Round 12 Silverstone: Practice, Qualifying, Race

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WAIT! Then what EXACTLY will we be debating if we are in agreement?!? I accept you concede that in your words "none of them" crashes were CAUSED by equipment; I therefore find no need to duel as this is the point of contention. The voice of reason has spoken in no uncertain words.

CASE CLOSED

Precisely what I have been at pains to explain to you - see highlighted sentence in the post below from last July...

I really don't understand any of this preoccupation/obsession with the RCV being the 'best bike'. Since the end of the 990 era, throughout the dismal 800cc formula and now with the advent of the 1 litre bikes the balance of power has vacillated largely between Honda and Yamaha, also responding to changes in the rules and tyre provision, but overall (bar the disastrous Pedrocycle) these differences have been minute. I say this, perhaps because I wasn't privy to any of the assertions supposedly made by Krop, but ultimately I fail to see why all this even 'matters'. Last year, the RCV was a better package all round...this year it isn't, and given the circuits to come, the riders concerned, the variables in tyre preferences, it all makes for a fascinating dynamic.

Based upon my own observations and from the comments that I've either seen or heard by Marquez, he didn't like the 2015 bike, and voiced this immediately at the Valencia test last November. That simply, it doesn't work as well for him as the 2014 machine. As I've said before, and I may well be wrong, but the higher temperatures at the subsequent test at Sepang may have softened the package, both in terms of the greater flex in the chassis and the motor, but that is entirely my own speculation. COTA ridiculously favours the Honda, to a far greater extent than even Sachsenring IMO, and also likely mitigated the 'problems' earlier in the season that Marquez claimed were afflicting him.

Given that Marquez rides the front harder than anyone, the combination of engine character/chassis balance/electronics (call it what you will, delete as applicable...I don't really care) appears to me to have been transferring excessive load onto the front during corner entry - particularly once rear grip is compromised. And where the rear grip diminishes, instead of slewing/kicking sideways like last year - it instead tends to have been snapping back violently. At Mugello, he crashed out loading the front trying to match the pace late in the race, however at Qatar, Argentina and Catalunya, he made a series of unforced errors - and I've yet to see anyone dispute that. He's a racer and he's human...which is after all something that all bike racing enthusiasts tend to celebrate over their contemporary F1 counterparts.

Marc requested a return to the 2014 chassis and since then, at both Assen and Sachsenring the bike has looked settled, far smoother and it appears to be answering to his will - although oddly, since then his approach seems to draw more from the Lawson school of late than the Schwantz rodeo ride that we are accustomed to seeing.

In '06 Rossi reverted to the previous years chassis which revived his fortunes and in the same year, HRC did its best to sabotage Nicky's title bid with the inexorable raft of parts on the EVO machine, (although it's worth pointing out that the imposition of the dodgy clutch was a myth and his own preference). HRC, pride themselves on their progressive philosophy as we were all reminded by Colin and Hodgy during today's BT coverage...(yeah, so progressive that they've flung last years frame into the most expensive race bike on the planet). Riders constantly push for new parts ( be careful what you wish for Cal), and factories enforce testing and development, the sport is in continual flux... but when something works well, conversely those riders become acutely conservative by nature. I still believe that the Honda is a tricky machine to exploit to its maximum, excessively complex in comparison to the M1 and maybe, Marc nudged development in a direction that pushed those parameters beyond the reach of even his high risk riding style...much like Casey banished the Desmo far from the reach of mortal man.

Top riders can and do challenge the factories. The arrival of Rossi at Yamaha saw four bespoke designs by Yoda which he had carte blanche to choose from in favour of the machine that practically broke Barros's back and busted his balls the season before...not to mention later subverting an entire brand and race DNA at Ducati. Something as simple in comparison as substituting a chassis in favour of an earlier or familiar iteration is not unusual .. and it very often works. Remember Rainey in '93, bolting his factory motor into an old production version Roc frame? Doohan simply used to intimidate the HRC hierarchy and threaten engineers until they bent to his will. Marquez, meanwhile voiced similar concerns about the new bike. He's reverted to last years chassis and both watching the bike on track at both Assen and Sachsenring, and based upon his results it's working.

I'm glad.

Who gives a .... about what Krop said or journo's pandering to HRC...there are many that don't. Anyone with all but a cursory interest in this sport understands the inherent inequities if not the mechanics the machinations and mutability. Marquez was flawless this weekend - give the guy some Kudos, some credit, - he's got what he needs, be that psychologically or physically and he's delivered in response...mellow, and enjoy the second half of the season.

Our dispute comps - irrespective of Marquez, is your contention that in absolute terms and without exception, the factory RCV is by far the best package this year. I don't agree. Pre Assen this certainly wasn't the case and the differing charactersitics between the M1 and the RCV; the respective rider styles, the tyres, circuits, the philosophy and paradigms underpinning either factory development strategy create for a fascinating flux in fortunes both between and within the factory teams. The very idea of homogeneity is itself flawed. Pedrosa's RCV has evolved separately to Marquez's whist the M1s of Rossi and Lorenzo differ both radically and diametrically. Although either the M1 or the RCV may prevail on any given race weekend due to a myriad of interwoven variables the overall differences in the two marques and the associated comparative advantages are not only in flux, but are not as pronounced as you suppose.
 
WAIT! Then what EXACTLY will we be debating if we are in agreement?!? I accept you concede that in your words "none of them" crashes were CAUSED by equipment; I therefore find no need to duel as this is the point of contention. The voice of reason has spoken in no uncertain words.

CASE CLOSED


Gentlemen, I am now entertaining tangents again. As getting Kesh to concede similar challenge is of no value to me. Actually no value to anyone for that matter.

If you believe that I give a .... whether you value my opinion - you're delusional. You still cling to the belief that the lives of the members of PS revolve around whether the great charismatic Jumkie showers them with compliments and slaps on the back. Like I said - stop drinking your own Kool Aid.
 
Last edited:
And how would you know what a rider of that caliber does with the brake in the middle of any given turn? Have you ever ridden a MotoGp bike? Lots of riders talk about using the rear brake to settle down a rear end that is not well seated. It's one of the most common techniques that rider learn to use when they first learn to ride. Really - you should stick to talking about cars.

Except Kesh, as usual, you ignore that there have been two different causes for that crash offered up, that do not mesh with each other. Since both causes are not in agreement, that in itself is a problem. But I haven't seen anyone really question either.

As for the last bit, here's an interesting article you might want to read.

Riding Skills Series: Using The Rear Brake | Sport Rider

Dovizioso talked about his usage of the rear brake in an interview awhile back...

I use the rear brake quite a lot. In MotoGP, we use the rear brake on the exit to control the spinning. If you use the rear brake well, you can use less traction control because you can tame a big spin by reducing it but not eliminating it. I use the rear a lot also on the braking even though with the four-stroke there is enough engine braking so that many riders do not use the rear. But this is my style, and I always use the rear brake.

Some guys will use the rear to help induce slid into the corner I know.

But not everyone will use the rear brake...depends on riding style. And yes Kesh I'm well aware of trying to settle the bike down, but I'm also unsure of how wise it would have been in those conditions with those bumps.

You should really stick to your straw men.
 
I'll discuss it with you!!

Argentina - He ...... up...he tried to intimidate Rossi as per his Moto2/125 days but MotoGP riders don't back down.
Mugello - That was an odd one, but again he just pushed the front too much all race long, refusing to accept that he couldn't win, and ...... up
Catalynua - Ok this one, maybe the bike caught him out. However, he was FAR too wild for only the 2nd lap of the race to go off that spectacularly
Silverstone - Track conditions caught him out, simple as. I don't see how any of the engine braking issues the Honda is currently having would have affected him at that point in the corner. The only way the 'engine braking' affected him there was if he already started to slide and shut off the throttle.

I'm not a huge fan of Stoner personally. But it makes me laugh that he rode that POS Ducati that killed many many careers and people said he's weak and just moaning. Only after the Rossi debacle did Dicati and Dorna realise that the bike and culture had to change at Ducati. Honda build a super powerful bike for MM (which he probably requested*) and he keeps binning it, and people call for Honda's head.

*In the latest Soupkast, Dean mentions I think Wayne Garnder said "Someone who can't develop a bike always asks for more power" then when they get it they say "Oh, I can't ride this".

Great post.

So nice to see you just respond in a normal fashion unlike some around here.
 
I saw this bit in Kropo's Friday Silverstone round-up that I missed.

Rear grip was a problem for everybody, including the Repsol Honda of Marc Márquez. The reigning champion was struggling with corner exit, a combination of the lack of grip and the bumps on the exit, causing the rear to float and lose drive. The rear of the RC213V was moving up and down too much to generate grip, and finding a way to absorb the bumps better was Márquez' highest priority.

MM made it sound like the floatiness was due to the bike design a few days later as opposed to the track service. It certainly was pushed that the bike was back to it's same old problems, but this makes far more sense that the track surface was creating the problems as opposed to the RCV creating the problems.
 
