FWIW I too think it's completely valid to call BS if one senses it, and there's not enough of it about with all the sensitivity guilt trip being rammed down our throats on an hourly basis. Yeah I think if you can post something then you should be able to back it up somewhat - and I'm not calling out either @JoeC or @Tommaso (I've not been following the 'investment element' of this thread) but the whole internet would be more useful to everyone if BS was called out and settled. Here's to real.
I totally agree with you that lap times are one thing and race conditions are a completely different matter. You can't win a race only with the best lap time... This is the beauty of races and why there is no substitute to actual race experience. You need, as you very correctly point out, to not let your adversaries turn inside you! A bike that is the fastest around a turn is useless if a slower bike can dive into that turn before it. I think that this why rider style has priority over the physics of chassis engineering... but I still believe that Terblanche and the 999 are genius & the machine. Unfortunately I'm not sure that the new V4 will be that much shorter...
LOL, I don't own one and never did! Why do you hate it so much? There are worse bikes out there... **EDIT** Maybe not. I looked at the images again and I'm not sure there are any uglier bikes! Doesn't it remind you of the Diavel...
Haha yes I have to agree with all of that too! When we watch the very best, they ride the fastest of all bikes like 125s a lot of the time, and it is all beautiful arcs everywhere. Pure art, science, and technology. So I find myself agreeing with both points too, we need to learn to draw optimal arcs but also get funky with it when needed, it's the getting funky with it that has been tying me up in knots with the geometry. For sure I need to not let faster, and faster-turning bikes up my inside, and I do try but I tend to crash a lot! @bradders posted a fantastic video the other day showing Dani Pedrosa doing a stoppie and then going into a corner, that arc, that's it! Yes I agree that rider style has priority over the physics of chassis engineering, to a point of course, but it is notable that through recent history many different rider styles and have been equally competitive on different chassis and manufacturers, look at the current MotoGP championship, I can't think if a time when we've seen so many different riding styles on so many different manufacturer's bikes fighting it out on a weekly basis. I do agree with you regards Terblanche although it has taken me a lot of years to 'like' his designs aesthetically, my SS1000ie bikes are are what the old carburettor SS should have been, and had the type of geometry we tried to force our SS' into, and the 999 chassis is still a competitive platform today.
By the way, you'll have to ask @Sev permission for the pics of the garage! Every time I post photos he complains!
Yes I wouldn't disagree with that (and have a well sorted '999' with a linear link, offsets, an ultra-low weight, more power, etc) and personally think the single sided swingarm is dumb ass idea too and don't own one accordingly, but the reality is that from the 1990s race Ducatis were using massive fork offsets and increasingly longer swingarms right up to the 1098R Checa was racing and whilst I don't know about the Panigale offsets used I know their swingarms are longer - so it's not something that came and went or whatever - it's always been this way since the 1990's regardless of whether it was a single or double sided swing arm. 100% with you on brutal beauty of the 888/999/D16, if ever there was a 'man's bike' design it would be them
This is an interesting insight into the thinking at Ducati as of 2011 as it feeds into some of this discussion. Filippo Preziosi being interviewed: Q: The shape of the engine itself, the “L”, limits to a certain extent the changes you can do with the weight distribution. Are you also looking at the shape of the engine? Or is the engine set… At the moment, we have never reached a configuration in which the engine was the limit. Typically, one limit could be where you are trying to put more weight on the front, and you touch the front wheel to the cylinder head cover. But we are away from that limit, so at the moment we can modify the weight distribution without any constraints coming from the engine. So we are in the middle of the adjustment. https://www.asphaltandrubber.com/racing/filippo-preziosi-ducati-corse-development-interview/
Ok, you clearly are a bullshitter and now here comes the drop: You posted a link to an index of hedge fund performance dating from 2014, ten or so years after Mikhail Khodorkovsky was jailed. You did this to validate your claim that legitimate investments can achieve an annualised return in excess of 25% net of fees. The fund at the top of the list and the one you hoped to highlight is called Pershing Square International and run by William Ackman out of New York City. Would you like a copy of Bill's latest annual letter to the fund's shareholders? I have one and it details the funds performance since inception, a statistic that someone like me (who doesn't know what they are talking about) would be keen to consider when choosing to invest in it or not. The funds performance (before fees) since inception in December 2012 is 22.8%. What do you think the annualised figure is? After fees the total return since December 2012 is 7.8%. The fund's benchmark (S&P 500) has a return over the same period of 84%. Shall I stop now (we wish you would), or carry on down the list? Nothing personal, I just used my experience (as a former hedge fund analyst) to demonstrate that it is not possible to legitimately invest with a target return in excess of 25% per annum net. Let alone convince someone that you did during the murky days post breakup of the Soviet Union!
Do you use Math or Maths? Just interested (be careful how you answer as your credibility is at stake)
Don't be mean, please! Be kind as he's already embarrass himself. We don't shoot on the red cross or the wounded...
Don't be mean, please! Be kind as he's already embarrass himself. We don't shoot on the red cross or the wounded...[/QUOTE] Bit naughty
Please... stop embarrassing yourself. 1. I posted evidence that there are funds that perform better than you affirm. 2. Even though I don't have time/interest to explain to you why, here, in a motorbike forum, I will indulge, one more time, to answer you out of courtesy and to avoid you embarrass yourself any more. Funds that outperform customary accounts do so, obviously, taking greater risks. In fact, the fund in question went bankrupt! There are unsavvy investors (idiots), as myself at the time, who accept these risk and invest. There will always be people willing to invest in risky economic opportunities that deliver stellar performances for a year or two and then fail (or fail outright from the start). This is not the norm, of course, but nevertheless these funds exist. Now, since (a) the fact that there are risky funds is clear to everyone on this thread, (b) it is a boring subject, (c) it is an OT discussion, (d) I posted evidence of my statements... ... please stop hijacking this thread. If you wish to discuss about motorbikes I'll very gladly reply and offer you all the time and attention that the topic deserves, otherwise I'm sorry if I offended you in any way with facts. Apparently facts don't care about your feelings...
Before our friend, the know it all hedge fund analyst jumps on me, let me present a disclaimer: 2 bikes are missing the D16 and the BMWR1100RS. One in a different garage and one getting a paint job after 23 years of service. I uncovered the bikes and I will post images of the new cover in an appropriate thread
