Crash.Net User: asefi

Comments rating: 1098
Position in rating: 80

Show Comments on:

asefi

February 11, 2013 12:21 AM

MotoGP » Valentino Rossi: We can fight


Many of you are not familiar with TL,DR. (why does crash not allow semi-colons?) And yes, when posts are rife with CAPS, errors, and poor spacing, then that person tends to lose clout and credibility ON A FORUM. I apologize if my lame insults upset any of you. But it seems like the people that got used to name-calling and mud-slinging over the years aren't really up to tasting their own poison. It's not that big a deal, anyway.

asefi

February 10, 2013 6:47 PM
Last Edited 431 days ago

MotoGP » Valentino Rossi: We can fight


@Vilas I can't believe you actually think Colin Edwards had the same M1 as Rossi. You really have no credibility regarding MotoGP. You just write horribly long responses with no merit. Colin was doing hundreds of laps for Michelin so ROSSI could get better tires for a race weekend. And he certainly never got any updates at the same time as Rossi. Seriously, read up on some factual information.

asefi

February 10, 2013 6:40 PM

MotoGP » Valentino Rossi: We can fight


@truth sayer "here is one for the anti rossi/pro stoner brigade.. if the ducati in 2007 was such a pig because capparossi finished seventh vs stoners 1st... that must mean the yamie rossi inherited this year is a pig too because lorenzo got 1st but spies only managed 10+th place... so following this logic ...???.. :-)" Your logic is not valid. Ben Spies crashed at so many races that your argument doesn't hold any water. Don't forgot how amazing the Tech 3 M1s fared last year. I see what you tried to do there, but sometimes a little bit of cognition is required for a rebuttal.

asefi

February 10, 2013 12:18 AM

MotoGP » Valentino Rossi: We can fight


It finally paid off in 2007 with Casey's championship. Too bad Suzuki never figured out how to save tires. Once Yamaha figured it out, they won 3 years in a row again. It took Honda longer, but by the end of 2009 they had it figured out. But they still couldn't defeat the mighty Yamaha until Casey showed up. Perspective! Casey has stated multiple times that the bike he got at the start of the year was more-or-less identical with what he finished. If there was no on-going, seasonal development, then how can you blame Stoner? Ducati only developed aerodynamic bodywork and a carbon fibre frame. Stoner even stated that he preferred the carbon bike better. I'd say the other main reason for the decline of the Desmo is the fact that everyone went bridgestone and all the focused support on Ducati quickly disappeared. Bridgestone now had to make tires that would suit all bikes. Honda and Yamaha could afford to now re-develop their bikes to suit the tires. You honestly believe that Ducat

asefi

February 10, 2013 12:11 AM

MotoGP » Valentino Rossi: We can fight


From what I gather, this is the argument made against the desmosedici: In 2007, the bike was great. It stomped the field and there were no issues. Slowly, but surely, the bike progressively declined due to incorrect development by Stoner. Rossi jumped on a inherently defective bike and it was never fixed crippling him for 2 years. The thing is, the Ducati has never been a great bike. Stoner just made it look amazing and perhaps made other riders want it badly. I can use the argument of "where were the other Ducatis" here because Stoner was the #2 rider destroying everyone. Loris was nowhere to be seen! He probably got more support, too! Loris finished 7th that year. To put things into perspective: TWO SUZUKIS FINISHED AHEAD OF HIM!!! I wouldn't say the Ducati was great, I would say Yamaha and Honda failed to create decent bikes that year. No pneumatics = automatic loss against desmo power. Also, Ducati gambled and went "all-in" with bridgestone in 2005, I believe. It finally paid

asefi

February 09, 2013 11:52 PM
Last Edited 432 days ago

MotoGP » Valentino Rossi: We can fight


Give credit where credit is due. Hundreds of engineers slaved away to make these awesome bikes and some fans spread myths about riders creating them. As if the engineers sat around like simians banging tools around until Rossi showed up and showed them the way. I agree that riders are used to give feed-back and input, but I feel like the word development is a misnomer. That or perhaps everyone has a different definition for the word? I get it. Rossi fans want to have their cake and eat it, too. Keep in mind that you need to put perspective on championships. I would rate Rossi's 08-09 championships much higher than anything from 2002-2005 due to the depth of the field after 2007. Not taking anything away from Rossi. Just looking at the big picture.

asefi

February 09, 2013 11:44 PM
Last Edited 432 days ago

MotoGP » Valentino Rossi: We can fight


Vrohopoios, A fallacy is the 2003 M1 being referred to as a dog of a bike when it wasn't. Biaggi was putting up a good fight until he started crashing like mad. From what I understood, Rossi was given 5 engines so whatever he picked is moot. Furusawa was actually using that as a test to see if Rossi knew what he was talking about as a rider - meaning it was all predetermined anyway. So, Rossi didn't turn a dog of a bike into a winner, really. It was all Yamaha. The classic rebuttal is, "Well, what about the other M1s?" Oh, you mean the fake ones that didn't really count? Rossi was the only one with a true, big-bang M1. He got all the go-fast parts and all the support. Logically, it's the stupidest move for data acquisition, but Yamaha gambled it all on Rossi to defeat Honda and it worked. Do you blame Rossi for the over-development of the 2006 M1? Of course not! Or the fact that the non-pneumatic 2007 M1 sucked? Nope! Or tail-chasing methodology of Ducati Corse 2011-2012? Not eve


Page 4 of 53
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  »

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.