Jesus, this best bike shit
Look Diablo, this is how it is
The bike has to be capable of winning races and that may mean it has to be ridden a certain way to achieve that. It doesn't mean it's the best bike, or an easy bike to ride that anyone can win on.
When Rossi went to Yamaha in 2004 they gave him an improverd bike from the 2003 version which was generally considered below par. Would I say the 2004 M1 was the best bike on the grid?
No, definitely not.
It was a very good bike but the Honda V5 has to be considered the pinnacle of the 990 machines at that time. Rossi won the title on the Yam because he was a better rider than Gibernau or Biaggi, not because he had the best bike outright.
Stoner won in 2007 because he found a way to ride the Ducati like no-one else could or has ever been able to since. Capirossi who nearly won the title the year before on the 990 Ducati couldn't ride it. If it was so good, why couldn't a near title winner on the previous year's bike do any better than 7th and one fluke win. 2007 Ducati best bike? Don't make us laugh.
Now we have the Honda being put forward as the best bike, yet Lorenzo has won half the races so far, the last two two on the trot, went fastest in testing yesterday and has beaten the fastest Honda by 0.5 seconds in today's test.
Yet some would have it that the Yamaha is 0.5 seconds a lap slower than the Honda.
Yamaha have a fine Motogp bike, it and the Honda have different characteristics but there is little between them. They are a similar match around most tracks. Lorenzo's results show it and Cal's lap times on a satellite bike show it, if not some of his race results. He's pulverising the satellite Hondas and running close to the Repsols.
Give Lorenzo his due, he's on the top of his game at the moment and looks very comfortable on his bike with only one uncharacteristic blip so far in Le Mans.
Honda best bike? Would Lorenzo be any quicker on it than his M1? Difficult to see how.