Joined Apr 2015
1K Posts | 731+
neptune
Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Please.
Top 5 in Assen for Cuntslow would mean the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse are about to come down from the heavens.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Hahaha
Funny but consider this, i love how several pundits have absolutely pin pointed the problem on the RCV. Conveniently of course the problem is sealed, never to prove them right or wrong. Reminds of of how they also "knew" the problem with the Ducati all those years. I have a genuine question for Kropo, now that the title seems out of reach, what if Honda do what Gigi did in what Dorna deemed as usurp the rules, and HRC unseals engines to 'fix this problem'? What is the penalty, starting from the pit in a race? Seems a reasonable trade off instead of a 'crash inducing machine'. Hell they could claim they did it for "safety reasons".
Funny but consider this, i love how several pundits have absolutely pin pointed the problem on the RCV. Conveniently of course the problem is sealed, never to prove them right or wrong. Reminds of of how they also "knew" the problem with the Ducati all those years. I have a genuine question for Kropo, now that the title seems out of reach, what if Honda do what Gigi did in what Dorna deemed as usurp the rules, and HRC unseals engines to 'fix this problem'? What is the penalty, starting from the pit in a race? Seems a reasonable trade off instead of a 'crash inducing machine'. Hell they could claim they did it for "safety reasons".
Last edited:
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
It's generally accepted that HRC have made a wrong turn in chassis development. Not unheard of...remember the M1 in 2006 when one of the few surviving frames from the previous year was tracked down to an exhibition in Italy and was retrieved for Vale?
We know that Marquez brakes later and employs more trail deeper into corners than his rivals, we know that his corner entry speed is absurd, we know that he uses the curb and rumble strip to a greater extent than other riders and we also know that he has always got on the throttle earlier too...all makes for a highly risky strategy - which we also know. No great revelations here. Was the RCV more forgiving in 2013 and 2014? - You certainly insisted it was by far the best bike.
As I understand it the problem afflicting Honda riders this season is a vague front end feel - perhaps exacerbated by a peakier motor anticipating the progress made by GP15 and the M1. Pedrosa reverted to last years chassis for Catalunya. Marquez is following suit but retaining the '16 swing arm. The post race test was a wash out so he has no base settings to facilitate comparison and the cooler track temperature at Assen may confound progress further. Further, both Lorenzo and Vale love Assen and so does the M1.
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
So with a vague front end, the 2015 RCV is basically a copy of the GP10?
Difference being, they have the resources and the yen - and the rider to genuinely remedy this in 80 seconds. It may even be an inexpensive fix.
Remember in 2012 I think, when Bridgestone made the late change to the carcass and screwed HRCs development and pre-season testing? Honda threw the GDP of an African Nation at the problem but by Sachsenring a solution had been found involving a modified cush drive which cost a couple of Euro's to effect.
Marquez will win races again this season and Cal will stop binning them.
Joined May 2008
3K Posts | 79+
Southern Aridzona - Hell's doorstep.
Easy! Don't get carried away there!
MM eventually winning is a given, but not even HRC, The Great and Mighty can help Cal!
Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
I do remember the issues, though I never recall hearing exactly what fixed them so thanks for that Arrab. Interesting how often an inexpensive and simple fix is the way forward, usually after tons of money thrown at the exotic stuff. Like my dad told me, never forget the basics. Unless it's a Ducati...
I hope so, I would actually like to see Cal do well.
Easy! Don't get carried away there!
MM eventually winning is a given, but not even HRC, The Great and Mighty can help Cal!
I like this
Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Well it’s a pleasure to read your takes and poems again Arrabi. I hope Duc doesn’t grenade the forum with North Kropean style moderation and censorship as he did last time, even if it appeared to be by unchecked chickenshit mods coupled with Duc's absenteeism.
My dear and respected friend, generally accepted by whom? The pundits have been actively making apologies for Marc’s recent form, of which by my estimation is rider induced crashes via error. I don't subscribe to the sudden and recent (and its IS recent, 4 rounds ago to be exact) proposed explanation that Honda have made some design mistake in chassis. I have read, and as you say here yourself, people point to Marc considering the previous chassis to support the idea that the chassis is flawed because apparently Marc has considered reverting to a previous chassis during a test; shelving the time honored tradition that when a rider has made mistakes they look not to themselves, but to the hardware for answers. I however am convinced his attempt to blame the hardware as deficient is simply an attempt to mitigate the pressure created from his own blunders. Not unheard of, right? How many riders have chased the dragon when they were not winning? Specifically my estimation recarding Marc’s current plight is as followes: No crashes--no crisis of design, no apologies by the pundits, no generally accepted decline of HRC’s machine. If he isn't winning, the narrative follows: this must mean proof positive a decline in machine design has occurred.
