Tissot Australian Grand Prix 2013
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
barbedwirebiker
Banned Camp
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 900
- Location
- somewhere else
Yeah Marquez surely ...... up by not coming in, yet the rule stated not more than 10 laps. He came in at the end of his 10th lap. Has anyone seen a Bridgestone press release after this weekend?
SuperManatee
.... outta luck there, pal. Stop walking into countries and shooting the place up and we'll stop telling you what a bunch of imperialist aggressors you are.
And FFS, tell your women that .... implants aren't fooling anyone.
3646581382312382
Im American!
I dont want any Aussies judging me
.... outta luck there, pal. Stop walking into countries and shooting the place up and we'll stop telling you what a bunch of imperialist aggressors you are.
And FFS, tell your women that .... implants aren't fooling anyone.
Dr No
SPECTRE
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,994
- Location
- Crab Key
Geonerd
Thanks for the link, Geo.
Not exactly conclusive, but whatever the Repsol mechanic is up to on that front tyre, the Go&Fun mechanic seems to be, too.
3646941382323752
Agreed. You usually gain an 'undercut' by stopping early and blasting around for a lap or three on fresh tires while your competitor is losing time on tired rubber.
Good thinking, Doctor!
Proof of MM's screwup! (?)
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/60092457/MotoGP/Warmers.mp4 <<
A mechanic is doing something with the front tire blanket. It's a little hard to tell exactly what, but logically it seems likely that he is putting the front warmer <u>back</u> <u>on</u> after MM failed to stop. (It seems too early to be removing the blankets for a planned stop next lap, since MM won't be arriving for another ~1.5 minutes.)
The rampant confusion shown by the HRC pit crew following Jorge's stop would seem to support the theory that MM flat missed the pit-in signal. Either that, or Evil Alberto snuck some bogus numbers onto the pit board.
Thanks for the link, Geo.
Not exactly conclusive, but whatever the Repsol mechanic is up to on that front tyre, the Go&Fun mechanic seems to be, too.
Geonerd
Desert Varmint
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,343
- Location
- Southern Aridzona - Hell's doorstep.
The G&F dude was doing a tablecloth pull, while the HRC mechanic seemed (?) to be inching the blanket back on.
The G&F timing does support the common sense notion that that blanket removal is held off until the last possible moment. It seems really unlikely that HRC would be removing MM's heater so far in advance.
The G&F timing does support the common sense notion that that blanket removal is held off until the last possible moment. It seems really unlikely that HRC would be removing MM's heater so far in advance.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
michaelm
I honestly can't see what you are debating? Marc re-entered dangerously, NOBODY ELSE TO BLAME. Anything beyond this is irrelevant. If you want to talk about mitigating circumstance of this unusual race format, the discussion is for discussion sake only, but regarding where blame lies for the rider's acute responsibility of entering the track safely, then this discussion is beyond the scope.
michaelm
The prescription went to plan, they were intended for riders to avoid going beyond a certain tire life based on laps. The only thing that went wrong is that a rider/team ignored or failed to comply for whatever reason. How is this the rules fault? The fact is the obligations they imposed did NOT go wrong! And the majority of the contestants understood and complied with the adjustments they instituted for this race. Not even sure what you are trying to say here. This solution was not thrown together with chewing gum on toilet paper. The solution they calculated would have been perfectly pulled off had Marc not chosen to totally .... them up! What beyond this is there to debate? You can say all day long the plan MIGHT have gone wrong, but the fact is it went to plan. The only problem is that the rider who has displayed a propensity for disregarding prescribed practices again disregarded them. Period. I ask again, who is it the rules fault if a rider blows past the rule? What is there to debate here?
michaelm
Absolutely not true! WTF? In that case how did all the other riders re-enter safely if there was "no way to re-enter safely"? Did they all do this by magic, EXCEPT for Marc? (sorry for the sarcasm to make a point buddy) Mike, with all due respect, what are you arguing here? Is your intent to use Gaz's opinion about the particular pit exit to say it was impossible to rejoin the race safely? Because that is what you are saying above. I say again, then how did everybody else accomplish the 'impossible'. Has the world gone made?
michaelm
Irrelevant. What concern is this of Lorenzo that another rider has blown the obligation to swap tires? What concern is it of Lorenzo that a rider is rejoining he race? NONE. It is explicitly the rider's exiting the pit lane regardless of who it was, to re-enter without incident. You know, it didn't have to be Marc entering the track at that point. What if another rider had a bike issue (other than tires) pitted and then rejoined just at the moment Lorenzo was powering down the straight? Its not an uncommon occurrance, and people here are attempting (rather unsuccessfully) to blame the unusual circumstance for Marc blowing the re-entry (which to me was the greatest failure of the event, and most likely will go unscrutinized and unpunished). What <span style="font-size:14px;<u>unusual circumstance </u>were in play when a rider is tasked to enter a hot track? This happens a hundred times an event weekend, and thousands of times over a rider's career! What relevance does Marc pitting when he did have to do with him exiting and rejoined without causing a collision? NONE.
michaelm
I would venture to guess that Dorna were under massive pressure to carry the race on TV. I'd say this much should be obvious. The solution was calculated to swap tires, as the engineers assured that 10 laps was a max for these tires. And again, as I said before, it looks like they were spot on (see Marc's tire with 10+ laps). I have been saying Dorna are willing to let the show gone on at the expense of safety (or in this case, a calculated gamble). Most people have been saying I'm just advancing "conspiracy" because I have pointed out a lack of adequate sanction on Marc over safety concerns in favor of 'the show' (Lorenzo indicted as much). Yet here we are again having this same conversation, and guess who failed to comply, and guess who was responsible for giving the race the go ahead? Is Bridgestone tasked to make the decision to run the race? NO!! Dorna makes that decision. Bridgestone did the correct thing by informing Dorna of the problem. Bridgestone do NOT have the authority to cancel the race. They were probably asked how many laps would the tires reasonably be expected to last. They calculated a max of 10 laps. Dorna ran the race, NOT Bridgestone, so people should immediately stop blaming the tire manufacture for running the race.
I honestly can't see what you are debating? Marc re-entered dangerously, NOBODY ELSE TO BLAME. Anything beyond this is irrelevant. If you want to talk about mitigating circumstance of this unusual race format, the discussion is for discussion sake only, but regarding where blame lies for the rider's acute responsibility of entering the track safely, then this discussion is beyond the scope.
michaelm
The prescription went to plan, they were intended for riders to avoid going beyond a certain tire life based on laps. The only thing that went wrong is that a rider/team ignored or failed to comply for whatever reason. How is this the rules fault? The fact is the obligations they imposed did NOT go wrong! And the majority of the contestants understood and complied with the adjustments they instituted for this race. Not even sure what you are trying to say here. This solution was not thrown together with chewing gum on toilet paper. The solution they calculated would have been perfectly pulled off had Marc not chosen to totally .... them up! What beyond this is there to debate? You can say all day long the plan MIGHT have gone wrong, but the fact is it went to plan. The only problem is that the rider who has displayed a propensity for disregarding prescribed practices again disregarded them. Period. I ask again, who is it the rules fault if a rider blows past the rule? What is there to debate here?
michaelm
Absolutely not true! WTF? In that case how did all the other riders re-enter safely if there was "no way to re-enter safely"? Did they all do this by magic, EXCEPT for Marc? (sorry for the sarcasm to make a point buddy) Mike, with all due respect, what are you arguing here? Is your intent to use Gaz's opinion about the particular pit exit to say it was impossible to rejoin the race safely? Because that is what you are saying above. I say again, then how did everybody else accomplish the 'impossible'. Has the world gone made?
michaelm
Irrelevant. What concern is this of Lorenzo that another rider has blown the obligation to swap tires? What concern is it of Lorenzo that a rider is rejoining he race? NONE. It is explicitly the rider's exiting the pit lane regardless of who it was, to re-enter without incident. You know, it didn't have to be Marc entering the track at that point. What if another rider had a bike issue (other than tires) pitted and then rejoined just at the moment Lorenzo was powering down the straight? Its not an uncommon occurrance, and people here are attempting (rather unsuccessfully) to blame the unusual circumstance for Marc blowing the re-entry (which to me was the greatest failure of the event, and most likely will go unscrutinized and unpunished). What <span style="font-size:14px;<u>unusual circumstance </u>were in play when a rider is tasked to enter a hot track? This happens a hundred times an event weekend, and thousands of times over a rider's career! What relevance does Marc pitting when he did have to do with him exiting and rejoined without causing a collision? NONE.
michaelm
I would venture to guess that Dorna were under massive pressure to carry the race on TV. I'd say this much should be obvious. The solution was calculated to swap tires, as the engineers assured that 10 laps was a max for these tires. And again, as I said before, it looks like they were spot on (see Marc's tire with 10+ laps). I have been saying Dorna are willing to let the show gone on at the expense of safety (or in this case, a calculated gamble). Most people have been saying I'm just advancing "conspiracy" because I have pointed out a lack of adequate sanction on Marc over safety concerns in favor of 'the show' (Lorenzo indicted as much). Yet here we are again having this same conversation, and guess who failed to comply, and guess who was responsible for giving the race the go ahead? Is Bridgestone tasked to make the decision to run the race? NO!! Dorna makes that decision. Bridgestone did the correct thing by informing Dorna of the problem. Bridgestone do NOT have the authority to cancel the race. They were probably asked how many laps would the tires reasonably be expected to last. They calculated a max of 10 laps. Dorna ran the race, NOT Bridgestone, so people should immediately stop blaming the tire manufacture for running the race.
michaelm
I seem to remember the riders opting for the new tire carcass because a majority of the riders felt the indestructible tire required a bit too much commitment during corner-entry to make it warm, and it had a propensity to cool off very quickly, which fooled the rider and foiled the traction control. Didn't they cancel or shorten a few morning sessions after excessive crashes? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.
I'm not a tire expert, but I was under the impression that resurfaced tracks affected the compound. New asphalt is often abrasive, and it tends to rip apart the compounds rapidly, unlike circuits that have been weathered and rubbered-in.
Without specific knowledge of the testing ban, it's difficult to know what could have been done differently. Mandatory testing seems like an obvious solution, but the cost of getting the teams to PI could have been prohibitive. I'm not well-versed in tire technology, but it does seem that Bridgestone could have done a better job by bringing lots of extra tire variations to the race. Same goes for Dunlop.
From the outside, it looks like everyone had a strict budget, and no one wanted to budge.
I seem to remember the riders opting for the new tire carcass because a majority of the riders felt the indestructible tire required a bit too much commitment during corner-entry to make it warm, and it had a propensity to cool off very quickly, which fooled the rider and foiled the traction control. Didn't they cancel or shorten a few morning sessions after excessive crashes? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.
