Arrabi, shouldn't you be asleep and getting ready for the City match tomorrow?
No, unlike Silverstone, it's three miles away and it doesn't start until four p.m.
Is the bike Marquez riding superior to the one Laverty is riding, yes or no? I'll assume you say yes. So we CAN speak in general absolute terms in regards to one machines being better than the other. Somehow you decided this logic does not apply to an RCV v M1 debate because the magnitude is small. Now you have conflated my assertion to give weight to yours by adding a bunch of phantom claims. "Vastly and universally supreme in ALL respects, circuits, condition..." You forgot to add that I claimed God created the RCV via Immaculate Conception. Use of hyperbolic fallacy if I've ever seen it. Its a simple claim, the RCV is superior to the M1. This has been the point of contention, NOT this new argument that the M1 is 'different' to the RCV. Of course it's different, but thats not your beef with my assertion, the beef you have is my claim that the RCV is superior.
"
Is the bike Marquez riding superior to the one Laverty is riding, yes or no? I'll assume you say yes. So we CAN speak in general absolute terms in regards to one machines being better than the other." Yes of course it is, but you are right, this debate has always been about the relative strengths of the factory machinery with occasional reference to the satellite equipment. Given your request to "
stick to the 4 factory bikes", I honoured your wish in my last post. When you enter the realms of the four factory rides, no I really don't believe that you CAN speak in absolutes in respect of the supremacy of either motorcycle and as I have always maintained this is in flux due to a myriad of variables involved, which I detailed. "
Its a simple claim, the RCV is superior to the M1." Indeed, I warned you about the pitfalls of such
simplistic generalisations. I do not agree. The notion that the M1 is different to the RCV is a very valid one which you dismiss. For the RCV to outright be "
superior to the M1" you are assuming homogeneity of machinery and as I have suggested, Valentino's ride is very different to Jorge's. There have been race meets in which the relative merits have been pronounced for either based upon a range of interacting variables and the interplay between both M1s and the RCV has been fascinating. In debating the four factory rides in your own words, we are 'splitting atoms', and you have always maintained yourself that the magnitude of difference is small and because, bar the freeze on the electronics, development is constantly in flux similarly the relative strengths of either can shift.. So no, the statement that the RCV is 'superior' to the M1 is indeed simplistic and needs further qualification.
because Marquez favors this lose characteristics (what u describe as a handful to suggest it's hard to ride) the RCV suits him as much as the M1 suits Jlo/VR, so then exactly how does this result in any supposed superiority for the M1 in this regard?
Again, in my opinion, this would very much depend upon the circuit in question.
"how does this result in any supposed superiority for the M1 in this regard?"
You are the one that has this preoccupation with 'superiority' which you appear to be suggesting applies to the RCV universally in all conditions and all circumstances. As I recall, you circumvented accusations of the straw man by referring to implied statements, and in claiming that the RCV is the outright superior bike, that is what you are implying compa. My response remains the same. The differences between the factory RCV and the M1 are not as pronounced as you perceive. The M1 suits Jorge's style because it is cleverly refined to do so. Myself, J4rn0, 22, Mike and Kesh have all suggested that historically the prevailing philosophy at Honda has not historically afforded such concessions to rider style. We have suggested that the 2015 RCV was excessively brutal and this was voiced pre-season by Marquez who felt that he was unable to ride the bike the way that he could last year. The changes that he needs have since been effected and Marc is happier on the bike agin, but it still looks a greater challenge. Marquez favours the loose riding style, but it is also a consequence of adapting to the Honda which has to be physically subdued. To other riders this may be an impediment. When Stoner moved from the Ducati, his rodeo riding style became a thing of the past.
The Honda is what it is - and it isn't that way because it suits Marc Marquez. Certainly, to an extent it favours his approach. Has it occurred to you that it may be necessary for a rider to adapt to the Honda and make compromises as opposed to Yamaha's decision to adapt the bike to suit the rider preferences and style of their top two riders?
You say I am "Neglecting a complex range of variables that can influence rider fortune?" This is right up there with pulling the conspiracy card ( which you did in an earlier debate this season) for which no response on my part was warranted. You know better than to dismiss one of my assertion based on such a weak musing my fine feathered friend. I submit to you, it is precisely because I was not neglecting these "complex variables", that I cut through the ........ obfuscation that placed outright fault on the RCV rather than Marquez for his misfortunes this year! I had to resort to a highly specific call for debate to eliminate these "complex variables" with the following challenge: which Marquez crash was due in part or in whole to equipment. It was only then that the pettifogging (thanks Kesh, for my new vernacular) that these "complex variables" came into sharp focus by virtue of elimination.
I genuinely have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
Im happy you mentioned the difference between the two M1s, as one might believe based on your assertions that the "reversion"'by Marc to the 2014 chassis (God only knows which iteration 14.1.2.3.4.28) made the RCV 'better' than the full 2015 version. In fact this is not exactly the case is it as much as we are not claiming one M1 is better than the other.
.
??? Again, I struggle to understand your point.
As I have repeatedly said, the reversion to a previous chassis iteration is not uncommon in racing if you have the clout to do so. The request for last years frame was accompanied by a series of other revisions that I have mentioned, all to tame an excessively savage motorcycle created out of HRC arrogance with little reference to arider that they had mistakenly believed was invincible on their machinery. I would suggest that most of the work was on behalf of HRC electronics technicians burning the midnight oil and the candle at both ends to develop improved throttle response prior to the freeze on electronics. The whole point is that the M1s of Rossi and Lorenzo are finely tuned to their preferences - which creates different motorcycles. HRCs 2015 RCV id not confer such a level of reference to their rider.
When was the last time an RCV won at Misano? Oh yeah, not since 2010. .... even the aliens alien on the best machine in the universe hadn't won here. So let's not talk about how the RCV is no match for the M1 all of a sudden. (You see, I can employ hyperbolic fallacy too). However the fact still stands, the RCV hasn't won here for a substantial period, and not because they don't have capable riders but because the circuit suits both the M1 AND VR/Jlo for whatever reason, this reality does not suddenly make the RCV inferior, or equal when we talk in terms of overall season performance.
Absolutely...it seems you're finally getting it.
I have contended that Marquez experienced trouble adapting to the new BS tire, im on record, which is weird because you would think a guy without considering a "complex set of variables" would mention a complex variable. Oddly enough, the tires narrative has got 'hardly any traction' (pardon the pun) compared to the supposed "decline" of the RCV. Seems to me you might want to have a word with these people.
.
Indeed I have and have and do acknowledge this as a possibility. However, I think it's more significant that Yamaha have excelled this season in their measured development harmonsing bike around this years tyre.
The factory RCV is superior to the factory M1. (My assertion.) The only difference in these two assertions is magnitude, in my estimation. Unless you are prepared to assert the M1 is superior, which you say you are not, then I suppose we are in agreement.
The magnitude is minute and mutable. My answer remains the same. The M1 appears a more manageable package, and it's strength lies in its simplicity as opposed to the complexity of the Honda and it's 'mechanical grip' In contrast the Honda seems happier sliding around and needs to be ragged to exploit its strengths which I maintain is not an easy thing to do. The relative superiority of either the M1 and the RCV is not fixed and is conditioned by a multitude of variables, which given the small magnitude of differences that we are debating means that the balance in fortunes are constantly vacillating between the two rendering the claim that the RCV is superior in absolute terms an excessively simplistic generalised statement which neglects the nuances and idiosyncratic nature of both riders and the machinery in question.
