MotoGP: Suzuki prepares for its return – Video
The Hamamatsu company has produced three videos on the return to the Top Class
di Alessio BrunoriJanuary 8, 2014
Suzuki is preparing to return to the Top Class, a return that will take place officially in 2015. The Japanese company, led by our Davide Brivio, continues its tests and in recent weeks has produced videos which we propose below and which show the work of the men of Hamamatsu. The riders with whom he will return to the world championship have not yet been made official, but Randy de Puniet, current test rider, in order to leave nothing to chance, will remain stationary in 2014, dedicating himself only to Suzuki.
Video Part 1
Video Part 2
Video Part 3
Motorionline.com has been selected by the new Google News service,
if you want to always be updated on our news
Follow us here
if you want to always be updated on our news
Follow us here
MotoGP | Le Mans GP, Espargarò: “I can't wait to arrive and start getting the results we deserve”
"The weather is always complicated, in that sense it will be a challenge" added the Aprilia rider
MotoGP French GP Le Mans Aprilia Racing – Aleix Espargaró aims to achieve a good result after a complicated weekend
MotoGP | GP Le Mans, Vinales: "It's a track where I'm often competitive"
"I have the feeling that this year will be special" added the Aprilia rider
MotoGP French GP Le Mans Aprilia Racing – After the difficulties in Jerez, Maverick Vinales is ready to make up for it, next
MotoGP | GP Le Mans, Di Giannantonio: “It's a fantastic track, I like it a lot”
"I've always been quite strong here" added the Roman
MotoGP GP France Le Mans Ducati VR46 Racing Team – Fabio di Giannantonio aims to improve on Jerez result
MotoGP | GP Le Mans, Bezzecchi: “I can't wait to get back on track, I'm very excited”
"I like the track, last year I won, one of the best races of my career" added the Rimini native
MotoGP GP France Le Mans Ducati VR46 Racing Team – Marco Bezzecchi, after the podium obtained in Jerez, is excited
MotoGP | GP Le Mans, Mir: “In Jerez we achieved the best we could”
"This weekend we will get closer to our goals" added the Spanish rider
MotoGP GP France Le Mans Repsol Honda – Joan Mir, after the Jerez race and the tests he is ready
MotoGP | GP Le Mans, Marini: “It's important to stay focused”
The MotoGP championship arrives in France for the fifth round of the 2024 season
MotoGP GP France Le Mans Repsol Honda – Luca Marini continues to work to improve his feeling with the
MotoGP | GP Le Mans, Acosta: “I can't wait to race in front of the French public”
The KTM rookie is fourth in the Championship, 23 points behind leader Jorge Martin
MotoGP KTM Tech3 – Pedro Acosta after an exciting start to the Championship, raced below expectations at
![MotoGP | 2027 regulations, 850cc displacement official, here are all the changes [VIDEO]](https://motograndprix.motorionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/nuovo-regolamento-motogp-850cc-dal-2027-1024x576.jpg)
![MotoGP | 2027 regulations, 850cc displacement official, here are all the changes [VIDEO]](https://motograndprix.motorionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/nuovo-regolamento-motogp-850cc-dal-2027-300x169.jpg)
MotoGP | 2027 regulations, 850cc displacement official, here are all the changes [VIDEO]
News also on electronics, aerodynamics and concessions
MotoGP Regulations – MotoGP looks to the future, from 2027 some regulations will change to limit the maximum speeds reached
Let's hope Randy isn't the official driver in 2015 as well.
If Suzuki acts as a wild-card this season he will easily be the one to take it to the track, but in 2015 I hope that the driver pairing will be different than that of: Laverty/De Puniet….
They have to work a lot, both in terms of consumption, but above all in terms of electronics and get busy quickly with the single control unit.
Come on Suzuki and if the bike is as fast as it is beautiful there will be no problems.
...in fact, it's ugly and disgusting, it will be very slow...in 2015 with the geriatrician in the saddle it would complete the work...not to mention brivio, a well-known leccaman...you'll see that already in 2017 he will retire again, put your heart into it peace hahaha
ahahahahahahahahaha!
Maybe, and I mean maybe, they will be better off than Ducati on the flying lap, but over the race distance I think they will gain much, much more and that half a second per lap is far too generous as a gap.
We need a miracle to get to the performance of Honda and Yamaha, I don't think they will make it, it's not that easy to get there and make that pace, to go fast you need the rider and the bike developed around the rider who goes fast, every tenth that a rider loses are tenths of problems that are not discovered on the bike.
Maybe you're referring to the 2013 Ducati.
This year, probably not immediately given the very tight deadlines, Ducati will make a decent leap forward. I don't know how much, but I have no doubts about the improvements to the bike, at least my heart says so, the only unknown will be the riders and how much they will be able to make the bike perform.
After 1 year in which the bike has not undergone substantial "touch-ups", I personally expect significantly better performances, especially in comparison with the customer MotoGP bikes, the official ones are something else, especially for the riders (at least Lorenzo, Marquez and Pedrosa ), significantly better than Cal, Dovi and Iannone.
In 2015 there will be 3/4 years of work dedicated to the new Suzuki MotoGP, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm really curious to see what they can come up with.
They've had plenty of time, testing and development are continuing at a good pace.
I wish Suzuki a good debut, logically with inferior performance to that of the new Ducati which, in 2015, will have been in the engineer's hands for more than a year.
I hope that Ducati improves, and I think it's normal that Ducati improves from year to year.
But Suzuki will also improve, and it already seems to be at a good level, but we have to see how it will go when they have fewer engines and less fuel over the race distance and over an entire season.
The problem is that right now Honda and Yamaha are already much further ahead, and they continue to improve and those improvements are difficult to make.
Just look at what it took Yamaha to put seamless on the track which isn't even at the level of Honda, and maybe in 2014 they will be able to get close and the costs are exorbitant.
I don't think Ducati and Suzuki have the same financial resources to optimize their bike so much and this difference remains, in addition to the fact that they don't have the same riders.
The Ducati is not the same bike, or rather it hasn't been the same bike all year, but since Rossi has been gone, everything has simply gone back to the way it used to be, meaning no one cares much anymore about which one and when they change a screw on the motorcycle.
The bike is developed but they no longer tell you what they work on and whether there are improvements or not, or rather they do it but they tell you that there is always an improvement, that they are closer, that it rides better... the usual bullshit .
When they earn a tenth, if it goes well, the other Japanese rivals have also earned it. When things go badly, they earn nothing or they earn 1 and their rivals earn 2 or 3 :)
At this rate they won't make great strides, I don't think that Dall'Igna alone can make a big difference, I hope so too, but right now, unfortunately, if Honda and Yamaha don't limit themselves more heavily for the others there is no story.
Ronnie
It is not possible to make an assessment on Suzuki at the moment in comparison to the other teams.
Suzuki did some tests and during these tests only in the first one did they look for some sort of performance, but to take stock of the situation more than anything else.
In the remaining tests (between Japan and Europe) they made comparisons on different material to set a line to follow, but it is too early to draw conclusions.
Suzuki is behind, it has not yet found the key to the problem on two vital points, namely consumption and electronics.
And they are working more on this.
Honda and Yamaha are not to be looked at for the moment, they have tested bikes, with an optimal balance, tested structures etc etc. In short, everything behind it is also balanced for that purpose.
In Suzuki (and Ducati) no. Both have re-developed their departments and once they have found stability, they will be able to get straight into development.
Suzuki has been away for a few years now, and despite the various tests, the direct comparison at each GP has failed.
We need time, resources (I mean the whole shebang) and the right pilots. And something like this isn't created in one/two seasons.
It will be very difficult to get to the top and there are many pieces to put in place, and it is too early to talk about performance.
Ronnie, but what would be the point of limiting Honda and Yamaha, it would be the farewell of development to make big bikes that are ever better and more performing, just as what would be the point for them to invest and continue to race if they have to be limited to ensure that they lose?
If you put yourself in the shoes of a builder, what would you do?
Competitions are this, the best wins, those who challenge must be better and do better otherwise they lose, it's the law of comparison or in this case of motor racing.
However, for me it doesn't make sense to limit the best, it would be like giving victory to the loser who otherwise wouldn't be able to win on his own, let them wake up instead, otherwise if I were in their place (Honda and Yamaha) I would say goodbye.
@bcs I know it's only the beginning and the road is long, we'll see, but with the current regulations I find it difficult for Suzuki to do it, as it is difficult for Ducati.
The victories of Ducati and Suzuki are also due to the use of different tires, changes in regulations, or changes among the strongest riders, all transitory and occasional situations.
With stable regulations and zero changes it seems to me that in the long run the usual ones have always prevailed and in contemporary history say Honda and with Rossi and Lorenzo Yamaha.
In my opinion, stable but restrictive and limiting regulations in certain areas and more generous in others take away much of the advantage from some manufacturers and allow them to get closer to others.
@H954RR
What you say is true, the manufacturers wouldn't like it at all, but I'm not so sure they would leave, and maybe if Honda gives up, in my opinion Other manufacturers will quickly return, such as Aprilia, BMW, Kawasaki, and others, because the notoriety that from the MotoGP world championship is a very, strong bike. I agree that it cuts development and some technologies, but in any case these are things that we will never see on production bikes, like seamless and if they do, the bike will cost so much that only some rich man will be able to afford it and certainly not it will have the performance of a MotoGP, a beautiful thing to look at, fantastic to admire but whoever owns it doesn't know how to ride it to the limit :)
Ronnie
With the restrictive regulations you want, the costs just increase!
