Is MotoGP just R&D for Scooters

No, it's much worse than that.



Production manufacturers no longer have much purpose in prototype racing paddocks. The technologies they need to develop for the 21st production market (hybrid, lean burn, DI, electronic driving aids) are not compatible with state-of-the-art, high-performance motorsport technologies that fans/drivers expect. The racing teams try to shoehorn 21st century technology into the sport so executives green light racing programs, but the arrangement is a mess. They also invent business schemes like B2B networking and rapid prototyping development to keep shareholders and executives interested, but for all intents and purposes, they have no business in prototype racing.



Modern MotoGP is no different. Unlimited 1000cc engines bores them (basically 1 liter F1), and unlimited 1000s have safety concerns. Horsepower limits (rev limiting or bore limiting w/ unlimited fuel) bore them. No electronics bores them. Control tire bores them. They are bored out of their minds so they've come up with this half-baked fuel limit b/c it is difficult. A difficult game gives engineers a reason to go to the office, and it keeps them flush with shareholder money.



Unfortunately, the engineers' idea of a good time is a nightmare for fans, riders, and IRTA team owners. The commercial rights holders want to maximize sponsorship so they pander to the manufacturers at the expense of the sport.



Which do you want: 1. Racing to be controlled by racing companies who do nothing but race for a living and who have incentives to entertain us (sport is the source of all of their profits) 2. Racing to be controlled by production manufacturers who use the sport as a branding activity and who are inclined to withdraw when they don't get their way b/c sport doesn't generate their profits



That is all. Normally I push for compromise or separation of duties, but this isn't the time. Imo, it is time for manufacturers to be thrown out of all forms of prototype racing. Racing will be the business of private companies who do nothing but race.

mylexicon said:

Racing will be the business of private companies who do nothing but race.

Click to expand...

Are there any such examples in motorsports?

Beef Supreme said:

Are there any such examples in motorsports?

Click to expand...

Nearly every team in NASCAR and IRL. Almost all GP2 teams. All IRTA teams in MotoGP (Tech 3, Gresini, LCR, etc). F1 teams like Hispania, Force India, and Sauber though you could also count Red Bull, Virgin, Team Lotus, Williams, and others who are required to operate the team at a profit.



Engines are the problem. None of these teams can build racing engines, and the boutique manufacturers who are willing to supply engines are generally reliant upon major manufacturers for development funding.



It's an ugly situation. The commercial rights people sold out to the manufacturers b/c the manufacturers have lots of money. Unfortunately, there is a divergence (now and in the future) between what the manufacturers need to develop and what racing participants and fans want to run.

mylexicon said:

Nearly every team in NASCAR and IRL. Almost all GP2 teams. All IRTA teams in MotoGP (Tech 3, Gresini, LCR, etc). F1 teams like Hispania, Force India, and Sauber though you could also count Red Bull, Virgin, Team Lotus, Williams, and others who are required to operate the team at a profit.

Click to expand...

Would you include SBK/WSS?

I would like to point out that MotoGP depends on money, and so MotoGP is whatever the race departments tell their executive board it is. If the race department can get 80+ million out of the board by saying "We'll sell x million more units by going racing" it's a marketing exercise. If they have to say "we can learn all about partial throttle openings and fuel economy under extreme circumstances" then it's an R&D exercise.



The reason MotoGP needs to get rid of the MSMA is because they fund the racing, and so they make the decisions. If Dorna can fund 4 million euro teams on more stock-ish bikes, and have lots of bikes on the grid, rather than 20 million euro teams with 17 bikes on the grid, then we can be rid of the MSMA.

Kropotkin said:

If Dorna can fund 4 million euro teams on more stock-ish bikes, and have lots of bikes on the grid, rather than 20 million euro teams with 17 bikes on the grid, then we can be rid of the MSMA.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't we also be rid of MotoGP in that case, and either have dual production-based series or SBK becoming the series that remained standing?

mylexicon said:

Imo, it is time for manufacturers to be thrown out of all forms of prototype racing.

Click to expand...

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

mylexicon said:

Racing will be the business of private companies who do nothing but race.

Click to expand...

These "private companies" can build their own bikes and start their own racing series. I for one can't imagine motorcycle racing without Honda, Yamaha, Ducati etc. It would be a bit like formula 1 without Ferrari.

Beef Supreme said:

Wouldn't we also be rid of MotoGP in that case, and either have dual production-based series or SBK becoming the series that remained standing?

Click to expand...

No, because MotoGP is not allowed to race production bikes, nor are they interested in doing so. They just don't want to spend a bajillion dollars on developing engines and electronics. Dorna, the FIM and IRTA would agree to race C90 engines in a prototype chassis, as chassis development is still relatively cheap. Making 250 hp is tricky, though, especially when limited to just 21 liters of fuel.

bigbang said:

I for one can't imagine motorcycle racing without Honda, Yamaha, Ducati etc.

Click to expand...

That is why we have the 21L rule. Dorna are stuck in an impossible situation b/c they know fans defend the manufacturers even when the manufacturers ruin the sport. MotoGP has 3.5 manufacturers, 17 bikes, and they've just passed Supersuperbike rules b/c they can't get more bikes on the grid.



Yet Dorna continues to sell out to the manufacturers b/c they do not believe the fans will show up without them. Fans want the 21L rule whether they know it or not.

mylexicon said:

That is why we have the 21L rule.

Click to expand...

and? what's wrong with the 21L rule?

JohnnyKnockdown said:

Out of all the rules the fuel limit rule never made sense to me. Why would you bother to take out 1 liter of gas when you are striving to get the fastest motorcycles on the planet to go faster. By all accounts it has changed the dynamic of racing in a negative way. Why would they want to neuter these bikes and in turn neuter the show over this 1 litre.

From what I've been told the MSMA are the ones that wanted to implement this rule. A very very large part of the manufacturers sales are scooters. With the increase of fuel prices around the world scooters are a more viable alternative to cars especially in Asia,and Europe. While motorcycles sales are contingent on such factors such as brand loyalty, racing results, and performance characteristics, scooter sales are dictated by their fuel effiency characteristics.

Motogp right now is the premiere testing ground for fuel efficiency technology. Is MotoGP just a grand R&D testing facility for scooter sales?

Click to expand...

I have no idea about Europe but I can guarantee no Asian I know has ever based a scooter purchase on fuel efficiency. Price and power (to haul a family of five on a Honda Wave) are far and away the two hinge points of sales. EFI is now popular (but far from ubiquitous) because of ease-of-use.

bigbang said:

and? what's wrong with the 21L rule?

Click to expand...

Bigbang, there is very little reason to hang around and play coy games. This thread was started b/c Johnny doesn't like the effects of the 21L rule. Regardless of Johnny's taste, the MotoGP grid has shrunk to 17 bikes and Dorna are paying more money (60% more to private IRTA teams according to Ezy) to fund the show.



Your questions have been answered on numerous occasions in this thread and hundred (if not thousands) of times in this forum.

mylexicon said:

Bigbang, there is very little reason to hang around and play coy games. This thread was started b/c Johnny doesn't like the effects of the 21L rule. Regardless of Johnny's taste, the MotoGP grid has shrunk to 17 bikes and Dorna are paying more money (60% more to private IRTA teams according to Ezy) to fund the show.



Your questions have been answered on numerous occasions in this thread and hundred (if not thousands) of times in this forum.

Click to expand...

I am playing no games. I just think there is nothing wrong with the 21L rule. And neither it has anything to do with the MotoGP grid shrinking to 17 bikes. (IMO the prime culprits for that is the general financial crises and the banning of tobacco sponsorship).

bigbang said:

I am playing no games. I just think there is nothing wrong with the 21L rule. And neither it has anything to do with the MotoGP grid shrinking to 17 bikes. (IMO the prime culprits for that is the general financial crises and the banning of tobacco sponsorship).

Click to expand...

