Motocross Etiquette

Zaugg wrote:

Can you please explain to all of us (once again) why YOU are the foremost authority on all things moto? You know...for the uninitiated. I think...

Can you please explain to all of us (once again) why YOU are the foremost authority on all things moto? You know...for the uninitiated.

I think we need this information before we can consider what you post as credible.

Thanks

Nerd wrote:

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

Racer111 wrote:

That is the largest load of crap I’ve seen today, but the day is young. There is so much shit left out here it’s not even...

That is the largest load of crap I’ve seen today, but the day is young. There is so much shit left out here it’s not even funny.

First of all, in the case of this past weekend, there is no way Craig was going to know that DF was going to completely skip the corner. DF landed off the FL jump and was pointed STRAIGHT at the mechanics area where he then used Craig as a berm. As DF is a vet and a lites champion, I’m guessing Craig thought he would ride as such. And being that DF was about 5-6 bike lengths behind Craig going over the FL jump, he probably didn’t feel the need to take the inside line. He had a big enough gap. No one would predict DF to completely skip the corner and use Craig and the tough blocks as a berm.

THEN, not learning his lesson, he did the EXACT same thing to Jett on the face of a triple. Had he got there a split second sooner, Jett would have been ejected from his bike 20 feet in the air. It was just pure shit riding from DF whose supposed to be a vet and champion. He rode like a desperate out of control rookie.

As far as Etiquette goes, there are a few riders who need classes in it. Light contact I get. Purposely putting riders on the ground or over berms is just completely a dick move. No need for it.

Nerd wrote:

What’s your real name? And can you tell us the last time you raced motocross as a serious endeavor?

Zaugg wrote:

Can you please explain to all of us (once again) why YOU are the foremost authority on all things moto? You know...for the uninitiated. I think...

Can you please explain to all of us (once again) why YOU are the foremost authority on all things moto? You know...for the uninitiated.

I think we need this information before we can consider what you post as credible.

Thanks

Nerd wrote:

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

SEE ARE125 wrote:

Deeeeeee Jaaaaay Khaled!!!!

Zaugg wrote:

I think you mean the Credentials Fallacy. (I'm not trying to win an argument so this doesn't necessarily apply. I'm trying to determine if I want...

I think you mean the Credentials Fallacy. (I'm not trying to win an argument so this doesn't necessarily apply. I'm trying to determine if I want to hear your argument and give it any credence.)

With that said, you still didn't answer the question.

You speak as though you're the authority on the subject and openly refute and reject other expert opinions using memes and clever colloquialisms. A little arrogant considering.

You know what you presented is an opinion and not fact right?

Nerd wrote:

What “other expert opinions” specifically are you referring to?

Zaugg wrote:

Can you please explain to all of us (once again) why YOU are the foremost authority on all things moto? You know...for the uninitiated. I think...

Can you please explain to all of us (once again) why YOU are the foremost authority on all things moto? You know...for the uninitiated.

I think we need this information before we can consider what you post as credible.

Thanks

Nerd wrote:

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

Zaugg wrote:

I think you mean the Credentials Fallacy. (I'm not trying to win an argument so this doesn't necessarily apply. I'm trying to determine if I want...

I think you mean the Credentials Fallacy. (I'm not trying to win an argument so this doesn't necessarily apply. I'm trying to determine if I want to hear your argument and give it any credence.)

With that said, you still didn't answer the question.

You speak as though you're the authority on the subject and openly refute and reject other expert opinions using memes and clever colloquialisms. A little arrogant considering.

You know what you presented is an opinion and not fact right?

Racer111 wrote:

I’ve been racing for 30+ years and always up front unless something out of the ordinary happes. And in no way is that relevant here. Are...

I’ve been racing for 30+ years and always up front unless something out of the ordinary happes. And in no way is that relevant here.

Are you insinuating that it IS cool to take riders down?

Nerd wrote:

Prove it.

Nerd wrote:

For the uninitiated, who seem to be confused, maybe I can help: It seems like we’ve lost track of basic motocross etiquette. People seem to think...

For the uninitiated, who seem to be confused, maybe I can help:

It seems like we’ve lost track of basic motocross etiquette. People seem to think you can leave a door wide open and it’s “not fair” for the (faster) guy behind you to try and go through that door.

Bullshit. It’s their *job* to go through that open door! It’s *your* job not to open it! Don’t leave the door open! And if you do, don’t act surprised when someone goes through that open door!

