MotoGP New rules 2013. One bike + 5 engines max & Less mechanics

povol · Mar 27, 2012

mylexicon said:
We have been discussing cost of production, distribution, and ownership since we got off on the cost tangent. Insurance no longer affects most riders b/c collision insurance is basically unavailable. I threw you a bone by reminding you that lack of collision insurance drives down the availability of credit, thus, purchasing power (a tangential point). You respond by criticizing me for constructing counterpoint for you. I suppose I could always flame you

Go back and read again. Do you remember this line

No wonder they dont want to insure them anymore.

My family is in the insurance business, I know all about it. Here is your bone back

mylexicon · Mar 27, 2012

povol said:
Go back and read again. Do you remember this line

No wonder they dont want to insure them anymore.

My family is in the insurance business, I know all about it. Here is your bone back

You still have no idea what's going on, do you?

Let me walk you back through the discussion. In layman's terms.

Lex: Bikes are too expensive.

Povol: They are a great value.

Lex: Motorcycles are not a value purchase so what the hell?

Povol: [unintelligible] insurance

Lex: Insurance has little to do with cost b/c no one carries collision. However, if you want to play the insurance card, you could say lack of collision makes credit less available. Sales slump. Not cost, but you could make that argument.

Povol: You, moron. How can you argue two different points at once.

Lex: I was developing your point for you b/c insurance has nothing to do with cost, but something to do with purchasing power. You could argue lack of sales from lack of purchasing power due, in part, to no insurance.

Povol: I already said people can't get insurance.

Lex: Please quit drinking before noon.

Jumkie · Mar 27, 2012

mylexicon said:
Compare what Dorna have done since MotoGP with what the MSMA have done.

Dorna has taken MotoGP to new markets, or they scheduled MotoGP to get into new markets. New TV deals have been done, including a deal with BBC. First night GP ever. They did lose China, but so has every other series that ever tried to sell racing to the Chinese market.

The MSMA have lost half their members (Aprilia, Suzuki, Kawasaki). They have enraged the fans with their bad formulas. Lease costs have quadrupled, and the MSMA never made good on their promise to run 4 bikes a piece. The races are perceived to be (rightly or wrongly, doesn't really matter) less entertaining than some of the belters at the end of the 500cc era or 990cc era.

Dorna could do a better job, but they are fighting an uphill battle against the manufacturers and EU regulators who forced the sale of their commercial rights. As far as their brand is concerned, Dorna want 24L 1000cc spec-ECU, which isn't exactly unpopular with the fans compared to the 21L formula. Should the brand be separate from the product? Probably, but they don't have that capability. Since they paid the fee to buy the rights from the FIM, I'm not sure they can be criticized for obsessing over the product at the expense of the brand. It is their entertainment product.

Lex, the position that Mental takes is unsound because it came from a place where he was blaming Dorna for being as he put it 'Rossi-centric'. You're wasting your time if you really want to debate the actual particulars. He sees Dorna as friends with Rossi, which in his pea size brain means they are enemies of Stoner for life. I agree that Dorna has done Rossi's bidding on occasion, Mental is stuck on that this must always be the case. Yeah, now pressed he has had to adjust his tune and say, its Dorna's fault for listening to Rossi, but I know it still stems from all things hate for Rossi. He's lost his ability to reason, so he cannot distinguish when Dorna acts to promote the series and keep it viable, since he sees it all as some conspiracy to sabotage Stoner. Dorna can do no good ever once you see it this way, as they will always be the villains.

Jumkie · Mar 27, 2012

mylexicon said:
You still have no idea what's going on, do you? Let me walk you back through the discussion. In layman's terms. Lex: Bikes are too expensive. Povol: They are a great value. Lex: Motorcycles are not a value purchase so what the hell? Povol: [unintelligible] insurance Lex: Insurance has little to do with cost b/c no one carries collision. However, if you want to play the insurance card, you could say lack of collision makes credit less available. Sales slump. Not cost, but you could make that argument. Povol: You, moron. How can you argue two different points at once. Lex: I was developing your point for you b/c insurance has nothing to do with cost, but something to do with purchasing power. You could argue lack of sales from lack of purchasing power due, in part, to no insurance. Povol: I already said people can't get insurance. Lex: Please quit drinking before noon.

