For someone who claims to have been following the sport for 4 - 5 years you do seem to feel as if you know a lot ....... so out with it ........ who are you really?
Marquez crashing at Phillip Island had nothing to do with the environment. His riding philosophy is not an anomaly. He would presumably have reverted to win-or-bin mode after securing the title regardless of tyre/weather conditions.
Never said it did but you wish to use PI as an example of competitiveness because a satellite bike won whereas I am pointing out the anomoly in that yes, a satellite won but only after Marquez crashed out as a result of already having wrapped up the title. It needs to be looked at in terms that he had not crashed all year, wrapped up the title, then started to crash due to a change of approach, thus for me is is as much an anomoly that a Satellite bike won that race as was Miller and others (without dismissing the job done by that satellite team).
To simplify, I strongly suspect that were the championship still to be decided, Marquez (and others) may have raced differently (which may have enhanced the satellite bike possibility as Cal does well at PI)
History also shows that those smaller teams were deprived of their tyre advantage after less than two seasons. And were a tyre war to lead to a repeat of their anomalous advantage, they'd again be stripped of it equally quickly.
Yes and no.
Ducati lost their advantage because people whinged, whined and wanted to (in their minds) be immediately competitive with those people believing the tyres were the reason that they had lost competitiveness.
Now, this might be true, but as is widely known, on announcement that Rossi and Pedrosa were heading to Bridgestone and seeing the writing on the wall, Ducati approached Michelin with regards to working with MIchelin to be their tyre supplier. So yes, they lost the Brdigestone advantage but quite reasonably may well have picked up a Michelin advantage were they allowed to swap (again, less people to concentrate on could well have helped Michelin develop a great tyre ............... sadly, we shall never know)
While doing that you ignore the converse of that statement - that the freedom to the field to make their own tyre arrangements will favour those with the influence and/or financial muscle to secure better deals resulting in less competitiveness. And I believe there's bit of a historical precedent to suppliers not just taking direction from prominent riders but also making a better grade of tyre available to them (with their cattle class customers using older tyres).
Show me where I ignore it?
This is likely happening today anyway where those with more financial clout are able to change their bikes more readily to try to accommodate these spec tyres of which you seem so keen, and yet I do not seen your concern about that flow on effect.
HRC and others have publically commented across years that changing the tyres to suit their bikes is cheaper than changing their bikes to suit the tyres, which are everchanging.
Swings and roundabouts, although you only seem concerned with one half of the equation as if the cost to develop the bike increases at HRC, then the teams further down the pecking order will feel it as well due to increase leased costs or even, simply not accepting their 'place'
I have no personal or professional relationship with Dorna. I just find that while most people have their vision of an ideal world - *all prototype class, all riders getting their preferred tyres, lots of competitive manufacturers, lots of competitive satellites, no teams forced to run pay riders, no parents forced to sell the house to support the kid, and a classy race environment with no boorish fans & no circus* - the question of who exactly pays for it all is not one that gets a lot of traction here.
Wrong again as the cost of the sport is often discussed here so suggest that you use the forum search button to research as the chatter is often there.
It may not be a separate thread or a full in depth discussion but the costs of ongoing development to suit the everchanging rules/regulations cops a mention, as does the cost of involvement (ie. buying a ride, getting a team etc)
As for the purists, we have seen many a paid rider but far more paying riders across the years in their own teams and often as their own mechanics. We have also seen years, decades even of two dominant manufacturers whilst other upstarts occasionally come along to upset the applecart of HRC/Yamaha (Suzuki, Ducati and of course non-Factory teams of yesteryear with quality riders).
You do seem to wish to be a little condescending in the quoted part above, which is all well and good but I suggest that you do not dismiss the purists thoughts as google is no substitute for experience and longevity of support as it is but two dimensional where many purists have experienced the 3 dimensional. To dismiss purists is to dismiss the likes of Jeremey Burgess' opinion because he comes from old school, or that of any number of riders, fans, officials, technicians or others with vast levels of experience in the paddock of motorcycle racing.
I am fairly curious about what the sport would look like with the just the purists paying the bills - I suspect it may look a lot like WSBK, for better or worse.
Interesting that you mention WSBk as where once it was a glorious product, it does seem to have gone dramatically downhill in spectacle terms. Even more interestingly, the downhill slide seems to have started around when DORNA took over (via Bridgepoint) in 2013.
However MotoGP (or motorcycle grands prix as it was before the 4 stroke era) did alright for a lot of years and would do so again as purists can move with the times (social media being a prime example) but also recognise the benefits of not losing
sight of that which has been successful in the past to generate and encourage competition.
You can be as condescending as you wish but history shows that competition in all markets can work, just as history shows that monopolies in markets often do not work (reverse can be seen in examples as well but are rarer).
But I will tell you this, your and my opinions will not meet a mutually agreeable middle ground as I am obviously to 'purist' and thus unable to move with the times but I am (as Kesh suggests) a realist when it comes to this sport and know full well that there will never be an equitable existence for those involved.
).
