Moto1 Rumors...
pablo
increasingly overlap? If they do - should they have a bake-off at the
end of the season? (Bayliss won the last one :-D)
The Spanish press (yes I follow it once a week, just like the German
press) is full of speculation about what Ippolito really meant when he
basically declared the 800cc decision a failure, and hypothesized
about engine based on production engines....
Julian Bond
Francis Batta has been talking about this as well and suggesting a
merger between WSB and MotoGP. Given the people involved this seems very
unlikely.
I think we might see a dumbing down of WSB in the style of BSB's 2010
privateer Evo championship. Keep the chassis rules more or less the
same, but limit the engines to WSS level tune and with a spec ECU.
There's so much speculation about MotoGP, it's impossible to know what
to think. And every possible route seems to be full of problems.
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/05/ezpeleta_we_will_not_define_wh
at_a_produ.html
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/03/the_1000cc_motogp_proposal_as_
it_stands.html
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/02/fim_president_repeats_support_
for_1000cc.html
I've seen at least one suggestion that Honda is behind the current shake
up to 1000cc, just as they were behind the drop to 800cc. And the
justification is that if they can't win under the current rules, change
them, and then try to outspend the other factories on the change. But
what happens is that Yamaha and Ducati do it better for less and Suzuki
go to the wall. Honda still doesn't win. And the catch is one that they
simply can't accept. That Rossi, Lorenzo and Stoner are simply better at
riding and developing a bike than Pedrosa.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Cut here
Mark N
> pablo
>> increasingly overlap?
>>
>> press) is full of speculation about what Ippolito really meant when he
>> basically declared the 800cc decision a failure, and hypothesized
>> about engine based on production engines....
>
> Francis Batta has been talking about this as well and suggesting a
> merger between WSB and MotoGP. Given the people involved this seems very
> unlikely.
There will be no merger as long as both parties can make a profit, and
to this point there's no indication that either Dorna or Infront have
ever really lost money. And they shouldn't merge in any case, there is
plenty to go around.
> I think we might see a dumbing down of WSB in the style of BSB's 2010
> privateer Evo championship. Keep the chassis rules more or less the
> same, but limit the engines to WSS level tune and with a spec ECU.
I don't see any reason to believe they'd introduce spec ECUs, there
seems to be no call for it, no rationale for it at this point. And I
don't know that they could do it in any case.
> There's so much speculation about MotoGP, it's impossible to know what
> to think. And every possible route seems to be full of problems.
Really the only serious problem seems to be the contracts signed by
Dorna, FGSport and the FIM regarding the rather nebulous notions of
"production" and "prototype". Allowing the use of production-based
motors in MotoGP is pretty much a no-brainer otherwise, as is the return
to 1000cc in general. The 800s suck, they make for shitty racing, and
they give 125/250-bred riders too much of a leg up.
Allowing production-based motors would hardly be making MotoGP
"superbike-like", as long as the rules don't dictate retention of stock
specifications or parts and they run in racing chassis. But it would
make entry easier and cheaper for more competitors, so a good thing. SB
rules continue to evolve more and more toward stock, which broadens the
gap between GP and SB. Putting production-based motors in GP machines
won't make the racing like SB, certainly no more than moving back to
1000cc and maybe eventually limiting electronics in some manner might.
> I've seen at least one suggestion that Honda is behind the current shake
> up to 1000cc, just as they were behind the drop to 800cc. And the
> justification is that if they can't win under the current rules, change
> them, and then try to outspend the other factories on the change. But
> what happens is that Yamaha and Ducati do it better for less and Suzuki
> go to the wall. Honda still doesn't win. And the catch is one that they
> simply can't accept. That Rossi, Lorenzo and Stoner are simply better at
> riding and developing a bike than Pedrosa.
That sounds like a very soft pile of conjecture to me. The move from
800cc to 1000cc must be driven by Dorna and the commercial interests in
GP, as well as the fans and riders. Again, 800s suck, and everyone knows
it. To try to play it off as part of some hidden Honda agenda is just
silly. And to say Honda has been losing in 800 because of the
development skills of opposing riders as opposed to their own is just
stupid, especially when you include in that the contribution of guys
like Lorenzo (who has been in MotoGP only two years and never as a lead
rider) and Stoner (who can't seem to develop a bike capable of being
raced by another rider). You want to blame Honda's problems on the
mistaken midget strategy and building their 800 future around Pedrosa,
or being the last one on board with pneumatic valves and Bridgestone
tires, be my guest. But blame it on their riders' development abilities?
Please.
Anyway, it seems pretty clear from the development of Moto2 and now
MotoGP that the series is finally moving forward, dealing with problems
that they inevitably would be facing - moving beyond two strokes,
dealing with the cost issue and resulting small grids, making the racing
more compelling, setting a path forward for the long-term future. The
only fly in the ointment remains IMS, and the only thing they seem
capable of doing is trying to handicap GP, instead of working on solving
their own problems. Another big raspberry for the Phlegminis...
Ed Light
chassis and thus handle totally differently.
--
Ed Light
Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com
Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
Julian Bond
>Really the only serious problem seems to be the contracts signed by
>Dorna, FGSport and the FIM regarding the rather nebulous notions of
>"production" and "prototype". Allowing the use of production-based
>motors in MotoGP is pretty much a no-brainer otherwise, as is the
>return to 1000cc in general. The 800s suck, they make for shitty
>racing, and they give 125/250-bred riders too much of a leg up.
- I don't think the 800s directly that have resulted in shitty racing. I
think it's the advance of technology, and that 800s have accelerated
that.
- I don't know if a mix of production-based and prototype motors
improves things much if at all. Imagine it adds 10 bikes to the field
all riding round at the back. We've just got 3 groups of bikes instead
of two and the same 4 or 5 way out at the front. Right now everyone is
throwing their hands up and saying "leave it to the manufacturers to
decide what's prototype". So, what? Honda race a V4 but also supply the
guts of a fireblade motor and say "this is not a fireblade motor".
Aprilia race an RSV4 and say "this is not an RSV4" while simultaneously
racing an RSV4 in WSB. How the hell does all that work? And with the
exception of the Aprilia are any of the current superbike motors
suitable for MotoGP racing? They're all too big in all the major
dimensions, especially width, given how MotoGP designs have shrunk in
the last few years.
>But it would make entry easier and cheaper for more competitors
On the surface a good thing. Except that they'd all be running at the
back with the slowest getting lapped.
>>That Rossi, Lorenzo and Stoner are simply better at riding and
>>developing a bike than Pedrosa.
>And to say Honda has been losing in 800 because of the development
>skills of opposing riders as opposed to their own is just stupid,
>especially when you include in that the contribution of guys like
>Lorenzo (who has been in MotoGP only two years and never as a lead
>rider) and Stoner (who can't seem to develop a bike capable of being
>raced by another rider). You want to blame Honda's problems on the
>mistaken midget strategy and building their 800 future around Pedrosa,
>or being the last one on board with pneumatic valves and Bridgestone
>tires, be my guest. But blame it on their riders' development
>abilities? Please.