What, getting blamed for being drunk? I thought that was only reserved for me?

Here is what I've learned from debating Pov. You will put together a great retort, he will ignore 99% of the part that rebuts his entire premise, then he'll highlight one small part of your post and trying to distract you on a tangent because as dumb as he is, he knows he can't debate you on the rest. Have fun gentz.

beefsupreme · Mar 27, 2012

Gaz said:
CRT (as the current example) will in years ahead continue to grow in terms of technology that is applied to making the machines competitive and as such the costs will continue to rise accordingly until we are back where we started (as after all, it is cyclical), and no Jums that is not anti-CRT but simply saying that with development comes cost.

That's why they call it claiming -- cost controls are built into the formula.

Yeah, it seems a bit ragged, but the MSMA is not a beast you kill easily. And your suggestion of looking under the sofa cushions for undiscovered sponsors sounds like more of a hope than a plan.

mylexicon · Mar 27, 2012

Jumkie said:
Lex, the position that Mental takes is unsound because it came from a place where he was blaming Dorna for being as he put it 'Rossi-centric'. You're wasting your time if you really want to debate the actual particulars. He sees Dorna as friends with Rossi, which in his pea size brain means they are enemies of Stoner for life. I agree that Dorna has done Rossi's bidding on occasion, Mental is stuck on that this must always be the case. Yeah, now pressed he has had to adjust his tune and say, its Dorna's fault for listening to Rossi, but I know it still stems from all things hate for Rossi. He's lost his ability to reason, so he cannot distinguish when Dorna acts to promote the series and keep it viable, since he sees it all as some conspiracy to sabotage Stoner. Dorna can do no good ever once you see it this way, as they will always be the villains.

Yes, I struggled with a similar phenomenon when I was developing the tire conspiracy. I said the Dorna were indifferent to Stoner's reign as world champion, and Ducati's as well. As a result, Dorna started messing with the tire rules. Had Rossi been champion, Dorna might have been less concerned. Some people twisted my words, and claimed that I was accusing Dorna of intentionally sabotaging Stoner. In fact, I was accusing them of being indifferent, which is actually preferable, but inconsistent with their promotion of VR.

I think it works both ways, but Mental does appear to be a bit lost. Dorna do not sabotage Casey. Dorna simply don't care about Casey. Dorna's behavior has almost no commercial consequences b/c Casey has so little media savvy (I don't find that particularly troublesome, but most do).

But I will go one step further. The MSMA (Honda) are sabotaging Rossi. We all know Honda wanted mass centralization to be the engineering paradigm for MotoGP. Mass-centralization never produced b/c Rossi/Burgess found a much more effective strategy of weight biasing and swingarm flex. Honda cut fuel and displacement to force mass centralization upon MotoGP, the same way the forced mass-centralization on Hayden with the EVO bike, which cut into his ~50 pt margin over Rossi after Laguna. Maybe Dorna are only trying to keep Honda from taking Rossi out of the frame?

Very complicated.

Gaz · Mar 27, 2012

Beef Supreme said:
That's why they call it claiming -- cost controls are built into the formula.

Yeah, it seems a bit ragged, but the MSMA is not a beast you kill easily. And your suggestion of looking under the sofa cushions for undiscovered sponsors sounds like more of a hope than a plan.

May well be the case today but DORNA have shown a willingness to 'move he goalposts' at short notice and with little to no prior thought, so what is to stop them now?

And, FWIW I strongly doubt that the CRT of today will be the CRT of late 2012/early 2013 in terms of technology used.

The simple FACT of teh situation is that those with money will spend it, thus increasing the disparity between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' which will just mean yet more cost to be competitive.

Claiming rul or no claiming rule, a team with money will spend it which means that others then need to find it or ride around at the back of the pack. The real risk here is that we will simply have two classes of bike split into four category (the factory/quasi factory) and the satellite/poorer CRT.If this is what DORNA want then all well and good but it will NOT produce closer racing

povol · Mar 27, 2012

Jumkie said:
Well, we agree on something.

