Recent comments

Well no actually, 2014 was a repsol whitewash with the only consistent challenger being a 35 year old-albeit freak former champion. 2010-2012 were mostly a tri love fest between stoner, Jorge and Dani with predominantly predictable in line time trial racing.

Thankfully Marquez has upset the apple cart. And I don't believe the majority of punters give a toss if the race is 20 seconds longer if there is passing for the lead.

Why can't the tires go off during the race? (And Not because of faulty old stock) Why can't we see a choice of compounds that allows teams to take a chance on a race strategy? With the increased fuel allowance and controlled ECU, with any luck the main variables will be tyre, rider and mechanical setup in 2016.

everyone saying Michelin are close to Bs in terms of tire development but using top riders as a reference they are over 1s a lap off in pace with a worrying amount of fast front end crashes. A large number of lap records are smashed year on year at the moment on BS - see Julian Rider's article on Soup - and people think tire development has lacked recently? What series are you guys watching?

On this site it was said that when the factory riders would test Michelin that theyd all lap quicker than on Bs, which of course never happened. Seems people are buying the hype from somewhere. In the end Michelin will get the job done but is everyone currently not impressed at what they are seeing in Motogp?

I am certainly welcoming the return of Michelin, as they were the no1 tyre supplier for a great many years. Only really getting beaten by the supply rule change at the start of the 2007 season.

The overnight specials were an incredible committment to being the best, and whilst they couldn't/wouldn't supply all of their teams with these they were almost unbeatable. A better rule would have been to make Michelin supply all of their riders with at least one set of specials each race weekend. And possibly the drudgery of most of the Bridgestone sole supply era might have been avoided.

Michelin always seemed to have a better feel for the sport, and the fact that they are close to Bridgestones "developed" rubber with no setup time speaks volumes and is not entirely surprising to me at least.
with any luck as others have suggested this will shake things up.

My point is that 17" inner diameter is not a magical attribute that makes the manufacturers use production relevant materials, designs, and technologies. Perhaps 17" inner diameter will make the tires more similar to road tires, but only because of other extenuating rules and regulations about rim width, total tire diameter, and so forth. The 17" concept is mainly a canard, dreamed up by marketing people who think the world exists to absorb their version of reality.

No really, these tires are more production relevant than anything previously, and it will improve our street tires!!! We promise!! Soon racing slicks will be OEM equipment, and you'll all be dragging your elbows!

The world is not populated by 15 year olds, though they've clearly taken over marketing and advertising.

This guy seems to have a habit of cruising for tows in testing - there's a video on youtube of him and Stoner having a good shout at one another in pit lane over a very similar situation at another test.
I seem to remember Stoner saying he couldn't understand the point of getting a tow at a test - it doesn't really achieve anything, does it?

"The reasons for this are simple: Michelin feel the knowledge gained from using a standard size used in road tires will transfer more directly into production. Though the tire sizes are different, the outer diameter is exactly the same, the difference coming in the height of the sidewall."

They should get into the manure business. They'll never run out of product. As if the production market couldn't use 16.5" diameter tires just as easily as 17's. The relationship between the tire size and the inner diameter affects all manner of performance characteristics.

That is close to the situation. First, these bikes are being ridden with a Bridgestone set up, where the front has all the grip and they are trying to find grip at the rear. That means moving weight to the rear (as an aside, Jerry Burgess and the crew spent the first half of 2008, afer Valentino Rossi had switched from Michelin to Bridgestone, moving weight further back to accommodate the front grip). The Michelins have the grip the other way round, less at the front, a lot at the rear. That means that the front is more likely to wash out anyway.

What is happening, as I understand it, is that the riders are trying to exploit the grip they have at the rear by opening the gas earlier and earlier. As highside specialist says, this means opening the gas when the bike is still very leaned over. Do that on a Bridgestone, and the rear washes out, or worse, slips and grips and tosses you over the highside. With the Michelins, the front is pushing through the corners anyway, because the bike balance is wrong. Opening the gas early at full lean pushes the front further and further, the bike runs wide, and eventually the front lets go.

Normally, getting on the gas is a good remedy for most problems, but the problem the riders are describing is happening at the limits of their ability, which is far beyond anything normal riders (even normal racers) can manage. They are getting into problems on the gas, not using the gas to get themselves out of problems. 

Not interested in being anyones fan, I respect all the MotoGP pilots for their skill and big kahunas; so can it be argued that both Dovi and Bautista have ridden satellite bikes better?

Points make prizes, so surely the results determine who rode what well, to level it off, I only looked at time spent on a MotoGP satellite machines, factory rides are not relevant to the sample.

Cruthlow
Satellite rides;
2011 Tech 3 Yamaha satellite - 11th
2012 Tech 3 Yamaha satellite - 7th
2013 Tech 3 Yamaha satellite - 5th

Dovi
2008 Scot Honda Satellite - 5th
2012 Tech 3 Yamaha - 4th

Bautista
2012 Honda Gresini - 5th
2013 Honda Gresini - 6th
2014 Honda Gresini - 11th

Both Dovi and Bautista were both factory riders when Crutchlow joined as a rookie in 2011, whilst Dovi's class shines through even on a satellite machine its reasonable to say Crutclow's record is at least comparable with Bautista.

So to the second part, its far to say Aleix Espargaró is a fantastic rider who hasn't always had the best available kit, however Aleix was a 'full' satellite rider in 2010 on the Pramac Ducati when he finished the season 14th.

Pol finished 6th in his rookie year on a Tech 3 Yamaha which was a brilliant achievement and marks him out as a special talent. Worth noting though in Crutchlow's rookie season he was Yamaha's No 4 rider and bottom of the pile, Pol is a factory employee and getting treated as such. This takes nothing away from Pol's achievement though, well deserved plaudits for a great debut.

My assessment is simple
Pol has had a better start to his MotoGP career than his brother, Dovi is a world class rider, Crutchlow is generally no better and definitely not any worse than those he is being compared too;- as a satellite rider.

Remember his 2nd win was stolen from him by Stoner/HRC at Valencia. Nothing Ben could do about it. Also, only a select few GP riders are head & shoulders above the best WSB riders. WSB champs have almost always been in the top 6-8 in gp. So take away your top 3 established GP gods who are always there and throw in your Brit, Aussie or Yank whom the gp team won't listen to for a year. By the time the WSB champ knows what's going on he is on a B-team.

Had Hayden not been US Honda's golden child he would never have survived his early career in Gp. Look what happened to Edwards. A better rider with a deeper resume. It is more about the system in GP.

..."nobody ever lost the front on the gas"???

I think the explanation of *why* riders crashed, in paragraph 7, is not entirely accurate.

Well...Bayliss, is just Bayliss. ;)

For him to come in and win that one race after being off the Motogp bike for awhile just shows that he always had the speed there. He said that Ducati would not listen to him. But with the crew he used for that race he was able to get what he was asking for.

Still feel something happened in the background with Ben. Dont' know if it was in his personal life or on the team. His luck was not just him jacking up, there were alot of MYSTERIOUS failures happening with him. He had more raw talent than Crutchlow to me. But Crutchlow at the Motogp level seems to have a little more "F*ck you!" in him than I saw with Spies which is surprising because Spies had the about the worst teammate you could ever deal with in AMA. He was fast AND talked mess about Spies every race and interview.

To me I do not think rider styles matter as much. When Lorenzo started winning everyone said tires in line works. Now Marquez is dominating real hard and making veterans look like rookies riding like he is at a dirt track. Really does seem it is whatever works for the rider with the speed. Everyone else has to emulate to catch up.