? Sorry asking a lot of questions. Still learning.
I don't often try to be humorous so you are probably not the only one who missed it!!
There is a big deal made about 'development' because the boppers like to think that Rossi does it all on his own. A while back some of them even hint that JB doesn't even play that big of a role and that Rossi would be just fine with out him.
Really the whole development thing is a myth, a fairy tale that is used to build up some riders and heap .... on others. The riders provide in depth feedback on how the bike reacts to their input and how that changes as the settings change. When new parts are bought in they give feedback on if it is an improvement or not.
The myth is perpetuated to make claims that some riders can't give this feedback where as in reality some manufacturers don't listen to riders i.e Honda and Ducati which is the reason why Rossi left Honda and previously refused to go to Ducati.
This time round Ducti assured Rossi that he would have input and his input would be listened to. Input is "this is happing when I do this" and then the engineers find a solution to fix what ever it is. The myth is that when Rossi finds a problem he also provides the solution.
All of the Ducati rides have claimed that they give feedback and nothing is done. They sent Melandri to a shrink as part of the solution.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 9,515
- Location
- Norah Head
Well in one way its a way off track question. There seems to be this strange thought going around that each rider attempts to develop a rider friendly bike. This is a pretty silly thing to think really as each is actually only interested in getting his own bike faster.
Are you seriously telling me Rossi deliberately develops or sets up a bike so that Lorenzo could ride it
Perhaps the reality of all this "who develops the Duc" is merely more excuse ( or straw ) clutching to explain how Rossi has fared on the Duc. or even may fare in future runs. Its like a wacky attempt to set up the blame elsewhere,.
It's cool, my bad. Some of the .... that gets flung around here makes a little wary
I don't imagine one of the factory riders walks into Yamocati R&D and pulls out a set of blue prints, So why is a big deal made out of some riders being "good developers" if all they are doing is refining the end product? The Rossi/JB M1 being the prime example. How much input did they have? It sounds like Honda on the other hand builds the bike and tells the rider to go fast, end of story. Differnt teams different levels of input? Sorry asking a lot of questions. Still learning.
Riders with a good enough record and with a good record for set-up get more influence on development direction, particularly if they have a race engineer/pit crew chief with whom they have a synergy who can interpret things to the non-race engineers/design staff, although still dependent on the factory's approach. I believe rossi did have quite an influence on yamaha's engineering direction, with changes more than just set-up when he first went to yamaha (? engine re-configuration if I recall, ask j4rno), and advising yamaha to keep their focus on the yamaha being well handling/nimble whilst applying a cattle prod to increasing engine power when the ducati looked dominant in 2007; I doubt he had much to do with the design or improvement of the pneumatic valve engine though. I doubt he had as much influence on engineering direction at honda, even according to his own account.
I think he and jb will have a strong influence on engineering direction at ducati now they are going for broke, while I doubt stoner had much, although he seems to have at least acquiesced to the change to big-bang. Ducati again even by rossi's own previous account have historically been engineer rather than rider dominated.The question is whether the knowledge and experience of rossi +/- jb, however great, is transferable, or at least quickly transferable, to the several novel technologies currently in evidence on the ducati.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Location
- home
So what I don't get.
Lot's of people have claimed in the past that the 2007 ducati was developed by Capirossi. Or at least that he was the rider with the most influence on that bike. The latter statement I would tend to agree with, as he was the number 1 rider in the team until Stoner started winning race after race.
At the same time, Capirossi is considered to be a great development rider.
Both statements seem pretty compatible, right? Until you compare Capirossi's 2006 and 2007 season results. He didn't exactly improve, did he?
What's the catch?
Lot's of people have claimed in the past that the 2007 ducati was developed by Capirossi. Or at least that he was the rider with the most influence on that bike. The latter statement I would tend to agree with, as he was the number 1 rider in the team until Stoner started winning race after race.
At the same time, Capirossi is considered to be a great development rider.
Both statements seem pretty compatible, right? Until you compare Capirossi's 2006 and 2007 season results. He didn't exactly improve, did he?
What's the catch?
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
No catch, he developed a bike met with a teammate with more talent, hunger, and drive. You know, like this year.
(Oh, I kid, its a good question Stiefel, not sure of the answer, but even though I was joking, maybe theres a bit of truth in it?)
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Location
- home
No catch, he developed a bike met with a teammate with more talent, hunger, and drive. You know, like this year.
(Oh, I kid, its a good question Stiefel, not sure of the answer, but even though I was joking, maybe theres a bit of truth in it?)
Hehe, I see, so that's the pattern. Capirossi is using his younger, more talented teammates to make it look like he is a brilliant development rider, when in fact he's pretty sh!t at it. It's his retirement plan (and he's sure getting close).
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Nah really, you made a good question. I just don't know the answer except that Stoner was just a better raw rider on it. But Loris was fair successful compared to the other two riders on the factory quad in terms of season end standings.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Location
- home
Honestly, I'd say I'm probably one of the last big Capirossi fans around here. We use to have another member here named "Capirex", but I shushed her off. This town wasn't big enough for the two of us.