It's always been like this…
The more constraints you place the more you spend to get into these constraints.
Or do you happen to ask for all the same bikes sold by X house?
Well… End of motorcycling.
What you want only leads to one thing, and that is the end of motorcycling.
The difference is the BEAUTIFUL aspect of motorbikes!
It will be difficult to fight with Honda and Yamaha, but who wrote or claimed that it will be easy?
Nobody, not even in Suzuki, nor those who follow this sport.
It will be very difficult for all homes.
Well I remind you that it took Honda several years to reach its current levels.
The same bike that you now consider unbeatable, until a few years ago was beaten to a pulp.
I revolutionized the bike year after year, without managing to solve their problems...
The same bike that you now consider unattainable….
It takes work, work and more work and the elements will have to fit together perfectly.
But it is IMPOSSIBLE and senseless to evaluate the potential of a motorcycle now, which in fact has not yet been seen and is still in the full development phase.
It's too early to make assessments on the potential of this bike.
They can only be done in 2015.
Well, with the regulation you propose, I would stop watching MotoGP too (just as I stopped watching Moto3 and Moto2).
Better not to see motorbikes on the track, than motorbikes on the track based on regulations that go against the spirit of motorsport.
bcs, I don't see it like you, right now it's David against Goliath, but it's Goliath who wins, whoever has the money wins with or without restrictive regulations.
As in Formula 1, those who have more money always find tricks, in the gray areas of the regulations, and that's how it works, I don't share this spirit of motorsport, it's always been like this but I don't share it.
We fight on more equal terms only when certain conditions exist and it is not true that costs always rise due to restrictive regulations.
It happens because the ib@st@rdi who approve the regulations are the ones who want to make them cost more to maintain the monopoly and without their OK the regulations would not change in that direction.
Who do you think increased costs in Moto 3? It wasn't Honda there but KTM. In moto 2 the costs are more or less, it's DORNA that increases them and then there are teams that find more money and support and "tweak" the bikes always thanks to more money, like in moto 3.
MotoGP is no different: those who allowed the arrival of the 1000cc and then the 800cc and then the 1000cc again are always the manufacturers who approve. In F1 it's the same story, believe that if Redbull Ferrari and Mercedes and Renault, if they say no so we don't agree the regulations will change!
They are hypocrites themselves who approve fewer engines, who approve the 250cc and 600cc and they know very well that costs are increasing but that is exactly what they want to make more money from year to year.
Ronnie
With restrictive regulations, costs rise, there is little that can be done.
It has ALWAYS been this way and ALWAYS will be this way.
Are all bikes the same?
No, absolutely no!
It would be the ruin of motorsport.
Already now they are all very similar, let alone what you want, that is, bikes that are essentially all the same.
That's not the direction.
Whoever has the most money doesn't always win... Honda (excluding the significant period of economic crisis it had in its history) hasn't always won...
Just look at a few years ago... And Honda has always been the richest company.
So it's not always true that whoever has the most money wins...
We then discuss the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, not a parish championship.
If you don't have the money to do a World Cup, there are many minor categories (provided that the minor categories make sense).
They destroyed the lower classes, they were completely cut OUT.
Honda, which you now consider unbeatable, a few years ago was in total confusion, perhaps even more confused than Ducati... And it is (Honda) the one with the most resources of all...
Take F1 as an example, but forgive me, but it's the wrongest example you can give.
In F1 no one has ever spent as much as TOYOTA (considering as a single season) and Toyota has never won anything. And in her time in F1 she spent the most of all.
Renault (which no longer exists, now called Lotus) won (2005/2006) with a budget MUCH, MUCH lower than that of Ferrari, Toyota, McLaren.
Several MILLIONS less!
Mercedes… Same thing as Renault, that is, it is a manufacturer, but I spend much less than the others.
Red Bull spends a lot in recent years, but first it had to build a solid base on which to create the car project.
You write about tricks… Well they're not really tricks. Simply an engineer. he did better than another.
There are simply those who work better than others.
We resort to "tricks" when we do not accept defeat or recognize that we have not worked as well as others.
Moto3 chapter, I sincerely hope that Honda and Ktm start a war between themselves, on all fronts and that they drive the price to the stars.
Maybe we will go back to having smaller classes with meaning, and not these meaningless hybrids that there are now.
Now they are USELESS!
Finding quibbles in the regulation is like finding them in the laws, you look for alternative ways to get away with it.
I'm not saying that there is only one culprit, they are all guilty, some more than others, but in my opinion this is not the way to win with a sporting spirit. You have to do the best you can by respecting the regulations and not circumventing them and that is what often happens instead.
The tricks and the gray areas are like giving doping and also giving the substances that hide everything. And raising controversy without having proof is like telling a player in any match to go and foul and injure that player. It's unsportsmanlike, it's not how you should win. I have met those who worked in F1 and escaped from that world, because before entering it he had a completely different ideal of sport, but after spending a couple of years there he understood what it is and how it really works.
I'm not saying that money always makes you win, I'm saying that in the long run it always makes you win if you spend it well. Honda didn't win world championships repeatedly only because Rossi went to Yamaha and counterbalanced the performances by also bringing big sponsors to Yamaha. Honda has almost always had great bikes, but their stupidity of thinking that that alone is enough to win has made them lose world championships after world championships, they have always focused on the wrong rider. Hayden won by miracle, only many mistakes by Yamaha and Rossi, the suicide of the Ducati riders made him win a world championship in 7 years. Then finally, also thanks to Suppo, they got Stoner, the only available and competitive world champion who wasn't already in the hands of Yamaha, and they won again.
Not even MotoGP is clean, there are big interests behind it, and if money buys the right conditions, things will remain the same.
I'm sorry but Ducati and Suzuki have no chance with the current stable regulations, they need the money to steal the technicians and riders, and they don't have it, and Honda and Yamaha won't sell them rather they pay them to stay at home or employ them elsewhere , they no longer make the mistakes made in the past, they lock down their contracts, and without money, without experienced technicians, without very strong drivers it's all useless they will play the role of extras as they have been doing for years.
There are sports where there are stable regulations and the costs do not continue to increase, or if they do increase it is simply due to the increase in cost that everything has over time. If you limit the budget, in my opinion you take a first step and then you block the development of some parts such as the control unit.
Now most MotoGP bikes already have the same brakes and suspension, the chassis, engine and electronics change. On many standard motorbikes and cars the control units are the same, many details are standardized to limit the cost and are the same on motorbikes and cars, in racing this is not the case.
Suzuki has just completely changed the type of engine, a sign that the philosophy can also be changed and other paths can be tried, I don't see anything strange in having more restrictive regulations, which make the engine as they want, but with certain performances. I'm not saying that costs won't rise, because our economic system wants it, but in the rally for example they did, the manufacturers are still there, the visibility is still there and the passion for the sport is there.
@bcs. Don't tell Ronnie that Honda has been in a mess for a few years.... for him it has been unbeatable for more than 20 years!
come on testers, let's not tell stories, Honda was the best bike or one of the most competitive and this year it was the best bike seen in several years now, but without Marquez on top as without Stoner on top in 2011 we would be here saying that the Yamaha is the best bike only because Lorenzo is on it to make it win.
I'm not saying that everything has always gone smoothly at Honda and that they've never had any problems, but in 2003 they had the best bike, right? Because if that's not the case you have to give Rossi some credit.
Make up your mind or the Honda was a great bike or Rossi was very strong.
In my opinion, Honda only lost because it bet on the wrong riders, Rossi left and they thought they would win anyway and that wasn't the case.
The Honda has always been a good bike, maybe sometimes it was the best, sometimes it was the second best, but it certainly has never been the Ducati of today or the Kawasaki or the Suzuki, it has always been at the top and has almost always competed the world championships lacked drivers capable of aiming for the world championships and not just the victories of individual GPs.
Ronnie
If by Rally you mean the WRC... Well... There are 3 cats (I mean constructors) racing...
Maybe you don't remember the golden age of rallies and so those of now seem like many of them.
Finding quibbles is one thing, being irregular is another.
If someone plays a certain part better and makes it work on the track, he or she has worked better than the others. END.
It is not unsportsmanlike if other teams other than your beloved win. Others simply work better.
Red Bull is working better than anyone, interprets the regulations very well and has a staff and a harmony that no one has at the moment.
They were good at creating it.
They win because they are now the best, with the best staff and with the best driver currently in F1.
Even though I have always been Ferrano, despite his immense resources, I cannot help but admire what they are doing and congratulate a Champion like Vettel.
Honda didn't win World Cups repeatedly because they spent several years in football, not because Rossi left...
Honda couldn't create a competitive motorbike, it revolutionized the project every year, it took away technicians and technicians from all the manufacturers, but it didn't get out of its problems...
Little by little they worked and put all the pieces together and returned to winning.
These are not stories Ronnie.
Honda didn't win because it wasn't ready despite the resources, and it always spent more than everyone else, but in those years it took them.
The performance or potential of the motorcycle is not made only by the individual rider.
To have something competitive you need to have a staff and a work group that you can't even imagine.
If you commented in those years, you would have written that Honda would no longer have any opportunities for victory, the same bike and house that you consider UNBEATABLE now.
