If they wanted to make it easier for manufacturers to enter MotoGP

... all they have to do is this. All designs, software, etc. for MotoGP bikes must be lodged with the organiser prior to the bikes being ridden. Spot checks are made during scruitineering that the designs are complete and correct. Where a team has variant designs for various parts, they would have to say which parts they were using at each race.


 


At the end of the year, all such designs are released into the public domain. Including information such as which parts/software versions were used at each race. Manufacturers could patent their innovations to restrict their use outside MotoGP, but they would have to specifically agree that all current or potential MotoGP entrants can freely use these technology for MotoGP bikes and testing thereof.

 


This would equalise the playing field considerably. No team that had a technological secret would be able to benefit from it for more than one year. () Major manufacturers would be hesitant to use hyper-technology on their bikes, as it would become public knowledge within a year or so, and they would then lose their advantage. Technology usable in road bikes would still be protected by patents as it is now.


 


Any new entrant (or returning marque) would not have to reinvent the wheel, they could benefit from the previous year's technology so that they get a running start, and save a large amount of money on research and development.


 


Yes, this has some similarities to the CRT rules for engines, but it would be even more open, and cover all of the bike including aerodynamics,


 


() in reality they would benefit for slightly longer than this as they would have a longer lead time to develop their next year's bike that uses this technology than competitors that would only find out at the end of the year.

All they have to do to make the sport cheaper is scrap fuel regs and scrap the engine limit.

chopperman

3693401385040986

All they have to do to make the sport cheaper is scrap fuel regs and scrap the engine limit.

Click to expand...

 


How would that prevent the richest manufacturer spending big ££££££/$$$$$$/Yen on engine and other development, and it then being too expensive for other manufacturers to keep up, and very difficult for new entrants to develop the technology to compete?

It depends on who you think "They" are. Dorna would no doubt love to level the playing field more, as it would make the racing closer, more exciting, and therefore more profitable, but they're at the mercy of HRC, who are keen to hold on to their vast technical advantages.


 
AnnoyingTwit

3693441385044909

How would that prevent the richest manufacturer spending big ££££££/$$$$$$/Yen on engine and other development, and it then being too expensive for other manufacturers to keep up, and very difficult for new entrants to develop the technology to compete?

Click to expand...

 


This.


 


If there were no limits on engines, then HRC would develop one set of engines just for qualifying and another for racing, a situation not unlike what was happening in F1 once upon a time. This would leave the rest of the field even further behind.


 


Speaking of HRC: the OP has some good ideas, but if any of them were actually implemented, it would take Honda approximately 0.001 seconds to leave MotoGP. HRC has huge influence over the sport, because Dorna can't afford to lose their signature manufacturer. For proof of this, look no further than the new fuel regs. Barring a minor engineering miracle at Yamaha, the M1 will be on fumes by race's end next year, while the RCVs look to be able to contend on 20 liters of fuel with no issues.


 


Bottom line: as someone pointed out in a different thread, HRC is more or less the the Galactic Empire of MotoGP, and has the ability to outspend the entire rest of the field in the pursuit of wins. As long as that's the situation (and it looks to be so for a long time), then the playing field will never truly be level.

AnnoyingTwit

3693441385044909

How would that prevent the richest manufacturer spending big ££££££/$$$$$$/Yen on engine and other development, and it then being too expensive for other manufacturers to keep up, and very difficult for new entrants to develop the technology to compete?

Click to expand...

Because the big money is spent on R&D. That cost multiplied when strict fuel and engine regs were bought in. Just look at the disparity with privateers and factorys from 10 years ago to now.

chopperman

3693401385040986

All they have to do to make the sport cheaper is scrap fuel regs and scrap the engine limit.

Click to expand...

No no, you've got it all wrong. Those regs where brought in to make it cheaper. Have you seen the price at the pump for a liter of gas? By cutting down to 20l they're saving at least $1.40 a race. And engines those are expensive. Eventually the msma will figure out that 1 motor a year is cheapest of all....

bluegreen

3693751385061184

No no, you've got it all wrong. Those regs where brought in to make it cheaper. Have you seen the price at the pump for a liter of gas? By cutting down to 20l they're saving at least $1.40 a race. And engines those are expensive. Eventually the msma will figure out that 1 motor a year is cheapest of all....

Click to expand...

At least 5 times that much, that ....... race fuel is expensive. :lol:

bluegreen

3693751385061184

No no, you've got it all wrong. Those regs where brought in to make it cheaper. Have you seen the price at the pump for a liter of gas? By cutting down to 20l they're saving at least $1.40 a race. And engines those are expensive. Eventually the msma will figure out that 1 motor a year is cheapest of all....

Click to expand...

hahahaha.

chopperman

3693641385057418

Because the big money is spent on R&D. That cost multiplied when strict fuel and engine regs were bought in. Just look at the disparity with privateers and factorys from 10 years ago to now.

Click to expand...

 


I don't agree that it's the fuel regulations have led to a larger gap. The freer the engine designers are to look for new solutions to the problem of burning fuel and getting power from it, the more that lengthy well-funded R&D can build up a level of technology that it is very difficult for less well funded teams and/or new entrants to match. Ten years ago, MotoGP had only recently switched from two stroke to four stroke engines, and hence there had been less time for (e.g.) Honda to build a technological lead. Now, they've had more than ten years to do so. I believe it's not the changing fuel regs that have changed the balance between Honda and other teams, but the fact that ten years have passed. If there hadn't been strict fuel and engine regs bought it, the disparity would probably be even larger. That's the major reason my OP suggested a model whereby technological leads wouldn't be allowed to build up, as it risks one manufacturer getting so far ahead that nobody can ever compete.

