Dorna says no to Suzuki factory team

Dr No

3413981358999286

I get what you're saying, but given he had to create a class of also-rans to fill the grid, I can't see how they're at all lucrative. I don't see many companies clamouring for a grid spot.


 


I'd be more inclined to think that it has to do with 1) spite towards Suzuki, which is understandable, but also somewhat ...capricious and 2) more grid spots = more money he's obliged to splash out from the Dorna coffers.

Click to expand...

As I recall suzuki's issues were that the control tyre didn't suit their 800 chassis, and that they wanted some certainty about the rules before investing in developing a 1000 bike, both of which don't necessarily make them at fault.


 


The Suzuki factory has not necessarily been very competent since krjr's win though, and perhaps dorna were subsidising them heavily behind the scenes or something to explain their upset. Unless they have BMW and aprilia lined up knocking back a factory team entry seems strange though, particularly since there does not appear to be much impetus behind their CRT concept at the moment.


 


(EDIT I agree with many of the points in both Sewarion's and Jumkie's posts. Perhaps they are looking for the mooted cheaper generic honda bikes and availability of yamaha factory engines as a basis for CRT bikes, although I will be surprised if the latter takes off much). 

michaelm

3414021359001539

As I recall suzuki's issues were that the control tyre didn't suit their 800 chassis, and that they wanted some certainty about the rules before investing in developing a 1000 bike, both of which don't necessarily make them at fault.


 


The Suzuki factory has not necessarily been very competent since krjr's win though, and perhaps dorna were subsidising them heavily behind the scenes or something to explain their upset. Unless they have BMW and aprilia lined up knocking back a factory team entry seems strange though, particularly since there does not appear to be much impetus behind their CRT concept at the moment.


 


(EDIT I agree with many of the points in both Sewarion's and Jumkie's posts. Perhaps they are looking for the mooted cheaper generic honda bikes and availability of yamaha factory engines as a basis for CRT bikes, although I will be surprised if the latter takes off much). 

Click to expand...

 


michaelm,


I didn't intend to imply that Caramello is justified in his spite towards Suzuki, more that from his (jaundiced) perspective, he's tried to help them out in the past and he still ended up with a depleted grid to sell.

This is a huge power play by Dorna and has significant ramifications:


1. Blocks any manufacturer from leaving MotoGP. If they leave they can't get back in. The significance of this when it is time to sit down at the negotiation table should not be overlooked.


2. A MotoGP license is now a commodity. The less successful as well as the successful teams have been unable to secure sponsorship to fund their racing. This move means they no longer have to. I predict the teams will now seek investors in their license. They may even consider listing on a exchange somewhere with the value of the license tied to the scarcity of them and the overall value of MotoGP.


3. It allows a license holder to cash out if they want to. You could almost consider it a superannuation plan for Team owners.


4. Squarely pits the Independent team owners against the manufacturers and puts them in cohorts with Dorna.

I don't know if I agree. Suzuki took significant financial advantages fro Dorna to stay in the series, as well as getting some rules waived to allow them to compete, then ...... off and left Crescent without a bike.


 


At least Kawasaki made their bike available to a privateer team to continue on, as long as they were able.


 


The kind of funding that Dorna and IRTA gives to struggling teams isn't inconsiderable. I suspect that it isn't only Dorna that is pissed off with Suzuki.

Mental Anarchist

3414261359024172

This is a huge power play by Dorna and has significant ramifications:


1. Blocks any manufacturer from leaving MotoGP. If they leave they can't get back in. The significance of this when it is time to sit down at the negotiation table should not be overlooked.


2. A MotoGP license is now a commodity. The less successful as well as the successful teams have been unable to secure sponsorship to fund their racing. This move means they no longer have to. I predict the teams will now seek investors in their license. They may even consider listing on a exchange somewhere with the value of the license tied to the scarcity of them and the overall value of MotoGP.


3. It allows a license holder to cash out if they want to. You could almost consider it a superannuation plan for Team owners.


4. Squarely pits the Independent team owners against the manufacturers and puts them in cohorts with Dorna.

Click to expand...

 


Nice analysis MA, but honestly, I don't think Carmelo Grinch put that much thought into it.  I think it was 50% vindictive 50% ........  What you say above is probably more like unintended consequence.  

BJ.C

3414411359041792

I don't know if I agree. Suzuki took significant financial advantages fro Dorna to stay in the series, as well as getting some rules waived to allow them to compete, then ...... off and left Crescent without a bike.


