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

perhaps the one bike rule is about one bike in the pits, if you crash you start at the back of the grid if you take a spare bike from the trailer.



sounds more away to slow things down rather than save money, make it harder to get that perfect setup, limit Mechanics will do similar with one bike

Mental Anarchist said:

Wouldn't the 1 bike rule cause a DNS rather than a DNF?

Click to expand...

Sure, I made a quick post at work, you have a point. I think flag to flag is good, but it hasn't occurred very much as has been pointed out. I guess all the teams could rebuild a bike overnight, so only a warm-up crash would count (for a dns as you say), and honda could probably re-build a bike better than bird kawasaki or whomever. I can't see that it would save much money, as they all have to have more than one bike, and if honda are supporting it then it would seem likely they don't think it would disadvantage them.

Jumkie said:

.



I dont follow. Stoner had one DNF through no fault. How would the ........ one bike rule keep the points closer? If anything, the opposite effect. Its make the points even more out of reach for rivals who all had DNFs at fault.

Click to expand...

It is not necessarily always about stoner. I agree with you about the sport needing to be sustainable (ie cheap enough to run in and entertaining enough to have a sufficient audience to be viable) but I feel even more strongly about your second recent point concerning the retention of authenticity.



I hate equalisation schemes once the competition is underway, admittedly a philosophical position. Limiting the tech by limiting the revs etc, having expenditure caps or whatever are now fine with me given current exigencies. Limiting the price of a satellite or CRT bikes sounds a really good idea if there are no loopholes like none of the ones for sale being worth even a cheap price. For me personally though, not success ballast, phony yellow flags a la nascar, or the kind of phony point system which didn't give bubba watson much benefit for winning most of the races a couple of years ago in motocross.

I understand the reason for the one bike rule (to make things cheaper for the poor teams, rich teams will spend the same amount) but the fixed time in the pits (which is what they are suggesting for flag-to-flag races is idiocy.

Kropotkin said:

I understand the reason for the one bike rule (to make things cheaper for the poor teams, rich teams will spend the same amount) but the fixed time in the pits (which is what they are suggesting for flag-to-flag races is idiocy.

Click to expand...

More of the dumbing down syndrome. Lets punish the ones who can, so the ones who cant can catch up.

Kropotkin said:

... the fixed time in the pits (which is what they are suggesting for flag-to-flag races is idiocy.

Click to expand...

Seems like basic safety to me. There have been some hairy close calls in pit lane in white flag races from riders swooping in to swap bikes.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...e-boost-overkill/story-e6frecuu-1226314914389



Interesting story on Burgess.



I'm actually starting to warm to his idea of making motogp 600cc. Ah well, never gonna happen.

povol said:

More of the dumbing down syndrome. Lets punish the ones who can, so the ones who cant can catch up.

Click to expand...

If the manufacturers don't spend as much as they can, they fall behind. If they invest more money than everyone else, the competition falls behind and withdraws. MotoGP, well, all prototype racing in its 20th century guise, is an impossibility. The kill or be killed nature of the sport also reveals that the problem with prototype racing is not the expenditures, but percentage increase in average speed (most of the speed technologies are essentially useless in the production market, as well).



They are salmon, swimming upstream against the current. It will kill them, even if they reach the spawning ground. They never stop to ask why they are fighting an impossible battle, they simply make deals to secure another few days of life. These deals have sustained prototype racing for the last 10-20 years. Fans look at a river, laden with dying fish who struggle just to swim against the current let alone make any sort of technological progress. The only question you ever ask: Why aren't these people willing to kill themselves for my entertainment like they used to? IDK, Pov. Maybe it's a conspiracy of the soccer moms.



Over the last 50 years, all prototype racing series have learned the same lesson about the impossibility of their game in the long run (the same lesson mercantilists eventually learned). They need to re-engineer their competition. If they refuse, MotoGP will be turned into NASCAR b/c spec racing and performance balancing are the only proven money makers, at this moment in human history. The fastest motorsports on earth, actually evolve at a snail's pace. It looked like the MSMA might make a change to save themselves, but now they are simply cutting costs so they can swim in place, against the current, to the entertainment and amusement of no one. They have a fish's intellect as well as a fish's instinct.

Dorna CEO Carmelo Ezpeleta wants to see each MotoGP team limited to a budget of 15 million euros per season - less than half the amount being spent by reigning world champion's Honda.



During an interview with AS, Ezpeleta said: "The cap per team I'd like is 15 million, excluding the salaries of riders and marketing."



This would be achieved through "technical regulations that disproportionately punish [expensive] bike development”.



Such regulations would include the proposed 'restriction' of each factory to no more than two official and two satellite bikes (the present level), enforcement of the previously revealed target of 1 million euros maximum for a customer bike (satellite or CRT) and the planned move to a single bike per rider.



“What cannot be is that Honda now spends 40 million euros in its official team every year,” Ezpeleta added

If one caps expenditure so strongly, then one should leave everything else free. "Let's see what you can do with this much money". It would be genuine prototype engineering, exercised within stringent budget constraints.