Nah really, you made a good question. I just don't know the answer except that Stoner was just a better raw rider on it. But Loris was fair successful compared to the other two riders on the factory quad in terms of season end standings.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't having a go on Capirossi. Well, allright, maybey as a byproduct, but I certainly don't dislike the man. I was just pointing out that if one wants to talk about Capirossi's achievements as development rider for the GP07 (as has often happened in the past), one should really compare his 2007 to his 2006 results. Which would indicate that 2007 WC winning bike was actually developed "backwards". Talk about a paradox.
(To be honest, I believe there is quite a simple answer, and it is that has already been brought up repeatedly in this thread: riders (anyone of them) simply don't have any real input into to the tech stuff, apart from giving feedback about the handling and set up. As far as I'm concerned, stories about great development riders are myths as far as the bikes themselves are concerned. However, I do believe that sometimes riders can be ill suited for development, like Pedrosa who's always banged up come testing time, maybey Nicky in his first year at Ducati because communication wasn't going well).
cheers
I tend to believe that the change in capacity played a major part in the relative (some may say poor) performance of Capirossi in 2007 when compared to 2006.
We should however also note that he is the only Ducati rider apart from Stoner to win a MotoGP on the 800cc bike, which he did in 2007 so one could argue that his season was not so bad.
But, and here is the likely crux, his season was very poor when compared to that of his team-mate who literally dominated the season. However, one could reasonably argue that the race he did win (Japanese - Motegi) was also the race where CS needed to finish top 6 to win the WC and as such the competition may have been diminished in effort, but that is to overlook the determination of all other riders (VR, DP, Hopper etc).
No, for me whilst I do believe that the 800cc played a part I tend to believe that he was simply outshone by a combination of rider/equipment that gelled far better with the creation than the creator himself.
Gaz
Another quick question...Do any of the oldtimers remember if "development rider" was such a such a big deal or something that got discussed alot prior to Rossi and the M1? I've done a lot of reading this year and I don't recall the word "deveopment" used in connection with Rainey or Doohan. Maybe it just makes for a poor interview.....
And thanks agin for the insight guys, all your thoughts and opinions regarding my questions are aprreceated.
Edit: And not trying to imply they couldn't or didn't. It just seems in old articles the factorys built and the riders rode..
And thanks agin for the insight guys, all your thoughts and opinions regarding my questions are aprreceated.
Edit: And not trying to imply they couldn't or didn't. It just seems in old articles the factorys built and the riders rode..
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 9,515
- Location
- Norah Head
I'd say the term "development rider" began with Hayden ( it kinda bought some cred., with his fans, for Hayden whilst Pedrosa was beating him on the same machine ) , and its only been "important" in regards to Rossi since Lorenzo began to win ( buys Rossi some fan cred. whilst Lorenzo is winning ). Never heard it during Doohans era because he ran a screamer whilst the others were on big bang, or vice versa.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
Man, don't be carried away by your own eloquence. There is no development myth out there.
The reason why "they" listen to Rossi is very practical. His feedback has generally proved to be accurate, over a long and successful career. Remember Furusawa? He said "What Valentino says always corresponds with the data. He's so precise. The few times my data did not correspond with what he said, I double checked and Valentino was always right. Always". That's the key to this issue. You think Furusawa is a Rossi bopper?
Thinking of Stoner, you made a bell ring for me. You are right, Stoner wasn't immediately fast in his first test with the Ducati. But then he turned the bike upside down, and won a WC and 23 races.
Now, Rossi has not been immediately fast on the Ducati. He is now turning the Ducati upside down... Hmmm this sounds promising
Man, don't be carried away by your own eloquence. There is no development myth out there.
The reason why "they" listen to Rossi is very practical. His feedback has generally proved to be accurate, over a long and successful career. Remember Furusawa? He said "What Valentino says always corresponds with the data. He's so precise. The few times my data did not correspond with what he said, I double checked and Valentino was always right. Always". That's the key to this issue. You think Furusawa is a Rossi bopper?
Thinking of Stoner, you made a bell ring for me. You are right, Stoner wasn't immediately fast in his first test with the Ducati. But then he turned the bike upside down, and won a WC and 23 races.
Now, Rossi has not been immediately fast on the Ducati. He is now turning the Ducati upside down... Hmmm this sounds promising
Of course rossi is a development rider; the fact it wasn't talked about much before him was because he more or less defined the genre, certainly since his switch to yamaha anyway.
Stoner may well not be a development rider, but the issues since he has been in a position to influence development (ie certainly not when he was at LCR honda) are whether he was at a company which took notice of input from its race riders, and whether the bike that company has produced thus far has unique and possibly flawed technologies not amenable to development.
We shall soon see. If rossi can fix the ducati with a few tweaks then it will be fair to say stoner has been holding ducati back , if it requires significant re-design not so as I have said previously.