 


At least Kawasaki made their bike available to a privateer team to continue on, as long as they were able.


 


The kind of funding that Dorna and IRTA gives to struggling teams isn't inconsiderable. I suspect that it isn't only Dorna that is pissed off with Suzuki.

Click to expand...

 


Agreed!


2011 I was at Valencia and had their hospitality,


All through the race weekend it was the big question.


I ended up asking Tim in the garage what was happening and he looked me square in the face and said we are racing next season.


That was on the saturday.


Went back to the track on the tuesday for testing talking to the guy's in the garage again, Yeah we are staying.


Testing over and PUFO were out.


From what I can work out they cannot raise the funds to run a team.

Mental Anarchist

3414261359024172

This is a huge power play by Dorna and has significant ramifications:


1. Blocks any manufacturer from leaving MotoGP. If they leave they can't get back in. The significance of this when it is time to sit down at the negotiation table should not be overlooked.


2. A MotoGP license is now a commodity. The less successful as well as the successful teams have been unable to secure sponsorship to fund their racing. This move means they no longer have to. I predict the teams will now seek investors in their license. They may even consider listing on a exchange somewhere with the value of the license tied to the scarcity of them and the overall value of MotoGP.


3. It allows a license holder to cash out if they want to. You could almost consider it a superannuation plan for Team owners.


4. Squarely pits the Independent team owners against the manufacturers and puts them in cohorts with Dorna.

Click to expand...

 


If any of this were true, Suzuki wouldn't have run their 4-stroke MotoGP team through the Crescent organization.


 


You must also consider that this measure is equally supported by the MSMA, who may want Suzuki classified as an IRTA entry. Perhaps this entry classification prevents Suzuki from participating in technical regulations discussions and it reduces their revenue sharing.


 


MSMA support of Ezpeleta's 'blockade' is not unlikely, especially if Dorna have transitioned from a flat-rate MSMA payment to proportional revenue-sharing by individual manufacturer. If Dorna want to encourage the manufacturers to promote revenue growth and profitability, Ezpeleta would give them a proportional stake in MotoGP. I think they recently highlighted team stakeholders as the future of the sport not long ago.

 


I fail to see an up side for the MSMA.  If Suzuki enters through a private team then they will get 24 litres to play with as well as the full weight of them being a manufacturer.  How is that good for Honda & Yamaha?  Do you also forget that Honda recently threatened to leave the sport.  This threat was used to negotiate a deal they could live with.  I call it the Rossi tactic.  Dorna just took the Rossi tactic off the table. 


 


I think this is Dorna giving the "Teams" not the "Manufacturers" a stake in MotoGP.  There are now 24 equal shares in one component of MotoGP.  


 


I can't seem to understand your first sentence though as the last time Suzuki were in MotoGP it was well before this latest announcement so why would they have thought there was a need to run their team through Crescent a few years ago?????? They were a manufacturer running as a manufacturer?????

Mental Anarchist

3414861359074118

 


I fail to see an up side for the MSMA.  If Suzuki enters through a private team then they will get 24 litres to play with as well as the full weight of them being a manufacturer.  How is that good for Honda & Yamaha?  Do you also forget that Honda recently threatened to leave the sport.  This threat was used to negotiate a deal they could live with.  I call it the Rossi tactic.  Dorna just took the Rossi tactic off the table. 


 


I think this is Dorna giving the "Teams" not the "Manufacturers" a stake in MotoGP.  There are now 24 equal shares in one component of MotoGP.  


 


I can't seem to understand your first sentence though as the last time Suzuki were in MotoGP it was well before this latest announcement so why would they have thought there was a need to run their team through Crescent a few years ago?????? They were a manufacturer running as a manufacturer?????

Click to expand...

 


Private teams do not get 24L by default. They have to run the spec ECU with the spec software, which excludes all private teams who run satellite bikes. Suzuki will not use the 24L formula b/c it is not designed to help private teams exploit a performance advantage over the MSMA. It is a cost-cutting measure and an entertainment class.


 


It's easy to see how the MSMA benefit. If the teams get a 50% share of MotoGP revenues after TV and logistics, none of them want to create a new entry b/c it dilutes the share. The MSMA are probably entitled to their own specific cut, and allowing Suzuki an MSMA-entry could allow them to access the MSMA revenue, though Suzuki will probably not supply equipment to other teams.