Except Kesh, as usual, you ignore that there have been two different causes for that crash offered up, that do not mesh with each other. Since both causes are not in agreement, that in itself is a problem. But I haven't seen anyone really question either.

As for the last bit, here's an interesting article you might want to read.

Riding Skills Series: Using The Rear Brake | Sport Rider

Dovizioso talked about his usage of the rear brake in an interview awhile back...



Some guys will use the rear to help induce slid into the corner I know.

But not everyone will use the rear brake...depends on riding style. And yes Kesh I'm well aware of trying to settle the bike down, but I'm also unsure of how wise it would have been in those conditions with those bumps.

You should really stick to your straw men.

JPS - trust me, for the love of God don't mention the rear brake on this forum unless you are prepared to summon the 'beast' himself, consume three years of your life, immeasurable unquantified amounts of bandwidth and spawn a volume of threads of Tolstoy like proportions relegating Jumkie's contributions to a mere post it note in comparison.
 
JPS - trust me, for the love of God don't mention the rear brake on this forum unless you are prepared to summon the 'beast' himself, consume three years of your life, immeasurable unquantified amounts of bandwidth and spawn a volume of threads of Tolstoy like proportions relegating Jumkie's contributions to a mere post it note in comparison.

:cry:

Who, is "the beast"?
 
Except Kesh, as usual, you ignore that there have been two different causes for that crash offered up, that do not mesh with each other. Since both causes are not in agreement, that in itself is a problem. But I haven't seen anyone really question either.

As for the last bit, here's an interesting article you might want to read.

Riding Skills Series: Using The Rear Brake | Sport Rider

Dovizioso talked about his usage of the rear brake in an interview awhile back...



Some guys will use the rear to help induce slid into the corner I know.

But not everyone will use the rear brake...depends on riding style. And yes Kesh I'm well aware of trying to settle the bike down, but I'm also unsure of how wise it would have been in those conditions with those bumps.

You should really stick to your straw men.


I don't find that to be a "problem". I find that to be the basis of a dialog.

So you're uncertain. That's a start. I never stated in any absolute terms what he did wrong. Even with telemetry - we can't know for sure what caused the crash. It's all just speculation. I find myself taking issue when people state things with absolute authority rather than offering them as a strong opinion or theory. I have the same issue with Jum. This is what causes what could be an interesting exchange of ideas into a morass of people thinking they can "win" an argument based on force of personality rather than logic. Internet 101: Nobody ever wins an argument on the internet anyhow. It's more fun to discuss this stuff with friends here when nobody is trying to dominate every discussion by using bullying techniques to socially alienate anyone who disagrees with them. That's what JR High is for.
 
Last edited:
JPS, "The Beast" is a user called Barrymachine who argued that on a tarmac surface you could simply step out/slide the rear of a bike in a controlled manner by simply downshifting. Despite many logical statements, links to experts etc etc who said you need the rear brake to initiate a slide, he was adamant that he could get the back out at will on his road going Ducati without using rear brake. I think his signature even referenced it.
 
I don't find that to be a "problem". I find that to be the basis of a dialog.

So you're uncertain. That's a start. I never stated in any absolute terms what he did wrong. Even with telemetry - we can't know for sure what caused the crash. It's all just speculation. I find myself taking issue when people state things with absolute authority rather than offering them as a strong opinion or theory. I have the same issue with Jum. This is what causes what could be an interesting exchange of ideas into a morass of people thinking they can "win" an argument based on force of personality rather than logic. Internet 101: Nobody ever wins an argument on the internet anyhow. It's more fun to discuss this stuff with friends here when nobody is trying to dominate every discussion by using bullying techniques to socially alienate anyone who disagrees with them. That's what JR High is for.

I love how you "debate". You say nearly nothing about the debate itself other than backpedaling, not surprisingly, then go on to breakdown petty details about our style of presenting the issues. You do understand what 'pettifogging' means right? Because it's your favorite word, that and strawman.
 
Last edited:
I don't find that to be a "problem". I find that to be the basis of a dialog.

So you're uncertain. That's a start. I never stated in any absolute terms what he did wrong. Even with telemetry - we can't know for sure what caused the crash. It's all just speculation. I find myself taking issue when people state things with absolute authority rather than offering them as a strong opinion or theory. I have the same issue with Jum. This is what causes what could be an interesting exchange of ideas into a morass of people thinking they can "win" an argument based on force of personality rather than logic. Internet 101: Nobody ever wins an argument on the internet anyhow. It's more fun to discuss this stuff with friends here when nobody is trying to dominate every discussion by using bullying techniques to socially alienate anyone who disagrees with them. That's what JR High is for.

