Claiming Rule: 'Crazy and bizarre' says Burgess

HOPES haven't been high for the new Claiming Rule Team bikes that are to be introduced next season, especially after the lukewarm and six-second slow debut of the BMW S1000RR-engined Suter in testing at Mugello.

The reason for adding the CRT bikes to the grid next year is an attempt to bolster the dwindling numbers that has hit the MotoGP series, with only 17 bikes making up the positions. Even though Mike Trimby has said the Claiming Rule has not been created as a money-saving measure, from 2012 the cost of racing will be reduced for the factories as they won't be expected to cater for all the teams.



One person to step forward and voice concerns for the inclusion of the CRT bikes with the factory 1000cc bikes next year is Jeremy Burgess, calling the new ruling crazy and that it would be 'bizarre in any form of racing sport’.

The criticism may come from a lack of understanding for CRTs as Rossi's crew chief goes on to say that the rules should be further explained, adding: "Nobody really knows how the rule will actually work. For me, it could be that it would be better if I were to create a Claiming Rule Team with Valentino Rossi. Then I will have more engines and can use more fuel." Referring to the 12 engines and 24-litres of fuel that the CRT bikes have compared to the six engines and 21-litres for the factory efforts.



Stepping in to defend the critique of the Claiming Rule - as the president of IRTA - is Hervé Poncharal, highlighting how when MotoGP, as a championship, decided to change from 500cc two-stroke to 990cc four-stroke many people thought they were ‘crazy’ and would ‘kill-off’ the World championship. The MotoGP class, until 800s were brought in for safety reasons, was fruitful with exciting battles and a healthy grid. A factor that has gradually diminished, since the shift to the aforementioned 800s.



“We are getting 1000 bikes and the CRT class so that the field can grow,” said Poncharal, “Many people criticised that, but these are there same people who said that 17 bikes was not enough but did nothing to increase the size of the field. If we say we will work with factory-supported prototypes then we can only race with 17 bikes because we can't do anything. Finally we can't force Kawasaki, BMW and Aprilla to take part, like I already said. Then everyone should also say that 17 are perfect.

Moto2 saw skeptics voice their disappointment in moving the two-stroke 250GP bikes into a spec-600cc four-stroke engine, but the class has worked out with Poncharal saying that the opposition have to admit that the class is a success, taking the fact that a large number of bikes are making the grid, there is a healthy amount of competition and the costs are lower.



Further to the announcements of the regulations, Poncharal described what a CRT bike would be: “We know the technical regulations in principle. It is a 1000cc engine that you can tune however you want. You have twelve engines rather than six and 24 rather than 21 litres of fuel. The chassis must be an absolute prototype and cannot contain any serial parts. That's it.”

I don't see that much of a problem with the CRT's. Sure, they'll probably be a hell of a lot slower than the factory prototypes. So what? How's that any different from the HRT's and Virgin's in F1 nowadays, or the Zakspeed's, Coloni's and Fondmetals of yesteryear? How is it any different from the old gp500 grids?



If Burgess thinks he's better off building a CRT, well good luck to him. If he just plain and simple doesn't understand the rules, he can ask Herve for some clarification, it appears.



Now I know some parts of these rules are ambigious, as highlighted by the rumour that Gresini is thinking about running an RSV4 engine. But you have to take these rules for what they are: a compromise in order to fill the grid. I have good faith that the likes Aprilia, KTM and BMW will not be allowed to use this route to run thinly disguised factory efforts.



Motogp is competitive prototype racing. Naturally only a limited number of the entries can be at the front, such is the nature of the beast. If you want to increase quantity, you have to accept the reduced quality.

I respect Burgess, but he's just having a go at the people who've instituted rules he doesn't like. Claiming rules are not bizarre at all. As a matter of fact, in production bike racing, if you want to see what technologies a competitor may have, you can buy the stock machine. In WSBK, the machines are so far removed from stock that very little can be learned, but you understand the basic principle. The same idea exists for 3rd party parts as well. If you want to know how Honda suspension works, go convince the people at Ohlins to sell you the 2011 kit. Convince Brembo to sell you the brakes, B-stone to sell the tires, and MM to sell the ECU. Won't make you as good as Honda, but you can essentially "claim" some of their racing components.