Perhaps, but here is a bit of food for thought. What if they lift the fuel limit? (Which 'if' they were really serious about cost savings, that's what they would eliminate). Ceramic breaks are very expensive, but the Wsbk steel breaks stop bikes that are heavier and almost as fast (if we are to believe the speed trap speed recently published, even fast). And what if to compensate, Dorna gives the ok for Bridgestone to develop a tire that will allow for higher performance (which today is the real limiting factor to lap time).

I know its been a day or so and you have had a few since then

beefsupreme · Mar 27, 2012

Gaz said:
The real risk here is that we will simply have two classes of bike split into four category (the factory/quasi factory) and the satellite/poorer CRT.If this is what DORNA want then all well and good but it will NOT produce closer racing

It's not about closer racing, it's about cost reduction, though closer racing might be a by-product of an unlikely but possible all-CRT grid.

The short-term goal is making 3 mllion euro lease bikes a thing of the past.

Gaz · Mar 27, 2012

Beef Supreme said:
It's not about closer racing, it's about cost reduction, though closer racing might be a by-product of an unlikely but possible all-CRT grid.

The short-term goal is making 3 mllion euro lease bikes a thing of the past.

And so we go back to my original point.

What will stop the costs increasing exponentially for CRT competitors as technology costs $ and CRT will spend and will increase their use of technology?

beefsupreme · Mar 27, 2012

Gaz said:
What will stop the costs increasing exponentially for CRT competitors as technology costs $ and CRT will spend and will increase their use of technology?

Being able to claim each other's engine and transmission for €20,000.

Before stating it won't work, keep in mind many predicted the same for the control tire and Moto2.

Gaz · Mar 27, 2012

Beef Supreme said:
Being able to claim each other's engine and transmission for €20,000.

Why, a whole engine.

A race bike as you know is more than just an engine and much of the dolalrs spent are not spent on engine components but other anciliiary components (all within rules of course) and given that these CRT are NOT spec bikes each machine will no doubt have dollars spent in areas aside from the engine.

As an example let us look at Chassis development and the (elsewhere) maligned Moto2 class.

The Suter chassis of Marquez certainly looked to be leaps ahead of many competitors ............... would you agree?

If so, then it goes to say that either Suter can then manufacture and sell these chassis (and there for for a bike to be competitive the manufacturer can set a cost), or alternately the team involved can try to manufacture a 'Suter copy' at a cost (and may even a legal cost if patents etc are involved - not sure there).

If we move from chassis there willbe a number of components that with CRT will likely see teams gravitate towards as the quality and performance of a said package are identified, with this will come additional and associated cost to teh teams as not all components are purchaseable or 'claimable'.

My point is that the costs for CRT will increase as the bikes and class develops as they will want (and some may well demand) competitiveness and we all know and recognise that to be competitive means spending of big dollars at elite motorsports level

Gaz · Mar 27, 2012

Now, will all my hesitancy I will admit that for some reason I am looking forward to the 'CRT Championship' this season to watch the innovations that the bikes bring to the sport as well as some (but not all) of the riders involved as I am genuinely interested to watch how they develop across the season.

beefsupreme · Mar 27, 2012

Gaz said:
The Suter chassis of Marquez certainly looked to be leaps ahead of many competitors ............... would you agree?

No, Marquez made most of the difference. Did they spend more than most Moto2 teams -- who knows.

Jumkie · Mar 27, 2012

Gaz said:
Gotta agree Mental and if that means I become a NeoBopper or whatever the latest term is than so be it, but your post here is pretty much the crux of it as I see it.

Shortsighted management bought about by the blindness caused by the Rossi gravy train (and to the Rossi fans, that is no criticism at all) on which DORNA have been pinning themselves. To me, DORNA failed to look beyond Rossi and have failed miserably to plan for the 'post-Rossi' era in any way, shape or form be that financially plan or future growth plan.

