Claiming Rule: 'Crazy and bizarre' says Burgess

povol · Aug 15, 2011

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

How about you quit dodging the question and list the riders who you think would make a difference in the GP standing. Crayfish much

If its not riders, list your competitors [manufacturers ] and brash upstarts who have been black balled out of the sport,

mylexicon · Aug 15, 2011

povol said:
How about you quit dodging the question and list the riders who you think would make a difference in the GP standing. Crayfish much

None. I thought the question was rhetorical b/c it was so obviously off-topic.

I tend to forget that, in your mind, the question is on-topic b/c the racing organizers are trying to rig every race to be a close one. Paranoia ultimately leads to the ill-conceived notion that bad racing is indicative of a good formula--a notion you undoubtedly acquired from the propagandists in the AMA SBK paddock.

No, this is about the manufacturers and the rules they write to impose their marketing plans and R&D ambitions on everyone else. Not really sport is it?

povol · Aug 15, 2011

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.

Name them!

mylexicon · Aug 15, 2011

povol said:
Name them!

I'm talking about manufacturing concerns. High profile competitors with in-house programs would be BMW and Aprilia (now with Piaggio backing). Both chose to go WSBK-only after they got a look at 21L 800cc competition. High profile competitors with big financial-backing and ties to the racing industry are MV Agusta and Norton. Brash upstarts would be Motoczysz, FB Corse, InMotec, Ilmor, KR, and a half dozen other engineering firms who have the ability to produce equipment, but who have no revenue streams and no will b/c the formula is a pointless game for xenophobes.

povol · Aug 15, 2011

mylexicon said:
I'm talking about manufacturing concerns. High profile competitors with in-house programs would be BMW and Aprilia (now with Piaggio backing). Both chose to go WSBK-only after they got a look at 21L 800cc competition. High profile competitors with big financial-backing and ties to the racing industry are

MV Agusta and Norton. Brash upstarts would be Motoczysz, FB Corse, InMotec, Ilmor, KR, and a half dozen other engineering firms who have the ability to produce equipment, but who have no revenue streams and no will b/c the formula is a pointless game for xenophobes.

what the organization does to make sure the best players are fraternizing with "desirable" competitors who make them look good.

If the above statement were true, and all they wanted was competition that made them look good, you would think they would bend over backwards to have them in the series. Those would most definetly be "desirable" competitors that would make the big bad monster look good .As far as those brash upstarts, they do not have the money to go GP racing, you said it yourself. It sounds what your proposing is a hard cap on expenditure and tech regs that allow everyone to be competitive. That is not GP racing! BMW has the money to go GP racing, Aprilia, maybe, but i doubt it. The others will never ever be competitive and would be a total waste of time and money, unless of course you dumb down the series so every one can play. I dont know why some of you have brandished the 800 era as the worst in GP history. It has produced 3 different champions in five years and is poised to produce 3 different manufacturers as champions in five years. Not bad if you ask me. I have been following GP for 4 decades and the results have been for the most part, very predictable, with many runaway races and championships. I think the problem is, GP racing has been taken over by the instant gratification generation as its fan base. They have no understanding what GP is all about. They just want to be entertained. They know is GP is the pinnacle, they just cant figure out why. They are supposed to like it, but it bores them, so they demand parity. This is not a parity sport. It is about the elite riders, on elite bikes, put together by elite tecnicians. This is not a sport for upstarts and small time operations who want to dabble in a sport.

birdman · Aug 15, 2011

povol said:
what the organization does to make sure the best players are fraternizing with "desirable" competitors who make them look good.

If the above statement were true, and all they wanted was competition that made them look good, you would think they would bend over backwards to have them in the series. Those would most definetly be "desirable" competitors that would make the big bad monster look good .As far as those brash upstarts, they do not have the money to go GP racing, you said it yourself. It sounds what your proposing is a hard cap on expenditure and tech regs that allow everyone to be competitive. That is not GP racing! BMW has the money to go GP racing, Aprilia, maybe, but i doubt it. The others will never ever be competitive and would be a total waste of time and money, unless of course you dumb down the series so every one can play. I dont know why some of you have brandished the 800 era as the worst in GP history. It has produced 3 different champions in five years and is poised to produce 3 different manufacturers as champions in five years. Not bad if you ask me. I have been following GP for 4 decades and the results have been for the most part, very predictable, with many runaway races and championships. I think the problem is, GP racing has been taken over by the instant gratification generation as its fan base. They have no understanding what GP is all about. They just want to be entertained. They know is GP is the pinnacle, they just cant figure out why. They are supposed to like it, but it bores them, so they demand parity. This is not a parity sport. It is about the elite riders, on elite bikes, put together by elite tecnicians. This is not a sport for upstarts and small time operations who want to dabble in a sport.

