Yamaha extends Rossi contract to 2018

michaelm · Mar 29, 2016

J4rn0 said:
The story of Rossi-Ducati is also overplayed. The fact that only Stoner could win on that Ducati doesn't make of all the others mediocre or average riders. Even Marquez can't win on any HRC machine as he did in '13 and '14, apparenbtly -- that doesn't mean that when he could win it was undeserved. Does anybody think that Lorenzo or Pedrosa would have done any better than Rossi on the old Ducati? Let's try to be serious.

Marquez might have, but I don't think would be as good on a Yamaha.

This is all moot anyway, Rossi is in his late 30s, not 25.

I think he had talent as great as any of his fellow greats like Roberts Snr and Rainey, and more sustained focus and greater endurance as Mick Doohan whom I personally would rank similarly actually said. It no longer looks like he is on a tier above even these riders though, which you yourself have never claimed anyway of course.

My objection to him is not him being privileged or over-rated, I don't think he really differs in these things from others of his ilk (ie all time greats) as you have argued, but something which Birdman, an erstwhile Biaggi fan, first pointed out to me, and which Povol expressed more bluntly, he is manipulative in the extreme, and has deliberately employed, in their opinion and mine, his power with the media and the crazy element among his fandom as a weapon against his rivals. MM himself in a recent interview has said much the same thing.

Notwithstanding all this I am sure he would still be a charming and convivial human being, with whom it would be a pleasure to have a beer in the unlikely circumstance of that occurring, away from bike racing.

Rising Sun · Mar 29, 2016

J4rn0 said:
What I know is this: had Honda listened to Rossi and Burgess earlier in 2000, the title could have remained with them. But they went on following Criville's leads until it was late. Next year they knew better. No doubt Briggs and Burgess know the story of that year only too well, and I think they both are on record on this.

Now that is some revisionist history. Rossi and Burgess are on record as saying their mistake was to approach the 2000 season as a learning year. And Rossi's crash at Valencia and then a gutsy win by Junior at Motegi have as much to do with the title loss as anything.

As for the development path lead by/directed at Criville, it's a moot point whether Criville was being ignored or giving poor feedback, because when Rossi was crashing out of races and finishing out of the top ten in the first half of the season, that wasn't because HRC were ignoring his feedback.

J4rn0 said:
May I ask why when answering my posts you, as well as others, keep complaining about Stoner bashing and Rossi idolatry? I never bashed Stoner, quite the opposite; and never thought Rossi was the GOAT. Or is this part of these famous internet debating techniques -- charging others' with stupidities they never said?

You made a statement that Rossi bashing was tiresome. I agreed with you.

I did not complain about Stoner bashing; I merely noted that it exists. I pointed out that Marquez and Lorenzo are the focus of much more vitriol than Rossi, but I did not attribute these things to you. I mentioned these things (and perhaps the others did, too) to point out that Rossi bashing does not exist in a vacuum.

Arrabbiata1 · Mar 29, 2016

J4rn0 said:
What I know is this: had Honda listened to Rossi and Burgess earlier in 2000, the title could have remained with them. But they went on following Criville's leads until it was late.

What leads?!? Read my original reply again. I'll say again, HRC didn't follow Criville's direction because quite simply, he didn't give any. And you don't 'know this', you merely choose to reference Alex Briggs subjective fragmentary anecdotal testimony which suits your own version of events - which as 'Sun' and myself have pointed out, given the big picture is highly revisionist.

As has already been highlighted, to blame Criville for Rossi's mistakes in the first half of his rookie season is tenuous even for the most ardent of Velentino fans.

J4rn0 said:
May I ask why when answering my posts you, as well as others, keep complaining about Stoner bashing and Rossi idolatry? I never bashed Stoner, quite the opposite; and never thought Rossi was the GOAT. Or is this part of these famous internet debating techniques -- charging others' with stupidities they never said?

No one has levelled that at you. In point of fact I'll say it again...

Arrabbiata1 said:
I never suggested that you did, but in holding the opinion that you do, as a Rossi aficionado, do appreciate that you are very much in the minority.

Meaning, that in not bashing Stoner or mindlessly and incessantly referring to the 'GOAT' you are an exception to the norm. Congratulations. However, do try to read other members posts before voicing your indignation.

J4rn0 said:
No doubt Briggs and Burgess know the story of that year only too well, and I think they both are on record on this.

...Again, listen to what the man said -

Rising Sun said:
There's some quotes from Alex Briggs about the 2000/2001 seasons, which would tend to support your view re: Criville.

EDIT: My apologies...I forgot to insert the rolling eyes emoji

There ya go.

JohnnyKnockdown · Mar 29, 2016

Rising Sun said:
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum...

I moved house the weekend of the Sepang GP last year. Issues with internet had me off-line for almost a month. I didn't even see the race for a couple of weeks, until a mate burnt off a DVD for me, saying: "You have GOT to watch this."

I thought about writing a preview entry for the season this year, but before I knew it I was up at 4am in March watching MotoGP doing an scarily-good F1 impression (racing at a desert-style Disneyland theme park built with the blood of dinosaurs and the bodies of slaves, and complete with 'dirty air' compromising overtaking opportunities), and then the pundits were screaming about Michelins being 7 whole seconds of awesome better, and making the extra 2L of fuel feel quite inadequate.

Moreover, the Top Ten thread has recently been un-pinned and locked, and a Top Ten-lite post I wrote about Mike Webb's Moto2 debacle has been awaiting moderation approval/consigned to oblivion for over a week now. So this will have to do...

Circumstances were quite different though. Schwantz hated, hated, HATED Rainey and felt enormously guilty that his bitter rival was left paralysed. Not only did that take the gloss off his world championship, but it also gave him a brutal reminder there was (arguably) a fate worse than death awaiting if something went wrong. Couple that with a catalogue of injuries that Pedrosa could be proud of and a hugely determined and focused Mick Doohan... and its no wonder the motivation flickered out.

Criville struggled with having a target on his back as defending champion. He crashed a lot in 2000, and lost almost all confidence and speed in 2001. I think the motivation was still there -- at least he wanted to continue riding in 2002 -- but his career just fell apart.

What?? You posted something that is pending approval. Did I understand you correctly
If thats true the gang of 4hores will get right on the case and remedy this

J4rn0 · Mar 29, 2016

Rising Sun said:
Now that is some revisionist history. Rossi and Burgess are on record as saying their mistake was to approach the 2000 season as a learning year. And Rossi's crash at Valencia and then a gutsy win by Junior at Motegi have as much to do with the title loss as anything.

As for the development path lead by/directed at Criville, it's a moot point whether Criville was being ignored or giving poor feedback, because when Rossi was crashing out of races and finishing out of the top ten in the first half of the season, that wasn't because HRC were ignoring his feedback.

You made a statement that Rossi bashing was tiresome. I agreed with you.
I did not complain about Stoner bashing; I merely noted that it exists. I pointed out that Marquez and Lorenzo are the focus of much more vitriol than Rossi, but I did not attribute these things to you. I mentioned these things (and perhaps the others did, too) to point out that Rossi bashing does not exist in a vacuum.

OK mate, you made me unearth Burgess' statements about 2000.
It's good reading in view of what we were discussing. Here it goes:

"But anyway, we ended up creating a fantastic little team. We were ostracized out there. We were doing it on our own. They knew they had to give him a good bike because of who he was, and there was a group of five of us and one Japanese engineer, and we just set ourselves up next door and went about our business. It was chaos in the Repsol team. We just used to look over and go, "Oh, Jesus." And we worked with Valentino, and we had a couple of incidents in the first couple of races, which weren't necessarily his fault. But we were number four in the pecking order, because everybody else got stuff first. We went through the year, won a couple of races, and finished second in the championship.

But the one thing about Valentino is, he's not scared to ask. He wants to know. He has a great capacity to absorb information and to process information. There was a couple of things we pointed out to Valentino. He didn't know how hard to go on the warm-up lap or whatever. He said, in the 250, it was like ... it would all start, and then would look around to make sure everyone had got going, and then we'd settle down and race. And he said, "But on the 500s, they're racing on the warm-up lap. They're trying to knock you off!" That was all a bit more intimidation, to try and get one over on, in the big class. And I suppose Valentino's very good at it now. I don't know.

