MotoGP: Jeremy Burgess “I will carry the Rossi Ducati failure with me forever”
The Australian doesn't give himself "peace" for not having made the Rossi Ducati "marriage" work
Jeremy Burgess, despite being back with Valentino Rossi and his men at Yamaha, cannot forget the failure he had with Ducati. The Australian crew chief, who has followed Rossi since his debut in the premier class, is tormented by the adventure with the Borgo Panigale team. Three podiums in 35 races are crumbs for him and the nine-time world champion. In an exclusive interview with MCN Sport, he said that the fact that both he and Rossi failed to achieve their goals will haunt him forever.
“I feel like we could have done better and that's something I'll carry with me to my grave, because we failed to achieve the goals we set for ourselves in the two years. We didn't win a race, we didn't win a championship and we weren't able to continue the Rossi Ducati marriage. They were the primary objectives. We had a few podiums, but three in 35 races is certainly not what we would have hoped for and was disappointing. I think with Audi coming there could be another kind of focus on what you want to achieve and what you want to achieve. The most disappointing thing was seeing Valentino look for other "shores" because he didn't see any options. I understand it, because he wants to be competitive.”
Burgess then spoke about the current situation in MotoGP from a mechanics point of view. The fact that Rossi brought his entire team with him meant that some members of Spies' team (formerly Yamaha and in 2013 with Ducati Pramac) had to remain "on foot".
“In Spies' Yamaha team there were some guys, good mechanics who remained 'outside'. These are kids who have mortgages to pay and a family to look after and are now looking for a job. This means that I don't like the MotoGP now, we are simply a number and I don't like it."
if you want to always be updated on our news
Follow us here
MotoGP | Zarco rejects the new Honda tested in the Jerez tests
MotoGP | Jorge Lorenzo: “When Simoncelli died I cried and I no longer understood anything”
MotoGP | The Kazakhstan Grand Prix postponed to the end of 2024
MotoGP | The Ducati grandstand returns to Mugello
MotoGP | GP Jerez, Dall'Igna: “Pecco exceptional, Marquez courageous and indomitable”
MotoGP | Lorenzo on the Bagnaia vs Marquez duel in Jerez: "Marc would have won with the GP24"
MotoGP | Assen confirmed until at least 2031
ehehehe..2 errors in all..
1)You have sinned by presumption, you and your steed..
2)You underestimated Stoner "a bit".
I can understand that the Doctor, from the heights of his delirium of omnipotence, buffoonery and little sporting acumen, may have underestimated Casey (but how much was he ever capable of admitting that a driver could be faster than himself), but you... big boss technician with years and years of experience in racing...how could you not see Casey's pure class?...and also, have you ever had the doubt that that bike wasn't for Rossi?
Consulate Jeremia, there are those who have done worse than you, handing over an entire Italian house into the hands of the Germans thanks to their incompetence. Imagine if they had downgraded it earlier, maybe Ducati would still be Italian, who knows.
If you are referring to Preziosi, I think you are wrong: Preziosi certainly managed the technical aspect of the MotoGP department, but I would say that company policies never passed into his hands.
Maybe Domenicali&Co had more hands on it.
At least in "normal" companies the technical department marginally deals with these things, in addition to the fact that we could see three distinct departments, SBK, MGP, production, and if at all, the motorcycle production department would certainly have an important role.
In case someone knows these things better (due to friends, acquaintances, etc.) it would be interesting to have information about it.
Thank you! ;-)
In tone this interview is similar to another one released a few months ago, immediately after the announcement of the separation or non-renewal between Rossi and Ducati.
In that article I read bitterness on Burgess's part, and here the same, after which: one person's fault? Anything else? I don't know, these are hackneyed arguments, the fact is that I consider Burgess to be a lucid and honest person, well, perhaps they sinned a little arrogance, and a little too much self-esteem, believing that everything was easy.
It's a shame it happened the way it did, I hope Ducati recovers as soon as possible.
Another interesting point which could open up a huge parenthesis is Burgess's last observation relating to the possibility of re-employing unconfirmed mechanics, i.e. the shortage of MotoGP bikes on the grid, or teams capable of facing expenses of a certain type.
I don't think that guys who have worked in the official Yamaha team will have problems finding a job suited to their skills; However, it makes me think that if anything they cannot be enrolled in MotoGP due to the ridiculous number of participants.
Maybe, perhaps, it really is time for Dorna to find a way to guarantee a show and manageable costs... it won't be easy, obviously, but that's what they're there for...
When a MotoGP takes them from various SBKs there is little bullshit: anyone would have made a great impression.
I'm convinced that Stoner probably would have done a little better given his very particular riding characteristics, but the bike he left behind in 2010 has even gotten worse and they were right to drop Domenicali.
It's not really true that there's little bullshit, certain results must also be evaluated, for example: 1) for several years now, SBKs have been achieving performances that are increasingly close to those of MotoGP. 2) the SBKs that did the time trials had qualifying tyres, which certainly cannot be said of the Ducati which used medium and hard tyres. 3) the SBKs made the best time on the 3rd day, while the Ducati on the 1st. If we compare the time of the 3rd day also for the Ducati, things are different, without prejudice to the used tyres.
