This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Michael Czysz: How to save MotoGP

#22

#22

Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
"If companies no longer deem racing essential, it is because the formula is no longer relevant"



Thought you guys might find this an interesting discussion point, here is the original article



http://www.crash.net...ave_motogp.html

MotoCzysz founder Michael Czysz, whose E1PC [color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]electric [/font][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]motorcycles[/font][/font][/color][/color][/color] took first and second places in the 2011 Isle of Man [color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]TT[/font][/font][/color][/color] Zero race, has offered the following vision for future technical rules in MotoGP and WSBK competition.



Czysz has given Crash.net permission for his ideas, posted on MotoCzysz.com earlier this week, to be reproduced in full below.



Negotiations are ongoing between Dorna and the MotoGP manufacturers for the post-2012 rule changes, with the end of May targeted as the deadline for an agreement...



Is MotoGP lost: 500 > 990 > 800 > 1000 > CRT > ?



Companies race for only a few reasons: R&D, Sales & Marketing and hopefully passion, fans watch for even fewer; to witness the greatest competition known to man.



In an era where it is more important then ever for companies to innovate and differentiate themselves from the competition the race track for a motorcycle company should be as central to their operation as the boardroom.



If companies no longer deem racing essential, it is because the formula is no longer relevant.



Worse, if racing classifications are not clear then fans fail to connect and eventually even care. Ask even a loyal fan to explain the difference between DSB and SuperSport or WSBK and a CRT.



Racing directs development and to make it relevant in the 21 century, efficiency should ..... top speed. Every company (and individual) should be focused on doing more with less and fans should easily understand the structure and goals of each class. What is needed is new architecture, a solid, stable foundation that can scale from Moto3 thru MotoGP and WSBK while maintaining each classes unique individuality.



Go to the heart...



Motorcycles go faster because every aspect improves but at the centre of this improvement is the cylinder, the heart of the machine. Cylinders have evolved to a diametric science of laminar flow and turbulence. The heart has moved far beyond simple porting and polishing of cast heads.



The design and development of the cylinder (airbox to exhaust) is a serious, expensive endeavor and with every seemingly random displacement or bore/[color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]stroke[/font][/font][/color][/color] change the entire expensive cycle starts over.



More than anything else, global [color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]rule [/font][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]changes[/font][/color][/font][/color][/color] preclude smaller companies from becoming competitive and even plays a part in why existing manufacturers drop out. The result? A MotoGP grid with 3 manufacturers.



The first step; lock down the lowest common denominator, the single cylinder. The obvious choice is a 250cc 4 stroke. The only limitation should be no pneumatic valves.



Ultimately the investors in race technology want to commercialise their technology and pneumatic valves are not easily commercialised. Limiting RPM or bore/stroke ratios are misguided, the goal should be to leave the rules as open as possible.



Once a team has successfully designed a single cylinder, a single-cylinder engine is a relatively small next step. Once a team has built a single-cylinder engine, a multi-cylinder engine is well within reach. All the technology and costs spent on any engine could be applied and shared with any other engine yet every engine and class stays and sounds unique.



The 250 multiplier



We have been nearly here; the greatest era of GP racing from a cost development and fan appreciation perspective had to be the 125, 250 and 500cc era and the distinction between superbikes and GP were at their greatest; 2 stroke vs. 4 stroke. Even though 4 stroke engines have migrated into MotoGP there is still a solution- it utilises what I call the 250 multiplier:



Moto3 = 250cc (250cc x 1 cylinder).

[color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]Moto2[/font][/font][/color][/color] = 500cc (250cc x 2 cylinders).

[color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]MotoGP[/font][/font][/color][/color] = 750cc (250cc x 3 cylinders).

WSBK/Superbike racing = 1,000 (250cc x 4 cylinders).



This allows the clearest path forward for even the smallest company from China or the largest company from India to enter and create a long term plan to race. Nearly all the investment made in Moto3 would be directly applicable to Moto2 and so on.



Of course, fewer or more cylinders should be allowed with displacement considerations.



MotoGP vs WSBK



MotoGP = 250cc, 500cc and 750cc prototype engines and chassis.

WSBK/Superbike = 600cc and 1,000cc production engines and chassis.



Under the 250X format MotoGP will continue to race technology-leading prototype chassis and engines. With a common cylinder across the classes, MotoGP will not only have built-in feeder classes for riders but for manufacturers too.



Superbikes will continue to be the most directly connected series to consumers as the motorcycles raced are available in showrooms. However Superbike needs to be more disciplined, a minimum number of motorcycles must be manufactured and delivered before allowed to participate.