In addition, the rivals are not standing still either, but it seems the prevailing argument is, when the rivals make advancements it is perceived as a RCV decline, or as you say, Honda making a wrong turn. The fact is: Honda had the most advanced gearbox on the planet, their electronics were perfectly designed to matched the fuel limits they themselves lobbied into the rules (this is “generally accepted”) and a coup on the rules to get the best prospect to ride their machine; yet even third world countries eventually developed the nuclear weapon. Did this mean the first world powers “declined” or made “a wrong turn in development”? Or is it simply, the rivals have caught up to mitigate the advantages previously enjoyed by Honda?
Kropo has described this leveling effect by rivals (which have tired to catch up to HRC’s previously extraordinary advantages) in this way: Marc is now competing “shackled, having to race with one arm tied behind his back.” Dramatic? Yes. Accurate? Hell NO! What is the message by such an absurd assessment of the situation? And Kropo is not alone, Dennis Noyes, Matt Oxley, and Kevin Cameron all propose the same narrative. Certainly Nick Harris is aware of this narrative, who thank God had the wherewithal to say of Marc’s Catalunya blunder: “You can blame that on the bike, the weather, or anything other than ‘rider error’.” Again, the message being disseminated (and the narrative being effectively echoed by the masses): Honda has collapsed!
Can’t it be: 1. Marquez has made mistakes that he got away with in the past (on a well enough sorted machine), which would have just as easily resulted in crashes as we see recently, 2. The rivals have made advances and Honda have made moderate ‘advances’ (that is not a decline if you are moving forward, albeit while rivals are catching up, right)? Or must the explanation be: 1. Marquez is not winning, therefore, it’s not his fault BECAUSE we all know he is better than everybody else (… if everyone were on a RCV Marquez would beat everybody, as you have argued), 2. The M1 looks good, therefore this must mean the RCV has declined, taken a wrong turn in design, flawed, etc.?
What constitutes a wrong turn in design? Is it necessarily happen when the rivals have managed better results?
As you know, I’m a great admirer of your opinions. But, I'm not sure we "know" this at all. Have you ever seen him passed into a turn? If he is the latest of the latest brakers, he would never get overtaken this way. Yet we see routinely all the riders pass each other into turn, on the brakes. I agree he rides on the edge, and cuts the curbs more than others, making it look rather spectacular, and I agree he rode/rides on the knife’s edge, this has resulted in success…when it has not resulted in a crash. More to the point, I have contended that he got away with riding this way, not because the bike was "more forgiving" then (which does NOT equate to "the best bike") but rather it masked the stupid kismet of not crashing! How can it be that when he does NOT crash by riding on the edge its on account of his alien skill, but when he crashes by riding on the knife’s edge its because of his alien skill? Do you see what I’m saying? Is Marc's alien skill available intermittently? I posed this question recently to Michaelm, as it seemed to me he described the mistake at the CatalanGP as an example of extraordinary control and skill while simultaneously the incident was decidedly an example of his loss of control. Now that Marc’s knife edge riding has predictably resulted in crashes (see Lorenzo and Pedro’s previous prediction on Marc’s riding style) the natural probability is being restored, though he still seems to be lucky, as he hasn’t got hurt. A great example of this is when he didn’t have so much as a scratch when he crashed in Mugello in what Kropo described as a record breaking feat; ‘the fastest ever crash in the GP universe, ever’ (as Kropo made it sound like another crowning accolade). Marquez has gotten away with it up until now, I think of it like say flipping a coin and getting heads 10 times, you’d think that its impossible and perhaps one would start making erroneous assumptions (as I think happened regarding Marc’s much exaggerated ‘alieness.’ It doesn't make the likelihood any different the next time you flip the coin, but it seems like it when you get a string on one side. Yet his admirers would have us believe both sides of the Marquez's Medallion is made of two heads, because he just couldn’t be the one making the mistakes now. He is now getting a string of tails (as he has landed on his ...) but look how the the narrative has become, someone switched the coin.
Let me reaffirm my belief that the RCV was the best machine out there overall the previous two seasons, as I have argued. I contended that this reality led many to make the erroneous assessment that Marquez was far superior to everyone else, Thee Alien’s Alien. Weird because he has looked rather human lately. It seems his recent form is a bit of vindication, and for me has debunked his supposed superiority. Whatever supposed design mistakes Honda has made, surely he could ride around them being so awesome and all, no?