One brash upstart was Ducati, and for a while they made Honda look ordinary, especially in outright power. How embarassing it must of been to have a desmo from Italy on a shoe string budget giving them a hiding. Do you think they still want upstarts like BMW? I doubt it. They want moto2. Thats where its heading.

Thing is SBK has not always been a close racing success. When they went too far up Ducatis' you know what all the other manufacturers made it clear what they thought and left. SBK was forced to fix up the stupid rules. And to their credit they did.

Which brings us to motogp. The first year of 800's were great, then in comes bizare rule changes. Bye bye Kawasaki. Bye Bye Suzuki. Both were actually willing to break contracts, they didnt care about potential court action. Thats a big statement. Obviously something is very wrong in Motogp. The dissapointing thing is it could have been so much better.

mylexicon · Aug 15, 2011

povol said:
what the organization does to make sure the best players are fraternizing with "desirable" competitors who make them look good.

If the above statement were true, and all they wanted was competition that made them look good, you would think they would bend over backwards to have them in the series. Those would most definetly be "desirable" competitors that would make the big bad monster look good .As far as those brash upstarts, they do not have the money to go GP racing, you said it yourself. It sounds what your proposing is a hard cap on expenditure and tech regs that allow everyone to be competitive. That is not GP racing! BMW has the money to go GP racing, Aprilia, maybe, but i doubt it. The others will never ever be competitive and would be a total waste of time and money, unless of course you dumb down the series so every one can play. I dont know why some of you have brandished the 800 era as the worst in GP history. It has produced 3 different champions in five years and is poised to produce 3 different manufacturers as champions in five years. Not bad if you ask me. I have been following GP for 4 decades and the results have been for the most part, very predictable, with many runaway races and championships. I think the problem is, GP racing has been taken over by the instant gratification generation as its fan base. They have no understanding what GP is all about. They just want to be entertained. They know is GP is the pinnacle, they just cant figure out why. They are supposed to like it, but it bores them, so they demand parity. This is not a parity sport. It is about the elite riders, on elite bikes, put together by elite tecnicians. This is not a sport for upstarts and small time operations who want to dabble in a sport.

The metaphor is not that difficult to decipher. The desirable competitors are the IRTA teams who have almost no chance of winning.

As I said before, the MSMA does not want the established brands or the renegade upstarts b/c the MSMA believe it lends credibility to their company. The GP club doesn't want those companies using MotoGP to build their brands. Dorna were obviously displeased with the situation so Ezy announced that Dorna would negotiate individual contracts with the manufacturers not with the MSMA as a whole.

mylexicon · Aug 15, 2011

birdman · Aug 15, 2011

Even F1, the pinacle of money and power have levelled up the playing field, to the point where a private team (Red Bull) is leading against the might of cashed up Ferrari. The best rule they came up with was two races per engine. It prevented Ferrari bolting in a new engine every session, and brought life back to the series. Thats all motogp had to do, two races per engine. Instead they said fuel restricted 6 engines per year? WTF, its two engines already in use at the first race (one in the spare bike), so thats 4 engines left for the year. They 'freeze framed' the series and prevented development, but its a protype series which needs development to survive?

Tom · Aug 16, 2011

birdman said:
Even F1, the pinacle of money and power have levelled up the playing field, to the point where a private team (Red Bull) is leading against the might of cashed up Ferrari.

Get real, calling Red Bull a 'private team' just because they aren't a car company is a load of rubbish, they have amongst the best resources and funding in the paddock, hence their incredible achievements. They are not an underdog.

birdman · Aug 16, 2011

Tom said:
Get real, calling Red Bull a 'private team' just because they aren't a car company is a load of rubbish, they have amongst the best resources and funding in the paddock, hence their incredible achievements. They are not an underdog.

Rubbish. I'm calling Red Bull a 'private team' just because they aren't a car manufacturer. Renault makes the engine Red Bull buys it. Yeah Red Bull with amoungst the best resources and funding in the paddock would go pretty fast without an engine.

stiefel · Aug 16, 2011

birdman said:
Rubbish. I'm calling Red Bull a 'private team' just because they aren't a car manufacturer. Renault makes the engine Red Bull buys it. Yeah Red Bull with amoungst the best resources and funding in the paddock would go pretty fast without an engine.

Yeah, if that's what you mean by 'private team', then McLaren is a 'private team' too. As lot's of other, very successful teams have been in the history of F1.

birdman · Aug 16, 2011

stiefel said:
Yeah, if that's what you mean by 'private team', then McLaren is a 'private team' too. As lot's of other, very successful teams have been in the history of F1.