I don't think Pedrosa is the equal of the other 3 aliens and it's not
just the bike. He can be extremely fast, occasionally, but in all the
years we've watched him, he still can't race. Honda have been going all
over the place technically for the last couple of years and Pedrosa-Puig
have to take some of the blame for that. The Ducati may only work for
Stoner, but it certainly does work for him. Who knows how much input
Lorenzo gets to make into the basic design, if any. But there's no
denying that he can ride it and that him and his team can set it up. And
then Rossi-Burgess is Rossi-Burgess. In each case the total package is
just plain better at what they do than Honda-Puig-Pedrosa. And now
Pedrosa has got it in his head that it's not his fault, it's Honda's.
And Honda are saying in public "sorry guys, we didn't do our job". Isn't
there a possibility that actually it should be Honda-Puig-Pedrosa saying
that?
>Anyway, it seems pretty clear from the development of Moto2 and now
>MotoGP that the series is finally moving forward, dealing with problems
>that they inevitably would be facing - moving beyond two strokes,
>dealing with the cost issue and resulting small grids, making the
>racing more compelling, setting a path forward for the long-term
>future. The only fly in the ointment remains IMS, and the only thing
>they seem capable of doing is trying to handicap GP, instead of working
>on solving their own problems. Another big raspberry for the Phlegminis...
Shame about the very last word; MarkN does it again. Another way of
looking at the MotoGP circus of organisations is that they're thrashing
around trying to find something, anything that will solve the problems
and that everyone can sign up to. But actually all they're doing is
confusing the picture and all the changes they're bringing in have
unintended consequences that actually make things worse. I have this
nasty feeling that next year we'll be watching the smallest grid ever,
one satellite team go to the wall, most of the grid sitting out most of
what remains of free practice. And at least one high-profile engine
blow-up by a championship contender. Oh, and either Capirossi starting
from the back of the grid or running an engine that's so tired that a
GSXR600 could beat it.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Final Beta
Mark N
> Mark N
>> Dorna, FGSport and the FIM regarding the rather nebulous notions of
>> "production" and "prototype". Allowing the use of production-based
>> motors in MotoGP is pretty much a no-brainer otherwise, as is the
>> return to 1000cc in general. The 800s suck, they make for shitty
>> racing, and they give 125/250-bred riders too much of a leg up.
>
> - I don't think the 800s directly that have resulted in shitty racing. I
> think it's the advance of technology, and that 800s have accelerated that.
That's partially true, but the general consensus now is that 800s are
more dependent on the electronic rider aids than what 1000s would be,
and that cuts down on the options riders have in terms of how they go
about the racing. Switching to 1000s would at least test that theory,
and if they do it correctly it would leave further options to deal with
the problem if the racing remains uncompelling.
> - I don't know if a mix of production-based and prototype motors
> improves things much if at all. Imagine it adds 10 bikes to the field
> all riding round at the back. We've just got 3 groups of bikes instead
> of two and the same 4 or 5 way out at the front.
Your assumption there is that the bikes don't have anything to do with
why there are four guys out front in every race, or maybe that they do
but that won't change. I think the bikes do have a lot to do with that,
and that moving back to 1000s will make more riders more competitive -
as long as the 800s haven't squeezed everyone who didn't come up through
125 and 250 out of the series by then, that is. Again, here are the
average margins from 1st to 5th over the last four seasons:
2006 - 13.16 seconds
2007 - 21.22 seconds
2008 - 23.17 seconds
2009 - 25.75 seconds
That's pretty compelling evidence that there is an 800 problem in
MotoGP. Maybe the problem is rider weight, maybe it's bikes that demand
to be ridden in a very particular way, the high corner speed 125/250
manner, who knows, but the problem is there. No, adding a handful of
bikes with production-based motors at the back of the pack won't do
anything about that problem, but it may well start GP down the road to
something that does, that changes the nature of the machines in a
positive way.
> Right now everyone is
> throwing their hands up and saying "leave it to the manufacturers to
> decide what's prototype". So, what? Honda race a V4 but also supply the
> guts of a fireblade motor and say "this is not a fireblade motor".
> Aprilia race an RSV4 and say "this is not an RSV4" while simultaneously
> racing an RSV4 in WSB. How the hell does all that work? And with the
> exception of the Aprilia are any of the current superbike motors
> suitable for MotoGP racing? They're all too big in all the major
> dimensions, especially width, given how MotoGP designs have shrunk in
> the last few years.
It's only a problem if bikes have to be ridden leaned waaaay over, in
the manner of a 250 or an 800. But it's less of a problem if they don't
have to be, and more displacement at least provides an option. And the
rules can be ridden without any comment at all about "prototype" and
"production-based" regarding motors, they can just describe a spec, a
series of limitations on number of cylinders, length of stroke, etc.
What anyone uses to get there is up to them. Ultimately MotoGP may end
up actually requiring production-based motors, like the old F1/endurance
rules, and I don't know that there is anything wrong with that.
>> But it would make entry easier and cheaper for more competitors
>
> On the surface a good thing. Except that they'd all be running at the
> back with the slowest getting lapped.
Anything you add to the grid is basically destined for the back, right?
Someone's got to be back there, and if you add something that's
instantly at the front, then everyone quickly switches over to that and
you're back where you started.
>> And to say Honda has been losing in 800 because of the development
>> skills of opposing riders as opposed to their own is just stupid,
>> especially when you include in that the contribution of guys like
>> Lorenzo (who has been in MotoGP only two years and never as a lead
>> rider) and Stoner (who can't seem to develop a bike capable of being
>> raced by another rider). You want to blame Honda's problems on the
>> mistaken midget strategy and building their 800 future around Pedrosa,
>> or being the last one on board with pneumatic valves and Bridgestone
>> tires, be my guest. But blame it on their riders' development
>> abilities? Please.
>
> I don't think Pedrosa is the equal of the other 3 aliens and it's not
> just the bike. He can be extremely fast, occasionally, but in all the
> years we've watched him, he still can't race. Honda have been going all
> over the place technically for the last couple of years and Pedrosa-Puig
> have to take some of the blame for that. The Ducati may only work for
> Stoner, but it certainly does work for him. Who knows how much input
> Lorenzo gets to make into the basic design, if any. But there's no
> denying that he can ride it and that him and his team can set it up. And
> then Rossi-Burgess is Rossi-Burgess. In each case the total package is
> just plain better at what they do than Honda-Puig-Pedrosa. And now
> Pedrosa has got it in his head that it's not his fault, it's Honda's.
> And Honda are saying in public "sorry guys, we didn't do our job". Isn't
> there a possibility that actually it should be Honda-Puig-Pedrosa saying
> that?
I think they're all to blame, yes. I've been saying from the beginning
that the midget strategy as Honda was executing it was a mistake, it's
good in theory (given that GP would NEVER balance package weight) but
the execution is flawed, probably starting with the guy they selected to
lead them. But I don't know that they've ever gotten to the point with
their bike to fully determine that, I don't think anyone was going to
win championships on those bikes - the initial 800 was fatally flawed in
terms of design, it didn't make enough revs so not enough power, they
were behind on their inhouse electronics, it had the wrong tires for two
years, etc. So the first year one could blame Pedrosa for anything was
this year, and I don't know if that would be legitimate or not. What is
true is that Dani is the least successful HRC lead rider to last this
long in that position, and that suggests something - HRC sees the
problem as in their court, the politics have prohibited the usual
disposing of the failed rider, there are no good alternatives, there is
a leadership gap at HRC, something.
