This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Valentino Rossi & Marco Simoncelli video

I am not all the way with JPS on this, but at least some of the way.

Whether or not Simoncelli or to a lesser extent Rossi caused injuries to other riders, both (particularly Simoncelli) pushed things on occasion to the point that avoidance of a major accident was entirely outside their control, and dependent on the response of a competitor to save the situation.

You can apply that to a fair few current riders at some point in their career. Lorenzo's first season was littered with huge crashes, luck was on his side as he didn't get seriously injured or hurt anyone else, should he be deemed irresponsible because of those?
Iannone , Crutchlow , Miller, regular crashers and with a shade less luck their accidents could be a different story.
Point being you can't single Simoncelli out as it could have happened to anyone.
 
You can apply that to a fair few current riders at some point in their career. Lorenzo's first season was littered with huge crashes, luck was on his side as he didn't get seriously injured or hurt anyone else, should he be deemed irresponsible because of those?
Iannone , Crutchlow , Miller, regular crashers and with a shade less luck their accidents could be a different story.
Point being you can't single Simoncelli out as it could have happened to anyone.

He was reckless and called for being so by many fellow riders.

I always had the same view about Ayrton Senna in accordance with Alan Proust, and before Proust expressed his view or Senna's demise, which ranks with the incident which killed the Welsh guy in world Supersport for the worst thing I have seen watching motor sport live.

In Senna's case I disagree with JPS, his demise was due to a poorly repaired component breaking and very bad luck in regard to where an axle went at a time when adequate measures to prevent such an occurrence were not in place. I very fortunately did not see the Simoncelli incident live and have managed with quite a deal of effort to avoid seeing a replay of it, but JPS's view ie that he tried to make an impossible save despite putting his bike down on the racing line in a high speed corner in the presence of other riders following closely accords with other accounts I have read.
 
In the races before his untimely demise he was riding well and had podiums, 4th places etc, he had taken the criticism on board and calmed down. He may have ridden beyond his capabilities early season but later on he was finishing races with no incidents and not bring called out for riding recklessly.
I saw the Sepang race live and it could only be described as terrible luck that his bike hooked up and sent him back into the track. Normally it would be like many lowsides , ending up in the gravel.
 
He was reckless and called for being so by many fellow riders.

I always had the same view about Ayrton Senna in accordance with Alan Proust, and before Proust expressed his view or Senna's demise, which ranks with the incident which killed the Welsh guy in world Supersport for the worst thing I have seen watching motor sport live.

In Senna's case I disagree with JPS, his demise was due to a poorly repaired component breaking and very bad luck in regard to where an axle went at a time when adequate measures to prevent such an occurrence were not in place. I very fortunately did not see the Simoncelli incident live and have managed with quite a deal of effort to avoid seeing a replay of it, but JPS's view ie that he tried to make an impossible save despite putting his bike down on the racing line in a high speed corner in the presence of other riders following closely accords with other accounts I have read.

Regarding Senna, there was no steering column failure. It was a bogus and ........ argument the Italian Courts put forth that had no basis in reality. What was known in F1, but no one dared to say it less they ruin the image of Senna and everyone realized he wasn't perfect.

