Ducati goings on. Part 2.

[Faster1]

For sure, the viewing figures dropped when Rossi was injured.

, I have no doubt of the accuracy of your claim. But I have no idea who would watch racing for the singular reason of seeing one (even the best) rider, then completely ignore, or stop watching the same series because said rider is not there. I understand that polarizing personalities can only add to the spectacle and I acknowledge their value but,, seriously, who are "these people", who place these qualities above all,, housewives? children? smitten teen girls? Would "these people" pay to watch said rider ride around the track by himself? Does the rest of the grid even need to leave the paddock?

The vast majority who watch all professional sports are casual viewers, watching for entertainment only. They need heroes and villains, the rest is unimportant.

,, gonna have to respectfully go the other way on this one DE, at least here in the states. Try calling a NASCAR fan casual and you'll have a brawl on your hands. It takes hard-core commitment (and a sh*itload of beer) to fixate on a bunch of cars turning left for 2 hours.

[Kropotkin]

,, gonna have to respectfully go the other way on this one DE, at least here in the states. Try calling a NASCAR fan casual and you'll have a brawl on your hands. It takes hard-core commitment (and a sh*itload of beer) to fixate on a bunch of cars turning left for 2 hours.

They might not call themselves casual, but most of them are. Out of the massive viewing figures that NASCAR gets, how many understand all of the ins and outs of the series? Same in Europe for soccer: most people can't explain and don't really understand the offside rule, which is shockingly simple.

[dave_m]

All sports have their casual fans. People decide to watch golf or not based on whether Tiger Woods is playing, and most fans make plenty of decisions based on that type of thinking. I like football, but if the game is between 2 bad teams, or 2 teams I don't particularity care about, then I probably find something other to do than watch the game.

The problem for MotoGP is the product suffered during the 800cc era, as there wasn't a lot of close, exciting racing, and the number of bikes kept decreasing. The casual Rossi fans have probably helped the sport during that time, but Rossi won't ride forever. I know the manufacturer's view the racing partially as R&D, but at times it's seemed like watching a test rather than a race. The CRT bikes becoming competitive with the satellite bikes will certainly help with that, as would Ducati catching up and competing regularly for podiums.

[frankrizzo]

before the race, rossi stated that the potential of this bike is 6th. hayden finished 6th and without his dramas rossi may have been thereabouts. so why spit the dummy? surely no surprises with the bike? i guess someday when burgess packs it in he'll write a book and we'll find out what's really going on. but i think rossi will cool it by jerez and tentatively retract his remarks, back to work as usual, for a while anyway.

[Squidpuppet]

but i think rossi will cool it by jerez and tentatively retract his remarks, back to work as usual, for a while anyway.

Done....already.... which is a surprise. Front page has an article.

[ducati1098s]

Rossis comments have had their effect- time to withdraw the blade from between Ducati's ribs. He has now put the world on notice that Ducati need to do a lot more and that the bike in its current form is crap. Until Rossi's results or his mouth says different (or Hayden starts delivering) everyone apart from hard-core Ducatista's will conclude that its Ducati's fault.

I also think that his words will have caused the sponsors of death (PM) to tell Ducati in no uncertain terms to stop being precious about their L twin and change WHATEVER needs changing

[Grahluk]

My 2 pence on a couple things here.

The casual fans that someone like Rossi brings to MotoGP: I think we sometimes paint with too broad a brush here and box people into "true die-hard race fans" and "casual newbies attracted to celebrity & personality". Sometimes I thinks I detect a hint of bitterness or resentment at anyone who spectates racing and is not a stat spewing motorhead with a racebike of their own in the garage. A certain air of "they're not TRUE fans!". Sometimes to me it seems some of the antipathy towards Rossi is that the die hard anoraks have to share the sofa with the enthusiastic neophytes. Just an impression I get. What I'd like to say to my fellow die hards though is that while the star power of a person like Rossi may get a few in the door it's also likely that they become as true of race fans as any and will stick around. I'd bet more stay race fans after he leaves (though they will lament it) than those that turn off of racing just because their favorite retires or declines. As in all sports, (Ali in boxing, Jordan in basketball, Tiger in golf, Beckham or Pele in football) when a sportsman reaches an audience outside the confines of the sport it only promotes the sport all the more as people can at least have some familiarity with it who might not otherwise. Never do I think such personalities are above the sport. The quality of the competition and the spectacle of the fight is what I feel ultimately holds both new and old fans alike. Rossi's eventual exit of the sport won't kill it but cold war of technology could.

