Engine restrictions ‘daunting’ says Jerry Burgess - Page 3

Tom · January 12th, 2010, 07:37 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spooky @ Jan 12 2010, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tyre management cannot be compared to engine management, all riders are using Bridgestone tyres, noone gets specials or anything like that so theoretically there are no variables. The only way it could work for engines is for every team to be using a spec engine, ala moto 2, which defeats the purpose of the series in the 1st place.

I guess that point depends on how you feel about spec tyres. I think they are as in principle as bad as spec engines. How can you claim that spec engines defeat the purpose of the series while also claiming you don't want machinary to determine the results, that is a contradiction.

spooky · January 12th, 2010, 07:54 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 12 2010, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I guess that point depends on how you feel about spec tyres. I think they are as in principle as bad as spec engines. How can you claim that spec engines defeat the purpose of the series while also claiming you don't want machinary to determine the results, that is a contradiction.

Quite simple really, if Dorna decided to go for a spec engine, lots of manufacturers would leave. Its a prototype sport therefore the main emphasis is on the factories building the fastest bike, whats the point in building the fastest bike if it cant be ridden at its optimum? Just seems a bit daft to me.

Tom · January 12th, 2010, 08:01 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spooky @ Jan 12 2010, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Quite simple really, if Dorna decided to go for a spec engine, lots of manufacturers would leave. Its a prototype sport therefore the main emphasis is on the factories building the fastest bike, whats the point in building the fastest bike if it cant be ridden at its optimum? Just seems a bit daft to me.

Optimum is a relative term. previous to this engine rule the bike still had to finish the race! Its the same game it always has been, the goalposts are just a different width.

RCV600RR · January 15th, 2010, 11:25 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 12 2010, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you really feel like this you are probably watching the wrong sport. Motorsports is inherently dependant on machinary, but bike racing is in a good position as the rider remains the most significant single influence on results.
Spellcheck is your friend.

Anyway, your point is completely irrelevant to my comment. I didn't say, as you suggest, that Motorsport is inherently independent of machinery. I'm saying that the delicate balance between machinery and rider needs to be kept in mind when considering the imposition of rules.

A six engine per season rule emboldens the influence of the bike. A mechanical problem becomes a much greater likelihood. The rider, as you indicate, is the most significant influence on results, obviously. But that is not satisfactory for me.

Finally, it's not for you to say whether or not I'm watching the right sport merely because I disagree with the machine/rider balance which you feel is ideal or correct. I've been watching this sport for a long, long time. I have personally tracked the balance slowly, but clearly, swing towards the importance of the machine. Clearly, as a Formula 1, you think the machine should be an extremely important factor. As a long-time motorcycle racing fan, I disagree.

RCV600RR · January 15th, 2010, 11:29 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 13 2010, 02:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I guess that point depends on how you feel about spec tyres. I think they are as in principle as bad as spec engines.
I disagree. It's really a manufacturer and riders' championship. The tyre battle was never really principally important for MotoGP.

Once you take away the role of the manufacturer in building arguably the key aspect of a bike(the engine), then it fails to be prototype racing. The manufacturers, then, aren't really in a battle. The most important part of the bike isn't even designed by the manufacturers.

michaelm · January 16th, 2010, 02:22 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RCV600RR @ Jan 16 2010, 07:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I disagree. It's really a manufacturer and riders' championship. The tyre battle was never really principally important for MotoGP.

Once you take away the role of the manufacturer in building arguably the key aspect of a bike(the engine), then it fails to be prototype racing. The manufacturers, then, aren't really in a battle. The most important part of the bike isn't even designed by the manufacturers.
(EDITED)I think your argument in principle as far as tyres are concerned is not unreasonable, although I am sorry that michelin are gone when they had such a long association with and seemed a natural fit for premier class gp bike racing, more so than energy drink companies and the like. I confess to not being entirely free of cynicism concerning the impetus for a control tyre appearing to come after one season where an unfashionable rider for a manufacturer other than yamaha or honda possibly had a tyre advantage, or at least a bike design dependent on a particular and perhaps somewhat arcane tyre, however [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img] .

Arrabbiata1 · January 16th, 2010, 02:30 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spooky @ Jan 12 2010, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tyre management cannot be compared to engine management, all riders are using Bridgestone tyres, noone gets specials or anything like that
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif[/img]

Talpa · January 17th, 2010, 07:30 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 13 2010, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I guess that point depends on how you feel about spec tyres. I think they are as in principle as bad as spec engines. How can you claim that spec engines defeat the purpose of the series while also claiming you don't want machinary to determine the results, that is a contradiction.

Nailed it Tom, with the importance of the Black hoops in Motorcycle Racing, it is impossible to consider this prototype racing competition with a single tyre manufacture.......However Dorna may being seeing the light with recent changes for 2012........

IMO the engine number restriction rule will play a massive role in determining results this year, as it did at the end of last year.