The Williams FW16 was a problematic car from inception. The ban on active suspension hurt Williams more than any other team and they had to relearn how to design and build a car with a normal sprung suspension. That meant the initial design was a handful. It was prone to understeer and oversteer and was not working as well as intended on the aero side. Senna had DNF's in the first two races of the season and went to Imola with 0 points. He responded to the pressure and the ill-handling car the way he normally did going back to his days at Lotus in 1985, he had the car ride height set as low as they could go. He did this as a response to handling issues as a way to try and get around them. The issue with Imola was the run through the Tamburello by that time in 1994 had repaved strips running through the corner on the racing line. The surface was very uneven there that could upset race cars. What unfolded that day was a perfect storm. Senna was desperate to claw into Schumacher's lead in the championship standings, while dealing with a car who's lastest round of chassis upgrades that weekend still hadn't alleviated issues, and dealing with the belief that he was competing against an illegal car in Schumacher's Benetton B194. When the start of the race wasn't red-flagged after the Lamy/Lehto shunt, he cycled for 5 laps behind the safety car, and finally gets the restart on lap 6. He set the 3rd fastest time of the race on a restart lap which still amazes me to this day. On lap 7, he goes off the track into the wall at the Tamburello. What happened was the ride height of the FW16 did him in. He got the surfboard effect that happens when the underside dragged on the ground through the corner due to the uneven pavement. On lap 6 a huge shower of sparks flew out from his car, a sign of the car bottoming out. Right before his car veered off the track, the underside sparked, not as much as it did on lap 6, but enough. Schumacher himself remarked that Senna nearly lost the car on lap 6 but held it, and that the car did not look stable through that corner. Instead of taking the approach Alain Prost would have taken, that being collecting points till the team finally got everything sorted out, he wouldn't have put so much pressure on himself to win at Imola. He made a bad decision with the setup of the Williams based on the nature of Imola at that time. Before the race, he even warned teammate Damon Hill to take a wider line through the Tamburello due to the bumps in the corner. He didn't follow his own advice. Like I said, he didn't deserve to die for it, but he did contribute to his own death.
 
I am not all the way with JPS on this, but at least some of the way.

Whether or not Simoncelli or to a lesser extent Rossi caused injuries to other riders, both (particularly Simoncelli) pushed things on occasion to the point that avoidance of a major accident was entirely outside their control, and dependent on the response of a competitor to save the situation.

Yes, this is my exact point. Simoncelli pushed the envelope too far, far too often.
 
In the races before his untimely demise he was riding well and had podiums, 4th places etc, he had taken the criticism on board and calmed down. He may have ridden beyond his capabilities early season but later on he was finishing races with no incidents and not bring called out for riding recklessly.
I saw the Sepang race live and it could only be described as terrible luck that his bike hooked up and sent him back into the track. Normally it would be like many lowsides , ending up in the gravel.

He tried to ride the lowside out...it was very stupid, but keeping in line with his numerous other stupid moves. What gets lost in the shuffle is that Edwards and Rossi could have been severely injured or even killed themselves in that crash. Riding well the prior bunch of races doesn't matter as considering him cured would have meant going a full season without incident.
 
Regarding Senna, there was no steering column failure. It was a bogus and ........ argument the Italian Courts put forth that had no basis in reality. What was known in F1, but no one dared to say it less they ruin the image of Senna and everyone realized he wasn't perfect.

The Williams FW16 was a problematic car from inception. The ban on active suspension hurt Williams more than any other team and they had to relearn how to design and build a car with a normal sprung suspension. That meant the initial design was a handful. It was prone to understeer and oversteer and was not working as well as intended on the aero side. Senna had DNF's in the first two races of the season and went to Imola with 0 points. He responded to the pressure and the ill-handling car the way he normally did going back to his days at Lotus in 1985, he had the car ride height set as low as they could go. He did this as a response to handling issues as a way to try and get around them. The issue with Imola was the run through the Tamburello by that time in 1994 had repaved strips running through the corner on the racing line. The surface was very uneven there that could upset race cars. What unfolded that day was a perfect storm. Senna was desperate to claw into Schumacher's lead in the championship standings, while dealing with a car who's lastest round of chassis upgrades that weekend still hadn't alleviated issues, and dealing with the belief that he was competing against an illegal car in Schumacher's Benetton B194. When the start of the race wasn't red-flagged after the Lamy/Lehto shunt, he cycled for 5 laps behind the safety car, and finally gets the restart on lap 6. He set the 3rd fastest time of the race on a restart lap which still amazes me to this day. On lap 7, he goes off the track into the wall at the Tamburello. What happened was the ride height of the FW16 did him in. He got the surfboard effect that happens when the underside dragged on the ground through the corner due to the uneven pavement. On lap 6 a huge shower of sparks flew out from his car, a sign of the car bottoming out. Right before his car veered off the track, the underside sparked, not as much as it did on lap 6, but enough. Schumacher himself remarked that Senna nearly lost the car on lap 6 but held it, and that the car did not look stable through that corner. Instead of taking the approach Alain Prost would have taken, that being collecting points till the team finally got everything sorted out, he wouldn't have put so much pressure on himself to win at Imola. He made a bad decision with the setup of the Williams based on the nature of Imola at that time. Before the race, he even warned teammate Damon Hill to take a wider line through the Tamburello due to the bumps in the corner. He didn't follow his own advice. Like I said, he didn't deserve to die for it, but he did contribute to his own death.

