Gran Premio Motul de la República Argentina 2017

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
No, I am saying that CC rode as fast as the RCV was safely capable of. MM rode faster and fell.

Crutchlow stated afterwards that he felt very comfortable and would have been happier setting a faster pace but had to back off to manage what was assumed to be the fuel. He states here that Marc's early pace was risky and that his bike had a weird shaking which also hampered his speed.

https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/crutchlow-says-warning-light-thwarted-argentina-victory-bid-892028/
 
Last edited:
To be fair the lap timings neither prove nor disprove the idea that Marquez was overriding the bike.

Maybe he'd just seen Vinales show up on his pitboard and decided to push even harder on the 4th lap. Or maybe he was just doing his regular pace and went offline over a bumpy bit. Or maybe he was already riding over the limit and he was just lucky to make it to the 4th lap with Crutchlow's exceptional performance being the real abberation either due to his form on the day or a different race setup.

All quite feasible possibilities.
 
Crutchlow stated afterwards that he felt very comfortable and would have been happier setting a faster pace but had to back off to manage what was assumed to be the fuel. He states here that Marc's early pace was risky and that his bike had a weird shaking which also hampered his speed.

https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/crutchlow-says-warning-light-thwarted-argentina-victory-bid-892028/

I believe he was referring to the last part of the race after being overtaken. It's the beginning laps on a full tank of fuel that Crutchlow's pace was slower, and sensibly so.
 
Crutchlow stated afterwards that he felt very comfortable and would have been happier setting a faster pace but had to back off to manage what was assumed to be the fuel. He states here that Marc's early pace was risky and that his bike had a weird shaking which also hampered his speed.

https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/crutchlow-says-warning-light-thwarted-argentina-victory-bid-892028/

The issue I have with CC/anyone saying that MM's early pace was risky is because everyone knows MM rides a motorcycle unlike anyone else. That pace would have been risky for Cal but not necessarily MM. MM outscored Pedrosa and Crutchlow combined in 2016. What is not risky for MM may be risky for every other rider. No different from Stoner being on the throttle 30 meters earlier than everyone else at Phillip Island turn 3. That is a risky move for most everyone except for Stoner. Riders who have the gift of being able to ride around problems can't have risk assessed in the same manner as everyone else IMO.
 
Its in plain English. How does one twist what he said in his article to mean exactly the opposite?


You have....

The obvious culprit to blame for the crash was Márquez' blistering pace at the start. It was an argument he rejected.

These are two separate thoughts where the first is Kropo's assessment of why MM crashed because it has a personal take attached to it by stating "The obvious culprit..." as if it should be clear to all why MM crashed. The second sentence says that MM does not agree with that belief and then segues into what MM's reasoning/thoughts were on the crash.

Kropo has never been noted for putting out flawless pieces of writing, and sometimes you have to read carefully to see where he is interjecting his own personal beliefs into his pieces as he does it very subtly at times.
 
No, I am saying that CC rode as fast as the RCV was safely capable of. MM rode faster and fell.
And I am saying that is not true. MM made a mistake, but wasn't overriding the bike, in my opinion. He was doing a Lorenzo, or Pedrosa, or Stoner: Boom-take-off and disappear. Remember when Rossi tracked him down last year, when he did the same thing, but his tire gave out?
 
You have....

These are two separate thoughts where the first is Kropo's assessment of why MM crashed because it has a personal take attached to it by stating "The obvious culprit..." as if it should be clear to all why MM crashed.
'Obvious' =/= 'Correct'

'Obvious culprit' =/= 'Kropo's assessment'.

The second sentence says that MM does not agree with that belief and then segues into what MM's reasoning/thoughts were on the crash.
"A glance at the lap times confirms Márquez' statements"

"Márquez was riding at the same pace as the trio that went on to fill the podium."

Kropo has never been noted for putting out flawless pieces of writing, and sometimes you have to read carefully to see where he is interjecting his own personal beliefs into his pieces as he does it very subtly at times.
His writing is perfectly fine as long as the reader isn't trying to pigeonhole the argument into a particular narrative.
 
.... off JKant, you're full of ..... When Marquez statement is backed by the lap times it makes Kropos answer not so obvious. We all know what the real obvious answer is but no one is allowed to say. It's the ...... inconsistent Michelin front.
 
No, I am saying that CC rode as fast as the RCV was safely capable of. MM rode faster and fell.

I would be hesitant to base any RCV assessment on Crutchlow. Yes he managed to keep it wheels up this race. Yet he managed to crash twice in the previous race.

I pay more attention to Pedrosa. He tends to ride conservative races. Hell at times he manages to finish 7th on a bike that has the potential to podium. At this stage of his career he doesn't tend to take excessive risks. He has to be completely confident these days to push hard. The last time I can remember him light up was Mizano last year.

So Pedro started slower than Marquez, as usual, and he was about 5th place, as usual. After a few laps for some reason presumably because he was feeling confident on the bike he decides to push on. Like I said its rare for Pedro to push for no reason especially from 5th place. What would be the point? He sets a fast lap then crashes on the same corner Marquez did. No one is debating whether Vinales got into Pedros head. Also there's little debate to say he was riding faster than the RCV was capable of. He started slower than Crutchlow and was behind Crutchlow. Then he crashed. Did Kropo provide a psychological explanation for Pedro as well? No.

We are reading too much into this imo. Unlike the Yamaha the Honda is not a sorted package. Vinales has been almost instantly in tune with the tuning fork machine, I don't remember any test or session where hes been struggling or even testing parts looking for a solution to a problem. It appears the bike has suited him straight out of the box. Its a bit reminiscent of Marquez in 2014. So Vinales has had the luxury of grinding out laps assessing tire wear and race strategy, because he can turn on the pace seemingly at will.

By comparison Honda riders have been assessing various new big bang engine packages due to the previous aggressive engine flaw, presumably revised chassis options to suit, and they have as usual been caught out with electronics. Put simply Honda is behind at this stage. Marquez for once felt good on the bike and tried to take advantage. I don't see any problem with it. Its going to be rare in the early stages that he has any kind of advantage on Yamaha so I completely understand why he took the risk.
 
Lol @ comparing Crutchlow to Marquez to decide what's a safe pace on the RCV. Even Crutchlow admits the huge talent deficit he has when comparing him to Marquez.
 
.... off JKant, you're full of ..... When Marquez statement is backed by the lap times it makes Kropos answer not so obvious.
:rolleyes:

"A glance at the lap times confirms Márquez' statements" - Kropo
 
You have....



These are two separate thoughts where the first is Kropo's assessment of why MM crashed because it has a personal take attached to it by stating "The obvious culprit..." as if it should be clear to all why MM crashed. The second sentence says that MM does not agree with that belief and then segues into what MM's reasoning/thoughts were on the crash.

Kropo has never been noted for putting out flawless pieces of writing, and sometimes you have to read carefully to see where he is interjecting his own personal beliefs into his pieces as he does it very subtly at times.

Not to get into hair splitting - but when I read the piece, I took Emmett to mean, the obvious explanation, as in, the knee-jerk easy conclusion drawn by the masses.
 
Surprising that someone actually expected MM to admit his blistering starting pace was a bad idea. michaelm, are you still selling that bridge? I think you've found a buyer! Contact him at [email protected]
Do you mean in the same sense as your friend Goubert admitting Michelin were at fault for a tyre delaminating? I am glad you have seen the light on that issue.

What is amusing is that like tyres failing or a hard carcass tyre which particularly suits an individual rider being retained or returned, there is historical precedent and actually an extensive extremely similar previous debate on this very forum.

Of course MM may just have made a riding error, but that isn't what he says and he was riding the bike, as opposed to writing blog pieces possibly from a windmill on the outskirts of Amsterdam. You and your comrades in arms do demonstrate admirable flexibility in regard to which statements are open to interpretation depending on whether said statements support your points of view.

Inteterestingly in 2010 when Stoner kept DNFing due to front end loses on the GP10 Ducati which he said were random and unpredictable, this was greeted with much derision and critiques of his riding ability and judgement from Rossi fans of your ilk. This was somewhat complicated by a statement from one Valentino Rossi who had also never ridden the bike at the time that Stoner was not pushing hard enough, which like your critiques of Jorge's riding in the wet post Assen 2013 would mean he was a rider who simultaneously both pushed too hard and not hard enough, perhaps giving cause for Messrs Dunning and Kruger to be invoked, but that is parenthetical.

Of course Valentino and JB eventually got hold of the bike and its GP11 successor, and Valentino actually did ride those bikes, only to find that he was lucky if he could get within a second and a half of Stoner's times and that Valentino also experienced front end washouts for no readily apparent reason on that generation of Ducati on the then current control tyres.
 
Last edited:
"A glance at the lap times confirms Márquez' statements" - Kropo
For the record keepers: I did not look at the article, because as I stated, I have not been there since I had a post deleted at Moto Matters. I had no reason to question JPS's interpretation. I can understand the misunderstanding. I will go there next time, despite not wanting to give him any clicks. ;)
....We all know what the real obvious answer is but no one is allowed to say. It's the ...... inconsistent Michelin front.
You may be right, since the crashing is pretty unpredictable. But I wouldn't blame JKant for it, if you know what I mean. :)
 
Not to get into hair splitting - but when I read the piece, I took Emmett to mean, the obvious explanation, as in, the knee-jerk easy conclusion drawn by the masses.

Mea culpa. Read something else slightly different in that article.
 
Regarding birdman's comments about Rossi sandbagging. I don't really think he's sandbagging, but I do think when the championship starts the European rounds Rossi will be very strong. The fact that he's getting on the podium while "struggling" means Maverick & Marquez better not sleep on him.

Sandbagging or cruising, whatever you want to call it. His strategy is to take the best bike, finish top three every race and hope the two faster guys hand him a win every once in a while and .... up enough to hand him a title. It damn near worked in 15.
 
As a Lorenzo fan, seeing him throw the bike down like that disappoints me. After all, he retired due to his own mistake, no need to throw the bike over.

The mistake was probably bought on by the bike not handling like he needs or wanted it to though. I can't blame him for being frustrated, we are seeing just how far above the m1 is above everything this year and that Rossi, Lorenzo(when he couldn't get front end feel), Smith and Pol were underperforming on it. Be pretty hard going from the bike that goes exactly where you want it to a bike that will be almost impossible to put it where you need it.

I think he signed to early though after Stoner and Qatar flatered the Duc.
 
Oh I agree he is frustrated, but that still isn't a good thing to do imo.
 

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top