Well, let's just assume a world where economic crises don't happen and tobacco sponsorship is unrestricted. That will solve everything.

mylexicon said:

Well, let's just assume a world where economic crises don't happen and tobacco sponsorship is unrestricted. That will solve everything.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. My point was:

1) the shrinking of the grid has absolutely nothing to do with the 21L rule

2) the 21L rule is actually a smart way to contain the performances of the bikes within certain limits, certainly much better than things like rev limits on engines which some other racing categories have.

i like the thread title

yeah its good for scooters that's about all its good for these days its been fooked up

i will say though there's some good ..... rides scooters so all's not lost

bigbang said:

I didn't say that. My point was:

1) the shrinking of the grid has absolutely nothing to do with the 21L rule

2) the 21L rule is actually a smart way to contain the performances of the bikes within certain limits, certainly much better than things like rev limits on engines which some other racing categories have.

Click to expand...

On 2), I sort of agree, the problem is that we have two rules restraining bike performance: 800cc and 21l of fuel. This narrows the options for engine designers looking for horsepower. The only place the designers can find both the fuel and the performance and fuel efficiency is by using high revs and lots of electronics. Both of those options are very expensive, and this is precisely the reason the factories have pursued these paths, as they raise the barriers to entry into the class. They basically raised the entry stake for MotoGP to around 30 million, and that's just for designing and developing the engine.



If they just had a 21 liter rule, and no capacity restriction (and preferably no aero restrictions), then we would have a more interesting (and cheaper) series.



On question 1, I'd like to know what your reasons are for the shrinking of the grid. But there's a trick here, you're not allowed to say "the banning of tobacco sponsorship". The only reason tobacco sponsored motorcycle racing is because they had nowhere else to go once ordinary advertising of tobacco products was banned. Tobacco sponsorship was the worst thing that ever happened to motorcycle racing.

bigbang said:

I didn't say that. My point was:

1) the shrinking of the grid has absolutely nothing to do with the 21L rule

2) the 21L rule is actually a smart way to contain the performances of the bikes within certain limits, certainly much better than things like rev limits on engines which some other racing categories have.

Click to expand...

1. It is unreasonable to assume a world with no economic shocks and unrestricted tobacco sponsorship. It is reasonable to assume a cost effective formula that can sustain business cycles. Furthermore, the 21L rule was driving up costs from engines to tires which is why they introduced engine limits and control tires (partly). The economic recession is not driving up the cost of anything, and neither is the withdrawal of tobacco sponsorship.



2. The 21L rule is not actually a smart way to contain performance. The FIA tried this same model many years ago with Group C. It was unsuccessful, and when they introduced a formula for 3.5L naturally aspirated engines, Group C collapsed. Interestingly enough, Honda did not participate in Group C prototype racing. Don't say cars to bikes. Engines are engines. Maintaining power and increasing fuel efficiency is very expensive.



Fuel limits are smart for race engineers and electronics programmers, but they are useless and aggravating for fans, riders, non-participating manufacturers, and team owners. The MSMA have other options.

mylexicon said:

1. It is unreasonable to assume a world with no economic shocks and unrestricted tobacco sponsorship. It is reasonable to assume a cost effective formula that can sustain business cycles. Furthermore, the 21L rule was driving up costs from engines to tires which is why they introduced engine limits and control tires (partly). The economic recession is not driving up the cost of anything, and neither is the withdrawal of tobacco sponsorship.

Click to expand...

The economic recession is not driving up the cost of anything true, but it does make finding good sponsorship money is much harder. I have heard at least 3 or 4 team managers commenting on that and i think they know what they talk about. Racing is a costly exercise and a top world championship can hardly be cost effective. If they don't spend money on engines they will spend it on something else.

mylexicon said:

2. The 21L rule is not actually a smart way to contain performance. The FIA tried this same model many years ago with Group C. It was unsuccessful, and when they introduced a formula for 3.5L naturally aspirated engines, Group C collapsed. Interestingly enough, Honda did not participate in Group C prototype racing. Don't say cars to bikes. Engines are engines. Maintaining power and increasing fuel efficiency is very expensive.

Click to expand...

This is completely untrue. The Group C was collapsing before they introduced 3.5L naturally aspirated engines, in fact that was an attempt to save it. The real reason that championship collapsed was because the cost of developing the cars was almost as high as formula 1 but the media attention was nowhere near formula 1. It was a bad value for money. That's why Mercedes and Jaguar eventually ended in formula 1 anyway.