AnnoyingTwit

3693941385071911

I don't agree that it's the fuel regulations have led to a larger gap. The freer the engine designers are to look for new solutions to the problem of burning fuel and getting power from it, the more that lengthy well-funded R&D can build up a level of technology that it is very difficult for less well funded teams and/or new entrants to match. Ten years ago, MotoGP had only recently switched from two stroke to four stroke engines, and hence there had been less time for (e.g.) Honda to build a technological lead. Now, they've had more than ten years to do so. I believe it's not the changing fuel regs that have changed the balance between Honda and other teams, but the fact that ten years have passed. If there hadn't been strict fuel and engine regs bought it, the disparity would probably be even larger. That's the major reason my OP suggested a model whereby technological leads wouldn't be allowed to build up, as it risks one manufacturer getting so far ahead that nobody can ever compete.

Click to expand...

Lean burn engines i.e engines that use less fuel run far hotter. This causes lots of issues including engine wear and failure. To build a very powerful high revving lean burn engine that lasts is hugely expensive. The costs associated with R&D with such engines are something very few can afford. It would be cheaper to build an engine that will only lasts quali, practice, race ect that it is to design build and test engines of lean burn type that will last several races. It would allow all to build powerful engines rather than just the elite. Cutting fuel regs would cut down engine wear and R&D costs thus making the sport cheaper to enter into. To have such a fuel reg that makes these incredibly lean burn and limit the amount of engines makes the sport unaffordable.

chopperman

3693401385040986

All they have to do to make the sport cheaper is scrap fuel regs and scrap the engine limit.

Click to expand...

 


This makes it (maybe) cheaper to enter (ie. I could build one myself), but even harder to win. Imagine the engine HRC would build under these regulations. Ever heard of the 990 V5?


 
 

chopperman

3693641385057418

Because the big money is spent on R&D. That cost multiplied when strict fuel and engine regs were bought in. Just look at the disparity with privateers and factorys from 10 years ago to now.

Click to expand...

 


10 years ago is 2003. Didn't Honda win every race that year?

Sloth_27

3694361385094204



This makes it (maybe) cheaper to enter (ie. I could build one myself), but even harder to win. Imagine the engine HRC would build under these regulations. Ever heard of the 990 V5?


 
 



 


10 years ago is 2003. Didn't Honda win every race that year?

Click to expand...

Thats was the thread is about.  Honda will always have an advantage regardless of the rules due to the wealth of the company. Cutting fuel regs would at least make the sport cheaper and give the competition more chance of competing. At the end of the day a bike can only realistically carry so much fuel.

Sloth_27

3694361385094204



This makes it (maybe) cheaper to enter (ie. I could build one myself), but even harder to win. Imagine the engine HRC would build under these regulations. Ever heard of the 990 V5?


 
 



 


10 years ago is 2003. Didn't Honda win every race that year?

Click to expand...

 


Ahem, 10 years ago was 2003 when Ducati entered motogp and soon enough actually won a race against the Honda V5. What chance of that ever repeating under the current regs?

I think AT's suggestion is a good one, in principle.
I don't mean to pick it apart, but I see some issues in exactly what and how data is released. All CAD dumped into a central repository?

It is difficult to create and control CAD releasing in a formal production environment, in a racing season, I'd wager it'd be a nightmare, particulary for the smaller teams. That is, for the data to be meaningful and useful to other users, the data would have to be very detailed and meticulously kept up to date. This would probably be no problem at all for the likes of Honda and Yamaha, but for smaller entrants? They'd waste headcount on some poor guy/gal(s) just doing the book keeping for the CAD, and the people good at that are usually pedantic, rule-freaks who I wouldn't want near my development...

Then there'd need to be agreement on exact file content and structure/layers... the various packages: CATIA?UG?IDEAS?Etchasketch?...

But the worst would be the bureaucracy to administer and control the compliance. That'd be huge. And costly. I'd be worried about someone's incorrect data release becoming grounds for a result challenge (as if there isn't enough peripheral crap messing with the sport)

Sorry to be a bucket of cold water, but while the principle of using data sharing to equalise the sport is a good one, I fear we will be heading closer and closer to a spec series.

Much better were the days when a engine check involved draining the coolant and sticking a bore-guage down the cylinder. Who cared what forks or axle diameter or frame weld location was there, the inspectors didn't.

Minimal rules = better. More rules risk disappearing into a spec series.

AnnoyingTwit

3693941385071911

Ten years ago, MotoGP had only recently switched from two stroke to four stroke engines, and hence there had been less time for (e.g.) Honda to build a technological lead. Now, they've had more than ten years to do so. I believe it's not the changing fuel regs that have changed the balance between Honda and other teams, but the fact that ten years have passed.

Click to expand...

It didnt work out like that though. When they switched to four stroke Honda already had F1 tech, and no surprise they jumped out to an instant lead with a V5.


 


As time went on the others actually caught up, rather than Honda stretching out an even bigger lead.


 


Its the constant rule changes that fall into the hands of the bigger budgets. With each further rule change we lost more manufacturers. I fear 20L 5 engines may be a bridge too far, and soon enough Yamaha will pull the pin as well.


 


With only four factory bikes to me the class is dead. Too much of a mixed up jumble. I would prefer to see them just make the class production racers only, meaning 24L and 12 engines for all because that is the best set of rules. As was once stated, where else is there for Honda to go anyway?