Ducati goings on: The comments Rossi made post race (and now clarified) were the "storm in a teacup" as I read it. I think the press and fans made more of it than the rider and factory themselves did. I'm sure they had a nice little respectful talk about it but probably not in a way that would jibe with the imagination of the soap operati. Or maybe there was some dramatic war behind closed doors but we probably won't know anything about that till a much later date. What I am curious about is the rumored poor dynamic in the pitbox between the Australians (crew) and Italians (factory engineers). I'm sure Rossi will slog it out through the whole season but it will be a loveless marriage unless the factory introduces some marital aids the crew and rider can get excited about.

[ducati1098s]

I read somewhere a Oz interview with JB where he stated that the quality of engineering in terms of fit was very low when they first arrived at Ducati and that building up the bikes and changing things/components took much longer than they should have done. Issues like that and cold hard truths as expressed by the Aussies probably didn't help relations

[Nachlauf]

I agree with Grahluk, that some die hards might hold Rossi responsible for some of his "strange" fans and reflect their dislike of those fans on Rossi. Imho it's understandable, but also wrong. Personally I find the hype around his supposed character, charm and whatnot extremely boring. In real life I would never even talk to a person like him. Call me a miserable sod. The only thing that matters to is that he was worthwhile to watch riding for most of the time.

But I disagree about the cold war of technology thing. The whole comparison is wrong. The manufacturers are not interest in "winning a cold war of technology". There is no win there. A "win" would mean every manufacturer bar one quit, which would make no sense to the "winner". The real problem is, that the FIM is extremely weak. Normally they should make the rules. And they should make sure, that MotoGP is the highest class of circuit racing. They would only need to balance the rules around cost of reasonable participation and securing the class' position at the highest level. Because of FIM's weakness Dorna tries to take over that job. But whether that will work out we'll have to see. They are biased as they are the promoter. Just like the MSMA was on the other side.

[Tourn46]

Call me a miserable sod.

Miserable Sod

Sorry... couldn't resist

[TwoStroke Institute]

I read somewhere a Oz interview with JB where he stated that the quality of engineering in terms of fit was very low when they first arrived at Ducati and that building up the bikes and changing things/components took much longer than they should have done. Issues like that and cold hard truths as expressed by the Aussies probably didn't help relations

The implied meaning of that was to say how much better it was going to be after they had finished with it. The only hard truth is lap times and results. The elephant in the room is just where do they go from here?

[Oscar]

The implied meaning of that was to say how much better it was going to be after they had finished with it.

I don't think that there is a necessary connection there - Ducati were floundering with Stoner in terms of development and they continue to flounder with Rossi. About the only thing that really worked as an improvement for Stoner was the 42mm forks in 2010 and the slight revised riding position, and (possibly) the revised headstock. Ok, that was small beer compared to the changes in '11, but what was the situation for one is fairly applicable for the other (whichever way one chooses to look at it.)

One of the major skills of an excellent engineer is designing things that can actually be built to work in the way intended by the design. Designing things that work on the CAD program but that can't be reliably turned into a finished product to the tolerances necessary enforces a discipline on the designer that just maybe Preziosi doesn't quite gel with. Remember when the c/f frame was introduced, and Preziosi stated that with that concept they could 'turn out many different bikes' - implying that they could tune the chassis with great flexibility (no pun intended..) It probably looked great from the finite elephant analysis, but what turned wheels on the track was, in most cases, almost exactly totally not right.

One thing this saga has done, is repudiate the contention that Stoner is a 'bad' developer. He may still be unproven, but 'the Rossi saga' has shown that Ducati is simply not the organisation in which the development capability on the part of the rider is going to be reliably demonstrated - either way.