J4rn0 said:

If one caps expenditure so strongly, then one should leave everything else free. "Let's see what you can do with this much money". It would be genuine prototype engineering, exercised within stringent budget constraints.

Click to expand...

That's the cart before the horse, The tech limitations ARE the cost controls.



Enforcing spending limits is impossible. Enforcing rev limits, etc, is easy.

stiefel said:

http://www.adelaiden...u-1226314914389



Interesting story on Burgess.



I'm actually starting to warm to his idea of making motogp 600cc. Ah well, never gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Burgess is only thinking like an engineer and an altruistic racing official (not necessarily a bad thing). I think 600cc would be fine for MotoGP, and it might even bring new entrants. Solves a lot of problems for the national championships as well. However, it doesn't meet the needs of the manufacturers.



The manufacturers are not keen to kill the SBK market (1000cc or any displacement above 600cc), and they can't sell MotoGP-replica 600cc bikes. If MotoGP is 600cc, the manufacturers have basically painted themselves into a corner. If 1000s need to die, it is better to turn them into obscure upmarket halo products, like Supercars, than legislate them out of existence.



The problem is SBK. Displacement went up b/c the rev ceiling was supposed to plummet. After the row between the MSMA and IMS, the 1000s became production-based MotoGP bikes. Supersport bikes are too expensive to operate, and quite expensive in the production market. The current Supersport bikes must graduate to Moto2, imo. Then SBK must embrace engine scaling such that many engine parts are interchangeable between all classes. Either use 1000cc/1200cc or 800cc/1000cc as the base for SBK. Don't really care which system, both have challenges. The 800cc base would require entirely new bikes. Staying at 1000cc base opens the possibility for stock bikes that are as powerful or more powerful than the race bike.

600cc would be a total disaster, and we'd be left with one manufacturer - Honda. Smaller engines would mean a race for horsepower, which would mean a loss of torque, which would mean a race for electronics to control the engines. It would be exponentially more expensive than the 800s. Smaller engines place a premium on horsepower - the difference between 150 and 160 hp is a hell of a sight more than the difference between 250 and 260 hp. The factories would build highly-strung, peaky bikes that needed a shitload of electronics to control. With no torque, it will be all about corner speed again, and there will be more crashes, more highsides, and more injuries. The racing would be even more processional than the 800s, as mistakes would be mercilessly punished with no chance to compensate for them on the way out. You would be able to predict the races after qualifying, adding a random correction for starts.



From an engineering point of view, it would be fascinating. From a racing point of view, it would sound the death knell of MotoGP. When I think of 600cc four-stroke MotoGP bikes, I think of the Honda RC166, the inline 6 cylinder. One of the must stunning motorcycles ever produced, and the bike that effectively caused the cylinder limits to be introduced. An engineering miracle, and a sporting disaster.

I reckon 40million euro is bugger all to run a top factory team in the pinnacle motorcycle racing series in the world.



Not wanting to drone on but there has to be something seriously wrong if a team can not raise 40 million euro per season. Paying the Queensland Police service is $53 million Aussie per fortnight.



If Krop got everyone who visited his site to chuck in $100 he could probably sponsor Honda outright!



The Melbourne Cup (Australia's biggest horse race) has more than $140 million bet on it each year.



The CEO's of Viacomm, Occidental Petroleum and Oracle earn almost twice that amount each.



For 40 million euro you can build a massive 4 km of freeway.



Apple could pay for every team in MotoGP, F1 and WSBK as well as buy out each competition just with one years profit.



40 Million Euro is nothing in 2012.

povol said:

More of the dumbing down syndrome. Lets punish the ones who can, so the ones who cant can catch up.

Click to expand...

That's because you favor a competition of pocket book verses a competition of racing. You still identify with the 1%. But you're still the help.

Kropotkin said:

600cc would be a total disaster, and we'd be left with one manufacturer - Honda. Smaller engines would mean a race for horsepower, which would mean a loss of torque, which would mean a race for electronics to control the engines. It would be exponentially more expensive than the 800s. Smaller engines place a premium on horsepower - the difference between 150 and 160 hp is a hell of a sight more than the difference between 250 and 260 hp. The factories would build highly-strung, peaky bikes that needed a shitload of electronics to control. With no torque, it will be all about corner speed again, and there will be more crashes, more highsides, and more injuries. The racing would be even more processional than the 800s, as mistakes would be mercilessly punished with no chance to compensate for them on the way out. You would be able to predict the races after qualifying, adding a random correction for starts.



From an engineering point of view, it would be fascinating. From a racing point of view, it would sound the death knell of MotoGP. When I think of 600cc four-stroke MotoGP bikes, I think of the Honda RC166, the inline 6 cylinder. One of the must stunning motorcycles ever produced, and the bike that effectively caused the cylinder limits to be introduced. An engineering miracle, and a sporting disaster.

