How to save MotoGP

This situation is bogus. The series should have the capacity to be financially self sufficient.

The most expensive thing in any formula of racing is dramatically changing the rules.
Surely the 800's have now almost reached the limit of their development. Stick with the 800's. No team now has a real power advantage. Even Kawasaki are close to the others on max speed, which is a fair indicator of outright power.
Stick with the existing formula.

I would do the following;
1. Stick with 800cc formula.
2. Remove fuel limitations
3. Rev limit the engines to (say) 16,000 rpm
4. Limit the TC to only certain sensors, (to try to reduce highsides). Basic TC functions, similar to SBK type systems. No GPS or pit controls on anything
5. Limit teams to 3 bikes only for the weekend, and the same engine must be used for practice qualifying and the race. Engine changes to introduce time penalties.

As I have said, the second step is to change the structure of the series, so that the total revenue is spead between DORMA and the teams. This will increase the returns back to the teams, who are putting on the show.

Aside from riders salaries (which are also too high), a 2 bike MotoGP team should be able to run competatively on a customer bike for Euro 10.0mil per season.
How much does DORMA make. I remember seeing somewhere that TV revenues alone were something like Euro 250 mil.
If 75% of that income alone went to the teams, and there were 20 bikes, that gives the teams, Euro 9.3mil per bike (Euro 18.6mil for a two bike team)..........
That is without any sponsorship, merchandise sales, or factory support.

MotoGP should have the capacity to be financially self sufficient.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2009, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><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.

If we have another year of parade racing it will really hurt MOTOGP. Right now they need good racing no matter what and that is going to be hard to come with the current formula. The 990's offered a way to make and makeup for mistakes. For some reason, and riders have commented on this, the 800's don't allow riders to make mistakes and the only way to win is be on a factory bike and have a perfect setup. There is very little overtaking in the top 4-5 spots. They need to satisfy factories and teams with lower costs but also create and keep fans coming to the races, a very tough task IMO.

Once the 990's got closer in deveopement the racing was better. I think once the current 800's get closer the racing will get worse. The only way to make it better IMO is put more factors in the rider's hands. Also, put more riders on the grid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Jan 12 2009, 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If we have another year of parade racing it will really hurt MOTOGP. Right now they need good racing no matter what and that is going to be hard to come with the current formula. The 990's offered a way to make and makeup for mistakes. For some reason, and riders have commented on this, the 800's don't allow riders to make mistakes and the only way to win is be on a factory bike and have a perfect setup. There is very little overtaking in the top 4-5 spots. They need to satisfy factories and teams with lower costs but also create and keep fans coming to the races, a very tough task IMO.

Once the 990's got closer in deveopement the racing was better. I think once the current 800's get closer the racing will get worse. The only way to make it better IMO is put more factors in the rider's hands. Also, put more riders on the grid.

Humm, was that an argument against or pro my post? I wonder becuase there is not one sigle thing in your post I disagree with

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nuts @ Jan 12 2009, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This situation is bogus. The series should have the capacity to be financially self sufficient.

The most expensive thing in any formula of racing is dramatically changing the rules.
Surely the 800's have now almost reached the limit of their development. Stick with the 800's. No team now has a real power advantage. Even Kawasaki are close to the others on max speed, which is a fair indicator of outright power.
Stick with the existing formula.

I would do the following;
1. Stick with 800cc formula.
2. Remove fuel limitations
3. Rev limit the engines to (say) 16,000 rpm
4. Limit the TC to only certain sensors, (to try to reduce highsides). Basic TC functions, similar to SBK type systems. No GPS or pit controls on anything
5. Limit teams to 3 bikes only for the weekend, and the same engine must be used for practice qualifying and the race. Engine changes to introduce time penalties.