CRT is not a bad concept, but running CRT outside of the normal GP rulebook is a serious mistake. If Dorna want to improve things, they need to start by firing the MSMA, and instituting a new rulebook.



The MSMA waste so much money refining production-irrelevant mechanical components, that no one is willing to participate. When will OEMs ever need to design a new air pump to reduce losses in a pneumatic valvetrain and increase fuel-efficiency by .5%? When will OEM's ever install zero-shift gear boxes and special slipper clutches to step a bike down from 18,000rpm without burning fuel? When will manufacturers ever spend millions on chassis development to extract 1% more cornerspeed from a spec tire b/c it will save 1% more fuel?



MotoGP has become an inherently stupid engineering contest that is getting more production-irrelevant with each "production-relevant" rules change. It's time to limit horsepower with more fuel and an 81mm bore limit (or stroke limits). Ease some of the other technological restrictions, and let the manufacturers compete.

mylexicon said:

I respect Burgess, but he's just having a go at the people who've instituted rules he doesn't like. Claiming rules are not bizarre at all. As a matter of fact, in production bike racing, if you want to see what technologies a competitor may have, you can buy the stock machine. In WSBK, the machines are so far removed from stock that very little can be learned, but you understand the basic principle. The same idea exists for 3rd party parts as well. If you want to know how Honda suspension works, go convince the people at Ohlins to sell you the 2011 kit. Convince Brembo to sell you the brakes, B-stone to sell the tires, and MM to sell the ECU. Won't make you as good as Honda, but you can essentially "claim" some of their racing components.



CRT is not a bad concept, but running CRT outside of the normal GP rulebook is a serious mistake. If Dorna want to improve things, they need to start by firing the MSMA, and instituting a new rulebook.



The MSMA waste so much money refining production-irrelevant mechanical components, that no one is willing to participate. When will OEMs ever need to design a new air pump to reduce losses in a pneumatic valvetrain and increase fuel-efficiency by .5%? When will OEM's ever install zero-shift gear boxes and special slipper clutches to step a bike down from 18,000rpm without burning fuel? When will manufacturers ever spend millions on chassis development to extract 1% more cornerspeed from a spec tire b/c it will save 1% more fuel?



MotoGP has become an inherently stupid engineering contest that is getting more production-irrelevant with each "production-relevant" rules change. It's time to limit horsepower with more fuel and an 81mm bore limit (or stroke limits). Ease some of the other technological restrictions, and let the manufacturers compete.

Click to expand...

Prototype racing in general has always been an inherently stupid engineering contest, because lets face it, very few of us have the need for 230 mph vehicles. As far as that goes, why have any racing at all, most people would tell you that any form of racing is an inherently stupid contest of speed that is a waste of money that could go towards feeding the worlds poor. I just read an article about the hyper sonic aircraft that was lost at sea in a test today. The remarks section was entertaining to say the least. You had the pro technology crowd, and you had the guys and gals who were seething about the money lost, why do we need aircraft that travel 20 times the speed of sound, that money could have gone here and there blah blah blah. You ask, when will we ever need this kind of technology, maybe in the not so distant future when governments slap 50-60 mpg requirements on all auto makers. You think Honda might have a leg up on the competition if they can bring this technology to bear. If it works on an 18k rpm race engine, it will also work on a 6k Accord engine. There is already Vtec, CVT and many other nifty technologies that 20 years ago were unheard of or scoffed at. Let the eggheads do what they do and leave spec racing to other series.

I should have been more clear. MotoGP has become an inherently stupid engineering contest b/c they don't create production relevant technologies (except some rapid prototyping development tech) and they are killing the revenue stream for Dorna and CVC which destabilizes the sport. I forget that people are not concerned with the business of organizing races. The eggheads don't need MotoGP to develop motorcycle technology, and I don't understand why you give it to them at the expense of the riders and the other manufacturers. You're trying to be a technophile, but you're just sucking on the status quo as if it provides you with some kind of nourishment.



