Quote:
Originally Posted by 247
Disagree on the journo assessments. Obviously they are not capapble of being test riders, but their comments about stability, turn-in and engine characteristics, including HP are valid.
|
Their assessments are valid but to what extent and in what realm in terms of performance capabilities? Let's say, for example, that a bunch of journalists are testing the M1 and RCV at Phillip Island and the assessment of each of the bike's characteristics and performance is based on the journos' abilities to run laps not slower than 1:45.00 but no faster than 1:36.00. Are the evaluations they make within these parameter valid? Yes and no. They are certainly valid within the context of the lap times achieved but not in terms of what the bikes might be like when running laps in the 1:29.00-1:31.00 range where the characteristics and performance traits for each of the bikes may be radically different. A Honda that is stable on the brakes, turns in sweetly, holds its line and gets good drive off the corners at the Journos pace may be squirmy on the brakes, difficult to turn in, struggle with edge grip mid corner, and push the front wide when trying to generate drive off the exit when trying to circulate at a sub 1:31.00 pace. But the Journos will have no way of knowing this because they are nowhere near these limits and thus are not able to explore how the bike behaves at the more extreme ends of the performance spectrum. Since this discussion is about how the bikes compare to each other
at the MotoGP level, how can journos possibly make a fair assessment of the same if they're going nowhere near as fast?
But the point I've been trying (largely unsuccessfully) to make goes even beyond this. There's the jouno level of ability, the general MotoGP level of ability and then the
Rossi level of ability. The Rossi level of feel and ability resides on a plateau which is essentially unreachable for the majority of MotoGP racers and perhaps closely touched/approached at various times (but with nowhere near the consistency) by riders such as Pedrosa, Stoner, Melandri and even Hayden. A bike tuned to operate/respond with the delicate precision and acuity of someone with Rossi's tremendous reflexes, skill and feel could (and has largely shown itself to be the case) be extremely difficult to manage for everyone else. If Rossi's ears were as sensitive as his throttle control hand and feel for traction, he'd howl when someone blew a dog whistle. Therefore,
ANYONE who would deign to evaluate the characteristics of a bike tuned to someone with Rossi's superhuman abilities can only do so within the starkly contrasting limits of their own abilities. Comparing the two is like comparing the motor skills of a toddler to a great neurosurgeon. (They don't call him the doctor for nuthin'.)
What's silly is the perception by more than a few that during his championship years with Yamaha, Rossi had been struggling with a deficient, slow, poor handling piece of equipment that he had to override and whose shortcomings he had to compensate for in order to prevail when in reality, the M1 was an extraordinarily fine tuned instrument that only someone with Rossi's uncanny ability was able to play and succeed on. Certainly the Honda was the better overall bike for the rest of the MotoGP world and I believe Rossi would have continued to win titles in 2004 and 2005 had he remained with Honda but I don't believe that the M1, in the hands of someone with Rossi's talent, was an inferior bike. In fact, I think it was better than the Honda in several important areas which only someone like Rossi could capitalize on. Just like Stoner and the Ducati this year........