Those two doesn't work together. 16krpm is not even the limit of a street bike today (600cc) and together with your other suggested changes this would indeed create a drastic change in the formula and would make the engines look like WRC engines.
I agree that if they are to introduce a øonglivety rule a rev limit must come with it. If not, a costly development race would start to make the current engines with the current power output to last longer with even more exotic materials internaly. A higher limit around 18 krpm would be closer to a minor change and would do good in combination with longlivety.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 12 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Those two doesn't work together. 16krpm is not even the limit of a street bike today (600cc) and together with your other suggested changes this would indeed create a drastic change in the formula and would make the engines look like WRC engines.
A higher limit arounf 18-19krpm would be closer to a minor change and would do good in combination with longlivety.


Agreed,show room 600's have a higher ceiling than that.All of these remedies people come up may save money but it would be a pointless series if you nueter the bikes to the extremes that some have suggested.The smart thing to do would be to go back to the 990's,limited or no tC,no fuel restriction.Its what a majority of fans want,its what a majority of riders want.Wake up Dorna

1200cc

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 12 2009, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Humm, was that an argument against or pro my post? I wonder becuase there is not one sigle thing in your post I disagree with

It was more of, ...an addition too...

Here's the prob... by making the bikes safer..they've made the racing less safe... the racing was safer with bikes that were less safe...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 12 2009, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Here's the prob... by making the bikes safer..they've made the racing less safe... the racing was safer with bikes that were less safe...

That is some seriously mental logic, but spot on!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MigsAngel @ Jan 12 2009, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That is some seriously mental logic, but spot on!!

Glad you made it out..i was a bit high when i thought about it...

The more powerful the bike..the more respect the rider gives it...."safer"... the easier to ride it the less respect they give it....for example... ME.... i've crashed more and harder on my tards than on my 1000's....

Some good reads from the GP sites lately on the topic of "saving Moto GP". Have a read if you haven't, some good ideas being thrown out there.

Crash.net - "Should Moto GP bikes be sold?"
http://www.crash.net/motorsport/motogp/new...es_be_sold.html


MotoGPMatters.com: Saving MotoGP Part 1,2,3:
Part 1
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...togp_so_ex.html

Part 2
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...courage_th.html

Part 3
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...the_traps_.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bootsakah @ Jan 13 2009, 07:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Some good reads from the GP sites lately on the topic of "saving Moto GP". Have a read if you haven't, some good ideas being thrown out there.

Crash.net - "Should Moto GP bikes be sold?"
http://www.crash.net/motorsport/motogp/new...es_be_sold.html


MotoGPMatters.com: Saving MotoGP Part 1,2,3:
Part 1
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...togp_so_ex.html

Part 2
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...courage_th.html

Part 3
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...the_traps_.html



Really good articles.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nuts @ Jan 13 2009, 05:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Really good articles.
I don't go all the way with kropotkin all the time, but these articles are mostly fairly sensible. I think he reads this forum though .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bootsakah @ Jan 12 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>MotoGPMatters.com: Saving MotoGP Part 1,2,3:
Part 1
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...togp_so_ex.html

Part 2
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...courage_th.html

Part 3
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/...the_traps_.html

Kropotkin is one of the few people who understands this sport, aside from me of course. I'm a bit disappointed he doesn't see the merit of a top speed limit, but at least he is smart enough to see the inherent genius in eliminating displacement rules.

To date he is still the only person I've seen to use law of diminishing returns to show why a majority of today's proposed solutions are the work of imbeciles. Kropotkin even mentioned the law of unintended consequences. Not bad for a journo

Anywho, early on in the 800 era, I supported a ban on TC and other electronics, but as Kropotkin has pointed out, such bans actually lead to distortions in diminishing marginal returns. Technological bans frequently lead to worsening competitive environments.

They need to control top speed while eliminating displacement and fuel regulations. It is THE CHEAPEST solution and it has a flattening effect on the marginal returns of additional power.

The solution being provided by the sports insiders (i.e. spec ecu, rev limited engines) are an embarrassment to the sport's management and participants. They will fail miserably. The only way to make this sport viable in the long term, is to define the performance limits the tracks and the human body can sustain given today's safety equipment. Then change the rules so that the performance criterion can be met as cheaply as possible. You can't cheat physics. You can't make a control tire supply more grip than it was designed to supply.

I suspect the marketers are afraid of a series with a defined top speed. I think a 1200cc V-5 with 350hp would remedy any marketing problems caused by a top speed limit.

1 bad thing to say about the article. Kropotkin is fooling himself if he thinks heavier bikes will fix the sport. Power is already 9/10 of the law in MotoGP and all of the teams already add ballast to get to 148kg. Adding weight will reduce corner speed but it will make power even more important.

They already have a freakin control tire. I'd be amazed if Bridgestone are incapable of producing 2006 tires for 2009 bikes. 2006 was the last time we saw acceptable cornering speeds, right? If you want to reduce cornering speed, you must give the bike additional power. Otherwise, GP will be slower than WSBK.

Having no limit on engine design (capacity & configuration) would make the catch phrase of "prototype" actually feel legitimate for once in regards to Moto GP. What is the point of having a set engine configuration in a series that sells itself as experimental. Leave a spec engine size to series like WSBK where they race production bikes that they intend to sell. Eventually the participants in Moto GP will find a sweet spot on engine configuration, but allow them to play around with it from year to year if they chose, on their own terms. As pointed out, a top speed limit would be the only thing required to keep speeds safe. I think Kropotkin's ideas would work well, doubtful though Dorna/FIM would try something so bold. My guess is they try a spec ECU next.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bootsakah @ Jan 13 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Having no limit on engine design (capacity & configuration) would make the catch phrase of "prototype" actually feel legitimate for once in regards to Moto GP. What is the point of having a set engine configuration in a series that sells itself as experimental. Leave a spec engine size to series like WSBK where they race production bikes that they intend to sell. Eventually the participants in Moto GP will find a sweet spot on engine configuration, but allow them to play around with it from year to year if they chose, on their own terms. As pointed out, a top speed limit would be the only thing required to keep speeds safe. I think Kropotkin's ideas would work well, doubtful though Dorna/FIM would try something so bold. My guess is they try a spec ECU next.
i agree. big bang is hardly prototype any more and calling pneumatic valves prototype is pushing it a tad as there still normal reciprocating valves. i would like to see new inovetive engines like the wankle in its day. Volvo made a concept gas turbine car a while back plus the greenies bang on about electric vehicles. This can only be tried if the cubic capacity limits are dropped. motogp can hardly be called a prototype series all the while every team is using the age old Otto cycle engine imo.

A top speed limit is ....... gay and all those who like that idea are ....... gay and should be taken out back and beaten with a ....... motorcycle chain...

You want it safer... bring back massive horse power of the 990..hell kick it up to 1200cc...It's not top speed that is the issue..its corner and entry speed... .......

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Jan 13 2009, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A top speed limit is ....... gay and all those who like that idea are ....... gay and should be taken out back and beaten with a ....... motorcycle chain...

You want it safer... bring back massive horse power of the 990..hell kick it up to 1200cc...It's not top speed that is the issue..its corner and entry speed... .......
so turn motogp into drag racing is your suggestion then ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Jan 13 2009, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>so turn motogp into drag racing is your suggestion then ?

were the 990s drag bikes?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Jan 13 2009, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i agree. big bang is hardly prototype any more and calling pneumatic valves prototype is pushing it a tad as there still normal reciprocating valves. i would like to see new inovetive engines like the wankle in its day. Volvo made a concept gas turbine car a while back plus the greenies bang on about electric vehicles. This can only be tried if the cubic capacity limits are dropped. motogp can hardly be called a prototype series all the while every team is using the age old Otto cycle engine imo.
The series is about to die and they still don't realize the series is a prototype series that requires something new and innovative on a daily basis. It would seem that no one gives a .... and that we will all be looking at SBK for our racing fix. Oh by the way roger are you Muslim, Nazi or something with the burning israeli flag?