Furthermore, adding fuel capacity wouldn't prohibit Honda from developing fuel-saving technologies. Extra fuel would prevent fuel technology from deciding who wins, which would be to the benefit of the riders and other motorcycle manufacturers who are not interested in using MotoGP to work on scooter tech. After horsepower is capped in the name of costs, safety, and competition. The organizers could deregulate production relevant technologies like variable intake and variable exhaust or, my personal favorite, non-circular valves and pistons. I prefer a stroke limit for those technologies b/c I would love to see what impact they would have on max piston-velocity. Maybe they could even allow direct injection (which is also currently banned via homologation).



Does any of that sound like spec racing? or does it sound like I want to kick the crap out of the technocrats who've turned a global sport into a club race for engineering companies who have the proper brand pedigree?

mylexicon said:

I should have been more clear. MotoGP has become an inherently stupid engineering contest b/c they don't create production relevant technologies (except some rapid prototyping development tech) and they are killing the revenue stream for Dorna and CVC which destabilizes the sport. I forget that people are not concerned with the business of organizing races. The eggheads don't need MotoGP to develop motorcycle technology, and I don't understand why you give it to them at the expense of the riders and the other manufacturers. You're trying to be a technophile, but you're just sucking on the status quo as if it provides you with some kind of nourishment.



Furthermore, adding fuel capacity wouldn't prohibit Honda from developing fuel-saving technologies. Extra fuel would prevent fuel technology from deciding who wins, which would be to the benefit of the riders and other motorcycle manufacturers who are not interested in using MotoGP to work on scooter tech. After horsepower is capped in the name of costs, safety, and competition. The organizers could deregulate production relevant technologies like variable intake and variable exhaust or, my personal favorite, non-circular valves and pistons. I prefer a stroke limit for those technologies b/c I would love to see what impact they would have on max piston-velocity. Maybe they could even allow direct injection (which is also currently banned via homologation).



Does any of that sound like spec racing? or does it sound like I want to kick the crap out of the technocrats who've turned a global sport into a club race for engineering companies who have the proper brand pedigree?

Click to expand...

Spot on

mylexicon said:

I should have been more clear. MotoGP has become an inherently stupid engineering contest b/c they don't create production relevant technologies (except some rapid prototyping development tech) and they are killing the revenue stream for Dorna and CVC which destabilizes the sport. I forget that people are not concerned with the business of organizing races. The eggheads don't need MotoGP to develop motorcycle technology, and I don't understand why you give it to them at the expense of the riders and the other manufacturers. You're trying to be a technophile, but you're just sucking on the status quo as if it provides you with some kind of nourishment.



Furthermore, adding fuel capacity wouldn't prohibit Honda from developing fuel-saving technologies. Extra fuel would prevent fuel technology from deciding who wins, which would be to the benefit of the riders and other motorcycle manufacturers who are not interested in using MotoGP to work on scooter tech. After horsepower is capped in the name of costs, safety, and competition. The organizers could deregulate production relevant technologies like variable intake and variable exhaust or, my personal favorite, non-circular valves and pistons. I prefer a stroke limit for those technologies b/c I would love to see what impact they would have on max piston-velocity. Maybe they could even allow direct injection (which is also currently banned via homologation).



Does any of that sound like spec racing? or does it sound like I want to kick the crap out of the technocrats who've turned a global sport into a club race for engineering companies who have the proper brand pedigree?

Click to expand...

Uh yes, capping rpm and horsepower is not my idea of prototype racing, and no, it wouldnt prohibit Honda from developing fuel saving technology, but it would certainly be put on the back burner. I have said it a million times, when performance declines in a racing series, the crowd declines with it. There is no reason to attend an event you saw 5 years earlier. You stay home, save your 600 bucks and catch it on TV. Instead of 4 days and a bunch of money out of your pocket, you have 45 minutes and a couple of beers invested. You really need to concentrate on being a WSBK fan, GP is not your calling.

povol said:

Uh yes, capping rpm and horsepower is not my idea of prototype racing, and no, it wouldnt prohibit Honda from developing fuel saving technology, but it would certainly be put on the back burner. I have said it a million times, when performance declines in a racing series, the crowd declines with it. There is no reason to attend an event you saw 5 years earlier. You stay home, save your 600 bucks and catch it on TV. Instead of 4 days and a bunch of money out of your pocket, you have 45 minutes and a couple of beers invested. You really need to concentrate on being a WSBK fan, GP is not your calling.

Click to expand...

Performance wouldn't decline if they stroke/bore/rev-limited the class to ~260hp. The bikes would be more powerful than the current 21L machines in both peak horsepower, and midrange. If technologies like variable intake/exhaust were added, MotoGP bikes would be more powerful than many of the 990s b/c the engineers can make flat-torque curves. Rev-limiting isn't necessarily a hard horsepower cap in prototype racing (unlike production engines) and stroke limiting is an even softer hp cap. All of the extra air flow technologies allow the manufacturers to increase volumetric efficiency which means horsepower will continue to rise just like the current fuel-limited arrangement. The benefit, of course, is that by allowing a relatively easy basic formula (81mm, 1000cc, 24L, circular pistons, spring valves, basic gearbox, basic electronic slipper), participation levels are much higher. If people can qualify, they can generate TV revenues and sponsorship revenue. If they can generate revenue, they have development funds, and they can build their brand in GP.



I am supposed to be watching GP b/c I am interested in seeing the best riders, bikes, and manufacturers all competing against one another. I am not the least bit interested in watching the manufacturers rig the rulebook to influence who wins and to keep outsiders away. Furthermore, I'd be satisfied without horsepower regulations of any kind, but we all know that isn't going to happen in a 1000cc formula. The FIM are too paranoid.



The death of certain performance platitudes (like peak horsepower or revs) does not concern me. I'd rather see real technology and real economic momentum generated by MotoGP and by the industry as a whole. JB hates CRT, and while I think he's just having a crotchety whinge, I don't think CRT will solve Dorna's problems. It would be much better to have a single formula that works for everyone. Don't worry, Povol. The richest teams will still find ways to rig the rulebook, and buy up all of the best people. Your sport is not going anywhere, but the rest of us will have something to watch as well.

mylexicon said:

Performance wouldn't decline if they stroke/bore/rev-limited the class to ~260hp. The bikes would be more powerful than the current 21L machines in both peak horsepower, and midrange. If technologies like variable intake/exhaust were added, MotoGP bikes would be more powerful than many of the 990s b/c the engineers can make flat-torque curves. Rev-limiting isn't necessarily a hard horsepower cap in prototype racing (unlike production engines) and stroke limiting is an even softer hp cap. All of the extra air flow technologies allow the manufacturers to increase volumetric efficiency which means horsepower will continue to rise just like the current fuel-limited arrangement. The benefit, of course, is that by allowing a relatively easy basic formula (81mm, 1000cc, 24L, circular pistons, spring valves, basic gearbox, basic electronic slipper), participation levels are much higher. If people can qualify, they can generate TV revenues and sponsorship revenue. If they can generate revenue, they have development funds, and they can build their brand in GP.



I am supposed to be watching GP b/c I am interested in seeing the best riders, bikes, and manufacturers all competing against one another. I am not the least bit interested in watching the manufacturers rig the rulebook to influence who wins and to keep outsiders away. Furthermore, I'd be satisfied without horsepower regulations of any kind, but we all know that isn't going to happen in a 1000cc formula. The FIM are too paranoid.



