Rossi grumbling - Page 5

bsess · #81 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdavis009

Then you disagree with Rossi. This is getting stupid. In his book Rossi claims the Honda was clearly superior to the Yamaha in every way, going so far as to claim the Honda was "perfect." Anyone claiming the Yamaha was as good as the Honda is showing they care more about proving their argument than about the truth. One of the main reasons he moved to Yamaha was to prove that his success wasn't dependent on the bike i.e., he could win on an inferior bike.

Its not that I disagree with Rossi as much as I agree more with Doohan in forming the basis of my opinion which is that journalistic types are not capable of making relevant assessments of top race bikes simply because they are not capable of exploring the limits of the equipment.

While Rossi may be telling the truth or believe he is telling the truth he is not really an objective source in this matter insofar as his having a huge ax to grind with HRC. Honda always took the position that the bike is always more important than the rider which Rossi justifiably found galling and offensive. He took great exception to their philosophy so what better way to stick it their faces than by writing a book and saying the Honda WAS better but but the rider (Rossi) was even better. While he may have been honest and objective in his assessment, its also very well known that Rossi was motivated by revenge as well as the desire to further cement his legend by winning a title with two different manufacturers. In 2004 I do believe that the Honda was a better overall package than the Yamaha but the M1 also possessed some undeniable strengths over the Honda which Rossi, together with his superior abilities, was able to successfully take advantage of. Any discussion of the M1 being inferior to the Honda in 2005 is pure nonsense and fantasy worship. Rossi is truly great but anyone who believes his M1 was "inferior" to the Hondas that year is deluding themselves.

bsess · #82 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrgrn

wait, are you for real?

i never said "GROSELY" inferior, you say i said that

i said it made less power and was not as easy to ride so i would consider that a disadvantage, no

Fair enough. You never said grossly underpowered but just underpowered. The Hondas were underpowered compared to the Ducatis but that wasn't a problem for the Hondas. I believe that the Yamahas were not as easy to ride as the Hondas but that does not in and of itself make them "inferior".

i can't post credible support as you have already dismissed it as hogwash and nanny panny because you feel the poeple testing, riding, writing about the bikes are not qualified to make a opinion you feel is justified

What's so difficult to understand? I'll repeat an example I did before: the screamer two strokes were much more "difficult" to ride (and stay on) than the bikes fitted with big-bang motors. But for the rare, exceptional talent who could manage their unruly power output (e.g. Doohan) they were superior to the big bangers. But for the rest of the bike riding planet (i.e. all the other racers, ex-racers and journos of that era) the big bang bikes were much easier to go quicker on. I believe that for mere mortals, the M1 was knife edged and unforgiving but in the hands of someone like Rossi with his amazing feel for traction and throttle control, the Yamaha was anything but an inferior piece of machinery. If that wasn't the case, how come Rossi won the title in 2005 by a bigger margin than he ever had with a Honda? Can you at least try to answer some of my questions rather than retreat with weak cop outs?

you simplify, dismiss, and side step anything but saying it is not allowed and hogwash and then throw the far bone going fetch, silly really. ???????

you are a huge hicky fan and not a fan or rossi so there ain't no unbiased posts by you and i repectfully agree to disagree with you and will gladly post the year and mag name for the article/s for those who would really like to read them

Read my posts and read your posts. I make an effort toward rational counterpoint and discourse. I have yet to see any evidence of the same in your lazy, broken responses which fail to address the questions/arguments posed to you.

Does this help?

bsess · #83 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop

1)
3) Negative... the RC45 handled better than the Ducati...

Quote Alan Cathcart a respected racer who has the privilege of being able
to test all the top race machines for public consumption. This highly envied
position allows him to give readers an insight into the real differences
between makes, and even between years. This is revealed in his articles for
Motorcycle Racer magazine, among others. Below are some of the salient
comments on Colin Edwards' 1999 World Superbike RC45, when Alan was
given the chance to test it at the end of the 1999 racing season."

"The next day shone, and it was time for a track test I'll always remember.
That's not just because I ended up doing a lap time that brought smiles and
compliments from HRC race staff, but because of the qualities of the bike I
did it on - arguably the finest Superbike I've yet ridden. And, yes - this was
less than a month after I'd ridden Carl Fogarty's world champion Ducati, so I
do have a valid basis for comparison."

So why then wasn't Edwards able to win the title in 1999 (or any other year for that matter) on the RC45? Was is because Fogarty was so much better a rider that he was able to beat Edwards and the superior Honda on the inferior Ducati? Its also interesting that Colin was only able to finally win his titles on a V-twin.

bsess · #84 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdavis009

Then you disagree with Rossi. This is getting stupid. In his book Rossi claims the Honda was clearly superior to the Yamaha in every way, going so far as to claim the Honda was "perfect." Anyone claiming the Yamaha was as good as the Honda is showing they care more about proving their argument than about the truth. One of the main reasons he moved to Yamaha was to prove that his success wasn't dependent on the bike i.e., he could win on an inferior bike.

As you're are a staunch advocate of the truth, I'm sure you realize that Rossi's autobiography recounts history only up through the conclusion of the 2004 season.

GoodKnight · #85 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 247

Last year Dani and Stoner were both on RCV211Vs with Michelins, which was a very, very good package. Dani beat him handily.

Are you suggesting the LCR honda was on par with the FACTORY repsol honda?

sqd8r · #86 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop

I have a Colin Edwards quote and he sounds elated...