I'm not a tire expert, but I was under the impression that resurfaced tracks affected the compound. New asphalt is often abrasive, and it tends to rip apart the compounds rapidly, unlike circuits that have been weathered and rubbered-in.
Without specific knowledge of the testing ban, it's difficult to know what could have been done differently. Mandatory testing seems like an obvious solution, but the cost of getting the teams to PI could have been prohibitive. I'm not well-versed in tire technology, but it does seem that Bridgestone could have done a better job by bringing lots of extra tire variations to the race. Same goes for Dunlop.
From the outside, it looks like everyone had a strict budget, and no one wanted to budge.
Jumkie
I actually made another post in reply to Lex which timed out.
There have obviously been multiple flag to flag races in the wet in which I don't remember re-entering from the pits being a problem; point to your argument against MM. I think David Emmett said on his site that there has been one at PI; if so I don't specifically recall it, and I would be interested to know whether they had the same pit-lane speed limit and track re-entry point.
As you know i am hardly an apologist for MM's moderately frequent dangerous on-track behaviour. In this case the explanation for him but no-one else having a re-entry problem might be that he was the only one re-entering simultaneously with bikes which were racing, which is arguably his fault anyway as I have already argued because he was a lap late. If Dani stopping at lap 9 was legal the same problem could also have arisen, which is why I am interested to know if the track re-entry and pit lane speed limit are the same in the wet; Gaz who I think may have even marshalled at PI and would seem likely to be informed considered both of these things to be inherently dangerous in themselves.
I actually made another post in reply to Lex which timed out.
There have obviously been multiple flag to flag races in the wet in which I don't remember re-entering from the pits being a problem; point to your argument against MM. I think David Emmett said on his site that there has been one at PI; if so I don't specifically recall it, and I would be interested to know whether they had the same pit-lane speed limit and track re-entry point.
As you know i am hardly an apologist for MM's moderately frequent dangerous on-track behaviour. In this case the explanation for him but no-one else having a re-entry problem might be that he was the only one re-entering simultaneously with bikes which were racing, which is arguably his fault anyway as I have already argued because he was a lap late. If Dani stopping at lap 9 was legal the same problem could also have arisen, which is why I am interested to know if the track re-entry and pit lane speed limit are the same in the wet; Gaz who I think may have even marshalled at PI and would seem likely to be informed considered both of these things to be inherently dangerous in themselves.
Dr No
SPECTRE
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,994
- Location
- Crab Key
mylexicon
Being a flyaway round, bringing in lots of variations would have been difficult. Not insurmountable, but difficult.
After all, they already brought in a weekends worth of extra hards that no-one used. I'm not sure if it is just cost, but getting to PI is much more difficult than say, Sepang. Where the track is right next to the airport and 5 star accomodation 30 min down the road in Putrajaya. As opposed to 3+ hours from the circuit and Pino's Pizza's is a good food option.
Not to mention that the problem (as reported from BS) was that the track temps were higher than expected - mid 30s as opposed to mid 20s. I'm not sure when this mid-season testing would occur, but it's effin' freezing down at PI in winter. So it would be diffcult to check the latest tyre interation on a representative track temp.
But with all that, yes, Bridgestone and Dunlop screwed the weekend up.
Being a flyaway round, bringing in lots of variations would have been difficult. Not insurmountable, but difficult.
After all, they already brought in a weekends worth of extra hards that no-one used. I'm not sure if it is just cost, but getting to PI is much more difficult than say, Sepang. Where the track is right next to the airport and 5 star accomodation 30 min down the road in Putrajaya. As opposed to 3+ hours from the circuit and Pino's Pizza's is a good food option.
Not to mention that the problem (as reported from BS) was that the track temps were higher than expected - mid 30s as opposed to mid 20s. I'm not sure when this mid-season testing would occur, but it's effin' freezing down at PI in winter. So it would be diffcult to check the latest tyre interation on a representative track temp.
But with all that, yes, Bridgestone and Dunlop screwed the weekend up.
mylexicon
They democratically made the wrong choice then, and Stoner said so at the time. Valentino as I posted earlier has actually said this year that he didn't know how Stoner had known from the get-go but agreed he had been correct about the tyres. Honda, or Nakamoto anyway, if I recall had no problem with them going with the new tyres if that was what the majority wanted but saw no reason why they couldn't have kept the old tyres as well. I couldn't either at the time.
They democratically made the wrong choice then, and Stoner said so at the time. Valentino as I posted earlier has actually said this year that he didn't know how Stoner had known from the get-go but agreed he had been correct about the tyres. Honda, or Nakamoto anyway, if I recall had no problem with them going with the new tyres if that was what the majority wanted but saw no reason why they couldn't have kept the old tyres as well. I couldn't either at the time.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Keshav
Thanks for taking the time to address each point, I will return the favor. I'm "fired up" because Marc's dangerous re-entry WAS the most dangerous moment of the event (after putting himself and others at risk for blowing past the calculated tire life). Yet this moment will most certainly be under-scrutinized and most of the focus will be on the snafu of blowing the obligation to swap tires at a certain limit. What relevance does the "error by his crew", Mark's inexperience in "flag to flag" races, "last minute rule changes" have to do with the task of re-entrying safely? Please, tell me what is the relevance to the acute task of re-entering! The task of re-enterying the track, regardless of what happened previous is of NO RELEVANCE! He could have pitted for any reason, .... even if the umbrella girl had flashed her .... at Marc as he passed the garage causing a distraction, it matters not, as the task of re-entering the track required him to summon the common sense and practices that professional racers have employed thousands of times. Nothing you have just said has any baring on the task of 're-joining' the track safely! They could have asked all the riders to fill out a word puzzle while pitting, they could have required the riders jump off their bikes and perform a cart wheel, but when it came to re- enter the track, it wasn't something unusual at all! If your suggestion is his mind wasn't in it given the circumstance, then this advances the proposition that he is unfit to perform under a this level.
He ...... up and caused a collision, fact. Lorenzo had the right of way, fact. Why are people attempting to introduce peripheral circumstance when in fact the only tasked he need to concentrate on was the re-entry at the point he was re-joining the hot track? Its a task he's done and other did safely thousands of times. I think he was over-ambition (other incidents have indicated this) and has in fact been officially sanctioned, this again was on full display. The prevailing attitude seems to be, that because it didn't result in a impact beyond a certain arbitrary force, the conclusion is it was not a dangerous moment. You already conceded it was a dangerous moment, yet you haven't made the connection as to just how dangerous it really was because you are arguing it wasn't dangerous enough. It seems its only "dangerous enough" if somebody gets hurt or the riders involve comment on it. Even collisions resulting in riders going off track are not regarded as 'sufficiently' dangerous (Jerez).
Keshav
Reiterated for affect. However, while on the subject, it seems reiterating on my part was warranted given what you are proposing here: So because he accepted the consequence 'like a pro', this reflected positive AFTER he had just blown the obligation 'unlike a pro'?
Keshav
1.He was DQ for not complying with the obligations of this race. Transgression addressed.
2. He re-entered the track unsafely, hastily, and in fact caused a collision. Transgression needs addressing.
Perhaps we should let it ride since he was punished "enough" for transgression number one? I know you are exceptionally intelligent Kesh, but since when are offenses not categorized as individual events? I'll assume your characterization of pitchforks etc as wit. Again, perhaps the only way for people to perceive something dangerous occurred is for a death to result (god knows even incidents were mere crashing and injury resulted have been debated). I'm going to run all the red lights on my way to work tomorrow morning. If I'm stopped by a cop before my death occurs, I will use the logic on the officer as follows: 'what is the big deal, nobody got hurt. Therefore, running the red lights were not actually dangerous.' Funny right? Rejoining the track required the tasked to be done without incident, it IS the sole responsibility of the rider exiting the pit to successfully execute this very basic task.
Keshav
Inquisition? Who is being unfairly deposed? Did you cross up the names above? You probably meant to say it wasn't Pedro's fault for not know MM was DQed. However, Pedrosa was told to drop a position the lap before, and two laps later is when Marc rejoined unsafely (and actually messed up Pedro's line in addition to colliding with Lorenzo. The point I was making is that for the previous lap, Pedro made no noticeable attempt to drop a position. We can call pit regulations "........" all we want, that is irrelevant. Its the obligation set for the riders, and as professionals they are expected to know this. They obviously try to arrive in such a way so as not to lose any time, which in this case resulted in slightly overshooting the braking point (sound familiar). The rule is the rule, and the consequence is the one issued regardless of our feeling. (For the record, I think dropping a position is stupid, as this can create an even more dangerous situation. I think a 'drive through' penalty or a added time to the final race time is more appropriate. Sadly, you or I don't make the rules.)
Keshav
I just said regardless of the reason the snafu occurred "mistake/oversight", Marc's propensity for dangerous racecraft surfaced. You chose to repeat it was a "mistake/oversight" (which I explicitly just pointed out). What is the value in your first point here if you are going to ignore the second point I'm making? You even took the time to re-quote what I just said, and in bold no less. Did you miss the point? With all due respect, Again, the point is that regardless of the swap snafu, the man's re-entry was exceedingly dangerous. That is, the obligation to pit and the process successfully executing this task culminating in re-entering the race safely "distilled"--that is extracted for display the kid's propensity to execute race tasks dangerously.
Yes, we generally agree on most race and political viewpoints. I said a few weeks ago here that as events transpire in GP, us spectators line up on either side. It seems on this rare occasion we have lined up on opposite ends. No problem, it happens. But I will take issue with your characterization as a "witch hunt". As I understand, this draws from the connotation that the accused (Marc) has done NOTHING wrong and is unfairly being persecuted. First of all, this characterization is completely wrong. Not only is the accusation warranted for this very race (as he was DQ for failure to comply with an arrangement made to keep riders safe); but in fact Race Direction (even as soft and weak as they are on safety) have officially sanctioned him for PREVIOUS dangerous incidents. Perhaps you see Race Direction's actions as a "witch hunt" as well. I admit, it wouldn't be the first time, as the objections to Simonchelli's race craft as "dangerous" were also deem as a "witch hunt", and now he is dead.
In a nutshell Kesh, I'm annoyed by the glib attitude for safety by us spectators and the League. Marc has had numerous incidents, both penalized and left un-sanctioned (Jerez). Look at the indignation being expressed here for Bridgestone, as if they are the ones who decided to run the race and or to fail to comply with the format of this race (Marc/or his team blew it, period). Dorna could have cancelled the race, then a situation to "distill"--that is extract Marc's propensities would not have again surfaced. Dorna gave the go ahead, and I'll say they did so because they needed to fill that TV spot for which they were making millions. Safety took a back seat. Why then is it such an outrageous conclusion that they would be soft on safety when it comes to their current "exciting" golden boy? Marc is allowed to operate dangerously because frankly, safety is not the primary concern in addition to it being 'great for the show'.