Gaz · January 19th, 2010, 02:03 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talpa @ Jan 18 2010, 03:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>IMO the engine number restriction rule will play a massive role in determining results this year, as it did at the end of last year.

Don't entirely disagree (have to stop this partial agreeing thing) but unlike last year the enging rule will affect from the first race and may well lead to some very interesting strategies (both race and practice) as the season develops.

Is it possible that we may see riders going beyond the 6 engine rule, risking the penalties in order to get the rewards or a 'full high tune' engine such as more power and probable subsequent higher placing?

For me, a retrograde step in the sport has again occurred

Gaz

yamaka46 · January 21st, 2010, 07:11 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talpa @ Jan 18 2010, 03:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Nailed it Tom, with the importance of the Black hoops in Motorcycle Racing, it is impossible to consider this prototype racing competition with a single tyre manufacture.......However Dorna may being seeing the light with recent changes for 2012........

IMO the engine number restriction rule will play a massive role in determining results this year, as it did at the end of last year.
I spoke with a Bridgestone engineer after the Sepang race last October and he claimed that Bridgestone will pull out of MotoGP after 2011 (ie the end of their current contract) so Dorna will have to think long and hard to get any kind of tyre competition back into MotoGP.

I think that this concept of limiting engines will do yet more damage to the series - last year it only really affected Suzuki IIRC, this year I have heard it stated that the Honda and the Duke engines will likely be the least susceptible to failure, but we will see. As others have pointed out, 6 engines for the whole season is a big step from last year. Bearing in mind that the series is to change to 1000cc in 2012, and that the manufacturers do not make 800s for the road, I fail to see how this rule reduces costs or aids development.

I believe we are likely to see changes to it during the season before it makes the WC more of a pure reliability contest than a racing one.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Engine upgrade vital for Yamaha, says Jerry Burgess	cygnus88	MotoGP	24	December 18th, 2010 06:34 AM
Jerry Burgess praises Nicky Hayden revival	Pigeon	MotoGP	4	May 10th, 2010 03:54 PM
Rossi fears engine restrictions will hurt MotoGP	Pigeon	MotoGP	22	December 8th, 2009 04:24 PM
Burgess: No trouble found on Rossi's engine	J4rn0	MotoGP	140	November 17th, 2007 07:36 AM
What Jerry Burgess thinks	krusty	MotoGP	63	July 15th, 2007 11:24 AM

January 12th, 2010, 07:37 AM	#21
Tom Senior Member Joined: Feb 2006 From: West Yorkshire, UK Posts: 9,351	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spooky @ Jan 12 2010, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tyre management cannot be compared to engine management, all riders are using Bridgestone tyres, noone gets specials or anything like that so theoretically there are no variables. The only way it could work for engines is for every team to be using a spec engine, ala moto 2, which defeats the purpose of the series in the 1st place. I guess that point depends on how you feel about spec tyres. I think they are as in principle as bad as spec engines. How can you claim that spec engines defeat the purpose of the series while also claiming you don't want machinary to determine the results, that is a contradiction.

January 12th, 2010, 07:54 AM	#22
spooky Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 545	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 12 2010, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I guess that point depends on how you feel about spec tyres. I think they are as in principle as bad as spec engines. How can you claim that spec engines defeat the purpose of the series while also claiming you don't want machinary to determine the results, that is a contradiction. Quite simple really, if Dorna decided to go for a spec engine, lots of manufacturers would leave. Its a prototype sport therefore the main emphasis is on the factories building the fastest bike, whats the point in building the fastest bike if it cant be ridden at its optimum? Just seems a bit daft to me.

January 12th, 2010, 08:01 AM	#23
Tom Senior Member Joined: Feb 2006 From: West Yorkshire, UK Posts: 9,351	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spooky @ Jan 12 2010, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Quite simple really, if Dorna decided to go for a spec engine, lots of manufacturers would leave. Its a prototype sport therefore the main emphasis is on the factories building the fastest bike, whats the point in building the fastest bike if it cant be ridden at its optimum? Just seems a bit daft to me. Optimum is a relative term. previous to this engine rule the bike still had to finish the race! Its the same game it always has been, the goalposts are just a different width.

January 15th, 2010, 11:25 PM	#24
RCV600RR Senior Member Joined: Oct 2007 From: Australia Posts: 1,531 Likes: 455 I Ride: R6	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 12 2010, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you really feel like this you are probably watching the wrong sport. Motorsports is inherently dependant on machinary, but bike racing is in a good position as the rider remains the most significant single influence on results. Spellcheck is your friend. Anyway, your point is completely irrelevant to my comment. I didn't say, as you suggest, that Motorsport is inherently independent of machinery. I'm saying that the delicate balance between machinery and rider needs to be kept in mind when considering the imposition of rules. A six engine per season rule emboldens the influence of the bike. A mechanical problem becomes a much greater likelihood. The rider, as you indicate, is the most significant influence on results, obviously. But that is not satisfactory for me. Finally, it's not for you to say whether or not I'm watching the right sport merely because I disagree with the machine/rider balance which you feel is ideal or correct. I've been watching this sport for a long, long time. I have personally tracked the balance slowly, but clearly, swing towards the importance of the machine. Clearly, as a Formula 1, you think the machine should be an extremely important factor. As a long-time motorcycle racing fan, I disagree.