>> Anyway, it seems pretty clear from the development of Moto2 and now
>> MotoGP that the series is finally moving forward, dealing with
>> problems that they inevitably would be facing - moving beyond two
>> strokes, dealing with the cost issue and resulting small grids, making
>> the racing more compelling, setting a path forward for the long-term
>> future. The only fly in the ointment remains IMS, and the only thing
>> they seem capable of doing is trying to handicap GP, instead of
>> working on solving their own problems. Another big raspberry for the
>> Phlegminis...
>
> Shame about the very last word; MarkN does it again.
So what do you think about what Infront threatens / is expected to do
here? I can understand that they'd want to defend their turf, but is it
for the good of racing overall, for race fans? Pull the front end off a
superike and look for production parts - wheels, brakes, fork, all
"protoype" by any definition. So what are the Flamminis contributing
here? They are not elevating their series, they're just trying to
cripple the other one.
> Another way of
> looking at the MotoGP circus of organisations is that they're thrashing
> around trying to find something, anything that will solve the problems
> and that everyone can sign up to. But actually all they're doing is
> confusing the picture and all the changes they're bringing in have
> unintended consequences that actually make things worse. I have this
> nasty feeling that next year we'll be watching the smallest grid ever,
> one satellite team go to the wall, most of the grid sitting out most of
> what remains of free practice. And at least one high-profile engine
> blow-up by a championship contender. Oh, and either Capirossi starting
> from the back of the grid or running an engine that's so tired that a
> GSXR600 could beat it.
And all because they are imposing limited changes right away, other than
those already imposed related to the need to limit costs. Are those
great ones? No, but some, like increasing the life of the motors, are
probably necessary ones. Bigger changes simply have to wait.
So what is your solution? You don't seem to think they should get rid of
the 800s that got us to this point, and you don't seem to think they
should allow in production-based motors. They have to increase grid
size, they have to limit costs in some manner, and they have to keep the
factories happy enough to keep spending millions and millions on racing,
at least in the shorter run. 2007 showed you can't change too much too
quickly without unintended negative consequences, so you probably have
to move slowly toward long-range solutions if there are very serious
problems present today. I think they're actually doing a pretty good job
dealing with there issues, even though I don't agree with all of it -
I'd start with increasing the fuel allotment and imposing a rev cap, for
instance. But there's no absolute dictator, no one can simply impose
changes, so they have to come to some sort of consensus, and democracy
is a dirty business.
Again, what is your solution?
sturd
> > - I don't think the 800s directly that have resulted in shitty racing. I
> > think it's the advance of technology, and that 800s have accelerated that.
>
> That's partially true, but the general consensus now is that 800s are
> more dependent on the electronic rider aids than what 1000s would be,
> and that cuts down on the options riders have in terms of how they go
> about the racing.
The electronics are certainly a huge part of the machine side of the
problem.
> Again, here are the
> average margins from 1st to 5th over the last four seasons:
>
> 2006 - 13.16 seconds
> 2007 - 21.22 seconds
> 2008 - 23.17 seconds
> 2009 - 25.75 seconds
>
> That's pretty compelling evidence that there is an 800 problem in
> MotoGP. Maybe the problem is rider weight,
The biggest guy (Rossi) won a large percentage of those races.
That ain't it.
> maybe it's bikes that demand
> to be ridden in a very particular way,
And a bunch of the riders haven't figured that out yet. Only
the aliens.
> It's only a problem if bikes have to be ridden leaned waaaay over, in
> the manner of a 250 or an 800.
That's as much a tire capability "problem" as anything to do with
the bike motor size. Racers will use all of the tire that they can,
no matter what the bike. Going from 990 to 800 didn't increase
the lean angle, it may have increased the time spent at max
lean.
> So what is your solution?
> I'd start with increasing the fuel allotment and imposing a rev cap, for
> instance.
Increasing the fuel allotment??? That goes counter to imposing a rev
cap as one allows more power, the other doesn't. The engine limit
rule
will have the same sort of effect but with teams allowed to decide
how to extend life (by extension lower power). Perhaps by limiting
revs, more likely by developing new parts in the longer term.
> Again, what is your solution?
A possibility is to remove the sensors. Wheel speed sensors
are easy to detect. Ditto tire temp. GPS could be jammed
with a little box the size of a butt cam. Lean angle might be
tough, you can hide that in the potted electronics.
There are probably tricks to figure out loss of traction from
rpm and such but at least everybody would be starting from
scratch.
In any case, I'd bet on the result being the same four
guys/teams figuring it out first and driving off into the distance.
Maybe Spies will be the fifth guy.
Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.
Julian Bond
>That's partially true, but the general consensus now is that 800s are
>more dependent on the electronic rider aids than what 1000s would be,
>and that cuts down on the options riders have in terms of how they go
>about the racing. Switching to 1000s would at least test that theory,
>and if they do it correctly it would leave further options to deal with
>the problem if the racing remains uncompelling.
Except it won't because the new electronic tech won't go away. A 2011
1000cc will be a 2010 800cc just with a bigger bore and stroke. Tyres,
electronics, suspension, brakes all stay the same and they've all come a
long way since 2006. It's not obvious to me that things like mid corner
speed will change at all. Even WSB with slightly lower electronics are
way ahead of where they were in 2005 and ridden much more like MotoGP
bikes now than they were then.
>Anything you add to the grid is basically destined for the back, right?
>Someone's got to be back there, and if you add something that's
>instantly at the front, then everyone quickly switches over to that and
>you're back where you started.
Exactly, and that's the catch. It's still going to be extremely
expensive to compete, the money has to come from somewhere. And how do
you get a rich sponsor if the best you can manage is 16th?
>So what do you think about what Infront threatens / is expected to do
>here? I can understand that they'd want to defend their turf, but is it
>for the good of racing overall, for race fans? Pull the front end off a
>superike and look for production parts - wheels, brakes, fork, all
>"protoype" by any definition. So what are the Flamminis contributing
>here? They are not elevating their series, they're just trying to
>cripple the other one.
It's called business. And I can't see that the Flamminis are doing a bad
job of it. They're protecting their turf. What do you expect them to do?
>So what is your solution?
I'm not going to offer one because I think it may be impossible. I'm
happy to argue about why all the proposals won't work. But that makes me
even more hesitant to say what should be done.
One option that I haven't seen suggested is something like the WSB
transition period. 800cc free prototype engines, 1000cc engines (from
any source, including production) with no air valves or desmo. Take that
Ducati! The aim being to force down rev limits via bore, stroke, piston
speed and valve speed. In other words use an artificial restriction to
get some equivalence between 800 and 1000; between pure prototypes and
some lower spec that can be supported long term.
On the whole production thing, somebody is going to have to formally
recognise that what WCM did should have been allowed. And it should have
been allowed even if they kept production cases and heads. I don't think
anyone should be forced to do this. But I don't think it should be
illegal either.
>You don't seem to think they should get rid of the 800s that got us to
>this point, and you don't seem to think they should allow in
>production-based motors.
I haven't fallen one way or the other so don't put words in my mouth.
Like I said before it's extremely hard to keep everyone happy. But
restricting practice and testing and restricting numbers of engines
looks like a potential disaster. And changing the rules every couple of
years just forces everyone into pointless expense.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Continues After News
Julian Bond
>A possibility is to remove the sensors. Wheel speed sensors
>are easy to detect. Ditto tire temp. GPS could be jammed
>with a little box the size of a butt cam. Lean angle might be
>tough, you can hide that in the potted electronics.
>
>There are probably tricks to figure out loss of traction from
>rpm and such but at least everybody would be starting from
>scratch.
I don't see how the electronics can be partially limited without a spec
ECU. It just encourages creative workarounds. Anyway, electonics are the
future (see the BMW 4) so why limit them?
What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
- Overall cost of a season's racing
- Grid size
Next?
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Continues After News
sturd
> I don't see how the electronics can be partially limited without a spec
> ECU.
That's what I was getting at - eliminating the sensors limits
the electronics without a spec ECU which seems
unworkable to me.
>It just encourages creative workarounds.
Indeed. Racers will still be racers.
Limiting the electronics, while a temporary thing as the teams
figure out the workarounds, will make the racing more
exciting, maybe, by getting away from the procession
where each rider gets to his time and rides there the whole
race. Maybe.
Maybe.
> What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
> - Overall cost of a season's racing
Motor life rule will help that, not sure why you think it will
be a disaster. Sure it might hurt some teams but the best
teams will figure it out and go racing. Same as most any
other rule.
A big cost is the cost of team travel. Maybe you could
somehow limit the number of people per team, their hotel
and restaurant bills. Don't ask me how.
> - Grid size
I don't much care to have more backmarkers.
You didn't say
> - Dull, processional racing
Give them all lances.
Julian Bond
>> What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
>> - Overall cost of a season's racing
>
>Motor life rule will help that, not sure why you think it will
>be a disaster. Sure it might hurt some teams but the best
>teams will figure it out and go racing. Same as most any
>other rule.
We've already seen Capirossi start from the back of the grid. And then
both Suzukis go backwards as their last engines were so "tired". People
will start sitting out the free practice sessions to avoid putting miles
on the engines. One of the aliens (or near aliens) is going to have a
high profile engine blow up. Remember Hayden in Philip Island? What
happens when Rossi's engine blows up? What happens when one of the
rookies has 3 engine used up and 3 lunched by going through the gravel
trap?
>A big cost is the cost of team travel. Maybe you could
>somehow limit the number of people per team, their hotel
>and restaurant bills. Don't ask me how.
Well you could certainly organise the schedule to be more sensible and
stop switching continents on successive weekends.
>> - Grid size
>
>I don't much care to have more backmarkers.
Tricky that. Hidden away in the argument is not 25 on the grid, but
rather 10 within 15 seconds of the leader. Or perhaps a privateers cup
so there's a reason to try and follow the fight for 11th.
>You didn't say
>> - Dull, processional racing
>
>Give them all lances.
Lances? Surely a mace would be better.
sturd
> We've already seen Capirossi start from the back of the grid. And then
> both Suzukis go backwards as their last engines were so "tired".
Both added some entertainment value. What if Rossi has to start
from the back with a new motor? I bet that would make for some
pyrotechnics.
>People
> will start sitting out the free practice sessions to avoid putting miles
> on the engines.
Yes, I suppose that will happen and I won't like it either.
>One of the aliens (or near aliens) is going to have a
> high profile engine blow up.
More good stuff. This is a technology game too. If the
team can't figure out how to keep that from happening, they
are going to blow up, yep. Or have a dog slow used up motor.
Betcha they're running durability tests as we type.
>What
> happens when Rossi's engine blows up? What happens when one of the
> rookies has 3 engine used up and 3 lunched by going through the gravel
> trap?
What if they require air filters with a specific pressure drop?
Easy to check, keeps the kitty litter out, and lowers max
HP all at once.
> Well you could certainly organise the schedule to be more sensible and
> stop switching continents on successive weekends.
There you go.
> >Give them all lances.
>
> Lances? Surely a mace would be better.
Don't call me Shirley.
Julian Bond
>> >Give them all lances.
>>
>> Lances? Surely a mace would be better.
>
>Don't call me Shirley.
And my name's not Lance.
Mark N
> Mark N responds to Julian,
> > average margins from 1st to 5th over the last four seasons:
>
> > 2006 - 13.16 seconds
> > 2007 - 21.22 seconds
> > 2008 - 23.17 seconds
> > 2009 - 25.75 seconds
>
> > That's pretty compelling evidence that there is an 800 problem in
> > MotoGP. Maybe the problem is rider weight,
>
> The biggest guy (Rossi) won a large percentage of those races.
> That ain't it.
Isn't it? Look at the numbers - in the 07-09 800 era Rossi has won 36%
of the races; in the 02-06 990 era he won 55% of the races. In his
last two championship years in 800 he's won 43% of the races; in his
previous 5 championship seasons he won 64% of the races. There's no
question that there has been a drop in his success/dominance in 800
compared to what it was previous to that. And every other rider who
has won a race in 800 is notably smaller than Rossi, other than
Vermeulen's one wet win in '07. But the other guys winning in 500/990
weren't even close to being so uniformly smaller than him, some were
even larger. I don't think you can be nearly so dismissive of the size
issue, it pretty clearly plays some role, how much is the only serious
question.
> > maybe it's bikes that demand
> > to be ridden in a very particular way,
>
> And a bunch of the riders haven't figured that out yet. Only
> the aliens.
Oh, bullshit. The so-called aliens win all of the races for a number
of reasons - they all come from 125/250 (who was the last rider not
from 125/250 to win a dry race? Bayliss, in the last 990 race) which
breeds the riding style that works on the 800s (in part because 800s
have been developed by and for riders from 125/250), with the
exception of Rossi (the GOAT, let's recall) they are all very small
(probably smaller than any truly successful premier class rider
previously), and of course they have the factory seats at the top
factories. Even if you put all these guys in the seats they have now
on the last 990 machines from 3 years ago they still win pretty much
all the races, the differences would be that Rossi wins more often,
and parts of the rest of the field are much closer. But you put them
on those machines in 2003 and maybe it's not quite like that, because
contemporary electronics and tires are a big part of the reason these
little weaklings can run at the front, there were material changes
from '03 to '06.
The big issue with the aliens is that they are running at such a big
margin over everyone else, they are running at a second a lap faster
than anyone else or close to that. Based on everything I've seen over
the years I simply don't think at that level a group of guys have the
superior talent to do that, especially on spec tires, the differences
in ability simply aren't that great. So that brings it back to
equipment (including the team's ability to set it up optimally) or
size or a very particular set of riding skills, there basically has to
be something beyond skill that makes them this dominant.
> > It's only a problem if bikes have to be ridden leaned waaaay over, in
> > the manner of a 250 or an 800.
>
> That's as much a tire capability "problem" as anything to do with
> the bike motor size. Racers will use all of the tire that they can,
> no matter what the bike. Going from 990 to 800 didn't increase
> the lean angle, it may have increased the time spent at max
> lean.
It definitely is a tire issue, but the capabilities of the machines
factor in as well. If the grip is sufficent and the electronic rider
aids advanced enough that they can run through corners in a classic
manner at sufficently high speed and without crashing, that's one
thing. But if that's the only option because the braking zone is so
compressed and the acceleration out of the corner is so limited and
easy to optimize, then there is another issue involved, and that's
coming from the machine. That's what the riders were saying as soon as
they got on these things and continue to say today, the machines
basically only give you one choice, ride it like a 250, maximize
corner speed, and good luck with passing anyone.
> > So what is your solution?
> > I'd start with increasing the fuel allotment and imposing a rev cap, for
> > instance.
>
> Increasing the fuel allotment??? That goes counter to imposing a rev
> cap as one allows more power, the other doesn't. The engine limit
> rule
> will have the same sort of effect but with teams allowed to decide
> how to extend life (by extension lower power). Perhaps by limiting
> revs, more likely by developing new parts in the longer term.
Increasing the fuel allotment counters the impact and cost of
electronics used to manage fuel use, and the rev cap counters the cost
of developing and maintaining high-rev motors, as well as possibly
limiting top speed some. For the most part these are cost-cutting
measures, but also might make the racing more interesting and closer
as well.
> > Again, what is your solution?
>
> A possibility is to remove the sensors. Wheel speed sensors
> are easy to detect. Ditto tire temp. GPS could be jammed
> with a little box the size of a butt cam. Lean angle might be
> tough, you can hide that in the potted electronics.
>
> There are probably tricks to figure out loss of traction from
> rpm and such but at least everybody would be starting from
> scratch.
I think the only effective way to limit the electronics is spec/
control electronics, starting a cat-and-mouse game over legalities is
not the way to go. Given that the factories seem reluctant to accept
that, I think they have to try to improve things without getting into
this, but doing what they do in a manner that might allow the
imposition of a control ECU more readily down the road. For instance,
requiring four cylinder machines with a particulat stroke limitation
might help.
> In any case, I'd bet on the result being the same four
> guys/teams figuring it out first and driving off into the distance.
> Maybe Spies will be the fifth guy.
And I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking racing at this
level is in accordance with Burgess' famous "80% rider, 20% bike"
statement. That requires you (and others) to credit the aliens too
much, you have no choice in the matter. Just as a few years ago you
were claiming the optimal size for a MotoGP rider was about 160
pounds, sort of a historical norm, because you wouldn't acknowledge
that small size had become an advantage. And yet the average weight of
the grid has gotten to something close to 25 pounds lighter than that.
So now we have the aliens applying superior racing intellegence,
"figuring it out", and one wonders what corner that will paint you
into eventually...
Mark N
> sturd
> >Don't call me Shirley.
>
> And my name's not Lance.
Like a pair of boils, surely both of you should be lanced...
sturd
>I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking racing at this
> level is in accordance with Burgess' famous "80% rider, 20% bike"
> statement. That requires you (and others) to credit the aliens too
> much, you have no choice in the matter.
We could just agree with you since you know better than Burgess.
That would make it better.
> one wonders what corner that will paint you
> into eventually...
Yea, right.
Mark N
> Mark N
>> more dependent on the electronic rider aids than what 1000s would be,
>> and that cuts down on the options riders have in terms of how they go
>> about the racing. Switching to 1000s would at least test that theory,
>> and if they do it correctly it would leave further options to deal
>> with the problem if the racing remains uncompelling.
>
> Except it won't because the new electronic tech won't go away. A 2011
> 1000cc will be a 2010 800cc just with a bigger bore and stroke. Tyres,
> electronics, suspension, brakes all stay the same and they've all come a
> long way since 2006. It's not obvious to me that things like mid corner
> speed will change at all. Even WSB with slightly lower electronics are
> way ahead of where they were in 2005 and ridden much more like MotoGP
> bikes now than they were then.
And I guess one could have said, back in late 2005, "Except it won't
because the new electronic tech won't go away. A 2007 800cc will be a
2006 990cc just with a smaller bore and stroke. Tyres, electronics,
suspension, brakes all stay the same and they've all come a long way
since 2002. It's not obvious to me that things like mid corner speed
will change at all." Except that turned out to be wrong, the racing
threw a few curves at everyone in '07. The new 1000s won't be a return
of the 990s of the past, but I think they will be different than the
800s, and the racing will be different. And better.
>> Anything you add to the grid is basically destined for the back,
>> right? Someone's got to be back there, and if you add something that's
>> instantly at the front, then everyone quickly switches over to that
>> and you're back where you started.
>
> Exactly, and that's the catch. It's still going to be extremely
> expensive to compete, the money has to come from somewhere. And how do
> you get a rich sponsor if the best you can manage is 16th?
How rich does the sponsor have to be? The teams share basic income
sourced from the series, that's part of the deal for the franchised
teams. Then you add some fairly basic sponsorship, you're probably
paying a rider very little if anything, and would that be enough to
cover a team running a fairly inexpensive production-based motor in an
aftermarket chassis? It's basically the same as racing anywhere at the
back end of the field, you do what you can on a shoestring, you try to
survive, and hope for better days ahead.
>> So what do you think about what Infront threatens / is expected to do
>> here? I can understand that they'd want to defend their turf, but is
>> it for the good of racing overall, for race fans? Pull the front end
>> off a superike and look for production parts - wheels, brakes, fork,
>> all "protoype" by any definition. So what are the Flamminis
>> contributing here? They are not elevating their series, they're just
>> trying to cripple the other one.
>
> It's called business. And I can't see that the Flamminis are doing a bad
> job of it. They're protecting their turf. What do you expect them to do?
Oh, I expect they'll try to protect their turf, even though it's not
really their turf. The real question is, is WSB threatened in any way by
GP running motors with a production source? I don't see how they are,
why anyone wouldn't watch WSB or go to their races because of that. It
seems to me that the Flamminis would loose the lawyers only to damage
the "opposition", to make it less appealing to fans, to give them fewer
good choices. And that is a very cynical way to conduct business.
>> So what is your solution?
>
> I'm not going to offer one because I think it may be impossible. I'm
> happy to argue about why all the proposals won't work. But that makes me
> even more hesitant to say what should be done.
Well, that's one way to go, I guess...
> One option that I haven't seen suggested is something like the WSB
> transition period. 800cc free prototype engines, 1000cc engines (from
> any source, including production) with no air valves or desmo. Take that
> Ducati! The aim being to force down rev limits via bore, stroke, piston
> speed and valve speed. In other words use an artificial restriction to
> get some equivalence between 800 and 1000; between pure prototypes and
> some lower spec that can be supported long term.
There has been talk about introducing the proddy 1000s in 2011, maybe in
the Noyes articles at SPEED. While I would welcome 1000s as early as
they can get them in, I do think doing transitional balancing
complicates things, sometimes ends up distorting the remaining class
after the one on the way out is gone. Unlike with the change to MotoGP
990s, the intent of the new class, if based on production motors, would
be to make sure they weren't fast enough, make sure they didn't mess
with the factory 800s. That means they couldn't be fast enough to get by
the 800s on the straights and then to some extent park it in the corners
and get in the 800s' way. So what happens when the 800s leave and they
bring in the prototype 1000s? Do the proddies get blown away, or do they
change the rules again?
>> You don't seem to think they should get rid of the 800s that got us to
>> this point, and you don't seem to think they should allow in
>> production-based motors.
>
> I haven't fallen one way or the other so don't put words in my mouth.
> Like I said before it's extremely hard to keep everyone happy. But
> restricting practice and testing and restricting numbers of engines
> looks like a potential disaster. And changing the rules every couple of
> years just forces everyone into pointless expense.
You don't stick with something that sucks just to show commitment. And I
don't buy into the gloom-and-doom angle on limited motors, there weren't
huge problems at the end of this season, when I really expected we'd see
them, and the factories have all winter to work on their stuff. There
really is no reason that they can't build motors to last the necessary
miles, and I think they will. I don't think we'll see guys sitting out
practice in order to avoid putting miles on them, the only way that
makes sense is if the factories determine that some small amount of
additional horsepower is worth losing setup time, and I can't really see
the math working out that way. What we won't see is in-season
development of the motors, because they can't be introduced anyway, and
that's something of a bummer, although it should reduce costs even more.
What is unique about this situation is that basically everyone wants
change. No one is really happy with the 800s, so there is tremendous
momentum behind getting rid of those damned things. Everyone recognizes
the need to reduce costs as well, the recession has made it obvious that
the notion of four stroke unlimited prototypes is just unworkable in the
long run, as we all figured long ago. Where the problems come in is this
production business and IMS, and the electronics and whether or not that
can or should be limited. I say make the displacement changes and take
on IMS now, then consider electronics after the dust settles and they
see where they landed.
Julian Bond
>How rich does the sponsor have to be? The teams share basic income
>sourced from the series, that's part of the deal for the franchised
>teams. Then you add some fairly basic sponsorship, you're probably
>paying a rider very little if anything, and would that be enough to
>cover a team running a fairly inexpensive production-based motor in an
>aftermarket chassis? It's basically the same as racing anywhere at the
>back end of the field, you do what you can on a shoestring, you try to
>survive, and hope for better days ahead.
This isn't club racing. It's simply impossible to do a year for under
$1m no matter what you use. And that's not chickenfeed.
>Oh, I expect they'll try to protect their turf, even though it's not
>really their turf. The real question is, is WSB threatened in any way
>by GP running motors with a production source? I don't see how they
>are, why anyone wouldn't watch WSB or go to their races because of that.
Does this all go back to the GP Thundersports series? If GP hadn't run
that, would WSB object so hard now?
>You don't stick with something that sucks just to show commitment.
No. But if you keep changing the rules, the big guys spend the money to
deal with it, the small guys suffer. The gaps get bigger and the grids
get smaller. With a bit of stability everyone works out the problems and
everyone reaches a level.
> And I don't buy into the gloom-and-doom angle on limited motors, there
>weren't huge problems at the end of this season, when I really expected
>we'd see them, and the factories have all winter to work on their
>stuff. There really is no reason that they can't build motors to last
>the necessary miles, and I think they will. I don't think we'll see
>guys sitting out practice in order to avoid putting miles on them, the
>only way that makes sense is if the factories determine that some small
>amount of additional horsepower is worth losing setup time, and I can't
>really see the math working out that way. What we won't see is
>in-season development of the motors, because they can't be introduced
>anyway, and that's something of a bummer, although it should reduce
>costs even more.
Suzuki couldn't manage the large number of motors in a small number of
races this year. How do you think they're going to cope with the much
tighter restrictions next year. Any more embarrassment like that and
they'll simply follow Kawasaki out the door. Anyway, we still don't know
what the engine numbers will be for next year and probably won't until
the first race and there's a good chance it will change through the
year. Ultimately the numbers will be whatever the MSMA decide. We've
already seen periods in practice where almost nobody is out riding.
As they are now the rules don't stop mid season development. An engine
only becomes used when it passes the end of pit lane in an official
session. You don't have to nominate all 6 (or whatever) engines on the
first day of race 1.
>What is unique about this situation is that basically everyone wants
>change. No one is really happy with the 800s, so there is tremendous
>momentum behind getting rid of those damned things. Everyone recognizes
>the need to reduce costs as well, the recession has made it obvious
>that the notion of four stroke unlimited prototypes is just unworkable
>in the long run, as we all figured long ago. Where the problems come in
>is this production business and IMS, and the electronics and whether or
>not that can or should be limited.
Mostly true. But nobody knows what to do or can agree to it. And
everything that gets suggested has some down side and unintended
consequences. Sometimes a big down side.
Champ
<menusbau...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The new 1000s won't be a return
>of the 990s of the past, but I think they will be different than the
>800s, and the racing will be different.
This is obviously true
>And better.
But this can't be more than an assertion, at the moment.
>You don't stick with something that sucks just to show commitment. And I
>don't buy into the gloom-and-doom angle on limited motors, there weren't
>huge problems at the end of this season, when I really expected we'd see
>them, and the factories have all winter to work on their stuff.
You expected the factories to fail to get 7 motors to last 5 races? I
didn't, and neither did anyone else.
>There
>really is no reason that they can't build motors to last the necessary
>miles, and I think they will. I don't think we'll see guys sitting out
>practice in order to avoid putting miles on them, the only way that
>makes sense is if the factories determine that some small amount of
>additional horsepower is worth losing setup time, and I can't really see
>the math working out that way.
I agree that setup time will generally be worth than miles on a motor,
but there will be plenty of situations where it won't. For one, I
don't expect to see much wet weather running during practise,
especially with the increased risk of a run into the gravel and
consequent engine damage.
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Mark N
> Mark N
>> sourced from the series, that's part of the deal for the franchised
>> teams. Then you add some fairly basic sponsorship, you're probably
>> paying a rider very little if anything, and would that be enough to
>> cover a team running a fairly inexpensive production-based motor in an
>> aftermarket chassis? It's basically the same as racing anywhere at the
>> back end of the field, you do what you can on a shoestring, you try to
>> survive, and hope for better days ahead.
>
> This isn't club racing. It's simply impossible to do a year for under
> $1m no matter what you use. And that's not chickenfeed.
But each of the teams gets more than that from the series alone, right?
Next year there apparently will be 30+ bikes on the grid in Moto2, and
if that can be the case for a support class that doesn't get the same
level of revenue sharing, I don't see why MotoGP, the big show, can't
add another half dozen bikes.
>> Oh, I expect they'll try to protect their turf, even though it's not
>> really their turf. The real question is, is WSB threatened in any way
>> by GP running motors with a production source? I don't see how they
>> are, why anyone wouldn't watch WSB or go to their races because of that.