3645251382279581
1. Not sure why you're so fired up about this. Lorenzo was questioned about the incident and didn't seem to think it merited discussion. Marquez it turns out later did not ignore the pitboard - it was an error by the crew - putting MM (who's never done a flag-to-flag in a MGP event) in unenviable position of re-entering the track whilst in the heat of battle mode. You really can't blame him for making a less-than-perfect re-entry. It was clear
to most that he misjudged the line that Lorenzo would take. Lorenzo had taken an especially late apex that MM could not predict. Given the avalanche of last minute rule changes and pit lane behavior changes it's a wonder that this was<u> the only semi dangerous momen</u>t in the race. Even Pedrosa, a veteran at this, said there'd been so many last minute revisions to the rules that he could barely remember what happened during the race. I think you know that I'm impartial in this as I have no crush on MM. I know you "Want it" but remember to "Breathe".
Thanks for taking the time to address each point, I will return the favor. I'm "fired up" because Marc's dangerous re-entry WAS the most dangerous moment of the event (after putting himself and others at risk for blowing past the calculated tire life). Yet this moment will most certainly be under-scrutinized and most of the focus will be on the snafu of blowing the obligation to swap tires at a certain limit. What relevance does the "error by his crew", Mark's inexperience in "flag to flag" races, "last minute rule changes" have to do with the task of re-entrying safely? Please, tell me what is the relevance to the acute task of re-entering! The task of re-enterying the track, regardless of what happened previous is of NO RELEVANCE! He could have pitted for any reason, .... even if the umbrella girl had flashed her .... at Marc as he passed the garage causing a distraction, it matters not, as the task of re-entering the track required him to summon the common sense and practices that professional racers have employed thousands of times. Nothing you have just said has any baring on the task of 're-joining' the track safely! They could have asked all the riders to fill out a word puzzle while pitting, they could have required the riders jump off their bikes and perform a cart wheel, but when it came to re- enter the track, it wasn't something unusual at all! If your suggestion is his mind wasn't in it given the circumstance, then this advances the proposition that he is unfit to perform under a this level.
He ...... up and caused a collision, fact. Lorenzo had the right of way, fact. Why are people attempting to introduce peripheral circumstance when in fact the only tasked he need to concentrate on was the re-entry at the point he was re-joining the hot track? Its a task he's done and other did safely thousands of times. I think he was over-ambition (other incidents have indicated this) and has in fact been officially sanctioned, this again was on full display. The prevailing attitude seems to be, that because it didn't result in a impact beyond a certain arbitrary force, the conclusion is it was not a dangerous moment. You already conceded it was a dangerous moment, yet you haven't made the connection as to just how dangerous it really was because you are arguing it wasn't dangerous enough. It seems its only "dangerous enough" if somebody gets hurt or the riders involve comment on it. Even collisions resulting in riders going off track are not regarded as 'sufficiently' dangerous (Jerez).
Keshav
Reiterated for affect. However, while on the subject, it seems reiterating on my part was warranted given what you are proposing here: So because he accepted the consequence 'like a pro', this reflected positive AFTER he had just blown the obligation 'unlike a pro'?
Keshav
1.He was DQ for not complying with the obligations of this race. Transgression addressed.
2. He re-entered the track unsafely, hastily, and in fact caused a collision. Transgression needs addressing.
Perhaps we should let it ride since he was punished "enough" for transgression number one? I know you are exceptionally intelligent Kesh, but since when are offenses not categorized as individual events? I'll assume your characterization of pitchforks etc as wit. Again, perhaps the only way for people to perceive something dangerous occurred is for a death to result (god knows even incidents were mere crashing and injury resulted have been debated). I'm going to run all the red lights on my way to work tomorrow morning. If I'm stopped by a cop before my death occurs, I will use the logic on the officer as follows: 'what is the big deal, nobody got hurt. Therefore, running the red lights were not actually dangerous.' Funny right? Rejoining the track required the tasked to be done without incident, it IS the sole responsibility of the rider exiting the pit to successfully execute this very basic task.
Keshav
Inquisition? Who is being unfairly deposed? Did you cross up the names above? You probably meant to say it wasn't Pedro's fault for not know MM was DQed. However, Pedrosa was told to drop a position the lap before, and two laps later is when Marc rejoined unsafely (and actually messed up Pedro's line in addition to colliding with Lorenzo. The point I was making is that for the previous lap, Pedro made no noticeable attempt to drop a position. We can call pit regulations "........" all we want, that is irrelevant. Its the obligation set for the riders, and as professionals they are expected to know this. They obviously try to arrive in such a way so as not to lose any time, which in this case resulted in slightly overshooting the braking point (sound familiar). The rule is the rule, and the consequence is the one issued regardless of our feeling. (For the record, I think dropping a position is stupid, as this can create an even more dangerous situation. I think a 'drive through' penalty or a added time to the final race time is more appropriate. Sadly, you or I don't make the rules.)
Keshav
I just said regardless of the reason the snafu occurred "mistake/oversight", Marc's propensity for dangerous racecraft surfaced. You chose to repeat it was a "mistake/oversight" (which I explicitly just pointed out). What is the value in your first point here if you are going to ignore the second point I'm making? You even took the time to re-quote what I just said, and in bold no less. Did you miss the point? With all due respect, Again, the point is that regardless of the swap snafu, the man's re-entry was exceedingly dangerous. That is, the obligation to pit and the process successfully executing this task culminating in re-entering the race safely "distilled"--that is extracted for display the kid's propensity to execute race tasks dangerously.
Yes, we generally agree on most race and political viewpoints. I said a few weeks ago here that as events transpire in GP, us spectators line up on either side. It seems on this rare occasion we have lined up on opposite ends. No problem, it happens. But I will take issue with your characterization as a "witch hunt". As I understand, this draws from the connotation that the accused (Marc) has done NOTHING wrong and is unfairly being persecuted. First of all, this characterization is completely wrong. Not only is the accusation warranted for this very race (as he was DQ for failure to comply with an arrangement made to keep riders safe); but in fact Race Direction (even as soft and weak as they are on safety) have officially sanctioned him for PREVIOUS dangerous incidents. Perhaps you see Race Direction's actions as a "witch hunt" as well. I admit, it wouldn't be the first time, as the objections to Simonchelli's race craft as "dangerous" were also deem as a "witch hunt", and now he is dead.
In a nutshell Kesh, I'm annoyed by the glib attitude for safety by us spectators and the League. Marc has had numerous incidents, both penalized and left un-sanctioned (Jerez). Look at the indignation being expressed here for Bridgestone, as if they are the ones who decided to run the race and or to fail to comply with the format of this race (Marc/or his team blew it, period). Dorna could have cancelled the race, then a situation to "distill"--that is extract Marc's propensities would not have again surfaced. Dorna gave the go ahead, and I'll say they did so because they needed to fill that TV spot for which they were making millions. Safety took a back seat. Why then is it such an outrageous conclusion that they would be soft on safety when it comes to their current "exciting" golden boy? Marc is allowed to operate dangerously because frankly, safety is not the primary concern in addition to it being 'great for the show'.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Rising Sun
Not the first time this has happened (take not 'the-insider') Bridgstone brought an "inadequate" tire to Indy after they re-surfaced the track. This on the heels of the "safety commission" taking issue with the track's multi-tarmac surfaces and 'the layout of the track'. During the race (11' me thinks) racers dropped off the pace in the closing stages, all of them complaining that the tires were problematic. Stoner had been vocal about this "before" the race. Casey Stoner, like Bridgestone, did not have the authority to cancel the race. Sun, I'm basically agreeing with you for the benefit of 'the-insider'. And I'll add, the Capirex /Harada incident of 98' was not only a farce, but nearly identical incidents have been celebrated. Jerez 05', Jerez 13'.
Rising Sun
We are assuming Dorna are interested in safety. I'd say they are interesting in safety as much as multi-national banks are interested in the stewardship of the mid-class depositor. We think it "amateur" but I think its stunningly successful given what I propose are their aims. Just look at the increased interest this supposed "snafu" has generated. The opposite would have occurred had they elected to not risk running the race. If anybody doesn't think it was a risk, take another look at Marc's tires with +1 lap of the obligated limit to pit. They elected to run the race, with the added and unexpected "good fortune" of increasing the drama for the final rounds. By business standards a wild success! Safety be damned. Marc's safety detractors be damn.
Rising Sun
I'll assume you were being sarcastic for the desired affect when you said: "Any why on earth did they not come up with clear instructions on how to rejoin the track?" But just in case for our viewers, I'll say, perhaps Dorna should have given clear instructions about all aspects of racing again, just to keep it fresh in their minds. Perhaps a class on: lining up in the correct grid spot, letting go of the clutch after the lights go out, staying within the margins of the tarmac, not cutting the chicane, a review on all flags starting with the black and yellow ones, a review of elementary physics as it pertains to speed differentials at the end of pit lane, etc.
Rising Sun
Don't forget the Rookie Rule. That also changed rather suddenly. Didn't seem to post a problem for Marc to understand it.
Not the first time this has happened (take not 'the-insider') Bridgstone brought an "inadequate" tire to Indy after they re-surfaced the track. This on the heels of the "safety commission" taking issue with the track's multi-tarmac surfaces and 'the layout of the track'. During the race (11' me thinks) racers dropped off the pace in the closing stages, all of them complaining that the tires were problematic. Stoner had been vocal about this "before" the race. Casey Stoner, like Bridgestone, did not have the authority to cancel the race. Sun, I'm basically agreeing with you for the benefit of 'the-insider'. And I'll add, the Capirex /Harada incident of 98' was not only a farce, but nearly identical incidents have been celebrated. Jerez 05', Jerez 13'.
Rising Sun
We are assuming Dorna are interested in safety. I'd say they are interesting in safety as much as multi-national banks are interested in the stewardship of the mid-class depositor. We think it "amateur" but I think its stunningly successful given what I propose are their aims. Just look at the increased interest this supposed "snafu" has generated. The opposite would have occurred had they elected to not risk running the race. If anybody doesn't think it was a risk, take another look at Marc's tires with +1 lap of the obligated limit to pit. They elected to run the race, with the added and unexpected "good fortune" of increasing the drama for the final rounds. By business standards a wild success! Safety be damned. Marc's safety detractors be damn.
Rising Sun
I'll assume you were being sarcastic for the desired affect when you said: "Any why on earth did they not come up with clear instructions on how to rejoin the track?" But just in case for our viewers, I'll say, perhaps Dorna should have given clear instructions about all aspects of racing again, just to keep it fresh in their minds. Perhaps a class on: lining up in the correct grid spot, letting go of the clutch after the lights go out, staying within the margins of the tarmac, not cutting the chicane, a review on all flags starting with the black and yellow ones, a review of elementary physics as it pertains to speed differentials at the end of pit lane, etc.
Rising Sun
Don't forget the Rookie Rule. That also changed rather suddenly. Didn't seem to post a problem for Marc to understand it.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
elitemafia
<span style="font-size:24px;I picture is worth a thousand words.
Sadly, it hasn't keep me from writing as many.
3645471382283999
This is Marquez tire after pitting a lap late. He should've followed the rules. Can see no pity from me regarding this penalty.
<span style="font-size:24px;I picture is worth a thousand words.
Sadly, it hasn't keep me from writing as many.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
SuperManatee
Not sure if the post was a parody or not. Assuming it was not, I agree with it EXCEPT that Marc is intelligent.
Did people see the camera shot into his garage of Marc's expression after he was DQed? He looked jovial. It gave me the impression that Marc really is just a happy go lucky kid, and perhaps lends credence that he does not intend to hurt anybody. This attitude actually reminds me of Simochelli. The post above also reminds me that Kropo suggested that Simoncelli was a dumb .... It actually increased my endearment for Sic, because in a weird illogical way, it made me feel better about him (and Marc) as people, perceiving them as 'meaning well' or just being 'kids'. Of course this is no excuse for putting people in danger, as lets not forget Marc almost killed a Thai rider. Most peeps here think I hate Marc. I don't, I hate the blatant favoritism show him (though most dismiss it as "conspiracy" Oddly enough, the fact Dorna gave the go ahead on this race indicated all anybody needs to know about their views on rider safety. But lets shelve this for the moment). I don't think Marc is dumb, I just think he is unaware of mortality (as most kids usually are, and Sic was just a big kid in similar vein). The message has also been re-enforced, not only by Race Direction's limited and soft treatment of dangerous events in which Marc has perpetrated but also the message from the spectators at large, where torpedoes like the one at Jerez was celebrated, the collision on Pedro was rationalized blaming Honda design, and now here, failure to comply being blamed on Bridgestone, confusing communication, Dorna as a cluster ...., and his "inexperience" as a rookie in race situations, even as ordinary as leaving the pit lane to a hot track safely. The rationalization, even by the best among us is that he might have been distracted by the odd circumstance. Despite the fact that riders have been required and expected to rejoin a hot track from pit exit without incident the last 50+ years.
Not sure if the post was a parody or not. Assuming it was not, I agree with it EXCEPT that Marc is intelligent.
Did people see the camera shot into his garage of Marc's expression after he was DQed? He looked jovial. It gave me the impression that Marc really is just a happy go lucky kid, and perhaps lends credence that he does not intend to hurt anybody. This attitude actually reminds me of Simochelli. The post above also reminds me that Kropo suggested that Simoncelli was a dumb .... It actually increased my endearment for Sic, because in a weird illogical way, it made me feel better about him (and Marc) as people, perceiving them as 'meaning well' or just being 'kids'. Of course this is no excuse for putting people in danger, as lets not forget Marc almost killed a Thai rider. Most peeps here think I hate Marc. I don't, I hate the blatant favoritism show him (though most dismiss it as "conspiracy" Oddly enough, the fact Dorna gave the go ahead on this race indicated all anybody needs to know about their views on rider safety. But lets shelve this for the moment). I don't think Marc is dumb, I just think he is unaware of mortality (as most kids usually are, and Sic was just a big kid in similar vein). The message has also been re-enforced, not only by Race Direction's limited and soft treatment of dangerous events in which Marc has perpetrated but also the message from the spectators at large, where torpedoes like the one at Jerez was celebrated, the collision on Pedro was rationalized blaming Honda design, and now here, failure to comply being blamed on Bridgestone, confusing communication, Dorna as a cluster ...., and his "inexperience" as a rookie in race situations, even as ordinary as leaving the pit lane to a hot track safely. The rationalization, even by the best among us is that he might have been distracted by the odd circumstance. Despite the fact that riders have been required and expected to rejoin a hot track from pit exit without incident the last 50+ years.
michaelm
Michael,
PI actually hosted the first ever flag to flag race and from memory, there was no lowering or movement of the pit entry/exit control lines at the time (cannot recall from memory though if the race started wet or was interrupted by wet which makes changing the point impossible).
Yes I have marshalled a few times at the Island and will say that for bikes the re-entry point is often debated as it is not in the best position and there have been collisions in the past such as the MM/JL one, but generally in practice.
From memory the pit exit/re-entry road was realigned as the result of a massive car accident caused when a car re-entered the circuit just over the brow of the hill (the old point) and then suffered a mechanical and was collected at extreme high speed. The end result being (rumoured to me that a police investigation recommended it) that the lane was realigned and now we see vehicles entering the circuit at significantly lower speed than is the track and traffic flow.
Michael,
PI actually hosted the first ever flag to flag race and from memory, there was no lowering or movement of the pit entry/exit control lines at the time (cannot recall from memory though if the race started wet or was interrupted by wet which makes changing the point impossible).
Yes I have marshalled a few times at the Island and will say that for bikes the re-entry point is often debated as it is not in the best position and there have been collisions in the past such as the MM/JL one, but generally in practice.