That’s how moto works! It’s simple, consistent, and historically accurate as well! This is how everybody has always judged cases of motocross etiquette, and that’s what this Ferrandis/Craig incident really is. It’s about etiquette. Who has the right of way? The rider in front! “For how long?” There’s no minimum amount of time someone needs to be in front to have the right of way. Whoever is ahead at the precise moment that a bad thing (collision) happens has the right to be wherever they are on the track *because* they’re ahead of the other person (as long as they are on the track).

Be aware of who’s in front and behind you, and act accordingly! If you do not act accordingly, it’s not up to anybody *else* to change racing etiquette so that the person who left the door open is absolved of all responsibility for their own actions! If you leave the door open when you know a faster racer (or *any* racer) is right on your ass, you fucked up! It’s that simple!

So, whoever’s wheel is behind when the two bikes hit, they’re the one who is at fault for whatever negative consequences result from the collision. Because either they tried to go through a door that wasn’t open enough (often resulting in a T-bone), or they let someone through their open door and then tried to close the door on them after it was too late.

This is how it works and has always worked.

Who is ahead here?

Nerd wrote:

For the uninitiated, who seem to be confused, maybe I can help: It seems like we’ve lost track of basic motocross etiquette. People seem to think...

For the uninitiated, who seem to be confused, maybe I can help:

It seems like we’ve lost track of basic motocross etiquette. People seem to think you can leave a door wide open and it’s “not fair” for the (faster) guy behind you to try and go through that door.

Bullshit. It’s their *job* to go through that open door! It’s *your* job not to open it! Don’t leave the door open! And if you do, don’t act surprised when someone goes through that open door!

That’s how moto works! It’s simple, consistent, and historically accurate as well! This is how everybody has always judged cases of motocross etiquette, and that’s what this Ferrandis/Craig incident really is. It’s about etiquette. Who has the right of way? The rider in front! “For how long?” There’s no minimum amount of time someone needs to be in front to have the right of way. Whoever is ahead at the precise moment that a bad thing (collision) happens has the right to be wherever they are on the track *because* they’re ahead of the other person (as long as they are on the track).

Be aware of who’s in front and behind you, and act accordingly! If you do not act accordingly, it’s not up to anybody *else* to change racing etiquette so that the person who left the door open is absolved of all responsibility for their own actions! If you leave the door open when you know a faster racer (or *any* racer) is right on your ass, you fucked up! It’s that simple!

So, whoever’s wheel is behind when the two bikes hit, they’re the one who is at fault for whatever negative consequences result from the collision. Because either they tried to go through a door that wasn’t open enough (often resulting in a T-bone), or they let someone through their open door and then tried to close the door on them after it was too late.

This is how it works and has always worked.

Who is ahead here?

Regis wrote:

Your still picture doesn’t tell the whole story. It fits the “he is ahead” narrative but it doesn’t tell the true story. It’s out of context...

Your still picture doesn’t tell the whole story. It fits the “he is ahead” narrative but it doesn’t tell the true story. It’s out of context. It doesn’t show speed, timing, common sense or anything else needed to make a judgment call.

Dylan should not be crucified, but he made a dumb mistake, taking himself and Christian to the ground. Oh well. That’s racing. Christian owes him one. Case closed

Nerd wrote:

For the uninitiated, who seem to be confused, maybe I can help: It seems like we’ve lost track of basic motocross etiquette. People seem to think...

For the uninitiated, who seem to be confused, maybe I can help:

It seems like we’ve lost track of basic motocross etiquette. People seem to think you can leave a door wide open and it’s “not fair” for the (faster) guy behind you to try and go through that door.

Bullshit. It’s their *job* to go through that open door! It’s *your* job not to open it! Don’t leave the door open! And if you do, don’t act surprised when someone goes through that open door!

That’s how moto works! It’s simple, consistent, and historically accurate as well! This is how everybody has always judged cases of motocross etiquette, and that’s what this Ferrandis/Craig incident really is. It’s about etiquette. Who has the right of way? The rider in front! “For how long?” There’s no minimum amount of time someone needs to be in front to have the right of way. Whoever is ahead at the precise moment that a bad thing (collision) happens has the right to be wherever they are on the track *because* they’re ahead of the other person (as long as they are on the track).