The trust is lost when a series homologates bikes or equipment arbitrarily that do not even meet the basic definition of “production based” (i.e. AMA/DMG)



Electronics, tyres, back-up bikes, etc.



I generally feel fewer rules are better than more and that fewer restrictions will create more interesting racing and over the long run will cost less. Change costs money, the greater the change the greater the cost.



Electronics are a reality and will continue to play an even bigger roll in racing. Electronics can bring outside industry support and money to racing so it needs be managed, not limited.



Moto3 = controlled [color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]electronics[/font][/font][/color][/color] (single supplier system).

Moto2 = homoligated electronics (open system from any supplier, available to all teams).

[color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]MotoGP[/font][/font][/color][/color] = unlimited electronics.



WSS 600cc = homoligated electronics (open system from any supplier, available to all teams).

WSBK 1000cc = unlimited electronics.



Tyres = open.

Back-up (spare) bike = allowed.

CRTs = cancelled.



Historically, whenever a restriction is implemented to save money it often costs more. Currently WSBK does not allow a back-up bike in an effort to save money. In response every team now has a back-up bike that is apart, packed in crates instead of already built and ready.



There is little difference in outright cost but all teams encounter much more work and cost in the event there is a problem with the 'one' bike. By definition Superbike is to be production racing, which means highly available.



Most importantly; vertical growth over lateral change



There are hundreds of motorcycle manufacturers and suppliers in the world that are candidates to participate in racing but do not. The greatest limitation is not money but time.



Unless a company is already experienced in racing it takes time to work into the system. Money is still a requirement but many companies have more than 'enough' to participate at some level and enough of them could significantly contribute to the overall health and wealth of the sport.



What I believe keeps many companies on the sidelines is the lack of transparency and reason behind wholesale rule changes reinforcing a general fear that the sport is too big and they (we) are too small.



However if it was clear that a company would have years to move up and grow into the sport this fear would be reduced if not completely eliminated.



If a company could be certain that every hour and every dollar it invested in racing would remain relevant and applicable as they executed a measured, vertical growth plan then the ROI and value proposition of racing dramatically changes.



If [color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]motorcycle [/font][color=blue !important][font=verdana, arial]racing[/font][/color][/font][/color][/color] became the best organised, most transparent race series with the clearest, communicated long-term vision I believe it could be the most successful motorsport in the world.



There is nothing as beautiful and courageous.



Michael Czysz
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm... I didn't see anything new there AND he pretty much discredits the idea of 250/500/750cc 4 stroke "multiplier" himself - 'cause in todays sportbike landscape 250s, 500s, and 750s have no relevance to either manufacturers, parts suppliers or custom builders.
 
Starts off well, but it falls to pieces.



"What is needed is new architecture, a solid, stable foundation that can scale from Moto3 thru MotoGP and WSBK while maintaining each classes unique individuality".---100% correct, imo.



"Ultimately the investors in race technology want to commercialise their technology and pneumatic valves are not easily commercialised. Limiting RPM or bore/stroke ratios are misguided, the goal should be to leave the rules as open as possible."----250cc with no rev limits and no pneumatic valves? Just write a rule that says Ducati must win all classes. Furthermore, engine scaling is not appropriate for MotoGP. The FIM scaled the engines in 1968 out of desperation, in a time before rev limits and other advanced sanctioning controls, but now, engine scaling is the greatest thing since sliced bread, even to a guy who wants to get rid of unnecessary rules.



Engine scaling is for production racing b/c it fits perfectly. The governing body can homologate a single piston, rod, intake valve, exhaust valve, valve spring, cylinder, etc. Those engine parts can be used throughout the entire model range, which reduces costs as per the manufacturers edict at the advent of the 1000cc formula. Another possibility, albeit a bit of a stretch, is to stroke the current 600s to 750s. A single engine could power WSS and SBK by changing the crank, rods, and cams.



The rules stop the manufacturers from doing more with less, both in MotoGP and WSBK. No rules need to be written to force the manufacturers to do more with less in prototype racing. WSBK is already heavily restricted, and efficiency is the mantra of mass produced goods; therefore, production efficiency rules are not out of place in WSBK.
 
Product differentiation. SBK and motogp cant share capacities long term.



990, its only 10cc but never confused with SBK was it? moto2 could be 690. Instantly recognisable as smaller 990, not a supersport.



990, 690, 250 - motogp, moto2, moto1.



1000, 600 - SBK, Supersport.
 