[freighttrain]

well said.. i do remember many conversations about Stoner not being able to lead the engineers down the suggestive path for success... seeing as how Rossi has strugled as well now... it does seem to re-enforce the idea of the stubborn italian engineers simply going their own way in the end.

i am pretty curious as to what exactly were the notes and recommendations made by Rossi and Burgess in the winter of '10.. and the same for the input that they had for the GP12. I'd really like to compare their notes to what has actually been altered by the engineers.

would be interesting for sure...

[Zaphod]

In Tullamarine again Oscar, and you know what that means !!

Rossi is exceptional at using the media as a method of leverage. Fan-bois from either camp fail to see that for what it is. He has the ability to do so due to his results and ability, and good on him....... it's not like he fluked it to get where he is.

Ducati have been ridiculous to every rider that has ridden for them, and far from Stoner having to thank them for learning how to ride, they should be thanking him for a WC that they probably didn't deserve ........on merit.

The only thing Stoner has to thank is God,........for not suffering serious injury whilst riding the pile of junk.

I, for one, am starting to hope that Ducati go out the same door they came in by, whilst Suzuki come back in the door they went out through.

...........and Suzuki could do worse than picking up Rossi and his Monster Energy and PM sponsorship.

Screw Ducati. Wasting time, and creating a saga fit for womens ( or teen) magazines......that's all.

[motor]

So it was 'a momentary lapse of reason'....or so it seems

http://www.gpone.com/index.php/en/20120 ... toria.html

[Cam D]

Remember when the c/f frame was introduced, and Preziosi stated that with that concept they could 'turn out many different bikes' - implying that they could tune the chassis with great flexibility (no pun intended..) It probably looked great from the finite elephant analysis, but what turned wheels on the track was, in most cases, almost exactly totally not right.

One thing this saga has done, is repudiate the contention that Stoner is a 'bad' developer. He may still be unproven, but 'the Rossi saga' has shown that Ducati is simply not the organisation in which the development capability on the part of the rider is going to be reliably demonstrated - either way.

There isn't any evidence to show that the c/f frame didn't work, they changed to an aluminium frame because the rider asked for it to be changed. So far none of the frames have made a huge difference. Infact, they have changed so many components that it would be almost impossible for us as spectators to determine what components have change the bikes behaviour.

edit: It seems like you're implying that Preziosi isn't a good engineer. He was in 2007, and we aren't in a position to know what company restrictions he has to work under. Maybe he wants to change certain aspects of the bike but Ducati concerns have told him not to? Who knows....

As someone mentioned earlier, if Ducati weren't making an effort then they deserve ridicule but Ducati seems to be putting in as much effort as the rider.

After so many spectators have complained about poor grid sizes, I can't see why someone would suggest they leave the sport just because they are in a slump? Yamaha was in a slump a few years ago and look how much things changed.

[Cam D]

So it was 'a momentary lapse of reason'....or so it seems

http://www.gpone.com/index.php/en/20120 ... toria.html

Rosi probably had his lawyers check out the contract, and they came back shaking their heads

[Oscar]

It seems like you're implying that Preziosi isn't a good engineer. He was in 2007, and we aren't in a position to know what company restrictions he has to work under.

No - I think Preziosi is very probably a very good, possibly great, engineer with both flair and imagination. However I have three engineers in the family (all aero engineers) and the best by far is my brother, who has 40-odd years in the industry and when he designs things, they both work AND fit. Both his sons are capable of fine theoretical engineering but they have a strong tendency not to appreciate the limitations of production techniques (in particular) - they can produce elegant and innovative designs that stack up wonderfully through the FEA but are woefully difficult / expensive to produce.

In crude terms, what I am saying (and in context of the Burgess comments of clashes of tolerance) - if Tab A doesn't quite fit into Slot B, or having folded on the dotted line you can't make them join up, then the design hasn't been holistically developed. The bits attached to Tab A may be wonderful pieces of engineering, same with the bits attached to Slot B, but the whole mechanism isn't going to work as it should.