It's a World Championship Ronnie! Not a mass produced product….
If you want to make all the bikes identical (as you propose, only to then brand the regulation you want as anti-sporting), it is the END of motorsport, and if this is the path, I (like many others I think) will no longer look at it. the races. Like many people have stopped watching the minor categories... Who knows why...
Well, I was waiting for the budget ceiling proposal...
The most intuitive rule there is.
There are infinite ways to find loopholes to this rule (I won't go into detail), the simplest?
Relying on "third parties" (and by third parties I mean yourself, but simply passing on work to a company connected to you).
There is no rule more absurd than the spending limit.
The rule that is most easily circumvented of all.
Then who would you like to have check this spending ceiling?
Whoever has to check this roof will have to have on paper ALL the movements of a particular house, and all the accounts of the companies connected to it. Expenses, budget, plans etc etc.
This is because it is enough to entrust some parts or studies to external "companies" (which are under your control).
I'll give you an example:
I company X, I have Y company under my control.
Very well, I stipulate a contract with one of these companies where I entrust them with the construction of part Z, which will have to be integrated into my project.
Obviously all costs are borne by the external company (which I have under my control) and once the developed part arrives I pay it in full…
But in the TOT I don't include the total development, I only include the FINISHED price.
And I do this with different parts of the bike, even "breaking" them.
Do you want to check how much I spent?
Do it, here's how much I spent...
Am I within the limit? Yes… Well, I respected the rule, how good I am.
Otherwise, do you want to have in your hands EVERYTHING that revolves around my structure?
IMPOSSIBLE!
Who is that crazy person who would accept something like that? Nobody!
How many houses would there be in the case of REAL SPENDING CONTROL? NONE!
___
Returning to the Honda issue…
You write them off as stories…
Well I remember several fans who branded it as a finished house at the time.
Honda did many things WRONG in those years and had the greatest resources of ALL.
But he didn't win and his bikes were absolutely not the best or second as you write...
Suzuki chapter…
I didn't mention changing architecture or anything else and, frankly, I don't understand your intervention.
It was atypical in the modern era of MotoGP that Suzuki adopted a V configuration (and not inline, like the series products), an architecture where it had few comparisons.
Now they are back on their way.
The previous choice (to copy Honda) was strange, not the one now.
Ronnie
I limited myself to Honda, because on an economic level it is the most powerful of all.
But the other manufacturer (Yamaha) that you consider unbeatable and impossible to reach has done nothing for several years.
She too was considered lost, as finished.
Now she is considered unbeatable.
You are both right, you Ronnie in some points and bsc in others although in my opinion bcs is a little more right in various points.
bcs, in my opinion everything can be done, and there are always quibbles about the matter, and rightly so it seems to me that you are making the argument of certain politicians who say this law is wrong regardless because then there is a way to get around it . That's not how it works if you find a way to limit each step.
Honda will continue to do as it wants as long as it is economically convenient for them, and Yamaha will do the same.
I don't consider Honda and Yamaha unbeatable, I say that with current conditions, they can only be beatable with a crazy amount of circumstances as has happened in the past.
Money and excellent riders have led Yamaha to be what it is today and to beat Honda.
Without the money and the best riders, Honda would have won, even with a less capable rider in the saddle, because if the level of the riders is equal it is obvious that the best bike will prevail.
Money always prevails in the long run bcs, with money you buy the best bike/rider package. Yamaha was on the crest of the wave thanks to the money that brought the victories in the world championships, if you don't win a world championship after 2 or 3 years from when you make the investments you go bankrupt, the boards of directors of the company you belong to will cut your resources because you're making holes after holes, in Honda this doesn't happen or happens very little because it has a lot of financial resources, but in Yamaha, Ducati, Suzuki, Kawasaki, BMW, Aprilia... if you don't win the taps close because the sponsors run away and so on. saying.
I don't support Ferrari and I don't support Red Bull, at the moment I don't support anyone in F1, but if Red Bull wins it doesn't bother me at all, but I know very well that they win because whoever wins world championships after world championships gets a lot of money just with the winnings in the world championship for drivers and constructors, and wins more sponsors.
As I said, everyone who has a lot of money cheats and finds a way to make it appear that the wings don't flex in tests, while the behavior on the car is different. There are teams that bring new aerodynamic parts dedicated to the specific GP and they can do it because they have more money.
In my opinion this is not correct, and let's not talk nonsense, many of the materials used in F1 and MotoGP will never end up on production motorbikes or cars, they are made for competitions and will remain there, so it is useless to develop them and they only create a lot of costs.
Many things that concern aerodynamics and the aerodynamic functioning of a single-seater or a motorbike are of no use on production cars, because speed, acceleration and braking conditions are totally different and have nothing to do with what happens in everyday life and therefore those development costs are completely useless and can be blocked.
As for the rally, it depends on the categories, there are more full and less full of car types.
I mentioned Suzuki and the change in philosophy, to say that it is not impossible to think that we can change the concept of the bike and still remain in MotoGP. Look at how the rules have changed since Suzuki wants to return, but it has adapted and changes its bike, as the other manufacturers have always done, they adapt to the rules, maybe they grumble, they want them to happen more slowly but in the end they mediate the conditions , once the CRTs have disappeared, the Opens arrive, which are likely to be the future of MotoGP.
If it comes down to saying the bike must cost 2 million per season, it's 2 million not a cent more or less that the teams have to pay, then if Honda likes to spend 3 or 4 and earn 2 million per bike, that's its business. , but I have serious doubts that they are willing to do it in the long term :)
Ronnie
I sincerely hope that Moto2 and Moto3 will even exceed 10 million, so that at least, once and for all, those two hybrids will be put to an end.
COMPETITIONS are COMPETITIONS. And they must remain competitions.
Ronnie finding quibbles is one thing, being irregular is another.
If a wing doesn't flex at the check it's compliant, but if it flexes on the track with certain loads it's another thing.
It simply means that there are teams that worked better than others.
With a restrictive regulation (as you want) there will be more and more teams looking for the regular quibble (which you consider irregular, but on the other hand you want restrictive regulations, using costs as an excuse... Costs which in fact increase and not decrease).
Yamaha has not won for several years, not for 2/3….
Honda ditto.
Obviously money helps, but it alone is not enough!
In the long run Toyota FAILURE and abandoned F1 and was the one that invested more year after year than other teams.
The same can be said for motorbikes.
In the long run, Toyota was supposed to dominate… Instead it closed its doors.
Money is not everything, it is important (no one claims otherwise), but it must be part of a set of other factors.
If you put Abraham on an official Honda he won't win the title, even if you give him a rocket under his butt.
Just as Valentino wouldn't win...
Maybe instead of winning one race, he would have won 2/3 of them... But he wouldn't have won the World Championship anyway.
It is absolutely not true that if you don't win 2/3 the boards of directors will cut your funds... It depends on the project and the plans that this board makes.
There are developments that continue for 9/10 years because they require that period of development (general discussion).
It depends on the development plans.
If it depends on the categories... It also depends on the categories in motorbikes... But if we are discussing the top categories at world level... Well that's another matter, and the situation in rallies is not what you wrote before...
A WORLD CUP must be a WORLD CUP, not a parish championship.
If you don't have the resources to participate, stay home.
The regulation must be made based on real motorsport and not with the spirit of making the bikes all the same to have more manufacturers.
Yes to cost reduction, but it is not with increasingly restrictive regulations, with changes that are made from season to season and with increasingly absurd rules that we obtain less expense and more manufacturers.
The fight for the World Championship title has always been a matter for a few drivers/manufacturers/staff... THE BEST are FEW, very few... If you want a fictitious fight, it's not about being the best, but about being one of many.
The world championship must recover the true spirit of motorsport, only in this way will we be able to have more sponsors, more manufacturers. But that's not what they're doing.
bcs regarding money and the fact that they are not the only variable, it's true, and I said that if all the riders are on the same level and you don't have Lorenzo, Marquez, Stoner or in the past Rossi, the world championship goes to whoever he's on the best bike.
Your theory on money, however, disproves itself, you disprove it yourself by bringing up Toyota and you confirm mine that the boards of directors are the ones who decide.
Toyota did not reach the top in the expected time and the taps were closed.
See this is what I say when someone comes in, a new one, and doesn't reach the pre-established goals, such as podium places, poles, and victories, and these don't increase from year to year, things start to go wrong and the funds are taken away.
The same happens with Ducati, Yamaha with Honda less so, maybe they revolutionize the technicians, pin the blame on someone and start with someone else, the others do it too but the money decreases.
Yamaha was already getting worse, it was already in crisis, and luckily Rossi arrived with Monster, Yamaha didn't care if Rossi won or not, they cared that he brought the Sponsors with him to help them with expenses.
I'm a Rossi fan, but if there was a spending cap, if money wasn't such an important variable, things would be more balanced, if the best riders had contracts worth a maximum of 10 million they would go where they like best and not where they pay them more.
I know that many things seem like a utopia, but this money plays an important role.
bcs do you honestly think that with Marquez and Lorenzo in Honda at this moment, the others would have a chance to win? In my opinion they would go back to being dormant like 10 years ago, they would go back to winning a race a year if they like, they would go back to having no funds and having bikes that take second after second, and Lorenzo and Marquez could live on an income and go for a ride until 5 laps and then leave them all and dig holes of 6 or 7 seconds in a few laps.
