I know exactly where i am going thanks but your reply doesn't seem to be clear in its direction... Refering to a chassis that is at the same time stable and easy to turn on the brakes?
Right, if it was so easy Yamaha wouldn't have so much troubles doing it, and it seems to me that you are jumping the gun here, chassis geometry and suspension design even today makes it (from a mechanical PoV) all but impossible to obtain this.
It's either you optimize for corner speed or the opposite or you get a compromise (in which case it is not "stable" but "relatively stable"). Even Honda can't do it so your idea of what "stability" is is not really the same as mine now if you managed to get the YZF1000 to turn on the brakes please tell me how you managed without changing its chassis geometry (swing arms are available in the UK) and loosing in another area.
PaceyCasey. For Yamaha he did more than any other manager before him, there are numerous sources to prove that, one thing for ex; he was so pushy, his engineers finished by cuting and welding the Yamaha chassis to put the exentric he was revving about all the time (swing arm from his dirt track times).
Otherwise said the introduced this setting capability to the 500 cc category, never was afraid to brake rules and when he couldn't do it (factory rules) the chassis would be crap (1992).
If you refer to his Proton team, he tried and got a few good results which is more than a factory like Ducati is doing today all things relative (to budget).
I don't see where you get this impression that his teams were crap, he challenged for the title with Mamola and Rainey vs Marlboro Yamaha, won them 3 500 cc titles and developed their bike like no one else did before him. What exactly is crappy about that?
ps i do not intend to give you any lesson but from what you said i truly thought you were not properly informed.