Certainly as Talpa mentions the GFC has made things extremely difficult, as have the disasters of the earthquakes in Japan that have manifested an additional drain on the world financially, but to not look at Asia as a market is bordering on business suicide. All businesses today are focussing on Asia as a logical place to grow as the region is the world's largest growing economy and as such the push to Asia needs to start and fast so that MGP can hopefully gain a foothold before some other business.

But sadly I feel we are stuck for the time being with a push to reduce costs alone with no forward thought given to growing the financial pool. Given (to me at least) that this was an area where Rossi excelled in introducing new supporters to the sport (we are talking business supporters) it goes to reason that the market does indeed exist for growth, just the manner needs to be determined.

Personally to me, Rossi shares no blame in any way and should instead be recognised (and this is without coloured glasses) as a pioneer in terms of growth potential (as he has shown many positives) and it would be negligent of DORNA to to both use what Rossi has done and grow on it.

Now, that said, as to the proposed rule changes it is yet more grasping at straws by DORNA who continue to try to stamp authority on what appears at times to be a rabble.

Yes, we all agree that costs must reduce in order to bring more participation into the sport, that is a given but do we all believe that the costs will stay low?

CRT (as the current example) will in years ahead continue to grow in terms of technology that is applied to making the machines competitive and as such the costs will continue to rise accordingly until we are back where we started (as after all, it is cyclical), and no Jums that is not anti-CRT but simply saying that with development comes cost.

Times are interesting and it will be consuming many hours and brain cells as we all wonder about the what if's of the situations but I do genuinely hope that throughout the year we see positive growth and not further or ongoing negativity about the sport.

Gaz my friend, the issue I have with Mental is that he's still stuck on 'all things bad must come from Rossi'. Though there is some truth to the premise that Rossi's influence/effect has made a skewed impact on the sport (for which I have agreed in some respects) the thing is Mental has not been able to distinguish when it does NOT apply. I submit that its because Mental and his Cohort (there are a few) simply see everything from the prism of Stoner worship, hence why I call them 'neoboppers'. What is interesting to me is that when it comes to the various aspects of Stoner as a rider and man, I am in almost complete agreement with Stoner fans (as oppose to worshipers) with little to no exception.

But I think its a bit more complicated then saying it was Dorna's 'shortsighted' ride on the "Rossi gravy train". Complicated because how do you distinguish the positive from the implied negative effect, in fact, Rossi has had a great positive economic & popularity impact on the sport. Many simply take it for granted that it would be at the level it is today with or without his impact. The other aspect is the real and actual man made global financial disaster that had nothing to do with Dorna or Rossi. You are agreeing with Mental in saying Dorna should have known that there was going to be an economic down turn whereby costs (which had been previously covered up until two years ago) would suddenly sky rocket to critical levels. If you're going to insist on associating this bubble to Rossi, then can you also blame this on Stoner for not being as popular? How about if I frame the woes on GP's inability to attract more sponsorship revenue on not having a current champion that is likable? How does that sit? Is there any truth? Well friend, by agreeing to how Mental has framed GPs woes of somehow being associated to Rossi, it would be fair game to frame it that Stoner's unlikability has some marginal meaningfulness to the problems of attracting sponsorship. Absurd? Perhaps (I actually have a thought on this though lets shelve it for now), but I also find it a bit absurd that Mental claims he has crusaded for expansion of revenues when in reality he was just telling everybody how Rossi is the anti-christ (though suddenly now when pressed says its not Rossi he blames, its Dorna's fault for promoting Rossi).

Gaz said:
My point is that the costs for CRT will increase as the bikes and class develops as they will want (and some may well demand) competitiveness and we all know and recognise that to be competitive means spending of big dollars at elite motorsports level

About the CRTs, of course development will cost money and it will increase, the question is at what base line and at what rate? At present, no where near the loot spent on satellite bikes which they are now nearly competitive with. Randy is riding a bike a fraction of the cost of Barbara and Abraham. If you were the guy writing the checks, what would you spend your money on, Randy's CRT or Barbara's leased "prototype" satellite?

