Arrabbiata1
3621071380526613
I can't believe we are discussing this 'dangerous' move. Guys bump into each other through all the classes a lot harder and with more regularity than Marquez and Pedrosa. If the sensor didn't fail or Pedrosa didn't highside nobody would even mention it.
Slamming into a guy on a cooldown lap is dangerous. Rubbing your shoulder against the other guys swingarm is racing, something everyone on here ....... about being missing for the past few years.
If Marquez was a Brit or USA'n, you would be loving it.
Agree.
Sachsenring 2006 - remember the rubber down the left hand side of Nicky's leathers from leaning on Pedrosa's front tyre around Omega?
I find the
MM lynch mob mentality on here hilarious given the hagiography and
veneration surrounding Marco Simoncelli, by many who never so much as saw him race a 125 or 250 in anger.
Sic was much more of a liability on track than MM - and one
reason for that is the fact that he wasn't in any sense approaching the
extraordinary level of talent of Marquez.
.
Brotha, I’m not gonna disclaimer my post here much beyond saying you know I love and admire you, probably to a point that is unhealthy, ha! I’d rather talk to you about this say on the phone or skype so you could read my expressions, sense my admiring tone, and laugh at my gestations as I struggle to make my points. Keep this in mind as you read every word below:
So you don’t
know why we are discussing this as a dangerous move? (This is what you are agreeing with right)
I fully expect Sloth to make an un-insightful post, as he has been making a habit of it lately, but surely you don’t think Marc’s
contact on Pedro here is of the
same variety that people are comparing to throughout the GP categories, or as you mention, the contact Nicky made on Pedro, 06 GermanyGP.
Marc was not ‘racing’ Pedro for position,
this point should not be ignored and downplayed as it would make the analysis of the incident meaningless (perhaps why its being done), and quite superficial, devoid of understanding as has become typical of Sloth, Deal, Pov, Et al. Marquez overshot his braking point (common as it may be in racing, it seems to have become the new absolution argument-- ‘its common’ therefore pardoned), nevertheless, he collided with Pedro as a result
(irrespective of magnitude). This mistake led to a gross speed differential consequential in him continuing off the track (and should have resulted in a crash for himself if it weren’t for these run-offs that invite risk without the penalty for poorly executed maneuvers). Even more dodgy Povol’s suggested (not realizing he was advancing my point of willful excessive dangerous risk) that
Marc’s lunge was wanton risk precisely because of the run-off , which at very least exposes this loophole ( btw an issue addressed by Wsbk re-entry rules at various circuits).
In spite of this, lets not lose track (no pun) of the debate assertions;
this maneuver is not an example of exceptional control or an illustration of “extraordinary talent” as you suggest for Marc (while for comparative purpose suggesting Simonchelli lacked), quite the opposite as
mistakes are decidedly shortfalls of control (unless it was an intentional intimidation tactic, which would not be outside the scope of possibility). Attempting to make the case that the contact was only a ‘slight amount of newtons’, therefore, acceptable is subjective at best (seeing as you are agreeing with the portrayal of merely “rubbing”, I would
remind anyone that actuating a brake lever for example requires very little pressure, with devastating results, see Catalunya 06). Blaming the placement of a cable or sensor (as has now become the ridiculous tangent to discuss blame) as a flawed design is a ludicrous deflection and weak rationalization to what actually and factually caused the crash--that being the
contact made by Marc with the necessary force that resulted in a crash! What makes this any different than actuating, breaking, or bending a lever resulting in a crash? Are lever placements flawed? Are we going to split hairs on what ‘should’ cause a crash (arbitrarily based on our own satisfactory opinion) to rationalize culpability; as Kropo has done in his staggeringly one-sided race “round up” (which wasn’t a round up at all regarding the race event but solely and predominately focused on apologizing Marc’s blameworthiness for the incident? (
more on this below).
This incident is
NOT of the variety of “bumping” and “paint swapping” that occurs during close racing for position typical of the lower categories (which by the way happens partially because these riders, still learning their craft, are not ready for the big time… among other reasons). This incident was more akin to the overshooting typically seen when a rider loses control collides the front wheel to the rear wheel causing a crash (again not typical of ‘racing for position’ as you suggest when
“rubbing” as riders contesting space lean on eachother vying space side by side, (I’m sure you know this).
Again, I ask, how much pressure must be applied (
is there an acceptable units of pressure) to cause an accident when a rider collides from behind? This incident is not and example of racing for position (
nothing about Marc overshooting and going off track
summons an illustration of the clinical and surgical moves by the four way battle that was the
06 GermanGP! Which was quite possibly one of the best races of the century (and I’m not exaggerating for those reading here, as it was an electrifying dispute between 6 plus riders at times, culminating in a 4 way skirmish truly epitomizing “extraordinary” control while employing determined aggression). The contest for positions were pulled off by proficient riders, one of them a .......
“ROOKIE” (ah yes, of the
‘novice to the class’ variety, and I emphasis this because this year many have used the connotation to exonerate ...... dangerous tactics by Marc, even in this thread, yet ironically this ........ is deflated by
Pedro, a “rookie” in the very race you are citing) as there are many examples we can point to (in that race alone, and since) that illustrate how to and how not to do it.
I am happy to be counted as a member of the
“lynch mob” (poor Deal, can’t even invent his own unique hyperbole and has resorted to lifting yours) because as I see it, I’m in the minority that is pointing beyond the extraordinary talent and blissful boyish smiling face of Marc (and I’ll admit, I’d be start struck in the kid’s presence); nevertheless
considering the possibilities of repercussions that can ensue when applied haphazardly. Interesting that you mention
Simonchelli, as his death is certainly an example of an anomalous and unforeseen occurrence. How many said after his accident, normally the rider slides harmlessly toward the margin of the track to relative safety? It is in fact a “common” occurrence is it not?
What could have been done preventively to mitigate these unforeseen unusual details of his crash? Is there a fail-safe for this? Edge grip of tire construction or elbow sliders with less friction perhaps? How about maybe an engine cut off, so that once a rider is leaned beyond a critical point he cannot attempt a save by pivoting up with elbows just enough for the edge of the tire to grip (which is what appears happened which left him unexpectedly on the track which culminated in other riders colliding with his body)? Do you see where this is going, right? Very complex stuff, yet direly important. I mean, people here are
arguing culpability with a ....... sensor ignoring the fact it was dislodged by contact, and no I’m not buy it was tantamount to lightly brushing up against it. I’m laughing as I type this thinking about
Kropo suggesting it could easily be dislodged by a rock (perhaps suggesting the thing is attached with chewing gum, as if the RCVs have never made trips to the gravel (rocks) and picked up to be ridden away, something that has happened countless times.
So what ‘fail-safe’ can be design into systems to be, well ‘fail safe’ against the most rarest, unusual, and unforeseen occurrence then? As if a certain amount of TC fail safe could have prevented all danger, perhaps preventing Pedro from high-siding yes but there is still danger present as the flip side wouldn’t have prevented a rider from behind, like Marc from plowing into the back of him if the TC had engaged at some supposed “safe” degree causing Pedro to slow around a curve. Do you follow what I’m saying here? I suppose the same fortunetellers that could have prevented Simonchelli’s crash (that is what we are arguing right, some supposed
fail-safe for ‘rider error’, in this case Marc) could have foreseen the supposedly now “flawed” design of the RCV, eh? When Marc almost torpedoed Lorenzo into Dry Sack earlier this year at Jerez, it was also cause for some to depict this as “extraordinary” talent in avoiding collision, I mentioned this because previously I said most think he ‘meant to do that, until of course he rams into the back of another rider’. It turns out, even though he had misjudged the braking point, in the very same corner, it subsequently resulted in a collision (one that was again highly celebrated) leading to both riders going off track. How much pressure would have been necessary for Marc to have caused Lorenzo to crash had he clipped the back wheel in one of those overshot moments? I have a suggestion for a “fail-safe” to help Marc, how about somebody smacks this kid around some and tells him there is actually a way to be real fast without being really dangerous? We can point to world champs like Lorenzo and Stoner as examples of being magnificently fast and unquestionably safe. There is your ‘fail-safe’. He seems smart enough to understand this without the ‘perils’ of “stifling” his enthusiastic aggression. Though I’d propose erring a bit on the side of “stifling” is much better than dead.
Getting
back to Simonchelli, for the record
I disagree that he was any more or less a liability than is Marc. And certainly I fail to see the logic that Marc is innately less liable because purportedly he is more “extraordinarily” talented, as just as logically the case could be made that
because of his talent he is more inclined to take greater risks (and evidence to support the League is adverse to reprimanding him, leading of course to a
predictable embolden sense of blameless and disconnect for his action. (
see his recent comments blaming Wilorait). In summary my friend, lending your substantially esteemed evaluation for this incident and on all things MotoGP, as I am fond of referring to you as the Oracle, its for this reason that its worrisome to me personally, given that I see Marc’s antics distinctively dangerous.
Lastly, as I promised, speaking of “blameless”,
Kropo’s Aragon “round up” as I said was uncharacteristically narrow in its summary and rather scarcely touched on anything other than Marc’s incident--not just the incident, but rather the case for where blame should be assigned! Funny, I get .... for writing too much, while this question of who’s fault it was could have been summarized with two words: Marc Marquez. I’m left having to wonder, why the need to ditch his customary synopsis and so assiduously focus on assigning blame everywhere except the perpetrator? Maybe its because the “new” race direction have taken this case into extensive consideration, the decision looming for several uncomfortable days? Could it be that Marc is finally called to answer for his transgressions and made an example by disqualifying him from a result and perhaps even a race ban? Ah, maybe this fear is playing ticks on my buddy Kropo, which has provoked him into immediate action. The great apology of Marc Marquez. Nah Kropos, don’t you worry yourself. Look no further than this site. Marc is not guilty because he is exciting, talented, and cute. Though Kropo has successfully done what any good lawyer would do, introduce an element that we should look elsewhere to lay the blame. Some poor Japanese engineer is cringing, alas its Honda’s fault.
... "To much traffic", he doth say! .......... yes Traffic is a consequence :lol: :lol: :lol:
