How to save MotoGP

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 8 2009, 12:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Back on topic... Topless umbrella girls ..nuff said
Winner, winner. Chicken parm dinner.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Son of Doohan @ Jan 6 2009, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Face facts, 2 strokes in grand prix racing are going to be extinct shortly. The deal is done, the writings on the wall, they're not coming back. Why the .... anyone even thinks they "might" come back is beyond me.
Yearning for "the good old days" is fine, but the reality of the matter is something else.
You're right, they probably are going to be dead soon. I don't think they will return, hence the subtitle 'my somewhat unrealistic view'.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Jan 7 2009, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I disagree, certain parts of culture has everything to do with marketing. Pop culture is largely based on marketing, look at our President-elect

Actually your statement goes very well with my position.
Had your President-elect been fat, bald, old and ugly no amount of marketing would have brought him victory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 8 2009, 06:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A top speed limit would not eliminate a power race, engineers would simply look for power and torque that could be used out of the corners and too accelerate. So rather than increasing design freedom, you would simply be reducing the number of considerations for the engineers and giving them less compromises to deal with.

Tom, you've missed the entire point of what I'd written. Power and torque are already excessive, hence the litany of electronic devices used to REDUCE power. Additional power only has marginal benefit when accelerating at high speed. Unfortunately, bikes without high peak power cannot be competitive so all manufacturers are forced to use extremely expensive production techniques to balance engines and create valve systems than can manage 19k or 20k rpm.

Even if you increased capacity to 1200cc the bikes wouldn't be significantly faster in or out of corners b/c TC knows how much power the tires can handle. Futhermore, the amount of power the tires can handle is completely independent of the power produced by the bike. If TC is limiting a 50 hp bike to 20hp at the apex, it will limit a 500hp bike to 20hp at the same corner.

You are right about a power race, but it wouldn't affect cornerspeeds, it would affect acceleration WHEN WHEELIE CONTROL IS OFF. I admit I have no idea wheelie control turns off, obviously it varies by bike and rider and weight distribution, etc.

Furthermore, there is a point where the tires and the circuit limit how much power a bike can effectively use. In 2006 the general consensus was that power above 230hp was excessive because it couldn't be utilized at a majority of the GP tracks given current tire technology. 230hp out of unlimited capacity is a pretty cheap proposition.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>As for the point of squeezing maximum power out of a limited capacity, it leads to challenges in reducing internal losses, cooling systems, oil circulation, combustion efficiency and so on. All the kinds of technology the factories and oil companies can use in their future products. I'm not saying these things would be insignificant in an unlimited capacity formula, but deficiencies in these areas could be overcome by making a bigger engine, and then trying to get its weight down. thats a spending race waiting to happen.

I'm aware that deficiencies could be masked with displacement. That's the point. Compact, perfectly-balanced, high-revving engines with efficient combustion, low reciprocating mass, and good cooling should be an ADVANTAGE not a PRE-REQUISITE.

Furthermore, since when does stroking an engine mandate weight gain? When does forced induction require bikes to be heavy?

Do we even know that small high-revving engines are the best for motorcycling? (even if we did we certainly couldn't all agree that they are the best to ride). Since when do we know that 4 strokes make the best engines? Since when do we know that natural aspiration is the best aspiration for motorcycles?

We don't. The governing body has arbitrarily created a set of rules AT THE REQUEST OF THE CURRENT MANUFACTURERS that has lead to the ascendancy of certain design philosophies.

Considering how few participants MotoGP has these days, we really ought to be questioning the things we "know" about motorcycle design.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 8 2009, 07:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>maybe who gives a .......do as your told or face the consequences



Back on topic... Topless umbrella girls ..nuff said
IF they really want to reduce costs make everyone naked. Now before you go all gay on me folks hear me out. Leathers and the multitudes of them made for each race not counting the special liveried ones cost big money. Chicks and the gay community that love GP racing will spend more money and time with the sport. Talk about reducing corner speeds without leathers or even clothes. If they introduce topless umbrella girls we can finally see a naked Adriana Stoner!! Instead of clothes and leathers we now can use body paint to still garner sponsorship dollars. Man Curve you started a nude trend now.