Gaz · Mar 27, 2012

Jumkie said:
agreement with Stoner fans (as oppose to worshipers) with little to no exception. But I think its a bit more complicated then saying it was Dorna's 'shortsighted' ride on the "Rossi gravy train". Complicated because how do you distinguish the positive from the implied negative effect, in fact, Rossi has had a great positive economic & popularity impact on the sport. Many simply take it for granted that it would be at the level it is today with or without his impact. The other aspect is the real and actual man made global financial disaster that had nothing to do with Dorna or Rossi. You are agreeing with Mental in saying Dorna should have known that there was going to be an economic down turn whereby costs (which had been previously covered up until two years ago) would suddenly sky rocket to critical levels. If you're going to insist on associating this bubble to Rossi, then can you also blame this on Stoner for not being as popular? How about if I frame the woes on GP's inability to attract more sponsorship revenue on not having a current champion that is likable? How does that sit? Is there any truth? Well friend, by agreeing to how Mental has framed GPs woes of somehow being associated to Rossi, it would be fair game to frame it that Stoner's unlikability has some marginal meaningfulness to the problems of attracting sponsorship. Absurd? Perhaps (I actually have a thought on this though lets shelve it for now), but I also find it a bit absurd that Mental claims he has crusaded for expansion of revenues when in reality he was just telling everybody how Rossi is the anti-christ (though suddenly now when pressed says its not Rossi he blames, its Dorna's fault for promoting Rossi).

With regards to predicting the impacts of the GST you are reading way to much into it, as I do not say it nor even imply it. What I do say is that whilst the GFC has impacted revenues (and also therefore costs) DORNA need to look at growing the revenue pool and as such they should (as are many businesses) look at where and how to do this ............. and as many businesses have discovered, new markets are the place to be.

Now, where do I insist this 'bubble' as you wish to call it is the making (or doing) of Rossi, again, you are reading way to much into it as the simple FACT of the situation remains that Rossi is not, can not and should not be blamed for the 'state' of the sport. He is no more (or less) that a participant and whilst he has been enormously positive to the sport in terms of exposure and teh subsequent investments, it is not his role to 'market' the sport to the new markets, this is DORNA

Personally there is no doubt that 'likeability' as you put it plays a large part in attracting new people/businesses/income streams to the sport, and just as I said in an earlier post Rossi is, was and will be a leader in this regard. To me, and I say this again, DORNA have failed to look or plan for the post-Rossi era (and that my friend is not Rossi's problem either) and as a result they now find themselves affected adversely by a number of factors (if GFC, Natural disaster etc) outside of their control and yet imapcting their ability to grow.

DORNA are the people responsible for marketing the sport, not the riders be that Rossi, Stoner, Lorenzo or any other, although they are admittedly bit players they do not design, develop and implement the forward strategies of teh business.

DORNA have failed (IMO) in this regards and will continue to do so until they develop forward thinking growth strategies to complement their revenue reduction strategy (which on it's own is not a bad idea at all as cost reduction is essential to survival in todays environment).

Jumkie said:
About the CRTs, of course development will cost money and it will increase, the question is at what base line and at what rate? At present, no where near the loot spent on satellite bikes which they are now nearly competitive with. Randy is riding a bike a fraction of the cost of Barbara and Abraham. If you were the guy writing the checks, what would you spend your money on, Randy's CRT or Barbara's leased "prototype" satellite?

If I was the guy writing the cheques (we spell it differently over here

) then I would assess and see which of the two teams/riders involved would give me and my business the highest profile and most coverage for the period of the season and for 2012 I would go the Aprilia simply because the top CRT will get loads fo TV and media cover over a back marking factory/satellite bike

michaelm · Mar 27, 2012

Jumkie said:
Gaz my friend, the issue I have with Mental is that he's still stuck on 'all things bad must come from Rossi'. Though there is some truth to the premise that Rossi's influence/effect has made a skewed impact on the sport (for which I have agreed in some respects) the thing is Mental has not been able to distinguish when it does NOT apply. I submit that its because Mental and his Cohort (there are a few) simply see everything from the prism of Stoner worship, hence why I call them 'neoboppers'. What is interesting to me is that when it comes to the various aspects of Stoner as a rider and man, I am in almost complete agreement with Stoner fans (as oppose to worshipers) with little to no exception.