"But the potential of Valentino was very, very obvious from the first tests. And that's when we had an engine with good middle-range power. When we went to the Criville engine, which we got last, which was just before the Grand Prix, we'd never run that engine. And the reason Valentino fell was always in the middle of the corner. Because suddenly there was nothing. And then you'd twist it a little bit more and there was too much. Once we got the engine back - and again, then when we had to go backwards in Suzuka - we were the last people to get the engine again. So they got all the '99-spec engines, or bits and pieces, and then we didn't get them 'til the end. If we'd had our .. if they'd left us on the '99-spec engine from Day One, we would've been World Champion. I'm convinced of that.

Thius is part of a very nice itw that one can still read here:
Soup :: SuperBikePlanet.com Interview: Jeremy Burgess :: 04-07-2010

Jumkie · Mar 29, 2016

Rising Sun, welcome back. Sublime reading.

Gentlemen, this discussion is exactly what makes this forum great. "Boring"? Ruinous? J4rn0, that kind of protest as it relates to this forum reminds me of when people were saying Stoner winning by a country mile was "ruining" or making "boring" the sport. And...more to the point how in the hell are RACING opinions, one way or the other ruinous/boring to a forum about racing? Well that about covers everything now, flame wars: boring/ruinous; racing opinions: boring/ruinous. What's left to talk about? (Other than Shovel's club, RSun, check it). Or, is it just that the topic isn't going the way we want? I honestly don't see the problem. We had two new members, Juice 46 & Da Embassador, aspiring blokes, who are undoubtedly Rossi fans. I've encouraged them to post because seeing their video obviously shows they love the sport (love Rossi too). J4rn0, can you guys get together and argue your side of the debate? God knows you'll never get any help from Migs. Its simple debate man, nobody is being "SILENCED".

In fact, this discussion has brought some of thee greatest back! Rising Sun, one of the titans of the forum. (Dear New members, stop reading this post, scroll up to the 'stickies' threads of this board, find the 'Top 10' thread. Commence reading).

It's simply a debate of the historically reality of a sport which became Rossi-centric. We can no more debate Rossi is the largest figure of the sport than we can the existence of gravity. The discussion is, when did gravity start? "Bashing" that is not. I'm ... crazy for this sport as an unhealthy addicted crackhead, yet I'm learning about and better understanding the dynamic of: Criville, HRC, Doohan, Rothman, Repsol, Rossi, Michelin etc of the late 90s-early 2000s. This is awesome reading, J4rn0, your posts included (I may not agree with all of it but it's a perspective that is worth knowing).

There used to be a Rossi fan here many years ago, he was a Mexican bloke from Cancun, I can't remember his exact name now but I used to call him "V". Of every Rossi fan that has ever graced this forum, he was one that really challenge me to debate (him and Roger actually). But think for a moment, these discussions take many forms, one of which is debate, and in debate you take a position and try to support it logically. Why is it that I, or Bird, Arrabi, Pov, Mike, Sun, Gek, JK, Mdub, or anyone should be penalized (figure of speech) they carry a side of the debate? That member "V" was clever, informed, logical, and passionate, and for the life of me I never quite really felt I was successful in debate against him. I wish he were here, because now I think the tables would be in my favor, like it or not, Rossi's end of season debacle went a long way in vindication of some of the assertions I made about Rossi, particularly that as Mike Scott said, "Valentino is ruthless." It was also wonderful to see a few caught on tape indications of the Carmelo - Rossi dynamic, not to mention the movements by the organizers to revamp its organization to insulate themselves to criticisms from Rossi's fanbase. And much more.

Great discussion guys. Good stuff.

J4rn0 · Mar 29, 2016

Arrabbiata1 said:
What leads?!? Read my original reply again. I'll say again, HRC didn't follow Criville's direction because quite simply, he didn't give any. And you don't 'know this', ............

Know? At least Burgess' words support what I say, and some factual evidence as well (it's true that all Honda teams backpedalled to the '99 engine in the second half of the 2000 season).

And even if we'll never know whether Honda had used Criville's leads to develop the 2000 engine, still as the #1 rider and title holder he had approved it in the pre-season tests. It's not by chance that it was known as the "Criville engine".

Arrabbiata1 · Mar 29, 2016

J4rn0 said:
OK mate, you made me unearth Burgess' statements about 2000.
It's good reading in view of what we were discussing. Here it goes:

"But anyway, we ended up creating a fantastic little team. We were ostracized out there. We were doing it on our own. They knew they had to give him a good bike because of who he was, and there was a group of five of us and one Japanese engineer, and we just set ourselves up next door and went about our business. It was chaos in the Repsol team. We just used to look over and go, "Oh, Jesus." And we worked with Valentino, and we had a couple of incidents in the first couple of races, which weren't necessarily his fault. But we were number four in the pecking order, because everybody else got stuff first. We went through the year, won a couple of races, and finished second in the championship.

But the one thing about Valentino is, he's not scared to ask. He wants to know. He has a great capacity to absorb information and to process information. There was a couple of things we pointed out to Valentino. He didn't know how hard to go on the warm-up lap or whatever. He said, in the 250, it was like ... it would all start, and then would look around to make sure everyone had got going, and then we'd settle down and race. And he said, "But on the 500s, they're racing on the warm-up lap. They're trying to knock you off!" That was all a bit more intimidation, to try and get one over on, in the big class. And I suppose Valentino's very good at it now. I don't know.

"But the potential of Valentino was very, very obvious from the first tests. And that's when we had an engine with good middle-range power. When we went to the Criville engine, which we got last, which was just before the Grand Prix, we'd never run that engine. And the reason Valentino fell was always in the middle of the corner. Because suddenly there was nothing. And then you'd twist it a little bit more and there was too much. Once we got the engine back - and again, then when we had to go backwards in Suzuka - we were the last people to get the engine again. So they got all the '99-spec engines, or bits and pieces, and then we didn't get them 'til the end. If we'd had our .. if they'd left us on the '99-spec engine from Day One, we would've been World Champion. I'm convinced of that.

Thius is part of a very nice itw that one can still read here:
Soup :: SuperBikePlanet.com Interview: Jeremy Burgess :: 04-07-2010

Good find and I clearly recall Burgess's misgivings concerning the spread of power of the new 2000 engine. The 'Criville' engine so to speak was the new supposedly improved HRC mill which was conferred or should I say, imposed upon to Criville for pre-season testing which as I mentioned was decimated due to a viral illness. Even referring to it as the 'Criville' engine is a misnomer. It was Honda's new motor which was earmarked for the Repsol team - JB makes it sound as though Criville designed the ....... thing.

How many times do I need to repeat this, Alex Criville had practically zero input into the direction of the 2000 NSR500. Even if he had expressed concerns as to the power delivery, it's highly unlikely that anyone at Honda racing would have paid him any attention and how many times have we seen that before?

When the results were not forthcoming the reversion to the previous years spec was a knee jerk reaction whilst the new plant was evaluated. When Burgess complains that they didn't get the coveted parts from 'day one', neither did Criville. I assure you, the '99 parts were not monopolised by the Repsol team, such retrograde solutions are simply not in their culture. As Valentino's results improved, testament to his speed learning the 500 - in addition to the cut and thrust nature of the class as Burgess concedes - the concessions came and they weren't simply from the previous year. I am confident that I can similarly find testimony to that. It was a remarkably similar situation to Marquez last year, although it is pretty telling that Burgess recollects the shambolic nature in the team that he had left behind - part vanity, part truth. So why was he not immediately fast tracked back to Criville given that you suggested that this was an option?

Also, when JB claims that they didn't get the preferred parts until 'the end' that is a gross distortion of the truth. What he means to say is after Criville - which was by about June/July as I recall, in other words, mid season. Following that, they were first in line for everything.

Your original contention concerning my mentioning Criville was this:

J4rn0 said:
Sorry man, don't agree on Criville -- in 2000 he was no doubt the main rider at Honda, but he didn't perform on the supposedly unbeatable NSR500 and went wrong with setup and development. Of course Honda listened to him first, not to Rossi who was a rookie.

HRC didn't 'listen' to Criville at all. He was the main rider by virtue of being World Champion, and the weight, pressure and responsibility of developing the new engine proved too onerous. I think the point to make here is that HRC should have listened to Rossi's team, JB in particular...but even today, rarely do they listen to anyone - that simply isn't the philosophy. Criville was the hapless scapegoat and unwilling test pilot of the new 2000 spec bike.

My point about Rossi project was that long term he was the chosen one - so of course they wanted him to have the new engine and it was typical of Honda's myopia having Rossi test the previous season bike. Nonetheless, the old mantra - one year to learn, one year to win. Given the spectacularly dire performance of the flagship NSR - tey panicked and this plan was quickly fast tracked (if you pardon the pun) and the 99 spec motor was quickly although begrudgingly granted albeit after Criville's crew had made a meal of it. JB on the other hand knew the workings of the machine inside out and VR was already familiar with it. By August, the Natro Azzurro squad had become the full factory effort - such a U-Turn is not uncommon following summer recess although contrary to Burgess' recollections, support although initially piecemeal had arrived before then.

The contention that VR may have or may not won the championship during his inaugural year will remain subject to dispute. But actually, I find it quite disrespectful and dismissive of Junior, who lets not forget convincingly beat Rossi at Motegi and irrespective of their supposed handicapped start, held him off to secure the title on what I have always believed to be an inferior bike to the 99 spec NSR.

michaelm · Mar 29, 2016

We

Arrabbiata1 said:
Good find and I clearly recall Burgess's misgivings concerning the spread of power of the new 2000 engine. The 'Criville' engine so to speak was the new supposedly improved HRC mill which was conferred or should I say, imposed upon to Criville for pre-season testing which as I mentioned was decimated due to a viral illness. Even referring to it as the 'Criville' engine is a misnomer. It was Honda's new motor which was earmarked for the Repsol team - JB makes it sound as though Criville designed the ....... thing.

How many times do I need to repeat this, Alex Criville had practically zero input into the direction of the 2000 NSR500. Even if he had expressed concerns as to the power delivery, it's highly unlikely that anyone at Honda racing would have paid him any attention and how many times have we seen that before?

When the results were not forthcoming the reversion to the previous years spec was a knee jerk reaction whilst the new plant was evaluated. When Burgess complains that they didn't get the coveted parts from 'day one', neither did Criville. I assure you, the '99 parts were not monopolised by the Repsol team, such retrograde solutions are simply not in their culture. As Valentino's results improved, testament to his speed learning the 500 - in addition to the cut and thrust nature of the class as Burgess concedes - the concessions came and they weren't simply from the previous year. I am confident that I can similarly find testimony to that. It was a remarkably similar situation to Marquez last year, although it is pretty telling that Burgess recollects the shambolic nature in the team that he had left behind - part vanity, part truth. So why was he not immediately fast tracked back to Criville given that you suggested that this was an option?

Also, when JB claims that they didn't get the preferred parts until 'the end' that is a gross distortion of the truth. What he means to say is after Criville - which was by about June/July as I recall, in other words, mid season. Following that, they were first in line for everything.

Your original contention concerning my mentioning Criville was this:

HRC didn't 'listen' to Criville at all. He was the main rider by virtue of being World Champion, and the weight, pressure and responsibility of developing the new engine proved too onerous. I think the point to make here is that HRC should have listened to Rossi's team, JB in particular...but even today, rarely do they listen to anyone - that simply isn't the philosophy. Criville was the hapless scapegoat and unwilling test pilot of the new 2000 spec bike.

My point about Rossi project was that long term he was the chosen one - so of course they wanted him to have the new engine and it was typical of Honda's myopia having Rossi test the previous season bike. Nonetheless, the old mantra - one year to learn, one year to win. Given the spectacularly dire performance of the flagship NSR - tey panicked and this plan was quickly fast tracked (if you pardon the pun) and the 99 spec motor was quickly although begrudgingly granted albeit after Criville's crew had made a meal of it. JB on the other hand knew the workings of the machine inside out and VR was already familiar with it. By August, the Natro Azzurro squad had become the full factory effort - such a U-Turn is not uncommon following summer recess although contrary to Burgess' recollections, support although initially piecemeal had arrived before then.

The contention that VR may have or may not won the championship during his inaugural year will remain subject to dispute. But actually, I find it quite disrespectful and dismissive of Junior, who lets not forget convincingly beat Rossi at Motegi and irrespective of their supposed handicapped start, held him off to secure the title on what I have always believed to be an inferior bike to the 99 spec NSR.

No doubt Rossi did tremendously well in his rookie year on a 500, a bike still sufficiently vicious to end Mick Doohan's career a year earlier after 5 titles, and it would appear worse with the "Criville" engine, and possibly could have done better if he had been seen as a serious contender from the get-go. The Nastro Azzurro set-up was a sweet deal for him, and ended up being his ideal although probably not by deliberate design on Honda's part, but as J4rn0 says he was no more favoured than Pedrosa or MM subsequently.