Ronnie
The drivers will never be on the same level.
If you want all riders on the same level, you have to put identical robots on those bikes, with the same automation etc.
Just as if you make all the bikes the same, the one who does a better job will always win.
Toyota remained in F1 for 7 years... Not a handful of seasons... It's a long period in competitions, a sign that the resources were there and they continued to invest.
It retired in 2009, but they were developing the 2010 car (and it was sold to a team that did not participate in the Championship that year)… And Ferrari took the diffuser from that car, and the rear end in general… And thanks also to these details he fought for the title until the last GP.
Toyota had everything to do well (according to what it takes to win according to your idea).
Soldi, one of the most advanced and precise wind tunnels still in circulation today (and in fact Ferrari, as well as other teams, still use it... It is in Cologne and Ferrari has used it simultaneously with other teams since 2010 until now… With the F138 developed entirely there due to the modernization works of its, and I strongly believe that they will use it for a few more years to make various comparisons on the data), a driver capable of winning (Trulli) and good people all within his staff (who are still in F1 and coincidentally many of them are in the Top Teams...).
However, the whole of all this was missing, the individual parts were all there, the harmony was simply missing.
Often Toyota was fighting for the TITLE until mid-season, then lost and ruined everything…
7 Years, not 2/3.
Yamaha hasn't won anything for a decade, but now you consider it unbeatable...
Yamaha still doesn't have a main sponsor (like it could be FIAT, CAMEL or the other French cigarette brand) it doesn't have one yet...
If there was a SERIOUS spending cap there would be no house running.
If there was a spending cap made for the sake of it, it will just be a fictitious situation to mask the REAL expenses.
The spending cap in a category like MotoGP (or in any case in a championship of this level) is the most useless and easily circumvented rule among the proposals.
I wouldn't put my hand in it.
Two roosters in a henhouse can turn out to be a catastrophe.
Ex: Prost / Senna. Villeneuve / Pironi. Hamilton / Alonso. Rossi / Lorenzo (in their first period of cohabitation... And in fact this year there have been no problems for the simple fact that Rossi is not at Lorenzo's level) etc etc...
They can dominate everything, like losing title after title without achieving any results.
To the benefit of all the other teams.
bcs I reply with a new comment at the end of all the previous ones.
@bcs: Assuming that anyone who races in MotoGP is a great rider, if they aim to be competitive and fight for the top 5 at every race they will have to choose a better rider…. de Puniet's approximately 7 and a half tenths from Lorenzo to Catalunya are however promising considering the difference between the 2 riders even with the same bike, but they still have to shave 2-3 tenths. Let's hope Kawasaki comes back soon too!!
Look, we wrote more or less the same things :).
There are currently 3 drivers who can potentially compete for the title.
Marc, Lorenzo and Pedrosa.
Marc and Lorenzo will be unattainable, both for the technical guarantees they ask for and financially.
Of the three, Pedrosa is the one who can be reached most easily (he has lost much of Repsol's support) and frankly I would try to bring him to Suzuki.
My ideal pairing for 2015 for Suzuki is Pedrosa and Dovi.
Of course, if there was the possibility of a second satellite team (like the others have) I would entrust these bikes to Cal and Hayden.
yes, in fact it was a quote in favor of what you said, not to contradict you.
Let's hope they don't hire a driver at the end of his career...
:-)
I don't think that the times recorded in extemporaneous tests are in any way indicative.
We don't know in what conditions Suzuki tested, especially if you consider that the MotoGP bikes present had parameters to respect (I'm referring to consumption first and foremost), while Suzuki did not.
I'll throw out a consideration:
In the event that, this year too, Valentino achieves the same performances as last year, the rider who will join Lorenzo in 2015 (assuming that Lorenzo remains in Yamaha) will certainly not be the current one.
Then various prospects will open up for Vale such as retiring from motorbike competitions, moving to the SBK championship, opening a private team and, lastly, moving onto Suzuki.
To his fans:
do you think about it? Valentino, riding a motorbike still to be developed, would have ample freedom to shape it in "his image and likeness" and thus go on to win his 10th title in the face of me and all those like me who give him up for a dead man.
Doesn't that appeal to you?
…you should explain to the canaries the meaning of the word “alletta”…ignorant as they are…the smartest one is that piadina dealer Lyonn, think how badly they are!
Yes, yes, I too am convinced that if they gave him a completely new motorbike to develop and the total freedom to develop it in his own image and likeness he would win not only the 10th title but also the 11th, 12th, 13th and so on all. those to come until the retreat, safe in my face and of all those who have always given it up for Mr. Gommino who have never understood a thing about motorbikes!
Oh my nose…..
ligera if he won't keep up with Lorenzo even in 2014, what would change on a Suzuki, I don't think anything, Rossi has his years and they will continue to increase, and the older you get the slower you become :) he's a human being too he can expect to win World Cups repeatedly at a certain age.
Since Yamaha has had the semi-seamless Lorenzo has improved, Rossi too but Lorenzo has improved enough to win and not just to make the podium or second, Rossi to stay more comfortably in fourth position.
If it goes well I think he can stay with Pedrosa, but if not there's no point in continuing to expect miracles :)
It's difficult to say, because there was an injury in 2010, but Rossi's level this year is certainly and probably lower than that of 2010, despite the fact that he seems to be in perfect physical condition.
Maybe in 2010 he would have lost the world championship anyway but without the injury he could have finished second. From then on the others improved more than him, and he improved less, or got worse, looking at the times perhaps he didn't get worse, he simply no longer improved.
We will have the counterproof this year, in Ducati he was worse, I would say rather worse than what he does in Yamaha, so I would say that it was both his fault and that of the bike, riding a competitive bike today however he can't even keep up the pace of a Pedrosa, who in my opinion was often less strong than him.
Honestly, this year I understood the difference on Lorenzo and I understand it, but on Pedrosa and Marquez I understand it only by giving added value to the bike, because Lorenzo in recent years has often seemed to me to be the most concrete and if he loses from Pedrosa and Marquez In my opinion the problem is due to the bike.
With this I don't mean to say that Rossi would have won on the Honda, I think he would have arrived in the same position at most he would have dueled more often with Pedrosa.
What I honestly don't understand is why he beat Marquez so easily at Assen, and let's not bring up the tires because we know that with a single tire it's impossible. We'll see what will happen this year in Assen, whether at least Rossi will be competitive compared to the others or will be worse than in 2013, in which case I really couldn't explain it, as with a more advanced bike, you can go slower on an equal footing. conditions.
I don't even want Rossi in Suzuki on the door, sorry.
Its time has passed since 2009.
It is useless to use the serious injury in 2010 as an excuse…. It was clear that his pace was declining already in 2009.
Suzuki must aim to take on other riders if it wants to return as a protagonist.
ronnie
There is nothing impossible!! Explain to me the Honda controversy over the tires given to Rossi in Quatar
then if I'm not mistaken there must have been another episode regarding Lorenzo who would have used CRT tyres
bibo these are the usual stories from frustrated fans and drivers, tires are for everyone. CRT tires on MotoGP, bikes with at least 50 HP more?? They would destroy themselves before halfway through the race, and then who would give them to them? certainly not Bridgestone.
And I mean no one and I mean no one who is playing for the world championship or for the top positions would put up penuantiques who have not done the slightest test on a race distance or even just for the pole, but it doesn't exist, these risk their lives. The test drivers are already at serious risk, but the pilots cannot invent these solutions, the risk of something going wrong is too high.
ronnie
I hear them said on television and read in newspapers by industry journalists, not by fans...
still talking about tires of course
I'm reporting some news, since apparently we've all found ourselves here.
I don't know if you've read it, but since we're discussing Cases (mainly Suzuki and Ducati), I'll bring it here.
So, a few weeks ago a site (I'm not writing it to avoid the ban) wrote that Ducati intends to field ALL its bikes in the Open version for this season... I didn't give much weight to the news, especially because usually in this period various speculations arise about all the houses.
Today, however, the same site writes that Cal and Dovi will test the Open configuration bikes to evaluate this option...
Should we expect a Ducati in 2014 that will race all its bikes in the Open category?
Maybe….
If so, the result of this choice is only one.
Completely new bike, almost nothing is saved, we start from a blank sheet of paper...
Only now I noticed that another site also reported the Ducati news...
Confirmed by Dovi, they will essentially try the Open in the tests and will decide whether to all line up as Open... This is the riders, the company has practically decided to line up everything in the form of Open.
On another site I found an interesting interview. Look for the title, they deserve:
MotoGP, Amarcord, Biaggi: nothing is like a 500
full interview:
Biaggi: Me, pain, forgiveness (read the part relating to the 500 carefully)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vAi0vD_5KU
:-)
bcs, if at the end of this year Lorenzo goes to Honda, Stoner stays at home and Marquez stays where he is, Honda will win at least 5 world championships in the next 4 years.
He can only lose them if 1 two riders take out themselves as happened in Ducati in 2006, or if they both get hurt in the same season, and if there is some distortion of the rules, perhaps all together because one at a time they would risk winning the same.
With rubber tires, with rules increasingly in favor of Honda, there is no hope for the others in the long term.
bcs the ROSSI/LORENZO pair is the most profitable for Yamaha, I believe in history ever. In your opinion, why does Honda want him, because Honda has been trying to have 2 strong riders for a few years and not just one as happened in the past??