But I think its a bit more complicated then saying it was Dorna's 'shortsighted' ride on the "Rossi gravy train". Complicated because how do you distinguish the positive from the implied negative effect, in fact, Rossi has had a great positive economic & popularity impact on the sport. Many simply take it for granted that it would be at the level it is today with or without his impact. The other aspect is the real and actual man made global financial disaster that had nothing to do with Dorna or Rossi. You are agreeing with Mental in saying Dorna should have known that there was going to be an economic down turn whereby costs (which had been previously covered up until two years ago) would suddenly sky rocket to critical levels. If you're going to insist on associating this bubble to Rossi, then can you also blame this on Stoner for not being as popular? How about if I frame the woes on GP's inability to attract more sponsorship revenue on not having a current champion that is likable? How does that sit? Is there any truth? Well friend, by agreeing to how Mental has framed GPs woes of somehow being associated to Rossi, it would be fair game to frame it that Stoner's unlikability has some marginal meaningfulness to the problems of attracting sponsorship. Absurd? Perhaps (I actually have a thought on this though lets shelve it for now), but I also find it a bit absurd that Mental claims he has crusaded for expansion of revenues when in reality he was just telling everybody how Rossi is the anti-christ (though suddenly now when pressed says its not Rossi he blames, its Dorna's fault for promoting Rossi).

About the CRTs, of course development will cost money and it will increase, the question is at what base line and at what rate? At present, no where near the loot spent on satellite bikes which they are now nearly competitive with. Randy is riding a bike a fraction of the cost of Barbara and Abraham. If you were the guy writing the checks, what would you spend your money on, Randy's CRT or Barbara's leased "prototype" satellite?

There is talk that dorna are going to cap both the lease price for a satellite bike, and the purchase price of a CRT bike; they have already been there with aprilia in the 250s and presumably are at least smart enough not to contrive another aprilia cup with aprilia having a near monopoly and being able to charge what they like as at the end of the 250s. The CRT formula may already have been successful in at least some of its aims; the msma according to other sites are now willing to talk turkey on limiting technology/expenses.

I obviously agree the gfc was outside dorna's control. Another factor as lex has said is that dorna only have the sport because some ivory tower bureaucrat forced its sale when everything was going well on the basis of some abstract philosophy concerning competition; this increased costs markedly in the first place with the need for entirely separate infrastructure to broadcast F1 and motogp, and bridgepoint have ended up owning both motogp and wsbk, which are far more in competition I would have thought, in any case.

I think stoner not being very popular is a problem for the sport; if only the popular are allowed to win it does cease being a sport however. I also think that what dorna is doing now has nothing to do with rossi and all to do with the parlous state of the sport in the current economic circumstances; rossi is going to retire sooner rather than later anyway, and another world championship if they manage to miraculously make the ducati competitive in short order or he somehow gets back on a yamaha or honda would I imagine only precipitate his retirement.

All of this does not mean dorna have not made rash and shortsighted decisions in the past. Decisions of theirs were very significant contributors to suzuki and kawasaki leaving and ducati declining ( which they didn't seem very concerned about as recently as 2010), and pre-gfc they seemed unconcerned about losing michelin and for that matter dunlop. To let out my inner neobopper, whilst I don't think dorna are involved in any tyre conspiracy now and it would seem unlikely any such conspiracy could be run against honda in any case, I am not so sure the control tyre was not partially motivated by a desire to diminish the "massive advantage" of the 2007 ducati, dorna having bought into the then perceived wisdom..

Mick D · Mar 27, 2012

I couldn't really give a flying feddoo about what has caused the current sitch in MGP. Bickering about the cause of MGPs current economic milieu reminds me of arguing with my wife: rather than focusing on the issue, looking forward and determining how to fix it she continually looks backwards and hammers away at who or what the cause was without contributing anything positive towards making a plan and solving the problem.

Whatever the cause, MGP needs to keep costs in line and increase revenues moving ahead in the short-to-mid term. I really don't think anyone can argue with that.