I also agree with you, Kenny Jnr winning on a Suzuki was a more meritorious title win than many.
MotoGP - MotoGP Forum

Rising Sun · Mar 29, 2016

It is a good interview; Burgess always gives a good interview. But what he says is not exactly what you were saying.

J4rn0 said:
"But anyway, we ended up creating a fantastic little team. We were ostracized out there. We were doing it on our own. They knew they had to give him a good bike because of who he was, and there was a group of five of us and one Japanese engineer, and we just set ourselves up next door and went about our business.

Ostracised? Or fantastic? Which was it, Jeremy? They had a separate shed at HRC in Aalst, true, but Briggs (and Burgess elswhere) spoke about the advantages.

J4rn0 said:
It was chaos in the Repsol team. We just used to look over and go, "Oh, Jesus."

And I'll bet Burgess loved that; he's was always more competitive than any of his riders.

J4rn0 said:
And we worked with Valentino, and we had a couple of incidents in the first couple of races, which weren't necessarily his fault.

Rossi himself didn't see it that way. He said his crashes at Welkom and Sepang were due to his 250 riding style. He said they also dented his confidence and it took him most of the year to master riding a 500. (I'm paraphrasing from his autobiography).

J4rn0 said:
"But the potential of Valentino was very, very obvious from the first tests. And that's when we had an engine with good middle-range power.

He was fast from the beginning, no doubt about it, but he was also crashing on that spec engine in testing as well. Gibernau warned him it was because of the way he rode, and that he would have to adapt his style. Rossi didn't listen, and found out the hard way.

I'm sure the 2000 engine didn't help, but I don't think he would have been good enough at the start of the season on the '99 spec engine anyway. He wasn't good enough on it at the end of the season, either...

J4rn0 said:
If we'd had our .. if they'd left us on the '99-spec engine from Day One, we would've been World Champion. I'm convinced of that.

Yes, and Ducati set-up issues can be fixed in 80 seconds, too, Jeremy.

Nevertheless, it's a great quote, and it may have turned out that way. Of course, if Criville had also that engine from day one, maybe his career wouldn't have fallen off a cliff; he might have even repeated as champion.

Btw, Marquez and Pedrosa have a lot more sway with HRC than Criville ever did, and I would judge are much better at giving feedback, yet they have somehow ended up with engines that don't have the usable power they want. HRC wouldn't be the common denominator in all of this, would they?

I mean, Burgess says they were 4th in the pecking order and so didn't get the '99-spec engine and parts until after the factory team. Doesn't that mean the factory team were also asking for the same things? Why would they be given something first if they were not also asking for them?

You said if HRC had listened to Burgess/Rossi and not Criville and co. from the beginning they could have won. I think it's pretty clear they weren't listening to anyone. Not only that, but Burgess seems to want to have it both ways in that interview: if they left us with the old bike we would have been fine, but they gave us upgrades at the start of the season!

JPSLotus · Mar 29, 2016

Good read.

Honda's entire motor racing engineering theory, revolves around looking to learn something and testing new concepts and ideas whether they succeed or not. Rossi himself was never going to be an exception to them changing their design goals. Look at this season, HRC's improvements will all come from electronics improvements and not changes to their basic design theory regarding this year's challenger. You either can ride the bike and improve the characteristics via electronics...or you can't. You will never change the mothership. That's why Dani Pedrosa is ......... Needs that perfect setup too badly and this isn't a bike that will ever give it.

Dr No · Mar 29, 2016

Question re: Alex Criville.
He was reported to have a mild(?) form of epilepsy. Anyone remember when this first manifested itself?

birdman · Mar 29, 2016

J4rn0 said:
The story of Rossi-Ducati is also overplayed. The fact that only Stoner could win on that Ducati doesn't make of all the others mediocre or average riders.

The point is not to prove Rossi is a mediocre talent. The point is the best riders deserve the best equipment. The way it should be. But to be the best rider what do you need? The best equipment. Without it you might suddenly appear mediocre, even 9 times. Catch 22 maybe?

The question is why would you support it being that way? You said, the way it should be.

One of the major reasons motogp is so lopsided is imo Rossi did not think 07 was a fair fight. That's not suprising he wants to win them all. The problem I have is that it appears the governing body agreed with him and set about modifying rules to make sure 08 was not a repeat. I cant remember that happening previously and I view it all as highly detrimental to the sport in the long run. That's not a criticism of Rossi, but DORNA and the willingness to have motorhome meetings were rules are drafted up on napkins. I always thought the tyre war was a vital element of Motogp, the opportunity for the smaller teams to compete, the less well endowed to get a leg up so to speak.