"I was at Yamaha so long I didn't know any different. I rode the RC45
at Suzuka in December. As I rode from pit lane I thought 'no wonder I
can't beat this...' It's super smooth, so much power and no big hit,
no jolt, just seething--the fastest thing I've ridden and totally
accommodating. You can carry corner speed or point and squirt--feels
like there are a number of ways to ride it"

I always think back to Edwards' initial comments about the RC51. Slight and Edwards both thought it was a dud. It seemed slower until they looked at the lap times and compared several years of development of the Honda chosen powerplant v. the bastard child of marketing, sporting rules and HRC that was the RC51.

**mrgrn** · #87 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsess

So why then wasn't Edwards able to win the title in 1999 (or any other year for that matter) on the RC45? Was is because Fogarty was so much better a rider that he was able to beat Edwards and the superior Honda on the inferior Ducati? Its also interesting that Colin was only able to finally win his titles on a V-twin.

once again were you paying attention or R u still standing on that tiny piece of thin ice still

there was a weight, CC and tire saving advantage of the twin over the 4 bangers hence the demise of the kawi and gixxer 750 back then too. it was only once the rules changed back to favor the 1000cc I4 did they return and now ducati biatches and they get another 200cc round and round we go again.

**mrgrn** · #88 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsess

With all due respect, he was basing this comparison after years of struggling on the YZF750 which was vastly underpowered vs. the RC45. Edwards was always a very positive, enthusiastic racer and he predicted numerous championships for himself on the RC45 which never materialized.
I'm not saying the RC45 was a bad bike. I was stoked when JK won the title in '97. It just never delivered an equitable return on its cost/investment as compared to the Ducatis of that era which were less powerful and less sophisticated.

yet they still go for over $30k LOL

they did very well all over the world and ducati only did WSBK so blah blah blah

sidestep, dismiss again

**mrgrn** · #89 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsess

Does this help?

i can't post any. you have simply dismissed them as not viable so why bother?

seems unless rossi himslef comes and says the M1 was not as good as the Honda(and he is not going to now) you are not going to believe it and even then i bet you would have some excuse to say it is not true

**mrgrn** · #90 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:45 PM

how many daytona and AMA wins and titles does the ducati have?

how many IOM victories does the duke have?

how many suzuka wins for the duke?

how many for the 45?

XFBO · #91 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 247

WHOA tiger.

Dani's Honda 250 was not superior to Stoner's Aprilia 250. The (rotary valve) Aprilia's have had power over the Honda 250s for the last few years. And they were both on the same tires. Dani beat him handily.
More power [alone] does NOT equate to championships.
Only for the past 2 yrs we've been hearing that cry......cuz from 2000-2003, I never heard about it.

Last year Dani and Stoner were both on RCV211Vs with Michelins, which was a very, very good package. Dani beat him handily.

This is the MOST ridiculous statement made here yet. The ONLY similiarity between those two bikes are they both rolled out of HRC and there it ends.

XFBO · #92 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrgrn

how many daytona and AMA wins and titles does the ducati have?

how many IOM victories does the duke have?

how many suzuka wins for the duke?

how many for the 45?

Daytona? AMA? Why not really bury urself and bring up CCS and WERA. LOL! THe REAL measure on worthy componentry is WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!!!! Please!

How many does the RC45 have?

Mind you, Ive never owned or been much of a Ducati fan but the facts are just that.

wdavis009 · #93 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsess

As you're are a staunch advocate of the truth, I'm sure you realize that Rossi's autobiography recounts history only up through the conclusion of the 2004 season.

Yes, I do. I was referring to 2004. Only those who have ridden both bikes know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if by 2005 the Honda and Yamaha were simply different, i.e., the Honda had better power and the Yamaha had better handling.

**mrgrn** · #94 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 11:53 PM

Frank, do trivialize things.

Honda made a bike to race and win in more than one venue so it only fair to compare apples to apples then. if the ducati was only made to race and win in one venue then hardly a even comparison

FWIW, ducati gave us the same basic bike for like 8 years, real inventful

XFBO · #95 (**permalink**) 10-16-2007, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrgrn

Frank, do trivialize things.
Yea Ill do that. LOL!

Honda made a bike to race and win in more than one venue so it only fair to compare apples to apples then. if the ducati was only made to race and win in one venue then hardly a even comparison

If you believe that then there really isnt much to say to you. To even think Honda builds racebikes for IOM, AMA and Daytona is laughable.

FWIW, ducati gave us the same basic bike for like 8 years, real inventful

As much of an insult that you wanted that comment to be, reality is it's all that was needed to beat all those shnazzy well thought out inlines/v4's.

**mrgrn** · #96 (**permalink**) 10-16-2007, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XFBO

As much of an insult that you wanted that comment to be, reality is it's all that was needed to beat all those shnazzy well thought out inlines/v4's.

no frank, no insult meant i leave that up to you.

Honda does not make bikes for those venues anymore exclusively but if you think they were not when they made 200 handlaid glass bodywork for the RC30 and 50 RC45's then you are way too far gone to help. those bikes were exclusovely built, and meant to race in venues such as that not at pocono raceway

zen748 · #97 (**permalink**) 10-16-2007, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrgrn

Frank, do trivialize things.

Honda made a bike to race and win in more than one venue so it only fair to compare apples to apples then. if the ducati was only made to race and win in one venue then hardly a even comparison

FWIW, ducati gave us the same basic bike for like 8 years, real inventful

14 of 19 WSBK Championships, and now they own motogp!!!

Put Rossi on a Ducati and he would rip any one on anything a new one!!! They are both the GOAT!!!

Ducati is the GOAT! And they will prove it again next year in Moto GP and WSBK!!!!

Real Univentful

zen748 · #98 (**permalink**) 10-16-2007, 01:38 AM

I'll tell you what hot shot, I'll bet You $100.00 Ducati takes WSBK and Motogp World Championships in 2008! As Speedzilla is my witness, I will win this bet!!