I always liked the 3 classes as they were before: 125 single-cylinder, 250 twin-cylinder, 500 4-cylinder, because essentially a manufacturer would have to develop one cylinder-head unit for all three classes - as Michael Czysz also says. Now, with Moto3 being 250cc singles, and MotoGP 1000cc 4s, the only oddity is Moto2 that is a 4 cylinder 600cc derived from stock. Make it a 500 twin, and the old unitary cylinder displacement across the 3 classes would be back. By the way, 500cc twin prototypes would immediately outperform the current 600cc Moto2 bikes.



This would be the right direction for GP, to be governed with a few, sensible rules. Current Moto2 and CRT, belong to some other series.
<
 
J4rn0's idea is better than Mr. Czysz' because it covers TWO current and relevant formats: 250cc Moto3 bikes are what new riders and young riders in the developing world will be craving for AND we all know litre-bikes sell. Mr. Czysz's 750 triples just do not pass the current and relevant test, nor do 500 twins.



That being said I do understand the "golden age" of GP racing occurred with a non-relevant format (500cc smokers while the world was buying 750 - 1000cc 4 strokers) BUT - I believe the current socio-economic climate cannot sustain a non-relevant format.
 
A 500cc V-twin can be a great motorcycle. We will have to move towards more sensible (less expensive) choices soon, also in the West. And the immense Chinese, Indian or Brazilian markets are ready for something bigger than the 100cc or 200cc economy bikes.

Let GP point the right way to the markets for once...
<
 
MotoGP series should be 450 singles, 650s twins to 4 cylinders, and 1200cc up to 6 cyllies for the full figured fellas
<
 
J4rn0 said:
Let GP point the right way to the markets for once...
<
Click to expand...



800's was an attempt at that ......... its a stupid move to have gone back to the tractors ( 1,000's ).



They have let the market ( fans ) tell them what to do. They should be dealing solely with the manufactureres and trusting their research into where they see their future, including future manufacturer entrant possibilities. That being said, it could be seen that going back to 1,000's is an attempt by current manufacturers to "hang in" and keep out some of the new asian manufacturers who may have seen a smaller capacity as not such a big step to enter motogp.



A slow drift down in capacity would have been sensible.







Mick D said:
I believe the current socio-economic climate cannot sustain a non-relevant format.
Click to expand...



500's were like that, maybe even more so. And it could be argued that the socio economic climate back then was even worse.
 
BarryMachine said:
That being said, it could be seen that going back to 1,000's is an attempt by current manufacturers to "hang in" and keep out some of the new asian manufacturers who may have seen a smaller capacity as not such a big step to enter motogp.

A slow drift down in capacity would have been sensible.



500's were like that, maybe even more so. And it could be argued that the socio economic climate back then was even worse.
Click to expand...

how exactly would a smaller capacity lower the entry barriers for asian manufacturers?if anything small capacity favors the established players with deep pockets.



the 500s were much cheaper for the manufacturers and exciting to watch, it was a financially sustainable and fun to watch product.there simply was no need to find excuses for spending so much money. i don't buy that the manufacturers involvement is because they gain something for their roadbikes in the field of electronics,its just a good excuse
 
cliché guevara said:
how exactly would a smaller capacity lower the entry barriers for asian manufacturers?if anything small capacity favors the established players with deep pockets.



the 500s were much cheaper for the manufacturers and exciting to watch, it was a financially sustainable and fun to watch product.there simply was no need to find excuses for spending so much money. i don't buy that the manufacturers involvement is because they gain something for their roadbikes in the field of electronics,its just a good excuse
Click to expand...





You are aware that at that time 500's were not the "biggest two strokes" arent you?



How could 750 two strokes have ended up cheaper to run/develop etc.?



Apply that to today.



Why are 1,000's cheaper?



Is it more "marketably credible" for a maufacturer of say 650's to make 1,000's or 650's?
 
birdman said:
Product differentiation. SBK and motogp cant share capacities long term.



990, its only 10cc but never confused with SBK was it? moto2 could be 690. Instantly recognisable as smaller 990, not a supersport.



990, 690, 250 - motogp, moto2, moto1.



1000, 600 - SBK, Supersport.
Click to expand...



If you don't like round displacements then make it 248 singles, 496 twins and 992 cc 4 cylinders -- keeping the same cylinder unit across the 3 classes.



Engineering firms could develop, tune and sell complete engines to private teams, as Cosworth was doing in F1 once upon a time. On the basis of a well developed 248cc unit, a firm could provide singles, V-twins and V-4s...
<
 
BarryMachine said:
You are aware that at that time 500's were not the "biggest two strokes" arent you?