Yamaha took Jorge precisely because Rossi hadn't won the world championship for 2 years, from 2008 to 2010 he won every damn world championship, every world championship, in your opinion is this not profitable??
2008 1st Rossi / 4th Lorenzo
Yamaha Factory 1st with 159 points on Honda HRC
Yamaha 1st with 81 points over Ducati
2009 1st Rossi / 2th Lorenzo
Yamaha Factory 1st 173 points on Honda HRC
Yamaha 1st with 89 points on Honda
2010 1st Lorenzo / 3rd Rossi
Yamaha Factory 1st 166 points on Honda HRC
Yamaha 1st with 62 points on Honda
It seems to me that with the Lorenzo/Rossi pairing things went as well as they could have done.
By winning everything and more you win sponsors who pay more, better visibility, everything becomes easier.
As for Toyota, I'm sorry but it has never had drivers comparable to the top of the top, and even if it had the technologies or part of the technologies it didn't have the technicians and certainly didn't have enough experience.
They also wasted a lot of money in vain, but perhaps they only cared about having visibility, in the end they still became the largest manufacturer in the world, and they remain where they are even without F1, you have to consider the F1 operation also as marketing even if they didn't make a good impression and maybe that's why they left, in the end Toyota didn't become big by making ultra sports cars.
The premier class of the world championship has been Japanese for 40 years now, as far as manufacturers are concerned, and since Honda arrived the others have won less and less, less and less.
Only Rossi and Lorenzo in the last 20 years have allowed Yamaha to dream of winning some championships again and if these riders had been Hondam riders, I would say that Yamaha would never have been able to do what it did in 2004 and 2005, and without that performance boost , no money no results.
We'll see how this year goes, whether they will remain a few more years to compete with Honda or whether they will retreat, as has been happening in recent years in which they have begun to lose ground compared to Honda.
I imagine you remember that Suzuki and Yamaha dominated the premier class before Honda's arrival, but from then on their victories became rarer and rarer, until Suzuki's withdrawal. If money doesn't matter much or how do you explain this negative trend, in your opinion without money, without Rossi would Yamaha be what it is today? In my opinion, Suzuki would have already reached the point of wondering if it wouldn't be better to retire for a while.
Ronnie
Predictions of that kind cannot be made. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
Yes, even the Hamilto/Alonso couple was supposed to dominate for many seasons... And in fact the contract broke down (with Alonso) after just one season, without winning any titles (also for political reasons, see the famous Spy/Story, but the couple it was a total disaster!).
Not to mention the hatred between Senna and Prost.
Last but not least the fatal case between Villeneuve and Pironi in Imola, 1982…
Next race Villenuve lost his life due to the events in Imola.
The best drivers in the same team can win everything, or win nothing...
History teaches this.
Lorenzo could very well retire next year, go to F1, go to Ducati (I'm convinced that Lorenzo will go to Ducati sooner or later), go to the Moon etc etc.
Predictions of that kind cannot be made.
Rossi and Lorenzo were indeed a winning couple in the past, but it cannot be denied that the garage was literally divided in two and that there were big, big tensions, which did not arise this year because Rossi is no longer able to keep the pace of the first….
Lorenzo and Marc are in two different teams, but there is no shortage of tension between the two... And they race for two different teams, let alone under the same jersey.
Ronnie, do you follow F1?
I don't think so... From what you write it seems to me that you only rely on end-of-year results.
Trulli was a gentleman driver, one of the few capable of winning a title in those years (even if he never won it)…
Do you know why Trulli was kicked out of Renault and why there was a sort of war within his team?
Simple... He was a great driver (not the best ever, but nevertheless a driver who could win the world championship with the right equipment) and he risked overshadowing the future Champion Alonso...
Have you never had any notable technicians?
It's not absolutely true…
Marmorini above all, but several other technicians after Toyota left F1 found places without major difficulties in various Top Teams...
For example, Ferrari immediately hired the engineer who had worked on the rear of the 2010 Toyota (which never raced) and copied the diffuser of that car exactly.
They were already the largest manufacturer when it came to cars... It's not because they entered F1 that they became one (they were already one before).
They came to F1 to win, but they didn't succeed, like many other manufacturers (Honda).
Ronnie, don't be offended, but in my opinion you don't follow F1.
If Yamaha won in 2004 it is not only thanks to Rossi, but that victory is the result of a very heavy renewal of Yamaha's technical department. Rossi also writes it in his autobiography….
There was a real technical revolution.
I never wrote that money doesn't matter.
They are important, but alone they are not enough (for example Toyota and Honda), to be successful you don't just need one component, but you have to be at the top in EVERYTHING, and it's not just with money that you get this.
In fact, Yamaha was considered lost, finished, bankrupt and is now considered unbeatable... For the same reasons that left it dead about ten years ago.
Ditto Honda…
MvAugusta was also considered unbeatable.
Suzuki was also considered unbeatable.
To win you don't just need money, but a large number of other factors...
I've been following F1 since before the world championship, even though after Schumacher's domination or towards the end of his domination I got a bit bored.
I remember Trulli's years very well, and honestly I never considered him a great driver, the only thing he was good at was occupying the entire track so as not to be overtaken, often even when he was lapped.
He was certainly less fast than Hamilton and less consistent than Alonso, to make just a couple of comparisons. I would compare him to Maldonado or Grojean in 2012 where he had a lot of accidents and few great results.
Furthermore, I seem to remember that Toyota also had Ralf Schumacher for a few seasons, who was never as strong as his brother, and perhaps some Japanese drivers, but I'm not sure, many years have passed.
Toyota has never been a car capable of winning a world championship, it has always been mid-table. Great expectations that were always disappointed, I believe they had achieved good reliability with the engine despite having higher consumption of both fuel and tyres, and less advanced aerodynamics. Maybe, just maybe, they were less good at inventing subterfuges to get around the regulations, something Mclaren, Ferrari and Renault-powered teams always managed to do.
In my opinion, in F1 also due to internal politics, completely Japanese teams have never been favored. Remember that F1 has been the business of the English for years, as it has been for years and will continue for a long time that MotoGP is in the hands of the Spanish :)
I wouldn't underestimate these details!
You don't argue that money is the only variable, just as I don't argue that, we both know that money is needed, riders and technicians are like that in every sport.
I maintain that in the long run, money makes the most difference, because it buys everything else.
Those who have more resources and those who invest more and obtain results survive, the others succumb.
Yamaha took a big risk in terms of capital when they took Rossi, they had made large investments and they couldn't fail, it would have ended. Ducati did the same, big investments and thanks to the huge investments of Bridgestone to become the leader everywhere, they made it for a couple of years but 2006 went badly for them.
The problem is that if a small or weaker team wins, those who have the power to change things turn things in their favor.
Yamaha is not unbeatable without Lorenzo at the moment, just as it wasn't a few years ago without Rossi. They are the ones who allowed the bike to evolve with their victories, I'm not saying that they are incompetent at Yamaha, on the contrary they have great technicians, but without the rider it's useless. Honda has retraced its steps, hired great riders and is now winning world championships, this was the only thing they lacked in past years, maybe one year they made the wrong project, they may not have always been the most competitive, they may have had their problems but they were always close to or better than technical level of the vehicle.
rubbers………………
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Ronnie write
“By winning everything and more you get sponsors who pay more, better visibility, everything becomes easier.”
Yes, bring it back to the Yamaha top management and to those who managed the garage that "everything was easier".
Even in terms of sponsors, Honda was superior.
Fiat has never paid Yamaha the amount that Repsol pays Honda (also in terms of equipment in the garage).
After Rossi left, Yamaha no longer had a main sponsor, but achieved a lot of results, despite the lack of an attractive rider in terms of sponsors (Ducati was forced to refuse sponsors because it no longer had room on the fairings)...
Even now the main sponsor in Yamaha is not there.
Despite the fact that the driver who has always had the ability to attract more sponsors is back.
The sponsors are simply leaving the MotoGP, they are less and less attracted by this world... The crisis alone is not enough to justify this rapid exit from the scene... Much of the blame lies with Dorna.
Who knows why... Maybe due to the increasingly useless regulations?
bcs it's obvious that with the crisis, sponsors have decreased, companies have less money to "throw" away, but they continue anyway, see Pramac which is a company that is quite in difficulty.
Yamaha has a huge main sponsor called Monster which sponsors 4 bikes.
Yamaha may have spent as much as Honda in one season by having to keep Rossi and Lorenzo, but it couldn't spend the same amount on its bikes. It does not have the same resources in terms of its racing department, Honda certainly has more reactivity and more technicians and spends more and can pursue and develop more things at the same time, and this is mainly thanks to the fact that it has a larger group behind it and therefore has even more money, in addition to Sponsors obviously.
In my opinion, Honda could easily survive even without Repsol, Yamaha without Monster, in my opinion Lorenzo and Rossi cannot afford them.
Ronnie
Trulli was a master pilot, he was considered by all to be one of the Top. There must be a reason...
I remind you that a certain Todt wanted Trulli in Ferrari.
Briatore killed him in Renault precisely because he risked overshadowing Alonso's performance.
What do other drivers have to do with it?
All the other teams in their history have also had drivers who were not very fast compared to the others.