 


Unless I missed an article somewhere (possible), we don't know that they actually created 24 entries.

Everyone on this thread is WRONG except for ME!!!

BJ.C

3414411359041792

I don't know if I agree. Suzuki took significant financial advantages fro Dorna to stay in the series, as well as getting some rules waived to allow them to compete, then ...... off and left Crescent without a bike.


 


At least Kawasaki made their bike available to a privateer team to continue on, as long as they were able.


 


The kind of funding that Dorna and IRTA gives to struggling teams isn't inconsiderable. I suspect that it isn't only Dorna that is pissed off with Suzuki.

Click to expand...

 


 


One thing: Kawasaki made their bike available because if they hadn't, Dorna would have sued them for a massive amount of money, about what running the team for three years would have cost. Given that Kawasaki were spending about 60 milion euros a year to come dead ....... last, that would have been a very costly exercise. Kawasaki wanted to pull out in one go.


 


As for Suzuki:


 


All throughout their time in MotoGP, Suzuki were asked to supply more bikes on the grid. At the start of the four-stroke era, there was an informal agreement that manufacturers would supply four bikes once the rules were settled. Suzuki were pressured throughout their period to put four bikes on the grid. The most they ever ran were two.


 


Next, the rookie rule was introduced. Suzuki demanded an exception be made for them, as they didn't have a satellite team. They said that if they couldn't sign Bautista, they'd leave. The GPC made an exception for Suzuki.


 


Engine allocation limits were introduced, limits which Suzuki agreed to. By mid-season, it was clear that Suzuki was not going to manage an entire season with just 6 engines. They got an exception made for them, mainly just so they didn't lose face. At least Ducati had the balls to take the penalty of starting from pit lane in 2011. 


 


In 2010, Suzuki promised that they would continue with a two bike team for 2011. In 2011, they turned up with just a single entry.


 


Now, I complete agree that Suzuki were, to an extent, victims of the single tire regulations. The spec tire basically turns the entire series into a spec series, with manufacturers competing on whose chassis and engine fits the tire best. Spec tires do not cut costs, they should just impose cost caps, as ASBK has done, and as they intend to do for brakes and suspension. Suzuki would have benefited from having tires which fit its bike, rather than trying to design a bike that fits the tires.


 


However, Suzuki have only been half-hearted entrants at best. Honda, for all their faults, have committed completely to MotoGP (a little too much, perhaps, given their attempts to control the series). But Suzuki have never really been in the series. They were lucky to have Schwantz, and KRJR took advantage of year of miserable weather and mixed circumstances to grab the championship.


 


EDIT: Suzuki also wanted to come back on a one-year entry. Ezpeleta told them it's 3 years or nothing. What's the point of having a factory entry for just one year?


 


As I understand it, Aspar are the prime candidate to take on a Suzuki entry, and frankly, that would be the best thing for Suzuki. They'd have a competent and well-funded team running their operation. The Crescent guys were great, but they, too, struggled with raising money, and ran it on a shoestring budget.


 


I now stand aside and await the accusations of being a shill.

Mental Anarchist

3414261359024172

This is a huge power play by Dorna and has significant ramifications:


1. Blocks any manufacturer from leaving MotoGP. If they leave they can't get back in. The significance of this when it is time to sit down at the negotiation table should not be overlooked.


2. A MotoGP license is now a commodity. The less successful as well as the successful teams have been unable to secure sponsorship to fund their racing. This move means they no longer have to. I predict the teams will now seek investors in their license. They may even consider listing on a exchange somewhere with the value of the license tied to the scarcity of them and the overall value of MotoGP.


3. It allows a license holder to cash out if they want to. You could almost consider it a superannuation plan for Team owners.


4. Squarely pits the Independent team owners against the manufacturers and puts them in cohorts with Dorna.

Click to expand...

 


#4, right on the money.

Kropotkin

3415051359119604

I now stand aside and await the accusations of being a shill.

Click to expand...

 


Not from me. Spot on!

lil red rocket pilot

3414521359047603

Agreed!


2011 I was at Valencia and had their hospitality,


All through the race weekend it was the big question.


I ended up asking Tim in the garage what was happening and he looked me square in the face and said we are racing next season.


That was on the saturday.


Went back to the track on the tuesday for testing talking to the guy's in the garage again, Yeah we are staying.


Testing over and PUFO were out.


From what I can work out they cannot raise the funds to run a team.

Click to expand...