And let me add, the idea that Honda is the last best factory bike, as Kropo has declared, is laughable.
Peakier motor? Has this actually been confirmed? Or are we going on what the pundits are rationalizing? Nakamoto says one thing (the motor is fine) Marc says another (the motor sucks), who is lying? And as to this idea of the bike being more or less “forgiving” (though I have never used this terminology to describe its superiority”) the term is regularly used to describe the “decline” of the new RCV, as now being “less forgiving”. I find it interesting that this aspect of the RCV being such a wild untamed beast (or exactly like a peakier motor) was touted as the match made in heaven, a symbiotic relationship suited for Marquez’s aggressive style. And this idea that a Lorenzo “style” would be a giant fail on a RCV for such characteristic. Is not this the characteristic that made Marc’s ascension so great, a beast that suited him and that nobody else could exploit? If everyone were on a RCV, Marc would come out on top, no doubt? Now it seems the same aggressive characteristics of the RCV that would have seen Marc win over his rivals (in the event of our imagination where all riders compete on the same machine) is apparently a hindrance for Marquez now.
Marquez, as you have said, will win again. But I don’t think its because Honda will move heaven and earth (which we both agree they can and have and will) but rather because Marquez will get away with riding on the edge again. He won at COTA on this year’s chassis, he would have come runner up at Argentina on this year’s chassis (keeping in mind Rossi’s tire masterstroke) and he would have podiumed at Mugello and Catalunya on ‘this year’s chassis’. He chose to crash instead.
My dear and respected friend, generally accepted by whom? The pundits have been actively making apologies for Marc’s recent form, of which by my estimation is rider induced crashes via error. I don't subscribe to the sudden and recent (and its IS recent, 4 rounds ago to be exact) proposed explanation that Honda have made some design mistake in chassis. I have read, and as you say here yourself, people point to Marc considering the previous chassis to support the idea that the chassis is flawed because apparently Marc has considered reverting to a previous chassis during a test; shelving the time honored tradition that when a rider has made mistakes they look not to themselves, but to the hardware for answers. I however am convinced his attempt to blame the hardware as deficient is simply an attempt to mitigate the pressure created from his own blunders. Not unheard of, right? How many riders have chased the dragon when they were not winning? Specifically my estimation recarding Marc’s current plight is as followes: No crashes--no crisis of design, no apologies by the pundits, no generally accepted decline of HRC’s machine. If he isn't winning, the narrative follows: this must mean proof positive a decline in machine design has occurred.
In addition, the rivals are not standing still either, but it seems the prevailing argument is, when the rivals make advancements it is perceived as a RCV decline, or as you say, Honda making a wrong turn. The fact is: Honda had the most advanced gearbox on the planet, their electronics were perfectly designed to matched the fuel limits they themselves lobbied into the rules (this is “generally accepted”) and a coup on the rules to get the best prospect to ride their machine; yet even third world countries eventually developed the nuclear weapon. Did this mean the first world powers “declined” or made “a wrong turn in development”? Or is it simply, the rivals have caught up to mitigate the advantages previously enjoyed by Honda?
Kropo has described this leveling effect by rivals (which have tired to catch up to HRC’s previously extraordinary advantages) in this way: Marc is now competing “shackled, having to race with one arm tied behind his back.” Dramatic? Yes. Accurate? Hell NO! What is the message by such an absurd assessment of the situation? And Kropo is not alone, Dennis Noyes, Matt Oxley, and Kevin Cameron all propose the same narrative. Certainly Nick Harris is aware of this narrative, who thank God had the wherewithal to say of Marc’s Catalunya blunder: “You can blame that on the bike, the weather, or anything other than ‘rider error’.” Again, the message being disseminated (and the narrative being effectively echoed by the masses): Honda has collapsed!
Can’t it be: 1. Marquez has made mistakes that he got away with in the past (on a well enough sorted machine), which would have just as easily resulted in crashes as we see recently, 2. The rivals have made advances and Honda have made moderate ‘advances’ (that is not a decline if you are moving forward, albeit while rivals are catching up, right)? Or must the explanation be: 1. Marquez is not winning, therefore, it’s not his fault BECAUSE we all know he is better than everybody else (… if everyone were on a RCV Marquez would beat everybody, as you have argued), 2. The M1 looks good, therefore this must mean the RCV has declined, taken a wrong turn in design, flawed, etc.?
What constitutes a wrong turn in design? Is it necessarily happen when the rivals have managed better results?