OK then, I didn't know all that.

As I said I thought Proust was correct when he made his statement about Senna, and at least some of his overtaking prowess, like Rossi on occasion, was due imo to him being able to give a competitor a choice between being overtaken or crashing, and being able to get away with same even with race direction because of his status.
 
Last edited:
Not true, do you really think someone with no regard for his competitor's would even be allowed on a circuit? In the high risk game of moto GP , things will always happen that depend on luck.

Luck accounts for only a small percentage of a rider's results. Talent, maturity and the ability to learn from mistakes - quickly are clearly the major deciding factors. People don't become world champions by dint of luck alone.

People said Ben Spies had bad luck - but in retrospect - he made a lot of his
own luck by choosing to work with an inexperienced crew and having his mom as his manager.

The worst piece of luck for Simoncelli was growing up to be so large and heavy.
He'd invested his entire youth in the pursuit of a championship in
a sport for which he was physically ill-suited. He was either too immature
or too foolish to ride in a fashion that reflected that limitation. If he couldn't
win by virtue of talent (in a field that included some of the best riders ever)
he would try to win by ignoring the advice of team managers and by barging
into other riders like a spoiled bully grabbing other kid's ice cream cones at
a birthday party.
 
Last edited:
Luck accounts for only a small percentage of a rider's results. Talent, maturity and the ability to learn from mistakes - quickly are clearly the major deciding factors. People don't become world champions by dint of luck alone.

People said Ben Spies had bad luck - but in retrospect - he made a lot of his
own luck by choosing to work with an inexperienced crew and having his mom as his manager.

The worst piece of luck for Simoncelli was growing up to be so large and heavy.
He'd invested his entire youth in the pursuit of a championship in
a sport for which he was physically ill-suited. He was either too immature
or too foolish to ride in a fashion that reflected that limitation. If he couldn't
win by virtue of talent (in a field that included some of the best riders ever)
he would try to win by ignoring the advice of team managers and by barging
into other riders like a spoiled bully grabbing other kid's ice cream cones at
a birthday party.
Luck in one way or another certainly contributed to the destination of the 06 wc , so it does play for very large part.
 
you cant blame sic for not wanting to lowside. mm93 perfected it. you cant blame senna for givving 101%. you can only feel sorry. they wanted to win. they didnt want to crash like cappirex 98 or senna at suzuka 90 or schumi at 94 and 97. unless you believe that since the deaths of these 2 their sports only had fair play no risk moves so thats why they are the last dead in elite class. i believe you want to say ''i told you so'' and ''with the brains these two had it was obvious that this will happen'' and feel good for your wise thinking. try to race first at least in a local level then try to improve then try to stay consistent then try to win and then talk!
 
try to race first at least in a local level then try to improve then try to stay consistent then try to win and then talk!

Bit of a gumby statement when you consider the first two to "pipe-up" and say something in opposition to the gush over simoncelli have in fact done just that.

I have also experienced that it is the ex- racing fraternity who dont join in the gush over simoncelli as the repeated complaints about him tell a lot. One or two complaints and it could be just competitive, but the repeated complaints backed up by incidents pretty much has an ex-racer thinking well there must be some validity to it.
 
