GP Commission announce MotoGP Technical Regs
- Thread starter Pigeon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- announce commission regs technical
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Feb 20 2010, 07:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I believe the flamminis have already been successful in stopping a privateer running an engine somewhat based on a production yamaha engine some years ago by legal means; I don't know whether this was contested particularly diligently, and presumably dorna would be fully behind any new rule allowing production based engines and would have some competence in hiring lawyers if nothing else.
I agree with you about WSBK (partcicularly as a motogp fan at heart), and have thought for some time that the convergence of the bikes in the two series is not sustainable, physics prohibiting two bodies occupying the same space simultaneously . The problem is that whether through greed, incompetence or whatever, FIM/ the motorcycle sport guys have effectively ceded control of the rules and everything else to commercial organisations who act in their own interests rather than in the interests of the sport as a whole, abstract though the concept of the interests of the sport may be. On recent evidence the flamminis appear to be significantly better than carmelo/dorna at devising rules, quite possibly because they were originally motor bike guys rather than accountants or merchant bankers
.
The production-based engines are going to be an interesting controversy going forward. I'm all for it b/c WSBK basically races prototypes so I don't see any reason MotoGP can't race production-based parts. I know InFront have the contract that was signed by Zerbi which allegedly gives WSBK the exclusive right to run production based equipment, but according to the FIM rulebook, it should be relatively easy to produce a production-based prototype.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>2.9.7 PARTS AND PRODUCT UPDATE
Any change in the specifications of the following parts of a FIM homologated
motorcycle will require a new homologation of the model:
• Crankcase
• Cylinder
• Cylinder head
• Crankshaft, connecting rods
• Camshafts, valves
• Carburation instruments
• Frame: main dimensions [in relation to wheelbase, caster, steering head
angle, relative location of the swing-arm, relative location of rear shock
absorber(s) and linkages]
• New range of engine prefix numbers
• New range of frame prefix numbers
These parts are essentially a "production motorcycle" b/c they are the only parts that must remain without any modification. A bike that has a prototype top end, crank, crankcase, cylinders, and frame; contains none of the originally homologated parts. I think production-based engines could be created quite easily due to the rules changes. Back in the 990 days production-based teams were trying to race 76mm 1000cc engines against Ducati's 86mm or Yamaha's and Kawasaki's rumored 84mm engine. Production engines weren't a competitive platform back then, but the 81mm rules makes the 80mm BMW engine look very competitive. Unlike the WCM fiasco when the FIM allegedly shut them down to save face, Ezpeleta and Ippolito will probably fight this one out to the bitter end.
I really wonder why the Flaminis don't take a more pragmatic approach. They have ruffled the feathers of the Japanese on numerous occasions, and unlike MotoGP, the MSMA don't have a "Concorde" agreement to protect them from unexpected rules changes in WSBK. A big part of the marketing appeal in racing is "factory" teams (as long as the racing is competitive). The Japanese companies, though they invest millions in SBK, are unwilling to identify their teams as works teams. Instead, the go to great pains to make sure they are identified as Ten Kate, Paul Bird, Altare, and Yamaha Italia.
Most of WSBK's gains have been the result of MotoGP's bungling decisions. They can't rely on that forever. They need to write rules that create relevant production bikes instead of race bikes for the road. When you get a Ferrari 458 or a Porsche 911, you aren't buying a disposable vehicle that is basically just a production shell for an FIA GT race car. But when you buy an SBK or WSS, you're basically getting an engine that can barely run 1000 miles under high stress loads.
WSBK needs bore rules or rev limits. WSBK needs long engine life rules like 4 or 5 events on a single engine. Why does the prototype series have engine life rules and a production racing series has none? What could be more important than durability and reliability? Aprilia certainly would have discovered the RSV4 faults a lot earlier on if WSBK had superstock engine rules and engine life limits. It would stop the ridiculous increase in bore measurements as well.
I agree with you about WSBK (partcicularly as a motogp fan at heart), and have thought for some time that the convergence of the bikes in the two series is not sustainable, physics prohibiting two bodies occupying the same space simultaneously . The problem is that whether through greed, incompetence or whatever, FIM/ the motorcycle sport guys have effectively ceded control of the rules and everything else to commercial organisations who act in their own interests rather than in the interests of the sport as a whole, abstract though the concept of the interests of the sport may be. On recent evidence the flamminis appear to be significantly better than carmelo/dorna at devising rules, quite possibly because they were originally motor bike guys rather than accountants or merchant bankers
The production-based engines are going to be an interesting controversy going forward. I'm all for it b/c WSBK basically races prototypes so I don't see any reason MotoGP can't race production-based parts. I know InFront have the contract that was signed by Zerbi which allegedly gives WSBK the exclusive right to run production based equipment, but according to the FIM rulebook, it should be relatively easy to produce a production-based prototype.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>2.9.7 PARTS AND PRODUCT UPDATE
Any change in the specifications of the following parts of a FIM homologated
motorcycle will require a new homologation of the model:
• Crankcase
• Cylinder
• Cylinder head
• Crankshaft, connecting rods
• Camshafts, valves
• Carburation instruments
• Frame: main dimensions [in relation to wheelbase, caster, steering head
angle, relative location of the swing-arm, relative location of rear shock
absorber(s) and linkages]
• New range of engine prefix numbers
• New range of frame prefix numbers
These parts are essentially a "production motorcycle" b/c they are the only parts that must remain without any modification. A bike that has a prototype top end, crank, crankcase, cylinders, and frame; contains none of the originally homologated parts. I think production-based engines could be created quite easily due to the rules changes. Back in the 990 days production-based teams were trying to race 76mm 1000cc engines against Ducati's 86mm or Yamaha's and Kawasaki's rumored 84mm engine. Production engines weren't a competitive platform back then, but the 81mm rules makes the 80mm BMW engine look very competitive. Unlike the WCM fiasco when the FIM allegedly shut them down to save face, Ezpeleta and Ippolito will probably fight this one out to the bitter end.
I really wonder why the Flaminis don't take a more pragmatic approach. They have ruffled the feathers of the Japanese on numerous occasions, and unlike MotoGP, the MSMA don't have a "Concorde" agreement to protect them from unexpected rules changes in WSBK. A big part of the marketing appeal in racing is "factory" teams (as long as the racing is competitive). The Japanese companies, though they invest millions in SBK, are unwilling to identify their teams as works teams. Instead, the go to great pains to make sure they are identified as Ten Kate, Paul Bird, Altare, and Yamaha Italia.
Most of WSBK's gains have been the result of MotoGP's bungling decisions. They can't rely on that forever. They need to write rules that create relevant production bikes instead of race bikes for the road. When you get a Ferrari 458 or a Porsche 911, you aren't buying a disposable vehicle that is basically just a production shell for an FIA GT race car. But when you buy an SBK or WSS, you're basically getting an engine that can barely run 1000 miles under high stress loads.
WSBK needs bore rules or rev limits. WSBK needs long engine life rules like 4 or 5 events on a single engine. Why does the prototype series have engine life rules and a production racing series has none? What could be more important than durability and reliability? Aprilia certainly would have discovered the RSV4 faults a lot earlier on if WSBK had superstock engine rules and engine life limits. It would stop the ridiculous increase in bore measurements as well.
Similar threads