As you know, I’m a great admirer of your opinions. But, I'm not sure we "know" this at all. Have you ever seen him passed into a turn? If he is the latest of the latest brakers, he would never get overtaken this way. Yet we see routinely all the riders pass each other into turn, on the brakes. I agree he rides on the edge, and cuts the curbs more than others, making it look rather spectacular, and I agree he rode/rides on the knife’s edge, this has resulted in success…when it has not resulted in a crash. More to the point, I have contended that he got away with riding this way, not because the bike was "more forgiving" then (which does NOT equate to "the best bike") but rather it masked the stupid kismet of not crashing! How can it be that when he does NOT crash by riding on the edge its on account of his alien skill, but when he crashes by riding on the knife’s edge its because of his alien skill? Do you see what I’m saying? Is Marc's alien skill available intermittently? I posed this question recently to Michaelm, as it seemed to me he described the mistake at the CatalanGP as an example of extraordinary control and skill while simultaneously the incident was decidedly an example of his loss of control. Now that Marc’s knife edge riding has predictably resulted in crashes (see Lorenzo and Pedro’s previous prediction on Marc’s riding style) the natural probability is being restored, though he still seems to be lucky, as he hasn’t got hurt. A great example of this is when he didn’t have so much as a scratch when he crashed in Mugello in what Kropo described as a record breaking feat; ‘the fastest ever crash in the GP universe, ever’ (as Kropo made it sound like another crowning accolade). Marquez has gotten away with it up until now, I think of it like say flipping a coin and getting heads 10 times, you’d think that its impossible and perhaps one would start making erroneous assumptions (as I think happened regarding Marc’s much exaggerated ‘alieness.’ It doesn't make the likelihood any different the next time you flip the coin, but it seems like it when you get a string on one side. Yet his admirers would have us believe both sides of the Marquez's Medallion is made of two heads, because he just couldn’t be the one making the mistakes now. He is now getting a string of tails (as he has landed on his ...) but look how the the narrative has become, someone switched the coin.
Let me reaffirm my belief that the RCV was the best machine out there overall the previous two seasons, as I have argued. I contended that this reality led many to make the erroneous assessment that Marquez was far superior to everyone else, Thee Alien’s Alien. Weird because he has looked rather human lately. It seems his recent form is a bit of vindication, and for me has debunked his supposed superiority. Whatever supposed design mistakes Honda has made, surely he could ride around them being so awesome and all, no?
And let me add, the idea that Honda is the last best factory bike, as Kropo has declared, is laughable.
Peakier motor? Has this actually been confirmed? Or are we going on what the pundits are rationalizing? Nakamoto says one thing (the motor is fine) Marc says another (the motor sucks), who is lying? And as to this idea of the bike being more or less “forgiving” (though I have never used this terminology to describe its superiority”) the term is regularly used to describe the “decline” of the new RCV, as now being “less forgiving”. I find it interesting that this aspect of the RCV being such a wild untamed beast (or exactly like a peakier motor) was touted as the match made in heaven, a symbiotic relationship suited for Marquez’s aggressive style. And this idea that a Lorenzo “style” would be a giant fail on a RCV for such characteristic. Is not this the characteristic that made Marc’s ascension so great, a beast that suited him and that nobody else could exploit? If everyone were on a RCV, Marc would come out on top, no doubt? Now it seems the same aggressive characteristics of the RCV that would have seen Marc win over his rivals (in the event of our imagination where all riders compete on the same machine) is apparently a hindrance for Marquez now.
Marquez, as you have said, will win again. But I don’t think its because Honda will move heaven and earth (which we both agree they can and have and will) but rather because Marquez will get away with riding on the edge again. He won at COTA on this year’s chassis, he would have come runner up at Argentina on this year’s chassis (keeping in mind Rossi’s tire masterstroke) and he would have podiumed at Mugello and Catalunya on ‘this year’s chassis’. He chose to crash instead.
Last edited:
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
Your views are unfalsifiable - such is the mindset of the conspiracy theorist and such cognitive dissonance is hard to challenge, which as I've always said is a terrible shame given your erudition, formidable intelligence and your encyclopaedic knowledge of the history of this sport. Your cognitive bias tends to obscure this and together with your prejudice skews your otherwise naturally keen and intuitive critical thought process. Nonetheless, you make many a potent point - particularly you final paragraph, and as you know, I am in full agreement with you that only a fool would attribute the crashes at Termos De Rio Hondo, and Catalunya to anything other than rider error. Marquez is the first to admit his mistakes - I like the kid. But he is also keen to impress that he can't ride the bike as he would like to - when pushed, the front end is prone to folding. The laptimes were higher at Mugello 2014 and in his titanic duel with Lorenzo he rode harder.
From 2010 - winning the 125cc championship through to his triumphs in Moto2 Marc was availed with the best machinery. However, although you struggle to subscribe to this notion, the main difference was in the rider and as you know - at the level of 2 stroke 125 inequities conferred by superior machinery were less acute amongst the top half of the field. Although huge disparities existed, these advantages through equipment were harder to exploit than the other classes. When he graduated to Moto2, whilst I was maintaining that this 'difference' was due to cracking the throttle earlier, deeper later braking, insane corner entry speed and the willingness to take more risks - and lets face it, you don't need 'Babel' like powers of perception to arrive at this axiomatic conclusion - your explanation was simply that Dorna had fixed the series and were providing Marc with superior and more powerful engines. Quite what you meant by this, admittedly I've never been able to fully divine - perhaps that the rev ceiling was higher, I'm sure you couldn't have been referring to displacement. Whatever, I always found this highly ironic given the demolition of Rob that you and I dealt out concerning his naive assertion that more power equated to faster lap times.
As a firm advocate of the empirical over the anecdotal and adherent of the scientific method of enquiry, I tend to be cautious about what I read and hear, particularly through prescriptive programmatic P/R platitudes and official trammeled Dorna feeds. I'll pay attention to Spalding and more maverick hacks such as Oxley, because they don't need to tow the Dorna line and more importantly I have observed over the decades that they tend to be right. When I say - it's 'generally accepted', that's because it is - doesn't mean that I necessarily accept it myself, nor that my skeptical reserve has foresaken me.
Yes, he does trail the braking later, he does enter corners faster, he does tend to use more curb and he does get on the gas earlier...and no, actually I don't need a journalist to tell me that. Forgetting the telemetry - (although it's there if you care to pore over it) - and rider testimonies aside, you can see the margins that Marquez extracts, you can see the advantages that he exploits - as I've always maintained, advantages that can just as quickly become his bane. Just as trackside, the benefits of Lorenzo's ultra smooth fluidity are immediately obvious, and historically the same can be said of Valentino's race craft, Lawson's economic style, Rainey's guile and the Schwantz/Gardner gung-ho that defied the physical intransigence of some truly savage machinery , even to the uninitiated eye, Marquez's strengths are easy to identify. No brainer then that Dorna/Repsol/HRC coveted his talent early and expedited him onto a Factory RCV circumventing the rookie rule in the process.
Question. Would you subscribe to the idea that to extract the strengths of the Honda, to ride it hard, to unlock its potential might not only be appreciably more difficult than the M1 but considerably harder than we assume from the comfort of our recliners?
Last edited:
Joined Oct 2012
3K Posts | 725+
Crab Key
Spalding (who has books - utterly ..... Little Golden Books of "bike engineering" - published under the Dorna owned MotoGP trademark and has full accreditation) and Oxley (who also publishes under Dorna with access provided by them and holds full accreditation) don't need to toe (note spelling) the Dorna line?
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
Spalding's somewhat compromised licensed coffee table books that you refer to are a reciprocal cash cow for himself and Dorna nothing more. That said, the largley objective - ok, I concede, perhaps at times jaundiced - observations made by both Spalding and Oxley is hardly tantamount to biting the hand that feeds. There are plenty of affiliated journalists and paddock stalwarts of old who are viewed as the proverbial thorn in the side of the organisers.
My apologies for the typo.
Last edited:
Joined Oct 2012
3K Posts | 725+
Crab Key
Serious statement follows:
Which publications do you rate? Used to like Roadracing World who didn't pull punches with tracks/sponsors/officialdom. Haven't subscribed dor a while.
And Fast Bikes in the 90s, who had their tongues up Ducati's arse but were supportive of racers.
Journos.....dunno anymore. K Cameron is pretty good most of the time....
My take is I am forced to think more on sites such as this (yeah, I know..) than (m)any articles I read. Gave up on paper mags...
Which publications do you rate? Used to like Roadracing World who didn't pull punches with tracks/sponsors/officialdom. Haven't subscribed dor a while.
And Fast Bikes in the 90s, who had their tongues up Ducati's arse but were supportive of racers.
Journos.....dunno anymore. K Cameron is pretty good most of the time....
My take is I am forced to think more on sites such as this (yeah, I know..) than (m)any articles I read. Gave up on paper mags...
Similar threads