Yep McLaren. They do sell exotic cars though. Williams dont. But after Williams and McLaren, Ferrai went on a rampage with an endless stream of bits, especially engines. F1 was almost doomed and they saved it. Parallels with motogp and its current 'grid numbers crisis'. So is this what Dorna wants for motogp ie successful private teams?

stiefel · Aug 16, 2011

McLaren has been racing in F1 since the 1960's but it has only been selling road cars since the 1990's. Williams, Brawn, Benetton, Brabham...all private teams that have lifted championships. On the other hand, manufactures like BMW and Toyota, Honda could not do the same. Making the distinction between manufacturers and private teams and then claiming the Red Bull recent success is an indication that certain rule changes worked in favour of more equal competition does not make sense to me. I think what counts more than anything else is budget, rather than involvement in the automotive industry. And Red Bull is not exactly short on cash.

mylexicon · Aug 16, 2011

Red Bull was not competitive until the engine homologation rules allowed them to acquire factory-spec equipment.

Yes, Red Bull is a private team. McLaren is a private team. Renault is actually a private team who are allowed to use the name Renault. In F1, if you don't build engines you are a private team. Privateer designation has nothing to do with funding, and everything to do with the ownership structure and the manufacturing capabilities.

Tom · Aug 16, 2011

birdman said:
Rubbish. I'm calling Red Bull a 'private team' just because they aren't a car manufacturer. Renault makes the engine Red Bull buys it. Yeah Red Bull with amoungst the best resources and funding in the paddock would go pretty fast without an engine.

So what, the engines are under development freeze anyway. Plus, ALL the F1 teams are external to the manufacturer (or drinks company) they represent so the status is not particularly significant.

birdman said:
Yep McLaren. They do sell exotic cars though. Williams dont.

Williams sell racing cars, it doesn't get much more exotic than that.

stiefel said:
I think what counts more than anything else is budget, rather than involvement in the automotive industry. And Red Bull is not exactly short on cash.

Exactly. Red Bulls success is not related to a rule change in favour of private teams, private teams have been consistently winning in F1 throughout its history.

Tom · Aug 16, 2011

mylexicon said:
Yes, Red Bull is a private team. McLaren is a private team. Renault is actually a private team who are allowed to use the name Renault. In F1, if you don't build engines you are a private team. Privateer designation has nothing to do with funding, and everything to do with the ownership structure and the manufacturing capabilities.

Mercedes is the same as renault, they are effectively a private team whose title sponsor is a car company, the only F1 team that i'd have any doubt about fitting that classification is Ferarri and even with them i'm not sure, and not sure of the relevance

Jumkie · Aug 16, 2011

Pove & Lex, I only manage to get through the first line of your posts, but I'm loving it. I've always liked Crazy on Crazy crime, it keeps the herds thin. Hahahaha I have no idea who has the upper hand in the argument, I just like that you guys are fighting about ..... Please continue.

mylexicon · Aug 16, 2011

Jumkie said:
Pove & Lex, I only manage to get through the first line of your posts, but I'm loving it. I've always liked Crazy on Crazy crime, it keeps the herds thin. Hahahaha I have no idea who has the upper hand in the argument, I just like that you guys are fighting about ..... Please continue.

There is nothing to fight about. There is just some confusion about the consequences of allowing the manufacturers to control the rulebook for the last 10 years, and the actions that must be taken to make sure the sport functions like it did during the 500cc era. If people aren't aware of the structural issues in GP, then they don't really have a basis to interpret many of the changes to MotoGP.

More specifically, Povol thinks that every change to the formula, in the name of competition or reduced barriers to entry, is an underhanded plot to rig race results and dumb-down the sport. Inattentiveness to the underlying economic arrangement, is the source of his paranoia.

In metaphor: Povol wants shade. He is worried that someone is going to put a plastic tree in his yard so he imagines that sunburn is acceptable b/c it is at least an authentic experience. If Pov understood biology more completely, instead of knowing just the aesthetic, he would understand that trees can be grown naturally. More literally, racing organizers can create fierce competition and close racing naturally, but they must remove the corporate impediments to growth.

mylexicon · Aug 16, 2011

Tom said:
Mercedes is the same as renault, they are effectively a private team whose title sponsor is a car company, the only F1 team that i'd have any doubt about fitting that classification is Ferarri and even with them i'm not sure, and not sure of the relevance

Mercedes owns a majority of Mercedes GP. It is not like McLaren or Red Bull who are owned primarily by outside concerns with no ties to manufacturing.

Claiming Rule: 'Crazy and bizarre' says Burgess

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

povol

mylexicon

povol

mylexicon

povol

birdman

mylexicon

mylexicon

birdman

Tom

birdman

stiefel

birdman

stiefel

mylexicon

Tom

Tom

Jumkie

mylexicon

mylexicon

Similar threads

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions