Donington, UK ( Spoiler )

[sqweak]

how curious, none of the usual suspects can spare a kind word for stoner this week after lavishing dani with praise last round

oh, and the part where dani gave up on his battle with rossi and settled for third. yeah.

</stirring the pot>

[derby]

how curious, none of the usual suspects can spare a kind word for stoner this week ...

you mean after he said "they found something in the electronics and now the bike goes faster?" 

[sqweak]

you mean after he said "they found something in the electronics and now the bike goes faster?" 

you mean almost exactly the same as what happened with Dani when they found something in *his* setup (at Le Mans) that made him much faster than qualy and practice?

...and curious that Stoner was consistantly pulling .3 on the pack in the last half of the track. Y'know, the technical and twisty bits and not the straights.

[gm2]

Poor Toseland.    

He essentially ran the whole race with one footpeg right?  I heard he ripped it off in his turn one crash.

yep.  can you imagine trying to even sorta ride a GP bike at sorta race pace with no right footpeg?  yuck.

[gm2]

...and curious that Stoner was consistantly pulling .3 on the pack in the last half of the track. Y'know, the technical and twisty bits and not the straights.

because top speed was ever the problem?

[derby]

you mean almost exactly the same as what happened with Dani when they found something in *his* setup (at Le Mans) that made him much faster than qualy and practice?

maybe it's just semantics, but "something in the setup" and "something in the electronics" both read differently to me.

to me, "setup" refers to the mechanical aspects (suspension, geometry, gearing, etc) of the bike.

"electronics" means something entirely different (again, to me).

[sqweak]

because top speed was ever the problem?

well, according to the pundits top speed is the only reason Stoner wins races.

maybe it's just semantics, but "something in the setup" and "something in the electronics" both read differently to me.

to me, "setup" refers to the mechanical aspects (suspension, geometry, gearing, etc) of the bike.

"electronics" means something entirely different (again, to me).

I'm not disagreeing, but the net effect is the same, no?

My point:

Dani went well at Le Mans, qualified decently.  "Something" was found between QP and Raceday.  Dani ran away with the race.  Dani gave credit to this setup change improving his times.  Praise was heaped on Dani.

Stoner went really well at Donnington.  "Something" was found between Le Mans and QP.  Stoner got pole and ran away with the race.  Stoner gave credit to this electronics change improving his times.  Praise was heaped on the electronics change.

[Speeddog]

I watched Stoner in FP2, and he was *absolutely* flogging the bike, nobody else appeared to be pushing that hard.

Big props to Stoner for having confidence in the bike, and confirming he's got the stones and talent to consistently push it right to the edge.

And whether 'setup' means mechanical or electronics, I agree with derby's interpretation.
But considering the arena and language differences, I don't put a lot of stock in what the teams/riders say, as deception and information withholding are standard fare.

[gm2]

well, according to the pundits top speed is the only reason Stoner wins races.

...now, i know you really enjoy stirring up this discussion.  and i'm probably a pundit.  but you can't be serious with the above, right?  i can point to about 67,000 posts @ TOB where i/we said he won last year because he deserved to win.

and that, separately, there were all sorts of unusual, interesting, and highly relevant factors at work in 2007.

Dani went well at Le Mans, qualified decently.  "Something" was found between QP and Raceday.  Dani ran away with the race.  Dani gave credit to this setup change improving his times.  Praise was heaped on Dani.

that was Catalunya.  Rossi won LeMans.    

[NAKD1]

 The Brits love  Mr. Electric glide.

[sqweak]

...now, i know you really enjoy stirring up this discussion.  and i'm probably a pundit.  but you can't be serious with the above, right?  i can point to about 67,000 posts @ TOB where i/we said he won last year because he deserved to win.

I don't recall anyone ever giving stoner credit for winning without a huge caveat about the above (top speed) or below (other factors)

and that, separately, there were all sorts of unusual, interesting, and highly relevant factors at work in 2007.

beaten to death, and agreed.

that was Catalunya.  Rossi won LeMans.    

right, s'what I meant.

[darylbowden]

I don't recall anyone ever giving stoner credit for winning without a huge caveat about the above (top speed) or below (other factors)

Really? Here's a quote from me from THIS board (note the date)

I think you are definitely right about that - this year is gonna go down to the wire. 

Like I've said all along, Stoner is an amazing rider and he will win races for sure.  I just am of the opinion that last year was an anomaly and I think he will be lucky to win 4 races this year (which is still great by any standard, but far shy of last year's total).

[derby]

halfway through the season and he's only won two... 

[sqweak]

Really? Here's a quote from me from THIS board (note the date)

And not the "huge caveat" immediately after the statement.

A bit ironic that the pundit's that I'm not exactly thinking of are getting defensive while the one I am is quiet on this topic. (and by quiet i mean, not addressing any of my counterpoints)

[gm2]

he doesn't think you have any actual counterpoints.

=)