Click to expand...

tell us what you really think of 600cc as the premier class. hahaha

Mental Anarchist said:

I reckon 40million euro is bugger all to run a top factory team in the pinnacle motorcycle racing series in the world.



Not wanting to drone on but there has to be something seriously wrong if a team can not raise 40 million euro per season. Paying the Queensland Police service is $53 million Aussie per fortnight.



If Krop got everyone who visited his site to chuck in $100 he could probably sponsor Honda outright!



The Melbourne Cup (Australia's biggest horse race) has more than $140 million bet on it each year.



The CEO's of Viacomm, Occidental Petroleum and Oracle earn almost twice that amount each.



For 40 million euro you can build a massive 4 km of freeway.



Apple could pay for every team in MotoGP, F1 and WSBK as well as buy out each competition just with one years profit.



40 Million Euro is nothing in 2012.

Click to expand...

It's about perceived value. The marketing directors of companies do not see the value of investing more than a couple of hundred grand in MotoGP, as compared to tens of millions in F1. Changing that perception is the biggest challenge facing MotoGP, and my worry is that Dorna is not up to that challenge.

Kropotkin said:

600cc would be a total disaster, and we'd be left with one manufacturer - Honda. Smaller engines would mean a race for horsepower, which would mean a loss of torque, which would mean a race for electronics to control the engines. It would be exponentially more expensive than the 800s. Smaller engines place a premium on horsepower - the difference between 150 and 160 hp is a hell of a sight more than the difference between 250 and 260 hp. The factories would build highly-strung, peaky bikes that needed a shitload of electronics to control. With no torque, it will be all about corner speed again, and there will be more crashes, more highsides, and more injuries. The racing would be even more processional than the 800s, as mistakes would be mercilessly punished with no chance to compensate for them on the way out. You would be able to predict the races after qualifying, adding a random correction for starts.



From an engineering point of view, it would be fascinating. From a racing point of view, it would sound the death knell of MotoGP. When I think of 600cc four-stroke MotoGP bikes, I think of the Honda RC166, the inline 6 cylinder. One of the must stunning motorcycles ever produced, and the bike that effectively caused the cylinder limits to be introduced. An engineering miracle, and a sporting disaster.

Click to expand...

Do WSS bikes have more electronics than SBKs? The absolute horsepower rating and the gearing is probably as important as the nature of the power delivery. A 600cc MotoGP bike would probably use less traction control than an 800cc or 1000cc MotoGP bike. Plus, the six gear limitation might actually make it difficult to keep the bike at peak power, and torque would become more important than peak power. The situation would be somewhat similar to the 5-gear-rule suggested for MotoGP when the 990s started getting peaky and powerful.



Depending upon the concept Burgess has in mind, the racing could be better as well. I have no way of knowing, but following the MSMA's pattern of regulatory changes, they would probably cut fuel capacity down to, let's say 18L. The intent would be to reduce the rev ceiling to somewhere around 18,000rpm-19,000rpm, imo. At 180-190hp, the 600cc formula would basically recreate the 500s. The draft effect would become an important part of the sport, and bikes would tow one another along like they do in the lower classes. My only concern is what it would do to the size of riders. Riding can't evolve properly if 80% of the male population is too big to participate.



What does the 600cc formula provide for the manufacturers? As far as I can see, it would kill their brands, prototype motorcycle racing, and SBK. But I'm not convinced the 600cc bikes wouldn't work.

Jumkie said:

tell us what you really think of 600cc as the premier class. hahaha

Click to expand...

His suggestion is typical engineer. "Hey, you know what would be really cool? Anti-gravity leathers. Totally awesome!" No concerns about cost or affordability, or even feasibility.

mylexicon said:

Do WSS bikes have more electronics than SBKs? The absolute horsepower rating and the gearing is probably as important as the nature of the power delivery. A 600cc MotoGP bike would probably use less traction control than an 800cc or 1000cc MotoGP bike. Plus, the six gear limitation might actually make it difficult to keep the bike at peak power, and torque would become more important than peak power. The situation would be somewhat similar to the 5-gear-rule suggested for MotoGP when the 990s started getting peaky and powerful.

Click to expand...

WSS bikes have less electronics that SBKs for a couple of reasons: 1. tuning regs, which are stricter, and 2. (the most important one) WSS is a publicity black hole, more or less. No one has the money to spend, though it is said that PTR and Ten Kate got into a bit of an electronics spending war. The budgets aren't there.



Switch to MotoGP: Massive budgets already, and lots of prestige at stake. They will spend money on HP and on electronics, fighting for the last tenth of a second. TC is not an issue, but creating a manageable power delivery is, and that's the really, really expensive part. The best 600 race would be about as exciting as the worst 800 race. The only way to stop costs spiraling out of control is imposing a lot of technical restrictions, but if you're going to do that, then why bother going to 600s? Why not just impose the same restrictions on 1000s?



It's a really bad idea, its only merit being that it would slow top speeds down. But then again, a rev limit on the 1000s would achieve exactly the same thing, and have none of the downsides of a smaller capacity.