Lex, you're right on. MotoGP is supposed to be a prototype series, not a quasi-prototype, big 4 manufacturer's dream series. Ask yourself... could we ever see a John Britten under todays skewed rule system?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Jan 9 2009, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>could we ever see a John Britten ...
This man was a once in a lifetime genius. His unrivaled ability, intellectual creativeness, and brilliant understanding and design will never be fully appreciated. It’s a bit like trying to grasp the mastermind of an Einstein and Mozart wrapped into one. This cannot be overstated!

LINK

RIP

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marijke @ Jan 8 2009, 05:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Thread warned.

How sad to go through life being such a pathetic, overly sensitive pansy.
This is the best thread I've read in quite a while.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 9 2009, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tom, you've missed the entire point of what I'd written. Power and torque are already excessive, hence the litany of electronic devices used to REDUCE power. Additional power only has marginal benefit when accelerating at high speed. Unfortunately, bikes without high peak power cannot be competitive so all manufacturers are forced to use extremely expensive production techniques to balance engines and create valve systems than can manage 19k or 20k rpm.

Even if you increased capacity to 1200cc the bikes wouldn't be significantly faster in or out of corners b/c TC knows how much power the tires can handle. Futhermore, the amount of power the tires can handle is completely independent of the power produced by the bike. If TC is limiting a 50 hp bike to 20hp at the apex, it will limit a 500hp bike to 20hp at the same corner.

You are right about a power race, but it wouldn't affect cornerspeeds, it would affect acceleration WHEN WHEELIE CONTROL IS OFF. I admit I have no idea wheelie control turns off, obviously it varies by bike and rider and weight distribution, etc.

Furthermore, there is a point where the tires and the circuit limit how much power a bike can effectively use. In 2006 the general consensus was that power above 230hp was excessive because it couldn't be utilized at a majority of the GP tracks given current tire technology. 230hp out of unlimited capacity is a pretty cheap proposition.



I'm aware that deficiencies could be masked with displacement. That's the point. Compact, perfectly-balanced, high-revving engines with efficient combustion, low reciprocating mass, and good cooling should be an ADVANTAGE not a PRE-REQUISITE.

Furthermore, since when does stroking an engine mandate weight gain? When does forced induction require bikes to be heavy?

Do we even know that small high-revving engines are the best for motorcycling? (even if we did we certainly couldn't all agree that they are the best to ride). Since when do we know that 4 strokes make the best engines? Since when do we know that natural aspiration is the best aspiration for motorcycles?

We don't. The governing body has arbitrarily created a set of rules AT THE REQUEST OF THE CURRENT MANUFACTURERS that has lead to the ascendancy of certain design philosophies.

Considering how few participants MotoGP has these days, we really ought to be questioning the things we "know" about motorcycle design.

Sorry lex, but you are far too optimisitc regarding costs in an ulimitied series with top speed limit.
First of all, as Tom point out larger capacity create other issues that are expencive to fight, and costs would skyrocket if not for other reasons than the number of options increase and with those an exponential increase of possible configurations. It would be lotto to find the sweetspot(s) for the smaller companies and extreeme costs for the larger ones. Once the working configuration(s) are found it's a similar race as now to get the lightest, most powerfull engine. You tallk about top end power, but the major problem for MotoGP isn't the end of the long straights but speeds at all other places at the track. You got high speed corners and short transitions where the speed has increased much more in percentage, and more important at ares where the track is not at all designed to take the increased speed. Higher capacity and more torque are only going to hurt in those areas as there is neither talk about top speed or maximum power.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JohnnyKnockdown @ Jan 11 2009, 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How sad to go through life being such a pathetic, overly sensitive pansy.
This is the best thread I've read in quite a while.
Johnny, if people actually followed some sense with not calling eachother racists for something silly, if people didnt complained about how this particular topic developed, I wouldnt be warning this thread in the first place. its just to let everyone know we´re keeping an eye on this topic, thats all it means. who is an overly sensitive pansy now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marijke @ Jan 11 2009, 07:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Johnny, if people actually followed some sense with not calling eachother racists for something silly, if people didnt complained about how this particular topic developed, I wouldnt be warning this thread in the first place. its just to let everyone know we´re keeping an eye on this topic, thats all it means. who is an overly sensitive pansy now.
Knock-out on knock-down