For the record all- I created the video because I happened to like both riders regardless of the untrue (and true) negatives of both. Plus creating videos (not motogp related but others in general) is a small hobby of mine- mind you I didn't expect over 47,000 views


Not saying to not carry on the debate about simoncelli (i see both sides) but just wanted to mention above to erase any incorrect assumptions as to why I posted it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
For the record all- I created the video because I happened to like both riders regardless of the untrue (and true) negatives of both. Plus creating videos (not motogp related but others in general) is a small hobby of mine- mind you I didn't expect over 47,000 views


Not saying to not carry on the debate about simoncelli (i see both sides) but just wanted to mention above to erase any incorrect assumptions as to why I posted it
He was fast particularly given his weight, size and equipment disadvantages, and I actually copped considerable flack for taking his side in the incident with Pedrosa, which I thought perhaps in ignorance was at worst 50:50, my view being that with Simoncelli having caught up 3 or 4 seconds and passed him cleanly on the outside of a corner getting his whole bike in front at the top of the ensuing straight,that if Dani was going to re-pass him on that straight using a 30 odd kg weight advantage and full factory Honda engine power he needed to get it done /completed on the straight, and could not expect Simoncelli to give way on the next corner.

He was also exuberant and a natural who loved to race, and seemed fairly devoid of pretense, all admirable traits.

He could be all these things and still reckless though, not that you are denying this.
 
you cant blame sic for not wanting to lowside. mm93 perfected it. you cant blame senna for givving 101%. you can only feel sorry. they wanted to win. they didnt want to crash like cappirex 98 or senna at suzuka 90 or schumi at 94 and 97. unless you believe that since the deaths of these 2 their sports only had fair play no risk moves so thats why they are the last dead in elite class. i believe you want to say ''i told you so'' and ''with the brains these two had it was obvious that this will happen'' and feel good for your wise thinking. try to race first at least in a local level then try to improve then try to stay consistent then try to win and then talk!

I can blame Senna for not understanding the virtue of backing off and sticking to scoring points till Patrick Head and Adrian Newey were able to get the FW16 to where it needed to be. When Williams finally got the car sorted out and came out with their B spec chassis for the FW16, Senna had he been alive and scoring points would have probably have won the '94 title at that point, or at least been in the position Damon Hill found himself in at Adelaide that year. Instead Senna tried to keep an inherently unstable car in P1 when it was obvious the car was not up to the task for a full race distance. Instead he chose the race setup ride height to be as low as he could go with it, and decided to take a line through the Tamburello at 6th gear, 190MPH flat that was prone to upsetting the Williams even further due to the bottoming out.

Also he is no longer the last dead driver in F1, that goes to Jules Bianchi.
 
Luck in one way or another certainly contributed to the destination of the 06 wc , so it does play for very large part.

Pedantic much? Luck plays a part in crossing the street too. But I've never been hit by a car when doing so. But lots of folks who carelessly pay no attention to what's going on around them manage to get hit; some repeatedly. Reckless behavior brings with it a much higher risk of "bad luck". Just common sense.
 
Pedantic much? Luck plays a part in crossing the street too. But I've never been hit by a car when doing so. But lots of folks who carelessly pay no attention to what's going on around them manage to get hit; some repeatedly. Reckless behavior brings with it a much higher risk of "bad luck". Just common sense.

I think you'll find as I have that Daniboy would rather disagree for the sake of disagreeing because he thinks it is somehow an inherently noble position to take by going against the grain so to speak. However, there's little substance to anything he really has to say.

It's almost like reading Donald .....'s Twitter account; he's quick to disagree/take offense at things, but short on meaningful substance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Luck in one way or another certainly contributed to the destination of the 06 wc , so it does play for very large part.

Luck had nothing to do with 2006.

It had everything to do with Valentino Rossi crashing through his own mistake and taking himself out of contention for a finishing position that would have assured himself of a world title. Nicky Hayden did everything he needed to do that day to win the title. Valentino Rossi didn't. That's all there really is to it.
 
my mistake, rip Jules Bianchi. ofcourse its true about ride height but you would be surprised for the number of times a-class drivers took impossible risks with full awareness in races and survive to win them! dont let the outcome be a judge!
 

Recent Discussions