The death of certain performance platitudes (like peak horsepower or revs) does not concern me. I'd rather see real technology and real economic momentum generated by MotoGP and by the industry as a whole. JB hates CRT, and while I think he's just having a crotchety whinge, I don't think CRT will solve Dorna's problems. It would be much better to have a single formula that works for everyone. Don't worry, Povol. The richest teams will still find ways to rig the rulebook, and buy up all of the best people. Your sport is not going anywhere, but the rest of us will have something to watch as well.

Click to expand...

You remind me of one of those soccer moms who insist that everyone get equal playing time. Big boy racing has always been about who has the most resources. Even in the most rudementary spec series, like ASB, it is as predictable as the sun coming up as to who is going to run up front, why in the hell would the pinnacle of bike racing be any different. You can make regulations that cap them at 100 hp with 1 million dollar budgets and the very same teams will be up front. Learn to love it for what it is, an inherently stupid engineering contest.

povol said:

You remind me of one of those soccer moms who insist that everyone get equal playing time. Big boy racing has always been about who has the most resources. Even in the most rudementary spec series, like ASB, it is as predictable as the sun coming up as to who is going to run up front, why in the hell would the pinnacle of bike racing be any different. You can make regulations that cap them at 100 hp with 1 million dollar budgets and the very same teams will be up front. Learn to love it for what it is, an inherently stupid engineering contest.

Click to expand...

Povol, a group of the most-qualified PS members and I (the PowerSlide Posters Association) have decided that you should no longer post on PS. Your posts do not meet our standards, and conversing with us makes you look more qualified and than you really are. We are not interested in subsidizing the value of your brand by allowing you to post in a venue that is reserved for the brightest minds. We are not interested in giving you a platform to promote your ideas.



Naturally, we do not wish to exclude you without giving you a chance to prove yourself so the PSPA have devised a general knowledge and aptitude test pertaining to several unrelated academic disciplines. We have rigged it so that you will not pass, and we have implemented a $50,000 testing fee. Should you fail to pay the test fee or should you fail to make the requisite scores, you will be asked to leave. If you still wish to be part of PS, you can join the IPSRA (Independent PowerSlide Repliers Assoc.) which affords you the privilege of replying to our posts as long as you don't disagree with us.



Thank you for your cooperation regarding this sensitive matter,



Mylexicon









You should learn about the principles you are keen to espouse b/c I don't think you can discern the difference between competition and coercion unless it affects you personally. As far as you're concerned, competition and coercion have roughly the same impact on you as a fan so no reason to tell them apart. In reality, the coercive forces you encourage ultimately lead to stagnation and death. Instead of improving the breed, coercion causes inbreeding which weakens the breed.



If deregulating technology and eliminating coercion make me sound like a soccer mom, it's b/c you have no idea what is going on. Just watch the sport. Let the soccer moms drive you where you want to go so you don't end up chasing some abstract concept into the bowels of hell.

I'd rather see them implement a tyre claiming rule, meaning a privateer team at any time can claim and run any tyre they want, such as from Michelin, Dunlop, Pirelli. Factory teams have to stay with Bridgestone. A privateer rider might actually find themselves in a position to challenge for wins or at least it could make Elias and co more competitive. For the likes of Rossi there could be a real dilema. Does he give up his $30 mill with Ducati and go run a private team with Michelin?

povol 1



mylexicon 0

mylexicon said:

Povol, a group of the most-qualified PS members and I (the PowerSlide Posters Association) have decided that you should no longer post on PS. Your posts do not meet our standards, and conversing with us makes you look more qualified and than you really are. We are not interested in subsidizing the value of your brand by allowing you to post in a venue that is reserved for the brightest minds. We are not interested in giving you a platform to promote your ideas.



Naturally, we do not wish to exclude you without giving you a chance to prove yourself so the PSPA have devised a general knowledge and aptitude test pertaining to several unrelated academic disciplines. We have rigged it so that you will not pass, and we have implemented a $50,000 testing fee. Should you fail to pay the test fee or should you fail to make the requisite scores, you will be asked to leave. If you still wish to be part of PS, you can join the IPSRA (Independent PowerSlide Repliers Assoc.) which affords you the privilege of replying to our posts as long as you don't disagree with us.