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JohnnyKnockdown @ Jan 11 2009, 06:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How sad to go through life being such a pathetic, overly sensitive pansy.
This is the best thread I've read in quite a while.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marijke @ Jan 11 2009, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Johnny, if people actually followed some sense with not calling eachother racists for something silly, if people didnt complained about how this particular topic developed, I wouldnt be warning this thread in the first place. its just to let everyone know we´re keeping an eye on this topic, thats all it means. who is an overly sensitive pansy now.



<object width="425" height="350<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YLDbGqJ2KYk</param><param name="wmode" value="transparent</param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YLDbGqJ2KYk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350</embed></object>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marijke @ Jan 11 2009, 10:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Johnny, if people actually followed some sense with not calling eachother racists for something silly, if people didnt complained about how this particular topic developed, I wouldnt be warning this thread in the first place. its just to let everyone know we´re keeping an eye on this topic, thats all it means. who is an overly sensitive pansy now.

It was a joke. I was using one political buzz word (racism) to inflame/change-perspective about another political buzz word (WalMart).

It was a satire.

Americans tend to think that Walmart is an evil empire that abuses workers and peddles low-priced Chinese garbage to our untouchable classes. Despite WalMart's political flaws the store is actually a really interesting cultural phenomenon.

As I said in my post, in some parts of the United States it isn't uncommon to see an S-class parked next to an old beat up Chevy. It isn't uncommon to see people of all races and income levels shopping at WalMart.

There aren't many commercial endeavors that elicit such widespread participation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 11 2009, 08:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It was a joke. I was using one political buzz word (racism) to inflame/change-perspective about another political buzz word (WalMart).

It was a satire.

Americans tend to think that Walmart is an evil empire that abuses workers and peddles low-priced Chinese garbage to our untouchable classes. Despite WalMart's political flaws the store is actually a really interesting cultural phenomenon.

As I said in my post, in some parts of the United States it isn't uncommon to see an S-class parked next to an old beat up Chevy. It isn't uncommon to see people of all races and income levels shopping at WalMart.

There aren't many commercial endeavors that elicit such widespread participation.
this is the last time Im explaining why I did something.

lex, I dont care if you were serious or if it was ment as a joke. why I warned this thread is because some of the substance of this topic, not the walmart stuff, offended other members and they used the report button. I saw their point. I warned this topic, also to put out that I am taking report-buttons serious and that I am watching whats said. like I said in my reply to johnny: if people actually used some sense with not calling eachother racists for something silly, if people didnt complained about how this particular topic developed, I wouldnt be warning this thread in the first place. it just goes to show that you have to think before you write.

lets drop this issue and continue with how to save motogp

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jan 10 2009, 08:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This man was a once in a lifetime genius. His unrivaled ability, intellectual creativeness, and brilliant understanding and design will never be fully appreciated. It’s a bit like trying to grasp the mastermind of an Einstein and Mozart wrapped into one. This cannot be overstated!

LINK

RIP
great link compa , the man should be an inspiration to us all ! That bike was a true prototype and built on a budget that was less than the tea budget of HRC , i bet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2009, 09:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sorry lex, but you are far too optimisitc regarding costs in an ulimitied series with top speed limit.
First of all, as Tom point out larger capacity create other issues that are expencive to fight, and costs would skyrocket if not for other reasons than the number of options increase and with those an exponential increase of possible configurations. It would be lotto to find the sweetspot(s) for the smaller companies and extreeme costs for the larger ones. Once the working configuration(s) are found it's a similar race as now to get the lightest, most powerfull engine. You tallk about top end power, but the major problem for MotoGP isn't the end of the long straights but speeds at all other places at the track. You got high speed corners and short transitions where the speed has increased much more in percentage, and more important at ares where the track is not at all designed to take the increased speed. Higher capacity and more torque are only going to hurt in those areas as there is neither talk about top speed or maximum power.