Toyota has always been mid-table if you look at the end-of-year results... But often in the first part of the season it was competitive and then lost.
MotoGP has been an Italian affair for years, and I remember the cycle of the Australians and Americans... Now it's Spain's turn, but also because it has been able to create excellent championships for young people at BASE, and above all it has supported these young people. Something that no longer happens in Italy!
In the long run if you don't have a solid base you won't win. Money is part of this basis, but not only that is needed.
Honda had more resources and invested more, but it didn't win anything for years.
The top riders make the difference, they are the ones who manage to remove the last tenths. It's always been like this.
The pilot is a vital part, but the pilot alone is not enough.
If you put Lorenzo on an Avintia FTR he won't win the title either. Just like if you put Abrham on a factory Honda.
You need the whole package to win, not just one.
Monster is the main sponsor only of Tech3, the Factory team has also extended this collaboration to itself.
But the Factory team still doesn't have a main sponsor, like FIAT and Camel did... Or like Repsol for Honda.
Well Ducati with Rossi was the team that had the most sponsors of all, but it doesn't seem to me that the results were positive... Without considering that Ducati has on its fairings (like Ferrari) the richest sponsor of all, namely PM.
After FIAT, Yamaha no longer had a main sponsor, but I don't think the results are disappointing... On the contrary...
bcs I think your memory is worse than mine, I just checked from wikipedia!
Toyota as a manufacturer
2002 10th/11th teams 2 points (tied with the last 3)
2003 8th/10 teams 16 points
2004 8th/10 teams 9 points
2005 4th/10 teams 88 points
2006 6th/11 teams 35 points
2007 6th/11 teams 13 points
2008 5th/11 56 points
2009 5th/10 teams 59.5 points
We are talking about the Constructors' classification
Toyota's only truly decent year was 2005, last year of V10 3.0 and last year they raced with Michelin, from then on bye bye Toyota and dreams of great results, then came the financial crisis and they took advantage of it to retreat :)
In 8 years, Toyota got one right at the start of the season in 2005 and at the limit, but in 2009 it was a bit of a drag because the training camps always went swimmingly.
I said that it has always been mid-table, and it seems to me that the results fully confirm it :)
I see very few great ideas at the beginning of the season.
As you said, Toyota has one of the best wind tunnels, but its car has always been aerodynamically lacking a bit, so it's obvious that it lacked the experienced technicians and drivers to win.
They didn't win because they spent their money badly, look at Redbull, they got gold with a lot of money, they put together the right alchemy and with the methods we have always been used to in F1 they won!
Again according to Wikipedia, Trulli made 252 starts, one victory, 11 podiums, 4 pole positions, 1 fastest lap, sorry if I can't consider him a driver on par with all the world champions who have taken turns in F1.
Surely all those who consider him a great driver are right, and they have won plenty of world championships by leaving him at home rather than hiring a great champion like Jarno, who if I'm not mistaken went into catering like a certain Coulthard :), who at least for results is more comparable to a Webber.
and we are still far from the super champions who win the world championships...
Having closed the Toyota parenthesis, I'll ask you again: in your opinion, without the risks and investments made in 2003/2004, would Yamaha have ever gotten to where they are?
Without all the money they "wasted" in getting the best rider and technicians and further developing the bike, would they have ever managed to do what they did?
Yamaha lived on a profit with Rossi and paid the consequences in 2006 and 2007, they have always been less reactive than Honda and even Ducati on certain occasions.
They have always had less money than Honda and they paid the consequences both in 2006 and 2007, and in 2011 and 2013 without Lorenzo they would have paid them already in 2010 and then again in 2012 and then again in 2013 they would have no longer had any chance.
Yamaha did not want and was not able to create seamless when Honda started and was not able to put it on the track with the same speed, simply because it did not have the financial resources to dedicate a development group to that project.
I'm three years late since Honda created its 3-year seamless… coincidentally more or less since the big sponsors left.
If Rossi had remained at Yamaha, in my opinion they could have developed the Seamless earlier, but they couldn't do it because they lacked the money.
Ronnie
Also check Gilles Villenuve on Wiki.
He has never won a title, he has won few races... In short, according to Wiki he is a pipp *, a poor person.
If you base your evaluations of drivers based on the results you read on the Wiki... Well, many Champions will be considered absolute pips.
Trulli dear my Ronnie is a gentleman pilot.
I didn't write the Champion of Champions (also because in the 2000s there was only Schumi...) but a driver who, with the right means, was very capable of winning a title.
There must be a reason if the experts consider him one of the best in that period.
If Todt wanted him in Ferrari there must be a reason
There must be a reason if he was kicked out at Renault.
Yes., but maybe they should have studied the pilot on Wiki :).
Toyota lost its way during the season, but produced some excellent cars... And in fact several solutions were copied and adopted by Toyota and were also copied by other teams.
It is absolutely not true that he had no notable technicians...
Many former Toyotas are still in F1 and many of these are in the Top Teams... There is a reason.
Toyota invested a lot of resources for 7 years, without managing to win, despite having many factors that could have led it to victory.
Money is not enough, just as individual elements are not enough.
If you then base your assessments on Wiki... Well, then there's little point in arguing.
I answered your question about Yamaha, maybe it's not clear to you.
The victory (like all) in 2004 came thanks to a whole series of factors, not thanks to money alone, to the driver alone, etc...
Money is part of the whole… But it's not EVERYTHING.
Rossi is not God Ronnie. Rossi does not design motorcycle components.
What two idiots with this change...
Even with Rossi the change would have arrived at the same time. That is, this season.
Strangely, the first to bring this gearbox onto the track were Honda and Ducati.
Strange case, but the gearbox comes from the one used in F1.
Ducati was working on it before Rossi arrived.
Rossi is not God Ronnie.
It's not Rossi who designs the bike and its components....
Red Bull wins now because FIRST they laid concrete foundations to work on.
He doesn't win just because he has money.
Money is important Ronnie, I don't argue otherwise, but if you ONLY have money you don't win.
While surfing on TV, I saw that they were broadcasting Trulli's interview for the umpteenth time (SkyF1 channel).
Fortunately Trulli is one of those few who "really speaks" and doesn't use the usual stupid phrases.
In essence he declared (in that interview, but over the years he has reiterated this concept) that Toyota churned out excellent cars, but lacked development, there was little left to make the big leap but they were lost after the first part of the season.
He also spoke about the staff, describing them as excellent and with capable people.
All the factors that lead to the difference between those who win and those who lose were missing.
bcs always ends like this you extrapolate random things...
I used Wikipedia after you disproved what I wrote twice. I used wikipedia just to prove that what I remembered was proven by the results.
There are different variables Money, Team, Technicians, Drivers, Luck, Reliability, Penuams, …
Trulli was a mid-table rider, always has been and always will be. In any car you put him at maximum and I mean at maximum he could do what Webber, Culthard, Grojean did. Trulli never had super single-seaters because he didn't deserve them POINT!
All those who say they wanted him here wanted him there, they were all fakes, because if they wanted him they took him, they didn't put him on uncompetitive cars.
Toyota made a team with the rejects of all the other teams, with the rejects, not with the first choices, obviously it did not obtain results. Provided that they weren't actually false REJECTS, in the sense that they were "spies" or avant-gardes, dumped by various TOP teams to go to Toyota to see what good I could do and pass on the information. What we have seen happens all the time between the various teams, there is continuous espionage.
So much so that several technicians, having finished their work, returned with a nice package of knowledge to those teams that had discarded them.
Rossi is not a god, and whoever says otherwise.
What you continue to willfully ignore is that Rossi brought technicians to Yamaha and brought victories and MONEY, a lot of MONEY that Yamaha was missing.
Ducati which according to you has great connections with F1, from what I know, from Ducati employees, there is no transfer of knowledge from F1 to Ducati, in fact they say to each other that they are two Reds but that they have nothing in common with the other. So much so that one is part of the Audi group and the other of the Fiat group. So please leave the bullshit about the Ferrari seamless.
Furthermore, the Seamless of the motorbikes by construction is different from that of the F1 ones, because in F1 I seem to remember that the double or friction gearbox is authorized in MotoGP not.
So they had to study a system that works differently.
Honda began developing it in 2009/2010 and has a much more advanced system than the seamless system put in place by Ducati, so much so that Yamaha's gearbox, despite being without seamless but optimized, had approximately the same performance as that of Ducati.
Ducati has never reached Honda's level like Seamless, it probably lacks electronics and an equally optimized part of the mechanics.
Yamaha will still be fielding a gearbox in 2014 that is not at the level of Honda's and was not able to field it earlier because it did not have the technical resources and money to set up a development team dedicated to seamless so they had to go step by step.
Honda has improved and continues to improve, Engine (reliability and consumption), Gearbox, Electronics, Chassis all together everywhere with enormous resources.
Yamaha maybe and I mean maybe develops 2 at a time.
Well if you go by Wiki, Grosjean hasn't won a GP.
So it can't be compared to Trulli :)
Toyota staff was so scarce that McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes and Lotus (formerly Renault), once the Toyota facility was closed, took many of these engineers. defined as "rejects" and years later they are still on the market and you often read news of their movements from that team to this one...
One of these scraps is working on the future V6 Turbo engine… Let's hope it's not a scrap.
In my opinion, the one who has ignored the Yamaha technical aspect so far in 2004 is you.
I have always written that the 2004 victory was the result of many factors, not Rossi alone...
Victories are the result of many things (not just money, as you claimed until recently).
Everything is needed, a single element is not enough. You have to have the rider who makes the difference, but also put him in a position to make the difference (staff who works in direct contact with the rider, who develops the bike, who pays for the development, how the people are organized within the team... ).
Ronnie
First of all, stay calm.
Secondly, I didn't extrapolate anything.
You base your analysis on Wiki, not me.
Todt wanted Trulli in Ferrari Ronnie, but it was Trulli who refused (he declared this several times).
There must be a reason if Trulli is so esteemed.
The results are not always valid for evaluating a particular car…
I denied what you wrote because what you wrote is not true.
Trulli, who drove those cars, proves you wrong (if you have Sky with the Sport package you can easily see the interview with Trulli and what he says about the cars he drove for Toyota, a concept he has also reiterated on other occasions, and it's what I brought you back).
I repeat, if you evaluate based on Wikipedia, how do you evaluate Gilles Villenuve, Nuvolari, Clark, Fittipaldi, Rosberg (Keke), Moss, Cévert, Pironi, Mansell, Hamilton (who on balance won a title), Hakkinen etc etc... Sarinen (Trulli is called Jarno in his honor), Sheene, Gardner, Schwantz etc etc?
....
Many of the Toyota technicians and engineers went (once the F1 parenthesis was closed) to totally different teams compared to where they were before...
Evidently that period was part of your move away from F1.
Ducati has often collaborated with Ferrari in the past, as it should be... Indeed, they should have collaborated more.
I know for a fact that Ducati collaborated with Ferrari, 100%.
It is NOW part of the Audi group…Not at the time. Audi knows very well how to create a racing dual clutch gearbox….
Ducati was working on that gearbox BEFORE Rossi arrived.
What you extrapolate is you, if you turn it that way.
Thank you for basically writing to me, that I write bullshit... So why do you waste time on someone who writes bullshit?
If you're nervous Ronnie, it's not my fault.
The gearbox comes from F1, and coincidentally the first to bring it to the track are the companies that have collaborated with some F1 entities...
Who knows why.
The seemles actually works like a dual clutch gearbox, it DERIVES from that.
They essentially do the same thing, even though they are very different.
In this regard, I invite you to read two articles:
-
Riders 66 Educational. What is seamless?
– Honda RC212V: the secret is the seamless gearbox! (there is also a graphic animation)
-Witteveen: “Honda has the best seamless gearbox”
If you are familiar with English there are even more detailed articles, in Italy there is little stuff on the technical study sector.
Obviously, but I write bullshit....
No, it is absolutely not true that Ducati with the s. it had the same results as Yamaha without it.
Given that the s. influences a series of factors (stability, different pressure drop, gearbox with inclined motion, etc.).
If I'm not mistaken, Rossi declared that the Ducati gearbox was faster than the standard Yamaha one and that the difference could be felt... Ditto Dovi (but I'm going from memory).
You can find the shift times on the internet, a study was done on some audio pieces of the motorbikes... You can find them on the internet anyway.
Yamaha started from scratch on the gearbox front (they said so too), and they didn't know how this gearbox would adapt to the M1.
In 2014 Yamaha will easily introduce a more advanced gearbox (with the seamless effect also between 1st and second gear, like Honda... Rossi also explained this during the season, in addition to the famous sensor that controls the torque in Honda).
Why doesn't Yamaha continue to improve?…
—–
A little note Ronnie, I noticed that you are increasingly "nervous" as the conversation progresses, but you use certain phrases with other users.
bcs you're the nervous one, read again :)
It's just that I let it go for a while but if you fill the posts with untrue things and then say that I get my news from Wikipedia, it's normal for me to get a little upset!
However, neither you nor I have ever seen a modern F1 gearbox and we never will, because they never show you disassembled inside. You can find videos of operating principles and photos of 3D CAD drawings, all messed up with respect to the real gearbox, they are extremely simplified.
If you think you can find details on how an F1 or MotoGP Seamless gearbox is made online, you're off track...
I repeat, they are 2 different things just because one can use the double clutch and the other cannot, even in terms of electronics they are different because one acts on the 2 clutches the other has only one and honestly I don't think it is solely mechanical gear preselection.
From what I know, Ferrari has never collaborated with Ducati, and Ducati may have taken technicians from F1 or other competitions, it is possible that Ferrari said to Ducati, look, I'll build the gearbox for you and give you my best knowledge in the field of F1, it seems slightly naive to me, on Ferrari's part but also on your part...
Two companies that have nothing in common and don't want to have it will never pass secrets to each other, much less on something like the F1 gearbox which everyone keeps to themselves, because everyone has a patent or a secret to keep.
I'm not saying that the Ducati seamless was less efficient in terms of shifting speed, but in terms of overall performance, in Yamaha the """traditional""" gearbox was optimized and probably also thanks to the electronics, it already worked better than the Ducati one, or at least it performed as well.
Again this year I remind you, given that you like to quote the statements of Rossi and also of Lorenzo, who said that the seamless gearbox itself does not necessarily make you 2 or 3 tenths faster per lap on the flying lap, but It's in the race that makes the difference, because the driver can think about other things and driving is easier, less tire wear... I think you said that it's not just the speed of shifting that counts, but the stability it gives you, and I'm sorry but if we're talking about stability in acceleration, I think you also agree that Ducati wasn't superior, so ergo, its shifting was quicker but overall worse than Yamaha's.
If it really had been built or designed by Ferrari, or thanks to Ferrari, the Ducati gearbox would have already been better performing than the Yamaha one and I would venture that of Honda. Yes, because dear bcs Honda withdrew from F2008 in 1 and has certainly always had, in recent years, as I seem to remember, less performing single-seaters than Ferrari.
Coincidentally, Brawn, the old Honda won with a Mercedes engine and transmission if I'm not mistaken, so they changed exactly those things that in your opinion Honda knew how to do well because they were in F1.
In my opinion, F1 technicians are not needed to make a seamless gearbox on motorbikes, or rather they are not indispensable, you need people who know their stuff and have a lot of resources, seamless gearboxes don't only exist on F1s, and in any case I'll tell you again they are 2 different things, go and look for videos that explain how a double-clutch F1 gearbox supposedly works, or a double-clutch gearbox on sports cars.
Now if you remove one of the two clutches you will agree with me that the gearbox works in a completely different way, because if you can understand the difference between a double clutch gearbox and one that only has one perhaps you will understand where the problem lies in being able to transfer quickly the torque from one gear to another without alternating 2 clutches.
Furthermore, the construction, the torques, the transmissions, the operating temperatures and the dimensions also make these 2 gearboxes very, very different from each other.
In F1 the clutch "lever" has practically been eliminated, the gearbox has been managed electronically for years, in MotoGP I would like to remind you that there is a gear pedal and a clutch lever, I think on Hondas there are even 2 to have the Neutral position which previously was between the first and second, but having the seamless it was no longer possible to have this intermediate space.
But you continue to maintain that their principle is identical, the one who should take a video and photo tour I think is you...
Another site reports the news that tomorrow Yamaha will reveal its liveries for the 2014 season.
Ronnie
I don't think these things are true. Those who drove those single-seaters support what I wrote.
If you base your assessments on Wiki (which you did), it's another matter.
I don't think I've written that you extrapolate bullshit things (when it's not true), or that you write bullshit, or that you're naive.
I thought you were another type of user, but evidently I was wrong...
I've seen some racing details, but now what I've seen is from the dinosaur period (around the 2000s).
In fact, as you will surely have noticed, I did not write that what we see is the real change,
but a graphic construction to understand how they work.
If you have read the articles I mentioned, it is explained in a general way how a gearbox of that type works.
But obviously you don't have the pleasure of reading them... Too bad, I just wasted time.
Excuse me, but can you find the point where I write that the two gearboxes are the same?
The purpose of the two is the same.
From what I know, Ducati collaborated with Ferrari years ago, because who told me
he worked (and works) in that environment.
COLLABORATING is one thing, what you support is another thing.
Collaborations of this type exist, both inside and outside motorsport, in all fields.
I repeat: COLLABORATION, not leaking secrets or anything else (as you interpret it, but obviously I'm the one who extrapolates shit).
The bike isn't just made up of the Ronnie gearbox, you can't compare the quality of a gearbox on bikes that are diametrically opposed.
The gearbox does not give you an advantage limited to the shifting time (things that you claimed at the beginning), but on a whole other series of parameters.
The stability of a Ronnie motorbike is not determined by the gearbox alone... If you base the goodness of a gearbox on the stability
that two TOTALLY different bikes have, well...It's a bit like studying a rider from Wiki :).
Ducati's gearbox (compared to Yamaha) was one of the qualities that both Rossi and Dovi highlighted and I wouldn't be surprised
to read something about it from Cal too.
The seamless gearbox derives from the dual clutch gearbox.
They are different (did I perhaps write that they are the same?... Yes, I never extrapolate random things), but their purpose is the same.
The gearbox used in MotoGP derives from the gearbox used in F1…
Even the great Boss Honda declared it, I think.
Evidently you haven't read the articles I mentioned, good, I could have saved time.
You certainly don't have to teach me how a gearbox works...