Not only should these (but also other) aspects be considered when comparing times, we should also try to give the answer to the following question: given that Ducati has actually worsened from 2010 to today, whose responsibility is it for the most part? ?
Giving a comprehensive answer to this question is equivalent to playing the lottery, unfortunately, the only concrete thing that can be done is to list the key stages of these 2 years and see what actually happened.
I do it from my personal point of view, trying to be as objective as possible.
1) Valencia 2010. Stoner leaves a motorbike with which he took pole and 2nd in the race, Vale picks it up and gets a lent, also from Hayden
2) Valencia 2011. That day there was confirmation that the transition strongly desired by Vale and Burgess, from the carbon frame with a load-bearing engine, to the aluminum frame with a "mounted" engine, was absolutely useless, all the resources spent on that goal, completely useless. Preziosi made it clear immediately, but doing things different from those wanted by Vale was like committing an act of "lèse majesté" so they continued trying to make the Ducati similar to the Yamaha, while it was already clear to everyone that the shape of the Ducati engine , would never have allowed the Ducati to obtain the same performance as the entry-level Yamaha in terms of handling and handling, on the contrary, if we had concentrated on the strengths of the Ducati, the performance of the Honda could have been approached because the engine has a angle similar to that of the Ducati (but with smaller dimensions), the power is similar, the only real difference is made by the geometries which in the Ducati were all to be sought and when we worked hard to find the right compromise, the gap wasn't as big as in recent times with Vale.
In short, there is a lot of talk about Preziosi's (in my opinion presumed) guilt and his (in my opinion unjust) punishment, but who was saying where to intervene? Who was it that gave the direction to development? Who was it that indicated the areas to work? Only to then realize that the problems were different.
I have always found it too convenient to give the credit for victories and development to a single person (the driver) when the results arrive and to blame the demerits on the designer when the results do not arrive.
If the merits are given, the demerits must also be given, or they are divided, but immediately, not when it is convenient.
...great literate, agree on everything, perfect analysis...I've always thought the same things but I've never written them...wasted time, at least with some "Tavullian fundamentalist" subjects...reading your post, I'm sure Rob will definitely be smiling…
This is a great joke, it's a pity that the chassis was made (by Preziosi, not by Rossi) to overcome the problems that had been plaguing Ducati for 9 years, i.e. lack of rigidity and insensitivity of the front. Was it useless? Whatever the case, after 9 years of useless attempts to make that gate go, one more useless attempt certainly made no difference. Was Stoner winning? Well, I deserve credit for him, certainly not credit for Ducati, eh!!!
X blohm
Do you have different news than me?
Of course, the frame was made by Preziosi and not Rossi, of course, but "who" demanded the aluminum frame, have you asked yourself? My "sources" say that the aluminum frame was adopted by Ducati, to satisfy the requests of Vale and Burgess. Furthermore, Yamaha and Honda take years just to add some modifications that are advantageous and Honda (for example) took years (since 2004) to find a chassis that was successful, not only that, but this too, with the new tires, has chattering problems. This is to say that a good aluminum frame cannot be made overnight, but requires extensive testing, something which Ducati was unable to do, above all because it was the very first experience with frames of this shape and this material, so much so that they had to rely on an external company that also makes frames for Moto2. But did anyone really think that the Ducati chassis was perfect on the first try?
I would also like to add that what you claim is not true at all and if you have different information, I am curious to read it.
First point, the "lack of rigidity". From my knowledge, I can say that it is not true, the carbon frame, with the supporting engine, obtained much greater rigidity than what they obtained with the new frame, the proof lies in the chattering. The more rigid a frame is, the less likely it is that it will resonate and generate chattering; on the contrary, the "softer" a frame is, the more chatteriong will be heard. (let it be clear that the tires and the way they are built also have their weight). When Ducati mounted carbon frames, they didn't even know what chattering was (please read the various interviews), since 2011, with the aluminum frame, chattering has become a problem (please read the interviews, especially at the beginning of the year).
The front started acting up in 2009, not before (again, just reread the various statements), but when Stoner was driving it was thought it was his fault and nothing was done until the end of 2010. Vale arrived knowing already the nature of the problem, but, even with the strongly desired aluminum frame, it has not improved this point (or do you know that they have succeeded?).
It is certainly engineer Preziosi who designed the requested modifications, but these modifications were requested by Vale and Burgess. I continue to believe that, if Vale and Burgess give wrong indications on how to proceed and what to change (then Preziosi was designing the project), it is difficult for the engineer to find winning solutions.
Stoner won, very true. Thanks to him? Certainly. So here you are saying that Stoner was better than Valentino, given that he won and Vale didn't.
I'll stop you before you get "wrapped up" in the answer. The bike has deteriorated considerably since Stoner rode it, a clear sign that the direction given to development was wrong. Why do I say that the bike has gotten worse? Because when Stoner won, Hayden was never too far away (in terms of timing, but also in terms of results), very rarely did Hayden get the beatings he got in this last period. Ducati won with Stoner, but was also competitive with Hayden, now it doesn't win and isn't even competitive.