That's all nice Kesh.

But here's another question for you.

Would you like to explain to me why you haven't admitted you basically accused me of saying the RCV was ...., when I said no such thing?

You made a dismissive post that didn't even address the fact that you flat-out lied, and created a straw man so as to try and paint me as saying something I never did.
 
pet·ti·fog·ging
ˈpedēˌfôɡiNG/
adjective
adjective: pettifogging
placing undue emphasis on petty details.

For an example see: Keshav


Take a look at Kesh's last post, as its typical of him. 3 sentences indirectly referencing (much of it backpedaling and dismissive) regarding the specific debate, the overwhelming rest of the post pettifogging petty details of our style.
 
Last edited:
JPS, "The Beast" is a user called Barrymachine who argued that on a tarmac surface you could simply step out/slide the rear of a bike in a controlled manner by simply downshifting. Despite many logical statements, links to experts etc etc who said you need the rear brake to initiate a slide, he was adamant that he could get the back out at will on his road going Ducati without using rear brake. I think his signature even referenced it.

I thought you could use the engine braking to initiate a slide too?
 
pet·ti·fog·ging
ˈpedēˌfôɡiNG/
adjective
adjective: pettifogging
placing undue emphasis on petty details.

For an example see: Keshav


Take a look at Kesh's last post, as its typical of him. 3 sentences indirectly referencing (much of it backpedaling and dismissive) regarding the specific debate, the overwhelming rest of the post pettifogging petty details of our style.

Yes.

But I want an admittance from him that he f̶a̶l̶s̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ LIED a few pages back.

Kesh here is the quote again in case you're going to pretend you have amnesia.

Again, it's only you and Jum that are saying it's a ".... bike".
 
JPS, "The Beast" is a user called Barrymachine who argued that on a tarmac surface you could simply step out/slide the rear of a bike in a controlled manner by simply downshifting. Despite many logical statements, links to experts etc etc who said you need the rear brake to initiate a slide, he was adamant that he could get the back out at will on his road going Ducati without using rear brake. I think his signature even referenced it.

I thought you could use the engine braking to initiate a slide too?

Correct. See Supermoto where the main principle of sliding the rear involves retarding the rear wheel through the backshift so that it is moving slower than the front.

At the risk of inviting pedantry '22' it was far worse than that. Barry scoffed at and dismissed the notion of back shfting and his original claim was that on public roads he could step out the rear of his borrowed Ducati 748 at will and by body position and throttle control alone. The main problem appeared to be that he was unable to differentiate between powersliding through and out of a turn (think Stoner/McCoy) and backing in/drifting largely on the approach - (the late Craig Jones exemplified this technique). You are quite right Ant, the latter is in the main induced by using engine braking to slow the back wheel through downshifting but is often initiated by the use of the rear brake which additionally aids stability - particularly since the advent of the slipper clutch and in the case of the old two stroke classes which lacked engine braking. As far as I am aware, there are very few road or short circuit racers that would use either in isolation as an aid to backing in.

Despite overwhelming evidence including testimonies from racers, testers and riding coaches, Baz continued to conflate 'powerslides' and 'backing in' and any mention of a racer employing the rear brake - even as a tool to suppress an unwanted wheelie - was greeted by accusations of '.....' and 'kids skids'. Even an image of Kenny's TZ750 flat tracker with no front brake and a .... off rear disc the size of a dinner plate failed to convince him.
 
Last edited:
Oh Lord Jesus, please for the love of Allah and all the Sacred books and teaching by Confucius and Buddha, please tell me we are not talking about rear brakes in regards to backing it in.

Hide all your emoticons! They are in imminent danger and peril of being kidnapped hijacked to be confined to interment slavery. Consider yourself warned.
 
Last edited:
Oh Lord Jesus, please for the love of Allah and all the Sacred books and teaching by Confucius and Buddha, please tell me we are not talking about rear brakes in regards to backing it in.

Hide all your emoticons! They are in imminent danger and peril of being kidnapped hijacked to be confined to interment slavery. Consider yourself warned.

In that case, can we talk about the RCV/M1 differential instead? ;)
 
That was it Arrab!! My apologies, I knew it was something obscure and I recall now, yes it was backing off the throttle, not downshifting.

Apologies Ant and Arrab. Ok back on topic!
 

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top