I found another article (but since he hasn't even read the ones I mentioned before, I think it will happen with this last one too):
_ SEAMLESS GEARBOX: THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HONDA AND YAMAHA
I have never written that to make a seamless you need F1 engineers (also because engineers are engineers, and often move from one category to another).
Can you find me where I support this?
Before writing: "But you continue to maintain that their principle is identical, the one who should take a tour of videos and photos I think is you ..." You should understand what is actually written, and not read what you want to read.
Ps: Brawn had the entire Mercedes Engine/Transmission complex…. Not Honda engine and Mercedes transmission, if I remember correctly
Honda refused to supply engines to Brawn (and the whole complex), they really wanted to leave F1 altogether, as they did.
Brawn tried to convince them, but failed and quickly struck a deal with Mercedes.
Usually when a company sells engines to another (in F1) it provides them with the whole package, and not just the engine or transmission alone.
bcs, sorry if I offended you, but I still don't agree, at the time I had read everything about the seamless gearbox and the F1 gearbox, also looking for videos that showed the F1 gearbox, but neither Mercedes nor
Sauber who made some nice videos showing various things never said or showed what was inside the transmission, same thing for Honda and its Seamless and that of Ducati.
There are alleged patent drawings, nothing more.
As for Brawn, you didn't understand a thing of what I wrote.
I wrote the BRAWN EX HONDA won precisely by changing the engine and transmission and fitting the Mercedes one, not the transmission of one and the engine of another thing which I think is completely impossible, given that the transmission of a manufacturer is never compatible. and the engine of another precisely because they are made differently.
Brawn will have fitted the Mercedes engine for several reasons, which probably can be traced back to the fact that there were only 3 alternatives, Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes which gave a competitive package. They will have chosen the one that best suited the single-seater and that had the lowest cost as a supply for the season, also because Brawn wasn't exactly swimming in gold.
In any case, Seamless MotoGP and DCT F1 are 2 completely different things.
Look at the operating principles again and you will realize it.
Ronnie
Forgive me, but do you know what the term “drift” means?
I do not believe.
Excuse me, but where did I write that the gearbox used in F1 and the one used in MotoGP are the same?
You may not agree, but this is the reality of the facts.
The gearbox used in MotoGP derives from F1.
In my opinion, the one who didn't understand a thing about Brawn is you...
Brawn (Ross) WANTED to use ALL ex-Honda equipment, including engines, but Honda flatly refused.
The Honda men were very clear on this point.
They wanted to get out of F1 altogether, which they did.
They didn't want to remain even as motorists.
Brawn won because it took everyone by surprise with its double diffuser (also used immediately by Williams and Toyota), and was overall the most "refined" car in terms of aerodynamics (see bellies, then over the years they have been in a certain sense “copied”), at least in the first part of the season, then slowly the others arrived.
And it was overall a great car.
In the modern era of F1, the "engine" aspect actually counted for nothing (now we'll see with the new ones), it's enough to note the fact that in Monza Red Bull debunked a myth, winning with a car that had a top speed of much lower than those of the opponents.
Many argue that overall the best V8 engine was the one produced by BMW, followed closely by Mercedes.
But the one who won most of all in this era was Renault…
In terms of costs, Mercedes was among the most expensive in terms of supply...
Where did I write that the F1 and MotoGP gearboxes are the same?
Thank you.
Mercedes gave Brawn GP a favorable price which was anything but expensive, they came in because if it went well they would withdraw the team as what then happened.
Honda had decided to withdraw so no engines.
I didn't say that the Brawn package wasn't competitive, given that it won, but simply that they changed their engine and gearbox taking the Mercedes and so they won the championship.
That the engine is not a fundamental variable is not entirely true. Over the years with the development block, it has become less decisive from some points of view, such as "pure" power.
But it had to become increasingly reliable, evolved from the aspect of electronics, have lower consumption and maximize yield.
The transmissions also had to undergo this optimization process.
What I wanted you to understand is that Ferrari went ahead to develop its transmission, while Honda did not, which is why if Ducati had been helped by Ferrari, and the gearboxes had been similar in the principle of operation, the gearbox should have already performed as well as the one of Honda if not more, both from the mechanical and electronic aspects, however this was not the case.
I'll tell you again, damn, they are 2 completely different things... The way in which shifting is managed, the synchronization of the gears, the construction of the gearbox, everything is different, inform yourself better because I think you don't understand anything about how a seamless works and how a dual clutch gearbox works instead.
The Seamless is electronically and hydraulically simpler than a double clutch, it can be "enhanced" and become automated, as it can remain managed by the rider, in the shifting gesture.
An F1 double clutch receives only an electrical impulse and manages to change gears on its own, no clutch for the driver, no mechanical contact (pedal) to be pressed by the driver to manage the gear change.
Seamless, on the other hand, allows both configurations, both by the pilot mechanically and completely automated with a further step.
A dual clutch gearbox has 2 clutches, and 2 shafts, one manages the even gears and the other the odd ones and alternates them.
A Seamless is mechanically more complex and I believe also more fragile for the powers involved, and uses a completely different synchronization, precisely because it does not have 2 clutches and that is where the biggest difference is, in how the gears are synchronized and how they are pre-selected, both during acceleration and downshifting.
PS. I believe that Redbull managed to win in Monza thanks to aerodynamic features, such as the wings, but not only that, it is the one that spent the most and put the most technicians to work on the single-seater. The other single-seaters didn't win just thanks to the engine, they had more efficient aerodynamics than Redbull's on fast tracks, which required less load.
It is said that Renault also had a sort of managed TC ("prohibited by the regulation"), but that thanks to the girge areas of the regulation it was not judged irregular, which when exiting corners and S even in Monza gives its advantage, in addition to everything else.
Furthermore, the levels of reliability achieved by Redbull and the fact that they did not often exploit the potential of the car due to the tires made many things less important in 2013. Perhaps the tires most of all marked the season.
Ronnie
Forgive me but the one who isn't understanding is you, or maybe you have understood and are trying to make do.
Brawn won because he had a great car, not because he had the Mercedes engine.
Also because good Brawn WANTED Honda engines!
If Brawn was purely interested in the cost, he fell back on the Consworths...
The engines in F1 have ALL become reliable, few stories Ronnie. We haven't "seen" an engine burn out for years.
And I repeat my question (I write it in capital letters so perhaps you can read it):
WHERE DID I WROTE THAT F1 AND MOTOGP GEARBOXES ARE THE SAME?
The seemales DERIVA (if you don't know the meaning of the word DERIVE it's not my problem) from the gearbox used in F1. POINT.
Even Nakamoto bluntly declared it at the time….
And I REPEAT you that you certainly don't have to explain how a gearbox works….
You base the quality of a gearbox based on how stable one bike is compared to the other… Which is saying something….
Ps: Ronnie, I don't think you follow F1 much, or rather you write from hearsay.
Red Bull is not the team that spends the most…
The one that currently spends the most is Mercedes.
Incorrect, Red Bull's staff is no larger than that of other teams (see Ferrari).
They win because NOW they are the best, few stories.
The best aerodynamics have always been RedBull, both on slow and fast tracks.
The others took them because they weren't at their level, few stories.
You also write about the history of TC based on hearsay.
This is not a CT system at all…
Or rather it recreates that effect (to a lesser extent) but it is perfectly legal.
After the Minardi controversy, the FIA technicians checked Red Bull, result? No CT system in the car.
Theirs is a perfectly legal system, which exploits (in short) the delay between pushing the throttle and opening the throttles.
From there then the cutting of the cylinders...
Well, the reliability of the RedBull leaves something to be desired... Just look at the technical problems Webber had, the problems with the alternator, the problems with the Kers (due to the position in which the batteries are installed) etc etc...
Other teams overall are much more reliable than RedBull, but they don't win...
History of the tyres... Yes, Red Bull had an advantage in the change (also admitted by Adrian), but.. Lotus was against this change, but was also able to modify its car and make it competitive even with the tires 2012… Other teams like Ferrari have gone ballistic… And Ferrari has many more resources/staff/facilities than Lotus.
Red Bull was already leading when the tires were changed… They were FIRST in both championships.
bcs everyone sees it in their own way, neither of us has absolute truths, and therefore it is useless to argue point by point.
The only certain thing I know is that Seamless does not derive from F1 any more than it derives from Rally and any other motor sport in which it is necessary to reduce the downtime of power transfer.
The idea of the seamless is to have better acceleration, engine braking and stability, like that of the dual clutch gearbox, but by construction they are extremely different. They have the same intent but are conceived and built differently, the only thing I can grant you in this regard is that the final purpose is similar but in the mechanics and electronics that manage them neither of them derives from the other, they have solutions that are too different and one is designed mainly for cars, while the other for motorbikes.
Ronnie
It's not a matter of seeing it one way, it's just the way it is.
If several engineers have stated that the seamles derives from there... There is little that can be done...
Nakamoto himself (who also worked in F1 if I'm not mistaken) declared this.
I ask you once again WHERE I wrote that the two exchange rates are THE SAME. Thank you…
___
Have you seen Ronnie the "probable" faces of the 2014 cars?
The most popular are 3 (Lotus seems to have opted for a revision of the 2nd option)
_Classic solution (2001 Ferrari).
_Williams/BMW 2004 style solution (aesthetically beautiful, in my opinion).
_ HORRIBLE solution (the Catheram will have this type of solution and it seems to be the most popular), with a "proboscis" snout.
great ronnie
:-)