Just when it appears in 2016 we have a decent set of fair stable rules, DORNA go and change them yet again with the rider point penalty system. It happens time and time again. A rule that was supposedly effective in dealing with dangerous riding particularly Moto3.

JPSLotus · Mar 29, 2016

There's another couple of bits I wanted to address.

The first regards Rossi's titles and the legitimacy, or weighting of the titles in the overall scheme of GP history.

Some don't like to use terms such as "tainted" when mentioning his titles because he has them regardless. To this I have always said ......... For the purposes of record keeping, Rossi will forever be the World Champion of '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, '08, and '09. Fair enough. He will forever be remembered as a 7-time premier class world champion...just as Barry Bonds will be forever remembered as the single season and all-time homerun leader in MLB.

It is however perfectly fair game to assess the quality of those titles. That's how the real world works. There isn't some mythical fantasyland where what one achieves is viewed in a vacuum...well unless you are a bopper. But that aside, assessing the quality of the titles requires assessing what exactly went on in GP during that period.

This for me is the big kicker...if you are being given a tire designed with your riding style in mind versus everyone else on the grid, why, that looks, feels, and smells like a well-orchestrated fraud. It doesn't matter how talented Rossi is. A tire advantage is the single greatest equipment advantage one can ever achieve in motor sports because of how important the tire is. Michelin did the same thing with Renault in F1 and made a tire custom designed for the Renault R25 and R26 and Fernando Alonso. They won back to back world championships as a result.

I might not like Rossi, but I wouldn't begrudge him the titles if the tires were simply made to a certain spec rather than a certain rider's spec. Nothing wrong with that.

And this leads into my next bit...doesn't anyone who happens to lean towards Rossi find it particularly disturbing that a rider, assuming he finishes out the contract completely, will have held the sport under his sway for 2 years shy of 20 years? From a sporting perspective, that is ....... insane. There's simply no precedent for this in any sport. There's been preferential treatment for certain athletes or stars, but not to the point where the board was cleared of everything, and then a game commenced, only the dice were loaded from the get-go. If it weren't for Nicky Hayden, Casey Stoner, Jorge Lorenzo, and Marc Marquez, imagine how that board actually looks. One should weep at the thought. Just imagine if Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan had the entire rules of the sport rewritten with their input? Any reasonable person would say it's a complete fraud...but in GP land, many find this to be perfectly acceptable.

michaelm · Mar 29, 2016

JPSLotus said:
There's another couple of bits I wanted to address.

The first regards Rossi's titles and the legitimacy, or weighting of the titles in the overall scheme of GP history.

Some don't like to use terms such as "tainted" when mentioning his titles because he has them regardless. To this I have always said ......... For the purposes of record keeping, Rossi will forever be the World Champion of '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, '08, and '09. Fair enough. He will forever be remembered as a 7-time premier class world champion...just as Barry Bonds will be forever remembered as the single season and all-time homerun leader in MLB.

It is however perfectly fair game to assess the quality of those titles. That's how the real world works. There isn't some mythical fantasyland where what one achieves is viewed in a vacuum...well unless you are a bopper. But that aside, assessing the quality of the titles requires assessing what exactly went on in GP during that period.

This for me is the big kicker...if you are being given a tire designed with your riding style in mind versus everyone else on the grid, why, that looks, feels, and smells like a well-orchestrated fraud. It doesn't matter how talented Rossi is. A tire advantage is the single greatest equipment advantage one can ever achieve in motor sports because of how important the tire is. Michelin did the same thing with Renault in F1 and made a tire custom designed for the Renault R25 and R26 and Fernando Alonso. They won back to back world championships as a result.

I might not like Rossi, but I wouldn't begrudge him the titles if the tires were simply made to a certain spec rather than a certain rider's spec. Nothing wrong with that.

And this leads into my next bit...doesn't anyone who happens to lean towards Rossi find it particularly disturbing that a rider, assuming he finishes out the contract completely, will have held the sport under his sway for 2 years shy of 20 years? From a sporting perspective, that is ....... insane. There's simply no precedent for this in any sport. There's been preferential treatment for certain athletes or stars, but not to the point where the board was cleared of everything, and then a game commenced, only the dice were loaded from the get-go. If it weren't for Nicky Hayden, Casey Stoner, Jorge Lorenzo, and Marc Marquez, imagine how that board actually looks. One should weep at the thought. Just imagine if Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan had the entire rules of the sport rewritten with their input? Any reasonable person would say it's a complete fraud...but in GP land, many find this to be perfectly acceptable.

I don't think it was as bad as all that during his initial run of 5 titles, and the tyre narrative in regard to those titles is largely retrospective and somewhat suspect imo. SNS/top spec tyres were certainly a necessity if you were a Michelin runner, and as has been alluded to Colin Edwards has said those tyres didn't suit him, but I don't recall Biaggi and Gibernau complaining about a tyre disadvantage, then or since, and they hardly had reason to keep quiet about Rossi being advantaged. Tony Elias did rather illustrate the advantage of being on the Michelin A list on the occasion of his only premier class win of course, and Rossi had an almost ludicrous bike advantage in 2003, which would probably have applied to whoever was the lead HRC rider that year and was not specifically because it was him, and was also an advantage he promptly then gave up by moving to Yamaha.

It is what happened with tyres after 2007 which is more murky imo, and I don't think it was appreciated before then how dependent Michelin were on the SNS thing.

JPSLotus · Mar 29, 2016

What if no one complained purely because no such thing had ever been done before, so the idea was simply incomprehensible to those out there? It's not like this doesn't occur in every day life.

michaelm · Mar 29, 2016

JPSLotus said:
What if no one complained purely because no such thing had ever been done before, so the idea was simply incomprehensible to those out there? It's not like this doesn't occur in every day life.

We disagree then, but probably not about what came after, which was a control tyre and Ducati being unable to procure or develop a tyre which suited their idiosyncratic bike, all because Rossi spat the dummy over, and/or Dorna wanted to ensure was never to be repeated, a possible tyre advantage for 1 year which was developed if it did exist by years of work by Bridgestone with Ducati.

James Lai · Mar 29, 2016

LOL . .. . Dont make life so hard.... Just enjoy the race. Whatever Rossi and Lorenzo decide, it is their career to look after. As a fan just enjoy the race and support your beloved star. They win you cheer. They lost you make sure encourage him to fight on. Simple math and stop bringing in the Algebra. PEACE TO MANKIND AND LOVE THE SPORT !!

povol · Mar 29, 2016

michaelm said:
I don't think it was as bad as all that during his initial run of 5 titles, and the tyre narrative in regard to those titles is largely retrospective and somewhat suspect imo. SNS/top spec tyres were certainly a necessity if you were a Michelin runner, and as has been alluded to Colin Edwards has said those tyres didn't suit him, but I don't recall Biaggi and Gibernau complaining about a tyre disadvantage, then or since, and they hardly had reason to keep quiet about Rossi being advantaged. Tony Elias did rather illustrate the advantage of being on the Michelin A list on the occasion of his only premier class win of course, and Rossi had an almost ludicrous bike advantage in 2003, which would probably have applied to whoever was the lead HRC rider that year and was not specifically because it was him, and was also an advantage he promptly then gave up by moving to Yamaha.

It is what happened with tyres after 2007 which is more murky imo, and I don't think it was appreciated before then how dependent Michelin were on the SNS thing.

Exactly why i singled out 2008 that burned my ... in particular

yamfan · Mar 30, 2016

Lorenzo won in Qatar because he chose the soft rear tyre, which actually got better and better during the race and actually allowed him to set a lap record on his 21st lap.
For Argentina we have the following tyre choice taken from the main article on motogp.com.

Michelin will also face a new challenge in Argentina. The options available for front tyres will therefore be the hard (yellow band) and medium (no band) tyres. Rear tyre choices are from the hard (yellow band) and medium options. For the first time this season the full wet and intermediate tyres will also be available should they be needed.

Is it sheer coincidence or is dorna taking steps to prevent Lorenzo running away from the field again?

Search

Search

Yamaha extends Rossi contract to 2018

michaelm

Rising Sun

Arrabbiata1

JohnnyKnockdown

J4rn0

Jumkie

J4rn0

Arrabbiata1

michaelm

Rising Sun

JPSLotus

Dr No

birdman

JPSLotus

michaelm

JPSLotus

michaelm

James Lai

povol

yamfan

Similar threads

Recent Discussions