In case you have any other news...
Well maybe you have different news than me, giving directions to my house means that the rider and mechanics say: the bike is too soft, more rigidity is needed. Then how to find a way to give greater rigidity is a matter for engineers and designers. Otherwise the designers would go up there to try the changes, right? Well, maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that there is too much confusion between those who develop and those who design. Anyway there is an article today that perhaps Ducati will have a new tièz frame!!!
You are saying the same things I said in other words, but you are making other conclusions.
Did Vale and Burgess ask to move from carbon to aluminium? Yes! Had they already realized that nothing would change in the transition? S1! Could all the time and resources spent on this change be used to solve other problems? Answer here please.
Now, I'm absolutely not saying that Vale and Burgess told Preziosi how to make the frame, of course, but they still gave a certain "address" to the development of the bike for 2012. In case the "address" is wrong ( as in our case), how can we expect Precious to make a more competitive bike?
It's questions like this that should be asked before passing off responsibilities left and right.
This was just one example, but others can also be given, albeit less obvious, such as, for example, reading the statements at the end of 2011, one would have realized that Ducati's real problem (weight distribution) is was only taken into consideration at the end of the championship, why didn't the technician par excellence (Burgess) and the developer driver par excellence (Vale) understand it before?
Returning to the aluminum frame, this was designed, built and tested in just over 2 months, starting from scratch, without any experience on the subject and having FTR do the work, all at the request of Vale and Burgess. How is it possible (I often ask myself) that this year's failure (blaming the chassis because it is not at the level of the competition) is dumped on Preziosi?
The greater rigidity (which you are asking for, even if the main problem is another, namely the positioning of the center of gravity), was already there in abundance when carbon was used. This material can be used to give the desired stiffness, in the Americas Cap, with carbon, they make the sails and the mast, in the first case minimum stiffness, in the second maximum and always at a low weight. The Ducati, I repeat, until 2011 had no stiffness problems, a racing frame must be as rigid as possible to prevent chattering from triggering and if this year the chattering was a problem for the Ducati, the cause is to be found in the innovations introduced, namely in the aluminum frame.
Luckily they turned to others to make the frame, but I don't understand the reason for your statement (tièz), as if this would invalidate what I have written so far.
Now it could be Suter that makes the frames for Ducati, do you think this situation (turning to an external manufacturer) is comparable to that of Honda and Yamaha? I am convinced that Preziosi's innovative idea should be better exploited. This year in SBK, Ducati will have a bike similar (in design) to the 2010 MotoGP, we'll see if they get something out of it, even if we always have to consider the extreme novelty of the project for which we must also think about a period physiological to set it at its best.
Finally, are you of the opinion that in 2004 Yamaha won because Valentino is an excellent developer, or do you think that the credit goes to the Yamaha engineers who gave Valentino a very competitive machine? The same thing can also apply to subsequent years.
I don't know what answer you gave yourself, but, in any case, turning the tables and thinking about the Ducati experience, you can place the blame on Ducati only if you answered "thanks to the Japanese engineers" to the previous question and if the answer is that , then, all of Vale's reputation as an excellent developer would be just a fabrication, given that credit (or demerit) must always be given to whoever designed it. It's hard to believe that Vale should take the credit when the bike is a winner and shouldn't also take the demerits when the bike isn't a winner.
the 2010 bike hasn't gotten worse,
it was rejected by the reds, who considered it non-competitive....
with Stoner driving the comparison with the SBKs would not have been possible
Burges was honest in assuming his responsibilities, Rossi was not...
This is a comment worth quoting.
At least Burgess has taken on the burden of failure, Vale hasn't done so yet and I don't think he ever will. I want to put another load on it. I am convinced that Valentino, in the last races, has competed at 70% of his potential. From this, I maintain that, if my fear were confirmed, Vale would not have behaved like a "professional" and this in itself, for a person like him, should be embarrassing, but being overtaken by Hayden even by a certain margin, did not allowed the technicians to do a more profitable job to be able to hand over to those who arrived after him and this is also not behavior suited to the pilots.
I have always thought that the responsibilities for victories and defeats should be attributed to all the "actors", but there is no doubt that this aspect has never been valid for Vale, where every victory was the husband of the rider and every defeat, a demerit of the bike. It reminds me a lot of another Italian driver who has just retired.
...I would even say 50%...the last race was lapped by Dani...and you can't even say that the Spaniard had started first...they were together from the start and Pedrosa was almost "laying down" right away...these things should make reflect the fans...we'll see...should it remain permanently downsized, it will be fun!!!
Although as promised I will never write anything technical in here again...
I still read you every day…
I had already complimented Ligera for his lucid analyses...
Which I renew again today…
Together with my greetings and best wishes to :Bibo+VDS+Fatman…:-)
Thanks Rob, my best wishes for a very happy new year to you too.
thanks Rob!!!
:-)
I reciprocate with pleasure!!!!
Thanks Rob for the consideration shown to me.
Happy New Year everyone and happy holidays.