Quote from: bobspapa on April 23, 2009, 02:02:34 PM
[moto] weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


fack

One a...
is all you got?

I'm late to the party.  I'll admit I haven't read the thread, but at a glance it looked like people were getting heated.  If so, I wanna play too.     <looks around>  Who do I get to call an ignorant dick?   

//pot stirring

Quote from: Spidey on April 23, 2009, 05:07:25 PM
I'm late to the party.  I'll admit I haven't read the thread, but at a glance it looked like people were getting heated.  If so, I wanna play too.     <looks around>  Who do I get to call an ignorant dick?   

//pot stirring

You could start with me.

...and that's two whacks to the peepee for not doing your reading.

You know, while we're in the debate about factory v. satellite.  Maybe the current landscape doesn't offer great opportunities to argue this... but lets rewind back to 2004.  Sete Gibernau essentially matched Rossi point for point during the 2004 season on a satellite bike that didn't get pledged factory support until 2005.  How can you point to much difference in the Hondas in that scenario.  Are you claiming Rossi won the 2004 championship because he had Yamaha factory support then?

Barros/Hayden isn't exactly the most formidable team for Repsol in 2004, but I promise you the bikes weren't so different that one was heads and above the other.

because it's insane to compare them at all.

but if you do decide to compare them (crazy person!), they are very close.  esp if you use something like top speed to measure.

Quote from: Spidey on April 23, 2009, 05:07:25 PM
I'm late to the party.  I'll admit I haven't read the thread

you should...

Quote from: gm2 on April 24, 2009, 07:14:39 AM
because it's insane to compare them at all.

but if you do decide to compare them (crazy person!), they are very close.  esp if you use something like top speed to measure.

"compare" isn't the same as "equate".  saying it a bunch over and over doesn't change that. 

maybe you should read it again to...   

and yes virginia, if you think a factory ride and satellite ride are equal then you are insane, crazy, howlin at the moon, a few cards short of a full deck, etc...

Over the past 25 years, yes even back when privateers were more prevalent, the factory ride won the championship.

dude.  pay more attention to the smiley.


and for the millionth time i never used the word equal.  all i ever said was that they were relatively comparable.  at the beginning of the season only.  which is a true statement.  or was in 2006.

maybe you're jumping up and down so much cuz i got ya.  

I'm with you on the smiley which is why I used one too.  we just don't have a smiling head banger.

I only got in on this thread when someone jumped on the crap bike comment and then said he was on the SAME bike as Hayden and Rossi.  Even then it was 2 wiseass posts pointing out a one off satellite bike v. 2 championship factory bikes.

No argument comparing them hell the most interesting thing about this has been discovering the differences -- because they are different.  The number I found most interesting is the times from Mugello for Rossi in 2003 and then where it would have placed in in the 2006 race.   Gives the year to year development of the bikes new perspective.

And it's average speed not flat out top speed on the stats.   over the course of a race a single km/h is a huge difference in where they'll place.

cheers

Cowboy
thought Id chime in and let you know that what you are saying makes complete sense to me.
Don

Quote from: COWBOY on April 24, 2009, 08:02:41 AM

I only got in on this thread when someone jumped on the crap bike comment and then said he was on the SAME bike as Hayden and Rossi.  Even then it was 2 wiseass posts pointing out a one off satellite bike v. 2 championship factory bikes.

No argument comparing them hell the most interesting thing about this has been discovering the differences -- because they are different.

the issue i take with your position is that it's an absolute.

"the bikes used by the satellite teams are never equal to the factory bikes.

that's just not always true. aside from gm2's argument about the parity between the factory/customer bikes at the beginning of the season, hrc often doles out factory-level equipment to select riders. both stoner and melandri got hrc bikes in the latter half of the 2006 season, iirc.

Quote from: COWBOY on April 24, 2009, 08:02:41 AM
The number I found most interesting is the times from Mugello for Rossi in 2003 and then where it would have placed in in the 2006 race.   Gives the year to year development of the bikes and tires new perspective.

fixed it for ya. i'd even argue that you could not change the bikes year to year and still see significant drops in laptimes. don't forget, for the most part, these bikes were/are traction limited. they already had more power then they knew what to do with.

Quote from: derby on April 24, 2009, 04:04:10 PM
that's just not always true. aside from gm2's argument about the parity between the factory/customer bikes at the beginning of the season, hrc often doles out factory-level equipment to select riders. both stoner and melandri got hrc bikes in the latter half of the 2006 season, iirc.

elias, on a privateer team, is on a factory-spec rc212 right now.

there is ZERO chance that the "factory Spec" bikes being doled out are the same as the Repsol Hondas, period. 

You can tell me how close they are (comprable), you can talk about how similar they are (comprable), what you can't talk about is a single Satellite champion, what you can't point to is a string of races where the factory bike was beaten by the Satellite bike (less than 10 in the past 4 years with ALL of those coming in 2005, 2006.) what you can't show is that they are equal.

the fact is the Factory team in this case Honda Repsol rides better equipment than the Satellite Honda teams, period.  The results say that is more true today than at any other time in the past 25 years.  The OP-Ed article articulates why, why that is a concern and discusses some ways GP is looking to solve that.

this is not to say they are given "crap".  they are given competitive bikes; just bikes that are a less than the repsol's.

so what, specifically, was different between the bike pedrosa had in 2006 and the bikes that stoner and melandri were given in the latter half of the season?

fwiw, if there is such a disparity in the satellite bikes, how do you account for those ~10 wins?

Quote from: COWBOY on April 24, 2009, 04:42:05 PM
there is ZERO chance that the "factory Spec" bikes being doled out are the same as the Repsol Hondas, period. 

you better get on the phone to fausto gresini, pronto!

seriously: elias DOES have a factory-spec machine right now.  it was part of the new gresini contract.  i don't know whether or not he'll continue to get factory dev/support throughout the year, but he does have an '09 factory spec rc212v at the moment.

look it up. 

Quote from: COWBOY on April 24, 2009, 04:42:05 PM
what you can't talk about is a single Satellite champion, what you can't point to is a string of races where the factory bike was beaten by the Satellite bike (less than 10 in the past 4 years with ALL of those coming in 2005, 2006.) what you can't show is that they are equal.

you're absolutely right.  and i've never tried to argue any of those points.

Quote from: COWBOY on April 24, 2009, 04:42:05 PM
this is not to say they are given "crap".  they are given competitive bikes; just bikes that are a less than the repsol's.

you've just made my same point, again.

they are given competitive, comparable bikes.  usually the previous year's end of season machine.  then it does not get the same new season parts/dev or during-the-season parts and dev.  unless it's one of those unusual cases where that does happen mid-season, as derby pointed out.