1. Babel, you seem to think I'm advocating opening the series so that more manufacturers have a chance to win. I'm not, I'm fully aware that Yamaha, Honda, Ducati, and Suzuki will always have an advantage based upon the decades they have invested in the sport.

My view is optimistic because it embraces the pessimism of the scenario. Only 1 manufacturer can win, only 1 rider can win. At the end of each season, the grid is going to be full of losers.

MotoGP NEEDS TO REDUCE THE COST OF LOSING SO THAT LOSING ON TRACK DOESN'T ALSO MEAN LOSING ON THE COMPANY FINANCIALS. Furthermore, it needs to give participants incentives to keep participating. If companies are going to hang around and lose, they need to be developing marketable technologies that they can sell to benefit their consumers.

Pneumatics: not marketable. GPS-TC: not marketable. Low reciprocating mass: not marketable. 5% better fuel economy @ 16000 rpm: not marketable. Lean angle sensors: not marketable. Decreased drag coefficient: not marketable.

Yet you have to have all of those technologies to be competitive.

Nobody cares how much the winner spends, the only thing that matters is the cost of losing and what you develop while you lose.

2. The speeds all over the track have allegedly been controlled with the control tire. Why do we have a control tire? Because the governing body was trying to clip 15mph off of the bikes top speeds by controlling fuel, displacement, and min weight when they could have simply written a top speed rule. It was an abysmal legislative failure that lead to expensive improvements in tire technology and electronics aids. The goal was always to reduce top speed, but the measures taken have failed. Now teams are dropping out, costs are rising, the racing is bad, and we have a control tire. The ideas you advocate were tried. They failed miserably.

3. How is unlimited displacement going to lead to increasing costs? What is it that you and Tom don't understand about diminishing marginal returns of power? In the 990 days 230 was about all the power you could use. When they increased the weight and reduced fuel, tire technology adjusted. I'd be willing to say that bikes can effectively use upwards of 250hp now. So manufacturers are trying to squeeze 250 hp out of 21 liters of fuel and 800cc. That's a bit expensive, imo.

How much does it cost to squeeze 250hp out of 1000cc with forced induction and unlimited fuel? How much does it cost to buy a GSX-R1000 engine and slap a turbo on it? $10,000 maybe. It would cost more than that in GP because all parts are prototype, but I think you get the idea.

4. More displacement doesn't lead to performance problems. Heavier engines are only troublesome if all of the engines are roughly the same. Engines with heavy internals can't rev as freely and they don't turn in well. Unlimited displacement means power isn't controlled by revs. So if piston velocities are lower, it doesn't necessarily mean the bike would have handling problems. Furthermore, the 9990s weighed 145kg, the 800s weigh 148. What does that tell you? Teams are adding ballast. If teams are adding ballast to make 148kg it wouldn't really matter whether the 3 kg is ballast or heavier engine internals (assuming the larger pistoned bike was running lower revs).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marijke @ Jan 11 2009, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>lex, I dont care if you were serious or if it was ment as a joke. why I warned this thread is because some of the substance of this topic, not the walmart stuff, offended other members and they used the report button.

Well, now you know why they were wrong to get offended.

No hard feelings, keep doing what you have to do to.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 11 2009, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. Babel, you seem to think I'm advocating opening the series so that more manufacturers have a chance to win. I'm not, I'm fully aware that Yamaha, Honda, Ducati, and Suzuki will always have an advantage based upon the decades they have invested in the sport.
No I'm not. Even if i'm pretty sure you have done so before.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>My view is optimistic because it embraces the pessimism of the scenario. Only 1 manufacturer can win, only 1 rider can win. At the end of each season, the grid is going to be full of losers.

MotoGP NEEDS TO REDUCE THE COST OF LOSING SO THAT LOSING ON TRACK DOESN'T ALSO MEAN LOSING ON THE COMPANY FINANCIALS. Furthermore, it needs to give participants incentives to keep participating. If companies are going to hang around and lose, they need to be developing marketable technologies that they can sell to benefit their consumers.