How could 750 two strokes have ended up cheaper to run/develop etc.?



Apply that to today.



Why are 1,000's cheaper?



Is it more "marketably credible" for a maufacturer of say 650's to make 1,000's or 650's?
Click to expand...

sorry, don't see what 750 2 strokes got to do with this. its just my guess that its cheaper to get say 220hp and a ridable power curve out of a 1000cc than a 800cc

the two strokes were not meant to be "marketably credible". don't know what you're trying to say with the 650 example, i don't think if the displacement went down to 650cc KTM would be like "yay,finally it's expensive enough to enter gps and race the same engines displacement we use in our single cylinder bikes"
 
J4rn0 said:
If you don't like round displacements then make it 248 singles, 496 twins and 992 cc 4 cylinders -- keeping the same cylinder unit across the 3 classes.



Engineering firms could develop, tune and sell complete engines to private teams, as Cosworth was doing in F1 once upon a time. On the basis of a well developed 248cc unit, a firm could provide singles, V-twins and V-4s...
<
Click to expand...

Its not round displacements that concerns me. 250, 500, 1000 sounds better, and its perfect to go single twin four.



I was more concerned with one series deliberately using the same capacity as the other:

SBK 1000cc, SSport 600cc

Motogp 1000cc, moto2 600cc



To go further, both are now spec tire, 4 cylinder. Both are using production based engines (CRT).



From a long term business perspective that kind of strategy would only mean a merger is planned or one is seeking to cause the death of the other? I think your formula is much better than Dorna's.



Dont mind curves 450 single, 650 twin either. Not sure about 1200 but for sure it would be something worth seeing and hearing one.
 
cliché guevara said:
sorry, don't see what 750 2 strokes got to do with this. its just my guess that its cheaper to get say 220hp and a ridable power curve out of a 1000cc than a 800cc

the two strokes were not meant to be "marketably credible". don't know what you're trying to say with the 650 example, i don't think if the displacement went down to 650cc KTM would be like "yay,finally it's expensive enough to enter gps and race the same engines displacement we use in our single cylinder bikes"
Click to expand...



How!!??
<
<
<
 
you know, letting air in the engine, mixing fuel with it , a spark plug and all that ....



come on don't play stupid everybody knows that its easier and cheaper to get more power from bigger engines because there is no need for extreme rpm figures (pneumatic valves and expensive electronics to tame the peaky power curves?)
 
And so you believe the 1,000's are technically that different to the 800's?



No.



Got any figures on just how much cheaper it is?



Got any tech details on these new "cheaper" 1,000 engines?





And back to two strokes having "market cred" ......... if you were a racer ...... back then ........ you never even thought of a 4 stroke.

Unless it was endurance racing.



It was actually a forced change you know. Took me ages to finally accept a four stroke ........ except for some codes.

Two strokes had way more cred with your sunday racer. The trouble is that they are now pandering for cred. from the plebs in the stands, who want the bikes to look more like their commuter bikes.
<
 
They should have stayed with 800 MotoGp and Let 1000cc CRTs come in. Then, suzuki will be still around in MGP and BMW, Kawasaki and Aprilia will be supplying CRTs engine......Damages have been done to MotoGP as rules change every five years....
 
Ha Barry - easy 2 b a critic... I'll play: Got any figures to show why 1000cc's aren't cheaper? R u aware 750 smokers weren't the biggest either? Got any figures on just how much more 1000s cost? Got any tech details on these new expensive 1000cc engines? "Back then" we had 25 years of 4 strokes then 25 years of 2 strokes, now 10 years of four strokes - what's yer point?



Oh yeah, don't hear ya preachin' how ur (baahahahaha) idea fixed the Duc recently - why is that?



And BTW I would like to see printed evidence that gyro-based systems ARE NOT being used on race bikes...



Well ur at it will you please tell us where Jimmy Hoffa is buried!
 

Similar threads

M
Is KTM on the Brink of Withdrawal from MotoGP?
Replies
36
Views
2K
DavidSim
D
M
New Direction for World Superbike?
Replies
3
Views
907
JFM01
J
M
Motorcycle Racing Industry: Reading the Tea Leaves
Replies
44
Views
3K
Hollywood
Hollywood
M
MotoGP For Sale?
Replies
9
Views
1K
DavidSim
D
M
GPOne: MotoGP At A Stalemate
Replies
0
Views
385
mylexicon
M

Recent Discussions