Be aware of who’s in front and behind you, and act accordingly! If you do not act accordingly, it’s not up to anybody *else* to change racing etiquette so that the person who left the door open is absolved of all responsibility for their own actions! If you leave the door open when you know a faster racer (or *any* racer) is right on your ass, you fucked up! It’s that simple!

So, whoever’s wheel is behind when the two bikes hit, they’re the one who is at fault for whatever negative consequences result from the collision. Because either they tried to go through a door that wasn’t open enough (often resulting in a T-bone), or they let someone through their open door and then tried to close the door on them after it was too late.

This is how it works and has always worked.

Who is ahead here?

Regis wrote:

Your still picture doesn’t tell the whole story. It fits the “he is ahead” narrative but it doesn’t tell the true story. It’s out of context...

Your still picture doesn’t tell the whole story. It fits the “he is ahead” narrative but it doesn’t tell the true story. It’s out of context. It doesn’t show speed, timing, common sense or anything else needed to make a judgment call.

Dylan should not be crucified, but he made a dumb mistake, taking himself and Christian to the ground. Oh well. That’s racing. Christian owes him one. Case closed

Racer111 wrote:

You can’t argue with Nerd. He somehow thinks he’s the authority on SX/MX. And more importantly knows what Craig saw and was thinking in the moment...

You can’t argue with Nerd. He somehow thinks he’s the authority on SX/MX. And more importantly knows what Craig saw and was thinking in the moment. I guess he’s spoken with Craig on the phone and talked with him at length.

I agree with you 100%.

Zaugg wrote:

How about you answer the question(s) and stop deflecting? To answer your question, you have refuted many on this forum of which you know nothing of...

How about you answer the question(s) and stop deflecting?

To answer your question, you have refuted many on this forum of which you know nothing of their background - some of which are experts. A specific example is a reply on the first page where you stated "JT is wrong." Did you not say this? Are you presenting JT as someone other than an expert in the field?

You also present your opinions as fact (which in and of itself is a logical fallacy - please refer to "begging the question".)

Now that I think of it, your whole premise is a logical fallacy. I think we're done here.

Nerd wrote:

I've answered these questions repeatedly already. JT is wrong if he said Ferrandis is at fault and Craig had no way of avoiding that crash. But...

I've answered these questions repeatedly already. JT is wrong if he said Ferrandis is at fault and Craig had no way of avoiding that crash. But I didn't see what he said directly.

People have biases for or against certain racers, countries, etc. It's a real thing. Being a former racer doesn't immune anybody from that.

buzz06 wrote:

Yes Craig left the door open but Tomac took the same exact line as Ferrandis and didn’t clean anyone out. That’s why I said ultimately it...

Yes Craig left the door open but Tomac took the same exact line as Ferrandis and didn’t clean anyone out. That’s why I said ultimately it comes down to ambition outweighing talent. If he wouldn’t have lost the front and crashed into Craig none of these threads would exist.

Nerd wrote:

Because when Tomac did it, Webb checked up, got off the gas, and dived underneath! That’s what Craig should’ve done.

Racer111 wrote:

You can’t argue with Nerd. He somehow thinks he’s the authority on SX/MX. And more importantly knows what Craig saw and was thinking in the moment...

You can’t argue with Nerd. He somehow thinks he’s the authority on SX/MX. And more importantly knows what Craig saw and was thinking in the moment. I guess he’s spoken with Craig on the phone and talked with him at length.

I agree with you 100%.

Nerd wrote:

Nobody has to talk to Craig on the phone. He has eyes and ears and he's a professional racer. If he's lost his eyesight and hearing...

Nobody has to talk to Craig on the phone. He has eyes and ears and he's a professional racer. If he's lost his eyesight and hearing and hasn't told anybody, that could change how this should be viewed.

Racer111 wrote:

You can’t argue with Nerd. He somehow thinks he’s the authority on SX/MX. And more importantly knows what Craig saw and was thinking in the moment...

You can’t argue with Nerd. He somehow thinks he’s the authority on SX/MX. And more importantly knows what Craig saw and was thinking in the moment. I guess he’s spoken with Craig on the phone and talked with him at length.

I agree with you 100%.

Nerd wrote:

Nobody has to talk to Craig on the phone. He has eyes and ears and he's a professional racer. If he's lost his eyesight and hearing...

Nobody has to talk to Craig on the phone. He has eyes and ears and he's a professional racer. If he's lost his eyesight and hearing and hasn't told anybody, that could change how this should be viewed.