Pneumatics: not marketable. GPS-TC: not marketable. Low reciprocating mass: not marketable. 5% better fuel economy @ 16000 rpm: not marketable. Lean angle sensors: not marketable. Decreased drag coefficient: not marketable.
I agree in most of that allthough lan angle sensors has been around for "ages" and of cource low reciprocating mass is marketable.
But more important, most of them will still be present in your formula, except the GPC-TC but as I'm sure you know, I would welcome the day when TC is heavily limited.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Yet you have to have all of those technologies to be competitive.

Nobody cares how much the winner spends, the only thing that matters is the cost of losing and what you develop while you lose.

2. The speeds all over the track have allegedly been controlled with the control tire. Why do we have a control tire? Because the governing body was trying to clip 15mph off of the bikes top speeds by controlling fuel, displacement, and min weight when they could have simply written a top speed rule. It was an abysmal legislative failure that lead to expensive improvements in tire technology and electronics aids.
Nobody belives the control tires does much more than slowing down the development and speed increase. It doesn't decrease speeds as we allready have seen. But they do reduce cost.

I disagree, the tire development was more of a continuation of the 990 tires than all fresh design and would have been just as expensive with the 990 and same with electronics, they just wouldn't influence the races as much with the 990.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The goal was always to reduce top speed, but the measures taken have failed.
Was it? Maybe when over simplifying for stupid jurnos but I know severeal persons raising the issue of much higher speed every where else.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Now teams are dropping out, costs are rising, the racing is bad, and we have a control tire. The ideas you advocate were tried. They failed miserably.
I have no idea about what ideas you are talking about. So far I've just pointed out that there is no such thing as a free lunch. More options doesn't create less cost it create higher cost.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>3. How is unlimited displacement going to lead to increasing costs? What is it that you and Tom don't understand about diminishing marginal returns of power? In the 990 days 230 was about all the power you could use. When they increased the weight and reduced fuel, tire technology adjusted. I'd be willing to say that bikes can effectively use upwards of 250hp now. So manufacturers are trying to squeeze 250 hp out of 21 liters of fuel and 800cc. That's a bit expensive, imo.
Sure, nobody would aim for 250hp with the 990, they would all say "no 230 is enough. Stop engine development and stop tire development" Jeeeez, how Naiv is it POSSIBLE to be?

Besides: TOP END POWER is NOT the issue regarding safety. Raising the capasity would accelerate the speed elsewhere and that is highly unwanted.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>How much does it cost to squeeze 250hp out of 1000cc with forced induction and unlimited fuel? How much does it cost to buy a GSX-R1000 engine and slap a turbo on it? $10,000 maybe. It would cost more than that in GP because all parts are prototype, but I think you get the idea.
But what's the point? First of all a turbo charged race engine is many hundreds of millions of $ away. You are dreaming if you think it would become less costly. When ever a successful configuration arrive everyone will be copying and improving on that configuration. That would mean starting over again and again to huge costs instead of everyone improving one fixed configuration. Huge difference in cost.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>4. More displacement doesn't lead to performance problems. Heavier engines are only troublesome if all of the engines are roughly the same. Engines with heavy internals can't rev as freely and they don't turn in well. Unlimited displacement means power isn't controlled by revs. So if piston velocities are lower, it doesn't necessarily mean the bike would have handling problems. Furthermore, the 9990s weighed 145kg, the 800s weigh 148. What does that tell you? Teams are adding ballast. If teams are adding ballast to make 148kg it wouldn't really matter whether the 3 kg is ballast or heavier engine internals (assuming the larger pistoned bike was running lower revs).
A completly academic discussion and it would all be about how much more displacment, how much more weight, how much less rpm. 990's clearly had high enough rpm to be heavily influenced, but more importantly, rpm produce power and there is allways a race for more power. If not at the top they will chase it at the mid range. Do you think WRC engines are cheap? With a 2000cc turbocherged engine they produce only 300hp. That must be engines you get for $2.50 at wall mart right?

They cost of todays racing is not a result of rule changes or the current formula, it's costly because the money was there to be invested in MotoGP. The economy had no limits and the factories had good sales and to win was high prestige. Now the race is on to survive the crisis that put motoGP in second hand.
Reducing cost? Try to introduce lots of new cost limiting rules: No TC, no carbon brakes, Maximum HP, long life engines, less testing.
When we've been there it's no going back, except by force.
I'm not saying I want it, just that it's probably the only way to reduce cost.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2009, 01:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'> Knock-out on knock-down

Yes I'm feeling quite dizzy from that reply.
With all those run on sentences and grammatical errors my little brain can't seem to find a point in there anywhere.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2009, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sure, nobody would aim for 250hp with the 990, they would all say "no 230 is enough. Stop engine development and stop tire development" Jeeeez, how Naiv is it POSSIBLE to be?

Diminishing marginal returns is an extremely simple concept. In motorcycle racing more power isn't always better because you can't run more wing. Furthermore, motorcycles wheelie pretty easily. Additional power won't make much difference until the bikes are north of 150mph, when wheelie control stops cutting power (I'm guessing it's somewhere in that speed range). If you have a top speed limit it won't really matter.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Besides: TOP END POWER is NOT the issue regarding safety. Raising the capasity would accelerate the speed elsewhere and that is highly unwanted.

Bike power has gone down since the 990s, yet the bikes are faster through the turns. Obviously, there is no correlation between maximum power and cornering speed. So eliminating displacement rules wouldn't make bikes faster in the corners.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>But what's the point? First of all a turbo charged race engine is many hundreds of millions of $ away. You are dreaming if you think it would become less costly. When ever a successful configuration arrive everyone will be copying and improving on that configuration. That would mean starting over again and again to huge costs instead of everyone improving one fixed configuration. Huge difference in cost.

It's going to cost hundreds of millions for Honda to figure out how to fit their bike with a turbo and an intercooler. Really?!

Everyone will copy one another? Yes I remember in 2007 when Casey won. All the manufacturers showed up the following season with 90 degree desmo V-4s. Then I remember in 2008 when Valentino won and everyone switched to pneumatic valved I-4s. Yes, that was bad.

Seriously, Babel.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>They cost of todays racing is not a result of rule changes or the current formula, it's costly because the money was there to be invested in MotoGP. The economy had no limits and the factories had good sales and to win was high prestige. Now the race is on to survive the crisis that put motoGP in second hand.
Reducing cost? Try to introduce lots of new cost limiting rules: No TC, no carbon brakes, Maximum HP, long life engines, less testing.
When we've been there it's no going back, except by force.
I'm not saying I want it, just that it's probably the only way to reduce cost.

1. I can promise you a prototype pneumatic valve 800cc MotoGP engine costs more than a WRC engine.

2. Babel please listen to yourself. You say that companies spend because there is money to be spent, but you think the sport can be fixed by cutting costs. Cutting costs is a NECESSITY not a solution. If Honda have 25 million to spend and you reduce the cost of all bike components they will simply spend the savings on the engine.

The engine is THE SINGLE MOST EXPENSIVE component to produce, and in the 800cc era it is the most important part of the bike.

Cutting costs is useless without ensuring that the savings won't lead to further separation amongst the bikes.

Unlimited fuel and displacement both ensure that additional spending has little benefit outside of developing marketable technologies. If you have unlimited fuel you don't need to spend millions developing fuel saving measures like TC or pneumatic valves. Unlimited displacement means you don't have to spend millions developing a perfectly balanced engine and you don't have to spend millions cutting .01 out of your drag coefficient.

As long as top speed is unlimited and displacement and fuel are heavily limited, there will always be enormous benefit to developing more power. Power comes from THE MOST EXPENSIVE component on the bike. Continuation of the current rules package will only make matters worse, especially if they continue to cut the cost of everything else.

Cutting the cost of everything else only helps satellite teams. It does nothing for the major manufacturers.