From memory the pit exit/re-entry road was realigned as the result of a massive car accident caused when a car re-entered the circuit just over the brow of the hill (the old point) and then suffered a mechanical and was collected at extreme high speed. The end result being (rumoured to me that a police investigation recommended it) that the lane was realigned and now we see vehicles entering the circuit at significantly lower speed than is the track and traffic flow.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Pigeon
Lorenzo said that the patchy condition for qual at Sepang was just him being a little whining ...... So how unsafe must something be to call off proceedings? You would think patchy areas with moister might be, but according to many it was only tantamount to whining. I know I've repeated this, but Casey called Indy's multi-surface tarmac, and the tires brought out by Bridgestone at the circuit as inadequate. ...., they raced there during a hurricane. Dorna chose to run the race. I actually agree with you, the race could have easily been called off given that the tire was not adequate for a race distance. Well, they decided to shorten the race, and limit the number of laps each tire would be subjected to race loads.
I know you didn't mention this above, but I'll add it myself, since many have made the connection and rationalization in favor of Marc, in affect exonerating him (even if mildly). The decision to run the race with these adjustment, though odd, was thought through in favor of having an event. I'm reminded of Qatar when the race was also adjusted, one of the categories even run a ridiculous few laps due to night time desert track conditions. Not uncommon, even happened in Wsbk, where half point were issued. The Moto2 race was shortened from 25 laps to 13. Now let me ask you guys, what would happened if a rider decided in their mind, no way, I'm not going to run 13 laps, I came here to run 25, and ignored the checkered flag and just kept racing a 14th lap? Would this be any different if a rider mistook the checkered flag and kept racing a 14th lap?
Lorenzo said that the patchy condition for qual at Sepang was just him being a little whining ...... So how unsafe must something be to call off proceedings? You would think patchy areas with moister might be, but according to many it was only tantamount to whining. I know I've repeated this, but Casey called Indy's multi-surface tarmac, and the tires brought out by Bridgestone at the circuit as inadequate. ...., they raced there during a hurricane. Dorna chose to run the race. I actually agree with you, the race could have easily been called off given that the tire was not adequate for a race distance. Well, they decided to shorten the race, and limit the number of laps each tire would be subjected to race loads.
I know you didn't mention this above, but I'll add it myself, since many have made the connection and rationalization in favor of Marc, in affect exonerating him (even if mildly). The decision to run the race with these adjustment, though odd, was thought through in favor of having an event. I'm reminded of Qatar when the race was also adjusted, one of the categories even run a ridiculous few laps due to night time desert track conditions. Not uncommon, even happened in Wsbk, where half point were issued. The Moto2 race was shortened from 25 laps to 13. Now let me ask you guys, what would happened if a rider decided in their mind, no way, I'm not going to run 13 laps, I came here to run 25, and ignored the checkered flag and just kept racing a 14th lap? Would this be any different if a rider mistook the checkered flag and kept racing a 14th lap?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Location
- home
Jumkie
I'm with you on this (I have to be of course, I wouldn't want to be publicly shamed and humiliated and fail to get into the powerslide clique). I neither particularly like nor dislike Marquez. I believe he's doing a lot things he shouldn't be doing as a professional racer, but ultimately, he's a 20 year old kid with the will to win. I do strongly object to the lack of guidance that race direction and the sport at large have provided to him. It seems to me that the there has been some really willful negligence going on in this respect, all for the sake of the spectacle. I believe that the people making the decision in motogp at the moment have demonstrated a shocking amount of disregard for the health and safety of these kids. The parallels between Marquez and Simonchelli are all too clear and I just hope things will not end in the same way.
That said, ultimately, the fans are also to blame. Too many people seem to place more value on fairing bashing than just racing. You'd think that the supposed Marquez fans would not want to kid to sacrificied for the sake of entertainment value he creates for a corporate actor.
I'm with you on this (I have to be of course, I wouldn't want to be publicly shamed and humiliated and fail to get into the powerslide clique). I neither particularly like nor dislike Marquez. I believe he's doing a lot things he shouldn't be doing as a professional racer, but ultimately, he's a 20 year old kid with the will to win. I do strongly object to the lack of guidance that race direction and the sport at large have provided to him. It seems to me that the there has been some really willful negligence going on in this respect, all for the sake of the spectacle. I believe that the people making the decision in motogp at the moment have demonstrated a shocking amount of disregard for the health and safety of these kids. The parallels between Marquez and Simonchelli are all too clear and I just hope things will not end in the same way.
That said, ultimately, the fans are also to blame. Too many people seem to place more value on fairing bashing than just racing. You'd think that the supposed Marquez fans would not want to kid to sacrificied for the sake of entertainment value he creates for a corporate actor.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
the-insider
Why? As you concede, he has a history of dangerous ".... ups". Why should this incident not follow this pattern? Interesting logic, care to explain why this isn't inconsistent? When he torpedoed Lorenzo at Jerez, Marc mentioned the history of that corner, obviously referring to Rossi/Sete 05. In other words, he was conscious of putting his bike there deliberately. He got away with it, and more than that, he was almost universally celebrated for it. I suspect he will get away with this one again too.
Why? As you concede, he has a history of dangerous ".... ups". Why should this incident not follow this pattern? Interesting logic, care to explain why this isn't inconsistent? When he torpedoed Lorenzo at Jerez, Marc mentioned the history of that corner, obviously referring to Rossi/Sete 05. In other words, he was conscious of putting his bike there deliberately. He got away with it, and more than that, he was almost universally celebrated for it. I suspect he will get away with this one again too.