Preziosi shoudn't be singled out for criticism - after all, it is precisely for the reason of things not quite going together as they should that the gods gave us Duct Tape.

[TwoStroke Institute]

The implied meaning of that was to say how much better it was going to be after they had finished with it.

I don't think that there is a necessary connection there - Ducati were floundering with Stoner in terms of development and they continue to flounder with Rossi. About the only thing that really worked as an improvement for Stoner was the 42mm forks in 2010 and the slight revised riding position, and (possibly) the revised headstock. Ok, that was small beer compared to the changes in '11, but what was the situation for one is fairly applicable for the other (whichever way one chooses to look at it.)

I watched the interview on telle and it very much looked like JB reckon the Ducati was a cobbled together shitter and the factory would redesign everything to be user friendly at the circuit. Wasn't anything to do with the frame more about the ancillaries attached to it.

The Trellis/carbon framed Duc had everything attached to the engine and looked like it would come apart with half a dozed 3/8 bolts.

[rick]

Krop RT'd this a short while ago.

http://manziana.motocorse.com/blog/3216 ... nglish.php

[Tourn46]

Krop RT'd this a short while ago.

http://manziana.motocorse.com/blog/3216 ... nglish.php

Really good read... that makes a lot of sense to be honest (even if it is just a hypothesis).

[TwoStroke Institute]

The theory falls flat on it's arse about taking months to build a new engine, regular main page contributor Chris Cosentino CNC machined a set of cases in the same time, in between work and family.
Ducati should be able to knock out a set of cases overnight. Budget I would believe.

[Kropotkin]

The theory falls flat on it's arse about taking months to build a new engine, regular main page contributor Chris Cosentino CNC machined a set of cases in the same time, in between work and family.
Ducati should be able to knock out a set of cases overnight. Budget I would believe.

Machining isn't the problem. It's the CAD that precedes it that causes the delay. Usual lead time for a fully-fledged race engine is 2 years - that is, a race engine that could compete at MotoGP level. More to it than just machining.

[Domino]

http://manziana.motocorse.com/blog/3216 ... nglish.php

[JoeKing]

Remember when the c/f frame was introduced, and Preziosi stated that with that concept they could 'turn out many different bikes' - implying that they could tune the chassis with great flexibility (no pun intended..) It probably looked great from the finite elephant analysis, but what turned wheels on the track was, in most cases, almost exactly totally not right.



Please can we agree to put this myth to rest once & for all......


On the first test of the c/f framed GP 9...

It was a positive debut for the machine in the hands of the World Champion, so much so that the Australian set the best time of the day with a 1′41.533 on qualifying tyres.

CASEY STONER (Ducati MotoGP Team) – Best lap on race tyres – 1′42.632; on qualifiers – 1′41.533

“I’m happy with the way today has gone. The objective was to understand whether this new chassis concept has potential and I’d say that for now it looks to be the case. We were quickly into some decent times using the same set-up as the GP8. We barely changed anything to adapt it to the characteristics of the GP9 and I immediately felt an improvement so that is positive. I’m sure that with more time to work on it we can go much faster, although that is not the current brief.”

2nd that day was VR on his (future) WC winning M1


CS has stated that the c/f frame was "a much better bike" than the aluminum bike (in the iteration of that time), was better than the trellis frame & by the end of the season had "a bike capable of winning every race". Almost exactly totally not right..indeed.
http://www.bikesportnews.com/news-detai ... ewsid=5545

The fact that Ducati has been lost for years, the blame in no quantifiable way (at least available to the general public) be attributed to the c/f frame. In fact, the continued dearth of results of a "traditional" aluminum frame...belies it.

The "tuneability" advantage of c/f was never exploited, it was scapegoated by the pudits as the "obvious" reason; logical fallacy: alien material = poor results...correlation = causation. As this ongoing trainwreck continues, whatever their unresolved undelying issue(s) may be, perhaps the ONLY thing Ducati has definitively proven is.... their problem is/was not frame material(s).