Thank you for your cooperation regarding this sensitive matter,



Mylexicon









You should learn about the principles you are keen to espouse b/c I don't think you can discern the difference between competition and coercion unless it affects you personally. As far as you're concerned, competition and coercion have roughly the same impact on you as a fan so no reason to tell them apart. In reality, the coercive forces you encourage ultimately lead to stagnation and death. Instead of improving the breed, coercion causes inbreeding which weakens the breed.



If deregulating technology and eliminating coercion make me sound like a soccer mom, it's b/c you have no idea what is going on. Just watch the sport. Let the soccer moms drive you where you want to go so you don't end up chasing some abstract concept into the bowels of hell.

Click to expand...

I think to belong in that association, you actually have to own a bike, and have to attended at least one GP race. You do not qualify http://www.powerslide.net/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/.....gif

djm said:

povol 1



mylexicon 0

Click to expand...

povol said:

I think to belong in that association, you actually have to own a bike, and have to attended at least one GP race. You do not qualify

http://www.powerslide.net/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/.....gif

Click to expand...

Sucks, doesn't it?--to be on the receiving end of the MSMA's inexcusable antics. Let it burn for a while, then I'll drive you to soccer.

mylexicon said:

Sucks, doesn't it?--to be on the receiving end of the MSMA's inexcusable antics. Let it burn for a while, then I'll drive you to soccer.

Click to expand...

Will you talk to the coach while your there mommy, im not getting the playing time i think i deserve.

povol said:

Will you talk to the coach while your there mommy, im not getting the playing time i think i deserve.

Click to expand...

No, but I'll make sure that the coach allows you to eat enough calories to finish tryouts and I'll make sure that the yuppie scum don't buy their way onto the team.

mylexicon said:

No, but I'll make sure that the coach allows you to eat enough calories to finish tryouts and I'll make sure that the yuppie scum don't buy their way onto the team.

Click to expand...

But what if the yuppie scum is actually better?

povol said:

But what if the yuppie scum is actually better?

Click to expand...

They wouldn't be buying their way onto the team.



Selling places on the team is what the organization does to make sure the best players are fraternizing with "desirable" competitors who make them look good. The highest profile competitors, and the brash inexperienced upstarts are all kept away. People who lose well, and people who compete according to the unwritten rules of GP are allowed to play. IRTA are great losers. MSMA have unwritten rules, and established group norms.



In defense of the MSMA, they know that if an organization is dumb enough to sell out to them, the same organization would just as easily sell out to another group of manufacturers. The new group would likely dismiss the Japanese just like the Japanese dismissed everyone else by ruining the racing concept (fuel economy for 800cc F1 engines). However, the corporate politics do not determine the intensity of motorsports competition, the competitive quality of the GP non-participants, or the authenticity of the results. Corporate politics get in the way.

mylexicon said:

They wouldn't be buying their way onto the team.



Selling places on the team is what the organization does to make sure the best players are fraternizing with "desirable" competitors who make them look good. The highest profile competitors, and the brash inexperienced upstarts are all kept away. People who lose well, and people who compete according to the unwritten rules of GP are allowed to play. IRTA are great losers. MSMA have unwritten rules, and established group norms.



In defense of the MSMA, they know that if an organization is dumb enough to sell out to them, the same organization would just as easily sell out to another group of manufacturers. The new group would likely dismiss the Japanese just like the Japanese dismissed everyone else by ruining the racing concept (fuel economy for 800cc F1 engines). However, the corporate politics do not determine the intensity of motorsports competition, the competitive quality of the GP non-participants, or the authenticity of the results. Corporate politics get in the way.

Click to expand...

Give me your list of riders you think have been black balled by the etablishment, that would make one iota's difference in the GP standings to date.

povol said:

Give me your list of riders you think have been black balled by the etablishment, that would make one iota's difference in the GP standings to date.

Click to expand...

I've got a better idea. Read my posts until you figure out that I'm talking about the manufacturers.