Talpa · Mar 27, 2012

michaelm said:
There is talk that dorna are going to cap both the lease price for a satellite bike, and the purchase price of a CRT bike; they have already been there with aprilia in the 250s and presumably are at least smart enough not to contrive another aprilia cup with aprilia having a near monopoly and being able to charge what they like as at the end of the 250s. The CRT formula may already have been successful in at least some of its aims; the msma according to other sites are now willing to talk turkey on limiting technology/expenses.

I obviously agree the gfc was outside dorna's control. Another factor as lex has said is that dorna only have the sport because some ivory tower bureaucrat forced its sale when everything was going well on the basis of some abstract philosophy concerning competition; this increased costs markedly in the first place with the need for entirely separate infrastructure to broadcast F1 and motogp, and bridgepoint have ended up owning both motogp and wsbk, which are far more in competition I would have thought, in any case.

I think stoner not being very popular is a problem for the sport; if only the popular are allowed to win it does cease being a sport however. I also think that what dorna is doing now has nothing to do with rossi and all to do with the parlous state of the sport in the current economic circumstances; rossi is going to retire sooner rather than later anyway, and another world championship if they manage to miraculously make the ducati competitive in short order or he somehow gets back on a yamaha or honda would I imagine only precipitate his retirement.

All of this does not mean dorna have not made rash and shortsighted decisions in the past. Decisions of theirs were very significant contributors to suzuki and kawasaki leaving and ducati declining ( which they didn't seem very concerned about as recently as 2010), and pre-gfc they seemed unconcerned about losing michelin and for that matter dunlop. To let out my inner neobopper, whilst I don't think dorna are involved in any tyre conspiracy now and it would seem unlikely any such conspiracy could be run against honda in any case, I am not so sure the control tyre was not partially motivated by a desire to diminish the "massive advantage" of the 2007 ducati, dorna having bought into the then perceived wisdom..

The tyre advantage was gifted to Bridgestone via a regulation we must remember, a regulation which completely negated Michelins supply strategy, which was in essence the ultimate in prototype development across a race weekend.

This reg combined with the fuel limit IMO are the two biggest contributors to the escalation in cost. People love to blame Rossi for the control tyre, but it was the MSMA who are directly responsible, with less influence by rubber the focus has shifted to bike engineering and software, playing directly into the hands of Honda and making the sport ridiculously and prohibitively expensive. And funnily enough at the time the tyre supply reg was implemented to reduce costs.........an overnight special somehow seems quite cheap now.

As lex has pointed out this plus the rest of regs post 2007 could have been Hondas way of stopping burgess and Rossi, what it has done is made the audience question what they are seeing and turn away through boredom and predictability, not too mention questioning the reasons that have been given for the regs which, for me are right up there with the WOMD excuse. With the MSMA influence now limited let's hope Dorna can find a decent solution, at the moment it still seems unlikely.

michaelm · Mar 27, 2012

Mick D said:
I couldn't really give a flying feddoo about what has caused the current sitch in MGP. Bickering about the cause of MGPs current economic milieu reminds me of arguing with my wife: rather than focusing on the issue, looking forward and determining how to fix it she continually looks backwards and hammers away at who or what the cause was without contributing anything positive towards making a plan and solving the problem.

Whatever the cause, MGP needs to keep costs in line and increase revenues moving ahead in the short-to-mid term. I really don't think anyone can argue with that.

Sure. As I said CRT looks to be at least partially working already in terms of the factories getting serious about limiting costs and technology . They need to have a strategy for getting places like India and Indonesia which not only have the virtue of not being in europe but also have lots of folk riding bikes, if not at the pinnacle of current technology.

MotoGP New rules 2013. One bike + 5 engines max & Less mechanics

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

povol

mylexicon

Jumkie

Jumkie

beefsupreme

mylexicon

Gaz

povol

beefsupreme

Gaz

beefsupreme

Gaz

Gaz

beefsupreme

Jumkie

Gaz

michaelm

Mick D

Talpa

michaelm

Similar threads

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions