Breakaway GP Series...1992. The start of the rot?

mylexicon · Jan 14, 2013

Dr No

3404721358116825

Thinking over it, the point of this post was to examine the (false, in my opinion) dichotomy between MGPs being 'sport' or 'entertainment'.

This was the point at which the governing body, the FIM, started relinquishing ownership of the series and placing it in the hands of the promoters. Firstly with the TWP/Dorna hook-up and subsequently with Bernie exiting and Dorna taking the lot in '93.

I recall contemporary reports about the pits being corporatised, with rules on hanging your clothes up outside your motorhome, influx of uniforms everywhere, etc, etc. Wasn't well received (but if there was more $ sloshing about, I think the grumbles were minor).

I also agree that sports vs. entertainment is a false dichotomy, but identifying 1992 as the point of no return supposes that Dorna created the entertainment vs. sport dichotomy in MotoGP. If Dorna believed sport and entertainment were mutually exclusive, they would not have signed a contract without obtaining control over the regulations. They must have believed that sport was inherently entertaining, and the paid good money and incurred significant risk to bring international motorsports to market.

The commercial rights people are the reluctant messengers. The message they have delivered to the people via media is that the manufacturers couldn't care less if racing is sporting or entertaining. MotoGP, WSBK, F1, etc. are just commercials for the manufacturers to add to their corporate operations. The manufacturers use financial leverage and political brinksmanship to break the regulatory body. Even when racing is controlled by private racing teams, it generally lags behind the rest of the sports-entertainment industry regarding business model sophistication and organizational structure.

As long as performance and technological sophistication were increasing, it seems the fans were pacified. Now that excessive costs and excessive performance have brought racing down to earth, they are looking for a scapegoat. Bernie Ecclestone deserves scorn b/c he exploited weaknesses in the business model and fueled inter-organizational conflagrations for his own amusement and profit. NASCAR, DMG, SRO etc. all deserve scorn b/c they 'solved' the business model and organization problems by eliminating manufacturing/performance freedom.

From my perspective, Dorna have not really instigated the rot in MotoGP. They are merely trying to get the manufacturers to play the game, rather than kill one another. This isn't ancient Rome. We are not in the Coliseum. I don't see how Dorna's ambitions are particularly problematic.

Dr No · Jan 14, 2013

mylexicon

3405621358213355

I also agree that sports vs. entertainment is a false dichotomy, but identifying 1992 as the point of no return supposes that Dorna created the entertainment vs. sport dichotomy in MotoGP. If Dorna believed sport and entertainment were mutually exclusive, they would not have signed a contract without obtaining control over the regulations. They must have believed that sport was inherently entertaining, and the paid good money and incurred significant risk to bring international motorsports to market.

The commercial rights people are the reluctant messengers. The message they have delivered to the people via media is that the manufacturers couldn't care less if racing is sporting or entertaining. MotoGP, WSBK, F1, etc. are just commercials for the manufacturers to add to their corporate operations. The manufacturers use financial leverage and political brinksmanship to break the regulatory body. Even when racing is controlled by private racing teams, it generally lags behind the rest of the sports-entertainment industry regarding business model sophistication and organizational structure.

As long as performance and technological sophistication were increasing, it seems the fans were pacified. Now that excessive costs and excessive performance have brought racing down to earth, they are looking for a scapegoat. Bernie Ecclestone deserves scorn b/c he exploited weaknesses in the business model and fueled inter-organizational conflagrations for his own amusement and profit. NASCAR, DMG, SRO etc. all deserve scorn b/c they 'solved' the business model and organization problems by eliminating manufacturing/performance freedom.

From my perspective, Dorna have not really instigated the rot in MotoGP. They are merely trying to get the manufacturers to play the game, rather than kill one another. This isn't ancient Rome. We are not in the Coliseum. I don't see how Dorna's ambitions are particularly problematic.

Good post, Lex. And nice pick up on my contradiction.

Perhap a better way I could have phrased it was:

If you hand a 'sport' to a promoter, what do you think's going to happen to it?

Which is somewhat in agreement with what you wrote.

I still cling to the belief that going 4-stroke under a pretence of 'making them relevant to what's on the road' was the start of the real downfall. And that wasn't Dorna's doing.

mylexicon · Jan 15, 2013

Dr No

3405631358213731

If you hand a 'sport' to a promoter, what do you think's going to happen to it?

It will become a lucratively profitable entertainment property. We might be repulsed by brand dilution and lack of sporting gravitas, but the motorsport market indicates that the crowds may not show up until racing has been diluted into flavorless weak sauce.

If GP racing cannot recover from the 4-stroke tailspin, I will agree that 4-strokes were GP's undoing. We have some reasons to be optimistic, though. The sanctioning model for car racing is being overhauled as we speak. Colin Chapman's fuel-flow-limited formula is finally getting a test run about 40 years after he proposed the idea as a solution to the instability of displacement rules and the price volatility of the oil crisis.