>
> Does this all go back to the GP Thundersports series? If GP hadn't run
> that, would WSB object so hard now?
My assumption has been that it does, that the whole production vs.
prototype thing got done as a result of both series fighting over the
running of 600s in the mid-90s (it was still pre-WSS at that time). I
don't know what concession Dorna got when that got settled out, must
have been something. But I've never seen anything written on how these
contracts came about and why.
>> You don't stick with something that sucks just to show commitment.
>
> No. But if you keep changing the rules, the big guys spend the money to
> deal with it, the small guys suffer. The gaps get bigger and the grids
> get smaller. With a bit of stability everyone works out the problems and
> everyone reaches a level.
That's only partially true. When GP switched the rules in '07 that gave
Suzuki and Kawasaki the biggest opportunity they ever had, in large part
because they fell on the right side of the tire equation, but also
because they were already working with pneumi valves. The result was
Suzuki's best season ever in MotoGP, a race win, multiple podiums and
4th and 6th in the championship. There is no one except factory teams
and factory satellite teams now, so there are no independent teams to
get stressed out of play, and there is basically no real chance of
adding such teams under the current 800cc structure.
>> And I don't buy into the gloom-and-doom angle on limited motors, there
>> weren't huge problems at the end of this season, when I really
>> expected we'd see them, and the factories have all winter to work on
>> their stuff. There really is no reason that they can't build motors to
>> last the necessary miles, and I think they will. I don't think we'll
>> see guys sitting out practice in order to avoid putting miles on them,
>> the only way that makes sense is if the factories determine that some
>> small amount of additional horsepower is worth losing setup time, and
>> I can't really see the math working out that way. What we won't see is
>> in-season development of the motors, because they can't be introduced
>> anyway, and that's something of a bummer, although it should reduce
>> costs even more.
>
> Suzuki couldn't manage the large number of motors in a small number of
> races this year. How do you think they're going to cope with the much
> tighter restrictions next year. Any more embarrassment like that and
> they'll simply follow Kawasaki out the door. Anyway, we still don't know
> what the engine numbers will be for next year and probably won't until
> the first race and there's a good chance it will change through the
> year. Ultimately the numbers will be whatever the MSMA decide. We've
> already seen periods in practice where almost nobody is out riding.
But what we saw was teams trying to stretch motors that weren't designed
to run those kind of miles, because the rule was developed so soon
before it was applied. Next year the factories will have had a year to
adapt to the rule. And teams can make a strategy decision in any case,
if the penalties aren't severe and they're in a position where it
doesn't hurt them so much. In the end this rule could actually make the
racing closer, because the guys at the front can't take as many chances,
can't afford to take a hit. It all comes down to the nature of the
penalties applied for introducing new motors.
Btw, I don't buy the Suzuki embarrassment angle - Suzuki has done so
much to be embarrassed about in MotoGP over the years that they must be
immune by now...
> As they are now the rules don't stop mid season development. An engine
> only becomes used when it passes the end of pit lane in an official
> session. You don't have to nominate all 6 (or whatever) engines on the
> first day of race 1.
No, but you will run two out onto the track in the first session, and
it's quite likely that you'll need to run a 3rd and a 4th motor not too
deeply into the season. So are they willing to introduce something new
if it means having only two motors and absolutely relying on them to
last them the final six races or so? I think this will slow motor
development, and probably make that development mostly introduced once a
year.
>> What is unique about this situation is that basically everyone wants
>> change. No one is really happy with the 800s, so there is tremendous
>> momentum behind getting rid of those damned things. Everyone
>> recognizes the need to reduce costs as well, the recession has made it
>> obvious that the notion of four stroke unlimited prototypes is just
>> unworkable in the long run, as we all figured long ago. Where the
>> problems come in is this production business and IMS, and the
>> electronics and whether or not that can or should be limited.
>
> Mostly true. But nobody knows what to do or can agree to it. And
> everything that gets suggested has some down side and unintended
> consequences. Sometimes a big down side.
That just seems like a very negative view - how many notions floated
have had people coming out and condemning them? I haven't seen anyone
opposed to the move to 1000s so far, and I haven't seen much criticism
of the move to allow production-based motors (other than Infront, of
course). There certainly are people who want to see electronics
controlled in some manner, but that's a case of the rules taking a more
conservative approach, NOT changing something, at least not yet. I
really don't see a lot of disagreement out there to this point. The
Moto2 switch evolved fairly well, to the point that there is a lot of
excitement surrounding that class, and I think it will continue to
evolve positively, the spec motor thing just isn't going to last. So far
the only people critical of that are at Aprilia (well, and the
two-stroke die-hards, who should now limit their interests to historic
racing), and who cares what they say, given their 250 near-monopoly and
their bait-and-switch on a Moto2 machine.
Given all the problems in GP the last few years, I think there's a lot
of reasons to be feeling pretty good about where things are headed,
which is a nice change. It could be a lot worse.
Julian Bond
>Given all the problems in GP the last few years, I think there's a lot
>of reasons to be feeling pretty good about where things are headed,
>which is a nice change. It could be a lot worse.
Yeah, well, it's all going to be ok, because Ezpeleta has found the
silver bullet that magics away all the problems, solves the financial
crisis and probably feeds the world and brings an end to war as well.
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/08/ezpeleta_the_bike_makes_a_prot
otype_not_.html
And we'll find out what it is on Friday. It's apparently a single
technical parameter.
Given all this talk about engines that might be built from (whisper it)
production parts, this interview with WCM's Peter Clifford is
interesting
http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/11/12/peter_clifford_interview_
wcm_blata_and_p.html
The most interesting part in that is that for the months when they tried
to use Yamaha cases, it was the FIM, not Dorna, the MSMA or anyone in
the MotoGP paddock who complained and ultimately got it banned. This
area of the rules and the Flammini's public comments haven't changed
since then. So it's going to be interesting to see exactly how
Ezpeleta's silver bullet is going to get round it.
And exactly how Moto2 pans out. When the Honda Moto2 engines finally
appear, I'm looking forward to the competing press releases where Honda
says "these castings do not come from a CBR600" and the FIM-InFront say
"yes, they do".
Mark N
> The most interesting part in that is that for the months when they tried
> to use Yamaha cases, it was the FIM, not Dorna, the MSMA or anyone in
> the MotoGP paddock who complained and ultimately got it banned. This
> area of the rules and the Flammini's public comments haven't changed
> since then. So it's going to be interesting to see exactly how
> Ezpeleta's silver bullet is going to get round it.
>
> And exactly how Moto2 pans out. When the Honda Moto2 engines finally
> appear, I'm looking forward to the competing press releases where Honda
> says "these castings do not come from a CBR600" and the FIM-InFront say
> "yes, they do".
I think Ippolito has made it quite clear that the FIM is now coming down
on the side of GP on this production business:
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/02/fim_president_repeats_support_for_1000cc.html
So if IMS is going to take action against GP, they will be on their own,
facing off against the FIM, Dorna and one assumes the MSMA as well.
Since there exists no contract between GP and WSB, any legal action
would have to be directed at the FIM, and only indirectly at GP. The
result of such action could result in an even further withdrawal of the
factories' involvement in WSB, and could be viewed very unfavorably in
the court of public opinion, so the Flamminis need to be cautious about
taking such a step.
