Talk:Yamaha YZR-M1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Yamaha YZR-M1 is within the scope of the Motorcycling WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
|
 |
[edit] Minor changes
A few bits of this page need changing...
"came to the track in 2002, with Max Biaggi who had arrived from Honda onboard".
This is a bit misleading I think, Max moved to the works Yamaha team for the 1999 season, though he had ridden a privateer Kanemoto Honda NSR in 1998.
Here's a good page with some Biaggi info :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Biaggi
The bike had a podium finish in it's first race in the hands of Carlos Checa after he contested a drenched Japanese Grand Prix (Max crashed out at the Spoon Curve) but the race wins at Brno and Sepang were both on a dry track - if you remember, at Brno Rossi's rear tyre chunked while he was chasing Max down, he cleared off in Malaysia to leave Rossi, Barros and Ukawa to fight amongst themselves. Prior to that Yamaha had brought a new frame (their fourth IIRC) to Le Mans which Max used to get 3rd place, he then got more podiums at Italy (2nd), GBR (2nd) and GER (2nd). The Brno bike had another new frame and also a very different fairing, Biaggi was fastest all weekend.
"In the 2003 season Biaggi became almost nonchalant and open rather than discrete on his comments of how bad and useless the bike was, and if only he could be on a Honda, how everything could be OK"
Max Biaggi was on a Honda in 2003, the Sito Pons run, Camel Pramac bike with Ukawa as his team mate. Yamaha's riders that yeat were Alex Barros, Carlos Checa, Marco Melandri, Olivier Jacque and Shinya Nakano.
It might be worth pointing out that Rossi also won the BMW at the 2004 pre season IRTA test at Catalunya in spite of a strong Honda challenge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensen1972 (talk • contribs).
Finally got round to addressing all the factual errors you had highlighted. playbike 11:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rossi section
I'm going to remove the Rossi section from this article completely because it's repetitive information from the Rossi article and this article is specifically about the M1, not Rossi. Roguegeek (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just read my comment on my M1 2006 edit, and it reads more confrontational than I intended... sorry for that; but I must stress that the M1 in the Rossi era can only be accurately represented in terms of its substantial and significant history in that period. I'm sure you'll agree, that most instances of the M1 being noteworthy in the 2006 season (and there were many) were intrinsically linked with Rossi, and I think Wikipedia users deserve more than a one liner about such an important Motorcycle, in such an important season, in such an increasingly popular sport. Cheers - playbike 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying Rossi isn't significant to this article. I just think repetitive information is, well, repetitive. We don't need to go into depth about Rossi and the 2006 season. I think if we can leave it where it basically states it was problematic for both the M1 and him, that's good enough. If you want to leave it extended, that's fine I guess. But the section definitely has a very strong POV vibe to it. It sounds like the author is trying to make up excuses as to why Rossi didn't finish first when, at least to Wikipedia, is simply doesn't matter. I'm going to reword real quick in an attempt to bring it back to a neutral tone. Roguegeek (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I do appreciate your angle on this, and I know it's important in an encyclopaedic article to strike a balance somewhere between bare, staid emotionless facts, and an over exuberant embellishment of the subject. It seems between us we've put together something of a valid compromise, which would convey something of a representation of an action packed, multi-faceted and exciting subject, without carrying any sway over a neutral reader. As a bit of a MotoGP anorak, it can be quite difficult for me not to get too emotional about the subject; the racing, the machines and the characters are a heady mix in the current era, and I think most people who followed the 2006 season were mindful that they were being treated to the MotoGP spectacle at its best.
-
- Incidentally, as a someone who is new to Wikipedia, I find the POV issue very difficult to quantify, you mention that my wording was quite partisan to Rossi, and I can see how that may be construed as my POV, but it is very widely reported, (and obvious to close followers of the sport) that Rossi was unlucky not to win the Championship, and the converse was true, that Hayden was lucky to win. It does not diminish Hayden's achievements, indeed he won fair and square; making the most of his chances, and staying focused and consistent. All the time maintaining a gentlemanly and sporting manor, which won him many fans (me included). Nor does it excuse Rossi for not winning the title, while he was desperately unlucky on numerous occasions, he made two stunning errors all on his own during the season (falling in qualifying at Assen, and tipping off in Valencia) both of which together, literally cost him the title. In view of instances such as this (I envisage many other subjects would have this potential), when does it cease being POV, and become the necessary reporting of facts, or at least echoing overwhelming and verifiable popular opinion? Blimey, I'm getting carried away again... must get to work. Thanks for the exchange... playbike 10:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007
Thanks for keeping me on my toes with this article (I did the 2007 bit just before bed late last night, so my standards might have slipped;-). What I have done however, is reinstated the paradox about the supposedly slower 800 bikes turning out faster than the 990 machines. It will be an interesting development for the coming season, and perhaps a headache for the FIM. Now I'm pretty much finished my input to the M1, so I'm going to be putting in references, citations and sources over the next few days in order to remove the tag. playbike 11:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think this text is problematic: "Paradoxically, the capacity changes have not had the desired effect of the sports governing body, the FIM." Does anyone know what the FIM's intentions are exactly? It's possible that the FIM's primary concern isn't lap speeds but maximum speed. When Kato died at Suzuka, it was a crash that happened at the end of a straight and there wasn't enough run-off space. With the 800, maximum speed has been reduced and braking ability has increased, so if the FIM's motivation for the 800-switch was to avoid expensive redesigns of track run-off space, then they have very likely succeeded in their goal (for the time being).--Uli Kunkel 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- You have a valid point about maximum speeds, and it was inevitable that initially at least there would be a curtailing of the maximums so far seen with the 990s. However, I can't imagine that it was factored into the equation that the 800s would be so much faster in the corners (and enabling such later braking) than the 900s so as to immediately enable faster lap times than the 900s. Taking the tragic circumstances of Kato's crash is not representative (for a number of technical reasons), as the vast majority of instances of control loss (and crashes) occur at or near corners; being markedly faster in the braking zones and through the corners surely can't have been sanctioned by the FIM when they conceived the capacity reduction, and to compound the problem it can be argued that an 800 bike is more peaky and difficult to ride?! (Electronics probably now mitigating this!?), so the probability of more crashes at potentially higher speeds must now be a concern for the FIM, and will I'm sure be monitored carefully in the coming season.
- As for track re-design, that is the only way to make the likes of Sugo more safe. No matter what the expense, rider safety is paramount, and an element of safety led re-design has been implemented at most of the premier tracks around the world, with the championship voting with it's feet where high safety standards have not been met. Indeed there are ongoing programs at many tracks, and the likes of Laguna Seca are under serious pressure to get these issues sorted. It is in this area that the greatest effort must be focused for the future of rider safety, while over zealous control over the performance of the machines must be guarded against, so as to avoid self deprecating folly...
- ...Paradoxically, the capacity changes have not had the desired effect of the sports governing body, the FIM...
- I do think it appropriate to describe the performance of the 800cc machines in terms of a paradox in relation to the 990s and the FIM rule change... perhaps you work for the FIM!? ;-) If you really can't stand the point being made in the article, then I don't feel strongly enough to get into an argument over it, but it will be interesting to see how they proceed in future. playbike 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mmm, no, don't work for the FIM, though I can see how I'm defending them a bit. I don't think it's crashes the FIM is trying avoid (c.f.: the white flag rule) so much as the potential for fatalities due to lack of run-off room (which is more a function of maximum speed than cornering speed). I'm completely with you in terms of being surprised at how fast the 800s are compared to the 990s -- I guess there was a lot of unusable HP in the liter bikes. But I disagree that the 800s will be some sort of return to the 2-stroke 500s in terms of peaky power bands and highsides -- traction control, improved tires and reduced fuel loads will probably keep the crashes to post-500 levels (though Hayden might disagree after the second day at the Qatar test).--Uli Kunkel 20:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