 


Wow! Who did you have to... you know... to get to do that?

I could tell you,


But it would be a ..... getting rid of the body

Kropotkin

3415051359119604

 for Suzuki:


 


All throughout their time in MotoGP, Suzuki were asked to supply more bikes on the grid. At the start of the four-stroke era, there was an informal agreement that manufacturers would supply four bikes once the rules were settled. Suzuki were pressured throughout their period to put four bikes on the grid. The most they ever ran were two.


 


Next, the rookie rule was introduced. Suzuki demanded an exception be made for them, as they didn't have a satellite team. They said that if they couldn't sign Bautista, they'd leave. The GPC made an exception for Suzuki.


 


Engine allocation limits were introduced, limits which Suzuki agreed to. By mid-season, it was clear that Suzuki was not going to manage an entire season with just 6 engines. They got an exception made for them, mainly just so they didn't lose face. At least Ducati had the balls to take the penalty of starting from pit lane in 2011. 


 


In 2010, Suzuki promised that they would continue with a two bike team for 2011. In 2011, they turned up with just a single entry.


 


Now, I complete agree that Suzuki were, to an extent, victims of the single tire regulations. The spec tire basically turns the entire series into a spec series, with manufacturers competing on whose chassis and engine fits the tire best. Spec tires do not cut costs, they should just impose cost caps, as ASBK has done, and as they intend to do for brakes and suspension. Suzuki would have benefited from having tires which fit its bike, rather than trying to design a bike that fits the tires.


 


However, Suzuki have only been half-hearted entrants at best. Honda, for all their faults, have committed completely to MotoGP (a little too much, perhaps, given their attempts to control the series). But Suzuki have never really been in the series. They were lucky to have Schwantz, and KRJR took advantage of year of miserable weather and mixed circumstances to grab the championship.


 


EDIT: Suzuki also wanted to come back on a one-year entry. Ezpeleta told them it's 3 years or nothing. What's the point of having a factory entry for just one year?


 


As I understand it, Aspar are the prime candidate to take on a Suzuki entry, and frankly, that would be the best thing for Suzuki. They'd have a competent and well-funded team running their operation. The Crescent guys were great, but they, too, struggled with raising money, and ran it on a shoestring budget.


 


I now stand aside and await the accusations of being a shill.

Click to expand...

I guess we have never known how much dorna was subsidising suzuki, or indeed what their financial arrangements with the honda and yamaha factories were. One suspicion I have always had is that the control tyre was cost reducing for dorna at least, given that one condition was supply tor free to the satellite teams which dorna was subsidising.


 


I have mixed feelings about suzuki, they had some tradition before schwantz as you know particularly with barry sheene, very popular with australians including me, as well as the 2 Italian guys I know nothing about, and I like their roadbikes and that they exist in the first place. Despite their acknowledged general incompetence they were reasonably competitive in 2007 before the tyres were changed, and looked to be finally adapting to the control tyre in the last year of the 800s, particularly when de puniet got on the thing post season. The guys perhaps keeping them out now bear most of the blame for the cost escalation imo, the litre bike formula wasn't stable week to week leading up to the 2012 season, and was no certainty to continue not much changed for 2013. The rookie rule also was hastily devised and always silly imo.


 


Hard to argue with a 1 bike 1 year commitment being fairly desultory though, and potentially annoying to/unhelpful in negotiations with current and potential future more committed entrants.

Surely they should be encouraging teams like Suzuki back into the sport to enable more competition and so on. These people in charge have some odd ideas about running these sports don't they?  If they want to be there and will add something to the sport why do you rbest to keep them out? Makes no sense, not even financially and that's usually the most important thing it seems.


 


I don't know all the details about last time they were in the sport but surely their leaving wasn't so bad they shouldn't be allowed back was it?

Lyria

3415201359131104

Surely they should be encouraging teams like Suzuki back into the sport to enable more competition and so on. These people in charge have some odd ideas about running these sports don't they?  If they want to be there and will add something to the sport why do you rbest to keep them out? Makes no sense, not even financially and that's usually the most important thing it seems.

 

I don't know all the details about last time they were in the sport but surely their leaving wasn't so bad they shouldn't be allowed back was it?

Click to expand...

Suzuki will not enable more competition unless you're speaking about who may or may not finish 5th.

levigarrett

3415211359132178

Suzuki will not enable more competition unless you're speaking about may or may not finish 9th.

Click to expand...

 


Fixed that for you...