One assumes the "silver bullet" in this regard is the lack of any
requirement to run any production parts at this point, rather specifying
a spec for a motor that doesn't disqualify a production foundation.
There's no question it would be a change of position for MotoGP, but
that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate position.
Regarding Moto2, if the Honda motor doesn't include any production part
numbers and it has subtle changes to the production parts retained, it
would be very hard for IMS to claim it's a production part. Think about
the reverse of this situation regarding the Yosh SB cranks in the AMA
last year. If the motor would be ruled ineligible if it appeared in a
Ten Kate WSS machine, how can it also be ruled a part exclusively to be
run by IMS under the production/prototype distinction?
Ezpeleta's "silver bullet" is something dealing with limiting the cost
of building prototype 1000s, so it has nothing to do with
production-based motors or IMS.
Julian Bond
>If the motor would be ruled ineligible if it appeared in a Ten Kate WSS
>machine, how can it also be ruled a part exclusively to be run by IMS
>under the production/prototype distinction?
If the WCM engine was way, way ineligible for WSB, how could it have
been illegal in MotoGP? Apart from anything else it was a 4-valve when
the current road Yamahas were 5 valve. But the FIM and courts ruled it
was sufficiently non-prototype to be illegal in MotoGP because that
particular version had heavily modified R1 cases.
>Ezpeleta's "silver bullet" is something dealing with limiting the cost
>of building prototype 1000s, so it has nothing to do with
>production-based motors or IMS.
It appears to be all wrapped together. And anyway, we'll know tomorrow.
Probably.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Four Quarters
Mark N
> Mark N
> >machine, how can it also be ruled a part exclusively to be run by IMS
> >under the production/prototype distinction?
>
> If the WCM engine was way, way ineligible for WSB, how could it have
> been illegal in MotoGP? Apart from anything else it was a 4-valve when
> the current road Yamahas were 5 valve. But the FIM and courts ruled it
> was sufficiently non-prototype to be illegal in MotoGP because that
> particular version had heavily modified R1 cases.
The issue with the WCM motor was the use of the production cases,
which I assume is that they were visibly identafiable as coming from
an R1 streetbike (or they openly stated that they were). My read of
that whole episode is that FGSport leaned on the FIM about that, the
FIM pushed it with Dorna, Dorna didn't give a damn (they and MotoGP
were flying high at that time) and they whacked WCM, who had no
factory association to support them.
The fundamentals of the situation have changed since then, of course.
The MSMA became disenchanted with FGSport and formally withdrew from
WSB. WSB, having been in a position of challenging GP for supremacy,
retreated to a decidedly secondary championship. The FIM, in a
stronger position with WSB than GP after their expulsion in 91-92,
appears to want to play a bigger role in GP and racing in general
under Ippolito. And now GP has serious problems that they need to fix,
and the FIM and the MSMA recognize that. So the alignment is on the
side of GP today, and these parties are considerably less likely to
allow the desires of a somewhat alienated secondary championship to
impact GP's future.
The basic production notion in WSB is that the machines have to be
based on a homologated production motorcycle, they have to retain
certain parts of those motorcycles, and some of those parts are not
allowed to be altered at all, or very limited alterations are allowed.
They also have to retain certain production bike specifications even
if parts can be heavily altered or replaced. So that's the basic
notion of a production racing bike, the side of the sport ceded by the
FIM to WSB.
The notion that seems to be operating in MotoGP now is that they won't
be mandating anything that is production-based and therefore there is
no homologation requirements on any motorcycle, any part used in the
motor can be sourced from whereever any one wants to source it and can
be altered with no limitations, and any limitations imposed on the
machines are a basic specification that applies to everything,
including pure prototypes.
Where I think this gets a little contrived is if they specify that a
production frame cannot be used but a production set of cases can. The
logic starts to get strained at that point, and my assumption is that
they will be doing this in some manner. That manner will likely be
that they disallow the use of production-based motorcycles and that
this includes a production-sourced frame, but the rules will simply be
silent on the motor.
How Moto2 differs is that the series IS mandating a specific motor,
something that has by definition been homologated by the series. So
that motor really can't be a production piece, I don't think. But the
notion of production vs. prototype really comes down to the factory,
and there is a very fine line that separates the two. If Honda
produces a motor that contains no production part numbers, who's to
say it's production? A batch of cases could be produced in the exact
shape of the production part, using the production manufacturing line,
but they are made from an altered alloy - are those production cases?
What I was saying here is that if the so-called production parts in
the Moto2 motor do not pass muster for use in WSS, then I can't see
how IMS can claim GP is using production parts. And I'm not talking
about illegal alterations on production parts, I'm talking about the
parts themselves. I think the factory can manufacture a motor that is
very CBR-like but that is also entirely a race-only prototype, and I
think that fine line is what MotoGP is very intentionally walking,
with the support of Honda, the MSMA, and the FIM.
In the end all this comes down to the specific language in the FIM
contracts (and to some degree what the intentions of the parties
were), and we don't know exactly how that reads. What I think WSB
might end up paying for here is Flamminis' Folly, screwing the
Japanese factories when they were flying high, alienating the MSMA,
and apparently accepting their role as a secondary championship. They
can fight the battle of the contracts in the courts, but they likely
will be fighting the interests of parties they rely on, and that might
be a big mistake.
pablo
point of view? Jeez everybody that ever tricked up a 2 stroke as a
teenager knows, and more than ever these days, that the whole hype
about production cases is utter bogus to convince someone somewhere
they can buy "just what we are racing". BS. You can do so much around
those production cases, and it may cost actually more to trick them up
to true prototype potential rather than less.
The thing about this is that -as Julian said- 800 vs 1000 will not
make a darn difference given advances in overall technology (be it
electronics or tires or chassis).
One of the clear problems is that we have 2 top motorcycle racing
divisions. WSB and MGP. It should have arguably never happened. Car
racing doesn't have it. it is a clear F1 sweep with all its issues (I
havent been able to watch that in many years). But motorcycles, even
though MGP is supposed to be the top class, heck, the fan base is kind
of split. And that is all it takes. Who is the top dog in 09, Rossi or
Spies? Arguments can be made on either side that can not easily be
dismissed. The same situation would not arise in car racing in the
mind of the vast worldwide majority of fans. So motorcycle racing has
an issue in true top class perception. It is like boxing with too many
weight classes.
I think this boils down to just as much of a business and political
issue as a clear technology delineation line. And the latter seems the
least significant parameter in the equation.
And I could not care less about the size or nationality of the top
riders. If a background in racing dromedars in Mongolia turns out to
be the key competitive background to race next gen top class
motorcycles, heck, let that be it. All I ultimately long for is a
universally accepeted top motorcycle racing class we can all look and
relate to. As motorcycle fans it requires us to support the business
with our passion and Paypal accounts, and demand our shops and
suppliers do so too.
Julian Bond
of some unintended consequences of that.
My prediction? Costs will go up. And not just because everyone will have
to design, build and test a new engine.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Final Beta