Imagine fuel-flow-limiting MotoGP bikes to around 220hp. The horsepower and torque curve are much flatter so the bikes are as quick, but the top speeds come down, and the insurance people can rest. Unlike fuel capacity restrictions, fuel flow limits work in qualifying. Bore limitations and cylinder limits can be dropped. All previous MotoGP engines are legal with modified injection. Triples and twins are viable engine platforms.

FFL is not perfect, but it's great compared to what we have now.

Dr No · Jan 15, 2013

mylexicon

3406161358244635

It will become a lucratively profitable entertainment property. We might be repulsed by brand dilution and lack of sporting gravitas, but the motorsport market indicates that the crowds may not show up until racing has been diluted into flavorless weak sauce.

You mean it <u>may</u> become a lucratively profitable entertainment property, hasn't happened yet. If weak sauce is what it becomes, I will stop paying attention and go watch Club racing or something. Something I'm perilously close to now.

The article from 1992 demonstrates that they were comparing themselves with F1 and football. That grandiose idea, which encouraged the foray into 'making them relevant to what's on the road' (ie. 4 strokes) combined a lot of fast flowing cash in the 2000s, is how we ended up here.
mylexicon

3406161358244635

If GP racing cannot recover from the 4-stroke tailspin, I will agree that 4-strokes were GP's undoing. We have some reasons to be optimistic, though. The sanctioning model for car racing is being overhauled as we speak. Colin Chapman's fuel-flow-limited formula is finally getting a test run about 40 years after he proposed the idea as a solution to the instability of displacement rules and the price volatility of the oil crisis.

To digress: I thought the fuel flow limit concept came from Cosworth. Or at least, Mr Duckworth...which brings me to a nice segue: The series needs a DFV equivalent. It won't happen, but look what it did for F1 - its success spanned 3 decades.

When you say recover, recover to what? Loadsamoney? To me, that'll depend more on economic recovery than regulations 'fixing' anything.
mylexicon

3406161358244635

Imagine fuel-flow-limiting MotoGP bikes to around 220hp. The horsepower and torque curve are much flatter so the bikes are as quick, but the top speeds come down, and the insurance people can rest. Unlike fuel capacity restrictions, fuel flow limits work in qualifying. Bore limitations and cylinder limits can be dropped. All previous MotoGP engines are legal with modified injection. Triples and twins are viable engine platforms.

FFL is not perfect, but it's great compared to what we have now.

FFL is an interesting idea. The thing is we now have much better grasp on engine operation than when it was first proposed. No one in their right mind would put out a twin when a 4 of equal capacity is a possibility, FFL or not. I don't think it would drive the innovation that many of us are interested in. Particularly anyone interested in engine manufacture.

Even if it did result in innovation/variation, I'm not sure an audience would 'get it'. "What do you mean a 500cc triple races against a 250cc turbo?" I mean, they stopped aggregate times for rain interupted races because it was 'too hard to understand'.

mylexicon · Jan 16, 2013

Dr No

3406851358297311

I thought the fuel flow limit concept came from Cosworth. Or at least, Mr Duckworth...which brings me to a nice segue: The series needs a DFV equivalent. It won't happen, but look what it did for F1 - its success spanned 3 decades.

Duckworth makes more sense b/c he was an engine designer, but I believe Chapman gets credit b/c he drafted the proposal and completed the drawings for a limiting device.

Dr No

3406851358297311

When you say recover, recover to what?

To the point where MotoGP is an accurate reflection of the four stroke marketplace. Manufacturing and selling a production motorcycle is a difficult task, fraught with regulatory and economic hardship. Producing a four-stroke prototype engine is relatively simple, with no international regulatory perils and an abundance of pre-designed third-party intellectual property. WSBK has seven participating manufacturers. MotoGP has three participating manufacturers.

When MotoGP has at least a half-dozen manufacturers, I will consider the sport to be a somewhat healthy reflection of the four-stroke industry. Really, GP should have about 10-12 manufacturers, but the big manufacturers will never allow it, even if funding does return to pre-2008 levels.

Dr No

3406851358297311

Even if it did result in innovation/variation, I'm not sure an audience would 'get it'. "What do you mean a 500cc triple races against a 250cc turbo?" I mean, they stopped aggregate times for rain interupted races because it was 'too hard to understand'.

I doubt it would be difficult to explain b/c the manufacturers would probably keep 1000cc and natural aspiration. The bore limit and the cylinder limit (possibly) would be discarded to the delight of the fans. The viability of twins and triples depends on how aggressively the FFL and min weight are set. The more stringent the fuel flow limitations, the lower the rev ceiling, and the more viable twins and triples become.

FFL rewards thermal efficiency. FFL can reward partial throttle tech and electronics strategies, if fuel capacity remains low or if the fuel flow is rpm specific (this requires all competitors to run at max displacement).

Search

Search

Breakaway GP Series...1992. The start of the rot?

mylexicon

Dr No

mylexicon

Dr No

mylexicon

Similar threads

Recent Discussions