January 15th, 2010, 11:29 PM	#25
RCV600RR Senior Member Joined: Oct 2007 From: Australia Posts: 1,531 Likes: 455 I Ride: R6	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 13 2010, 02:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I guess that point depends on how you feel about spec tyres. I think they are as in principle as bad as spec engines. I disagree. It's really a manufacturer and riders' championship. The tyre battle was never really principally important for MotoGP. Once you take away the role of the manufacturer in building arguably the key aspect of a bike(the engine), then it fails to be prototype racing. The manufacturers, then, aren't really in a battle. The most important part of the bike isn't even designed by the manufacturers.

January 16th, 2010, 02:22 AM	#26
michaelm Senior Member Joined: May 2007 From: sydney australia Posts: 10,623 Likes: 2132	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RCV600RR @ Jan 16 2010, 07:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I disagree. It's really a manufacturer and riders' championship. The tyre battle was never really principally important for MotoGP. Once you take away the role of the manufacturer in building arguably the key aspect of a bike(the engine), then it fails to be prototype racing. The manufacturers, then, aren't really in a battle. The most important part of the bike isn't even designed by the manufacturers. (EDITED)I think your argument in principle as far as tyres are concerned is not unreasonable, although I am sorry that michelin are gone when they had such a long association with and seemed a natural fit for premier class gp bike racing, more so than energy drink companies and the like. I confess to not being entirely free of cynicism concerning the impetus for a control tyre appearing to come after one season where an unfashionable rider for a manufacturer other than yamaha or honda possibly had a tyre advantage, or at least a bike design dependent on a particular and perhaps somewhat arcane tyre, however [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img] .

January 16th, 2010, 02:30 AM	#27
Arrabbiata1 Blue Smoker Joined: Apr 2008 From: Out of Nowhere Posts: 6,911 Likes: 2579 I Ride: The original	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spooky @ Jan 12 2010, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tyre management cannot be compared to engine management, all riders are using Bridgestone tyres, noone gets specials or anything like that [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif[/img]

January 17th, 2010, 07:30 PM	#28
Talpa Senior Member Joined: Jul 2009 From: Alaska Posts: 2,428 Likes: 50	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 13 2010, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I guess that point depends on how you feel about spec tyres. I think they are as in principle as bad as spec engines. How can you claim that spec engines defeat the purpose of the series while also claiming you don't want machinary to determine the results, that is a contradiction. Nailed it Tom, with the importance of the Black hoops in Motorcycle Racing, it is impossible to consider this prototype racing competition with a single tyre manufacture.......However Dorna may being seeing the light with recent changes for 2012........ IMO the engine number restriction rule will play a massive role in determining results this year, as it did at the end of last year.

January 19th, 2010, 02:03 AM	#29
Gaz Senior Member Joined: Jul 2007 From: Dubvegas, or thereabouts Posts: 5,686 Likes: 2076	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talpa @ Jan 18 2010, 03:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>IMO the engine number restriction rule will play a massive role in determining results this year, as it did at the end of last year. Don't entirely disagree (have to stop this partial agreeing thing) but unlike last year the enging rule will affect from the first race and may well lead to some very interesting strategies (both race and practice) as the season develops. Is it possible that we may see riders going beyond the 6 engine rule, risking the penalties in order to get the rewards or a 'full high tune' engine such as more power and probable subsequent higher placing? For me, a retrograde step in the sport has again occurred Gaz

January 21st, 2010, 07:11 AM	#30
yamaka46 Senior Member Joined: Sep 2007 From: here Posts: 1,605 Likes: 62	<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talpa @ Jan 18 2010, 03:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Nailed it Tom, with the importance of the Black hoops in Motorcycle Racing, it is impossible to consider this prototype racing competition with a single tyre manufacture.......However Dorna may being seeing the light with recent changes for 2012........ IMO the engine number restriction rule will play a massive role in determining results this year, as it did at the end of last year. I spoke with a Bridgestone engineer after the Sepang race last October and he claimed that Bridgestone will pull out of MotoGP after 2011 (ie the end of their current contract) so Dorna will have to think long and hard to get any kind of tyre competition back into MotoGP. I think that this concept of limiting engines will do yet more damage to the series - last year it only really affected Suzuki IIRC, this year I have heard it stated that the Honda and the Duke engines will likely be the least susceptible to failure, but we will see. As others have pointed out, 6 engines for the whole season is a big step from last year. Bearing in mind that the series is to change to 1000cc in 2012, and that the manufacturers do not make 800s for the road, I fail to see how this rule reduces costs or aids development. I believe we are likely to see changes to it during the season before it makes the WC more of a pure reliability contest than a racing one.