Motorcycle Forums

Lemon Squeezy it is

If Stoner thought the GP9 a better bike than the old trellis frame, who are we to say otherwise. Just because it didn't win as many means it wasn't as good? By your logic I guess, if you just look at figures and don't bother looking at all facts that shaped what happened. But why do that when stats justify another feeble attempt to demonstrate Stoner hadn't a clue about bike development

You call me desperate...  but you can't let this go

Buell, Buell, where are you, someone is being disrespectful to a rider

So if you tried 4 bikes Wosi, one you felt very comfortable with and gave you the best lap time, the others didn't suit your style of riding (side-saddle I believe) -  which one would you choose.

The Ducati was never as good as the Yamaha or Honda - doesn't mean to say the GP9 wasn't better than the GP8. Fck knows what you're going on about the Rossi period for

First 6 races of 2009 Lorenzo, Rossi, Stoner had 2 wins each. The affects of Stoner's lactose intolerance caused him the fatigue problems washed out the mid season,  the team shafted both him and Hayden at Donnington with a woefully inaccurate weather report and sent them out on the wrong tyres. He then came back with a 2nd and 2 wins before your favourite comedy moment at Valencia where he'd been fastest in every session over the weekend

With different fortune, the 2009 title could have been a much closer fight between Rossi, Lorenzo and Stoner. Finishing last at Donington and missing races through illness wasn't caused by the bike. It may not have been on a par with the Japs but Stoner could use it, even on the control tyres.

With the best will in the world, Rossi on the 2012 bike couldn't get close to a genuine podium, never mind a win or title challenge but I'm not sure I see the point.

Fair do's Saturn, a bit of artistic licence perhaps, in the Wosi mould, but ultimately it was a decision made by riders and team together as they thought heavy rain was on its way. And given Stoner was struggling with fitness in dry races annd wasn't confident of placing well due to fatigue, he hadn't a huge amount to lose by taking the gamble.

You're being silly now DF..

The Panigale uses aluminium not CF and is far from proven at this stage.

Stoner tested the GP9 in June 2008. He begged Prezel to let him have the bike for the remainder of 2008 and ditch the Trellis. Ducati said no and he had to wait until 2009.

2007/8 the trellis won 17 races. 2009/10 the CF won 7.

I made this point to illustrate that choosing the right development parts is apparrently not the simple job Bulto thinks it is, and perhaps Rossi had with the M1.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing..and because the TEAM at Yamaha did a good job it's easy to presume the process was straight forward. Ducati have shown this is NOT the case. Even Honda have struggled..some say they lost direction after Rossi, intent on proving the engineers were more important. Ring a bell?

Explaining why Ducati allowed Stoner to test the bike so early in it's development, Preziosi said..

"We took the decision to allow the factory riders to test the GP9 because it would have been more difficult at a later stage of development and eventually we'd have had to go backwards in certain areas." 

"There are some things that are possible to analyse with data such as in the engine or the cycle part but other areas where it is absolutely essential to have the riders' opinions."
 

So..Stoner DID have a big input into the direction and, that direction based on results did go backwards. The CF bike was only 40% as successful as the machine it replaced. Not only this..Stoner crashed it a lot more getting those poorer results.

This is in direct contrast to how Rossi, Furusawa and Yamaha developed the M1. The results improved and todays bike is a direct descendent of the 2004 M1. The Ducati, bar the engine, is virtually unrecognisable after many changes and is the worst handling bike on the grid.

Todays M1 is generally regarded as the sweetest handling, easiest bike to ride fast..and last years results tend to back that up.

The Ducati which Stoner presided over is in the skip.

Despite Rossi's standing & influence forcing them to reconsider their philosophy and employ an improved chassis - something that would never of happened with Stoner still #1 - Ducati remain insistent the engine must stay. They continue to mackle shit around it rather than start from the ground up with a clean sheet of paper.

In my humble opinion they are chasing their tails, throwing good after bad with a stubborn attitude trying to prove the Desmo engine is not the problem. 

Bollocks to your white flags.

One of the main reason Stoner gave for leaving Ducati was the bike didn't get any upgrades from the start of a season to the finish.

Preziosi & Guareschi have both said they gave Stoner what he wanted..every little thing. Apparently he didn't ask for very much and just rode the shit out it. Win or bin.

2009 was the first season of Bridgestones control tyre. Lorenzo & Pedrosa to a lesser degree didn't have their own data. Rossi had a years worth..Ducati had plenty.

Stoner was competitive to start and up until Donington, where he chose to run wets while his competitors ran slicks. It was a stupid mistake to make and completely down to rider choice. The criticism added to his sickly woes. Bulto is talking out of his arse again looking to defend his boyfriend with little regard for his own credibility. 

Stoner reckons he could have won the title that year but he stunned the paddock by going home. He should have fought and gathered points but went fishing.

It's very easy to say things after the event and winning races when he came back when others were locked into a championship battles proves fk all in my book..I've explained my reasoning before. I have Zero respect for him as a bloke during this period.

2010, the Ducati had a lot of changes all of which Stoner was happy about pre-season. He didn't win a race until September that year, when the pressure had disappeared AGAIN and he was perhaps trying a bit harder with a point to prove before he went to Honda.

The changes he credits with turning his season around didn't stop the crashing, were made by borrowing Haydens set-up and using parts that had been on the shelf all year, but previously ignored. Gabbarini was weak.

Five crashes and three end of season victories did not consitute the 2010 bike being a credible title contender. Stoner himself said after Mugello the bike was not competitive yet a few tweaks with old parts turned it into a winner so late in the season? Fkin genius..

His statements saying he'd left Rossi a good bike were self serving and disingenuous and his muppet Orange followers latched on, repeating the train of thought for the whole of Rossi's tenure..their shallow comprehension and fanboy reasoning obvious to real fans & students of the sport.

It was understandable. Casey had copped for a lot of flack and it was payback. I don't have a problem with it at all.

The problem the Orange have now, is that 2012 was another big let down, Stoner has gone and Rossi will be back at the front..showing up the sheep like Bulto for what they are.

Bitter little boys in a mans world who are now trying to wriggle out of the corner they painted themselves into, claiming it was a joke. THE least humourous of all posters on this site are suddenly comedians? haha..

I find it galling that you want to absolve Stoners part in Ducati's demise yet blame Rossi..without acknowledging the strides Yamaha and especially Honda have made over the last two years.

I have no intention of letting it go to give you all an easy life, like you keep pleading..so buckle the fk up pussies.