MotoGP 2013

[Dave-]

2.) BS/Dunlop fucked up because they should have pushed for a test at PI. Computer simulations and empirical data are all well and good, but its only half the story. There is nothing likes boots on the ground.......err......tires on asphalt.

I dunno the exact date or time but dorna, honda, yamaha, ducati, and their sub teams each said they couldn't due to time or monetary requirements.

Dorna also predefined the test calendar making fitting another test in impossible as development schedules were organised months in advance.

They couldn't cancel a test to make way as arrangements had already been made with staff, facilities, teams, transport etc contracts etc etc

So ~11 months ago when the new seal was laid they would have been starting pre-2013 testing, to try and make an alteration to the testing regime at that stage would be impossible.

Manufacturers would have their bikes in 14 million pieces between tests. You cant just slap it back together either, parts need to be checked for fatigue and wear.

also FYI: empirical data and "boots on the ground" are the same thing.

[tail_end_charlie]

So ~11 months ago when the new seal was laid they would have been starting pre-2013 testing, to try and make an alteration to the testing regime at that stage would be impossible.

Respectfully disagree. It would not have been impossible, especially considering that they were in Sepang. But still, pre-season testing at PI would have been difficult. What Dorna needed to do was organize a test at PI sometime during the season, perhaps during the same time as the Tech 3 and others tested in Argentina? If that required them to fund the the test for the teams going, them I'm sure some teams would have taken the offer to get a head start on set-up for the race later on. I would see it as preferable to send a satellite team and maybe a CRT team, that way none of the factory teams get an advantage. Bridgestone would have had a 'holy shit, our tires won't work' moment months in advance and managed to figure something out. And I"m sure the teams wouldn't have minded the testing advantage.

Manufacturers would have their bikes in 14 million pieces between tests. You cant just slap it back together either, parts need to be checked for fatigue and wear.

Well, considering that teams can go from boxes of bits to a fully functioning bike in a couple of hours, I would say they could.



The way I view the situation is that testing could have happened. It would cost money, and it would cause headaches, but it could of and should of happened. The reason it didn't is because multiple people had adopted the attitude of, "She'll be right" and didn't bother to push the issue. And now everyone knows the result of that laziness.

[Dave-]

Respectfully disagree. It would not have been impossible, especially considering that they were in Sepang. But still, pre-season testing at PI would have been difficult. What Dorna needed to do was organize a test at PI sometime during the season, perhaps during the same time as the Tech 3 and others tested in Argentina? If that required them to fund the the test for the teams going, them I'm sure some teams would have taken the offer to get a head start on set-up for the race later on. I would see it as preferable to send a satellite team and maybe a CRT team, that way none of the factory teams get an advantage. Bridgestone would have had a 'holy shit, our tires won't work' moment months in advance and managed to figure something out. And I"m sure the teams wouldn't have minded the testing advantage.

Well, considering that teams can go from boxes of bits to a fully functioning bike in a couple of hours, I would say they could.

The way I view the situation is that testing could have happened. It would cost money, and it would cause headaches, but it could of and should of happened. The reason it didn't is because multiple people had adopted the attitude of, "She'll be right" and didn't bother to push the issue. And now everyone knows the result of that laziness.

No, pre-season they can't just go from boxes of bits to a fully functioning bike. During the season they can because they know this set of bits in this order will last this long, they have done testing. Pre-season there's no way of knowing that a part wont fail, all 14 million bits need to be analysed to see how it's failing otherwise they run the risk of destroying the bike or worse killing somebody.

They wanted to test during the season but it was all much the same, plus you had to add the added stress on the team, rider and one less engine.

As I stated earlier, Bridgestone never got the chance. If they could have, they would have.

It's a freak coincidence that goes further back than anyone can see. I doubt it'll happen again, but it happened and yarning about who's at fault on the internet isn't going to change it. It'll be another one of those stand out events in a stand out season.

[BMWST?]

No, pre-season they can't just go from boxes of bits to a fully functioning bike. During the season they can because they know this set of bits in this order will last this long, they have done testing. Pre-season there's no way of knowing that a part wont fail, all 14 million bits need to be analysed to see how it's failing otherwise they run the risk of destroying the bike or worse killing somebody.

They wanted to test during the season but it was all much the same, plus you had to add the added stress on the team, rider and one less engine.

As I stated earlier, Bridgestone never got the chance. If they could have, they would have.

It's a freak coincidence that goes further back than anyone can see. I doubt it'll happen again, but it happened and yarning about who's at fault on the internet isn't going to change it. It'll be another one of those stand out events in a stand out season.

they have last years bike

[Dave-]

they have last years bike

That's sort of what they did. They took last years data and extrapolated with a higher PWMFTS thing number. To actually get last years bike and physically take it there would require tooling etc would cost a wee fortune and they'd have data as good as if they'd just extrapolated it in the first place.

You might be right though, I don't know why that wasn't done. There might be a good reason, there might be a bureaucratic reason, and economic reason or a non sequitur reason but there will have been a reason.

[GD66]

They have also had World Supers, Australian Supers, Island Classic for bikes and cars and V8 supercars all run there since the resurfacing, so surely the diligence should extend to at least running an analysis of any or all of those meetings to research any tyre issues experienced or projected. If you're fair dinkum about it, surely !
But I agree with the above summary : laziness, and laziness bred from a tyre monopoly. There's only us, so no need to test.
Caught out !

[Mental Trousers]

Everybodies budget is already allocated. To get the necessary money together (cos it isn't cheap by any stretch of the imagination) they have to pull it from somewhere else in their budget. And what are the teams going to get out of testing last years bike anyway?? Spend $100,000 (obviously a guess) and get nothing relevant to the new bike?? That isn't going to happen

[Mental Trousers]

They have also had World Supers, Australian Supers, Island Classic for bikes and cars and V8 supercars all run there since the resurfacing, so surely the diligence should extend to at least running an analysis of any or all of those meetings to research any tyre issues experienced or projected. If you're fair dinkum about it, surely !
But I agree with the above summary : laziness, and laziness bred from a tyre monopoly. There's only us, so no need to test.
Caught out !

Problem is they're not MotoGP or Moto2 bikes and riders. The above may be fast alright, but they're not fast enough. Trying to use data for bikes that are 5 seconds or whatever slower is absolutely useless.

[GD66]

Still and all, they would no doubt still have all experienced some form of altered tyre response since the resurfacing. You'd at least find out if there was anything flagged.
Obviously GP bikes are a different kettle of fish, but 10 laps...

[Dave-]

Still and all, they would no doubt still have all experienced some form of altered tyre response since the resurfacing. You'd at least find out if there was anything flagged.

Pirelli is going to tell Bridgestone what problems it is having at Phillip Island......haha

[BMWST?]

That's sort of what they did. They took last years data and extrapolated with a higher PWMFTS thing number. To actually get last years bike and physically take it there would require tooling etc would cost a wee fortune and they'd have data as good as if they'd just extrapolated it in the first place.

You might be right though, I don't know why that wasn't done. There might be a good reason, there might be a bureaucratic reason, and economic reason or a non sequitur reason but there will have been a reason.

it sounds like by the time the circuit was resurafaced a lot of other tests etc had already been organised.I beleive only a certain ammount of testing is allowed ,although i am sure that if bridestone made a point of it(not to mention dunlop) to say tha PI was an unknown quanttity some thing could be arranged.i am sure CS would have loved a hoon round PI on his favourite tyres!

[eelracing]

They have also had World Supers, Australian Supers, Island Classic for bikes and cars and V8 supercars all run there since the resurfacing, so surely the diligence should extend to at least running an analysis of any or all of those meetings to research any tyre issues experienced or projected. If you're fair dinkum about it, surely !
But I agree with the above summary : laziness, and laziness bred from a tyre monopoly. There's only us, so no need to test.
Caught out !

Spot on.

Problem is they're not MotoGP or Moto2 bikes and riders. The above may be fast alright, but they're not fast enough. Trying to use data for bikes that are 5 seconds or whatever slower is absolutely useless.

Rubbish...did not the SBK round earlier this year experience the same tyre dramas at PI?

Pirelli is going to tell Bridgestone what problems it is having at Phillip Island......haha

Seeing as Dorna now control both series this is a realistic scenario...if it's not then as GD66 say's it smacks of the kind of egotistical wankers that a monopoly will always breed.

[Mental Trousers]

Rubbish...did not the SBK round earlier this year experience the same tyre dramas at PI?

You're trying to compare the WSBK experience on a completely different tyre with MotoGP?? Pirelli had far fewer problems than Dunlop and Bridgestone did because the WSBK bikes flex more and don't work the tyres as hard, tyres which also flex a lot more. GP machines are nothing like a Superbike and neither are their tyres so data gathered for one doesn't translate to the other.

[eelracing]

You're trying to compare the WSBK experience on a completely different tyre with MotoGP?? Pirelli had far fewer problems than Dunlop and Bridgestone did because the WSBK bikes flex more and don't work the tyres as hard, tyres which also flex a lot more. GP machines are nothing like a Superbike and neither are their tyres so data gathered for one doesn't translate to the other.

I'm not comparing anything so get your head out of your ass and realise warning bells should have been ringing from that SBK round.
The fact that they were ignored speaks louder than any damage control done on the day of the GP race.

Stop being spoonfed man.

[Dave-]

Seeing as Dorna now control both series this is a realistic scenario...if it's not then as GD66 say's it smacks of the kind of egotistical wankers that a monopoly will always breed.

But they're still competing brands.

I found out that the reason WSBK/pirelli problems didn't set off alarm bells with Bridgestone was because Dorna and Bridgestone agreed that the WSBK bikes were completely different and the Pirelli tyres completely different too.

They knew the circuit was different but their hands were tied to do anything about it.