MotoGP poised to confirm 1000cc switch

I don't know enough about the technical end of cost control to have an opinion
about the effectiveness of this proposal. But if the racing is more interesting -
I'll be looking to see if the attendance numbers increase - to see to what degree
that bolsters the Dorna coffers and whether increased attendance numbers will
translate to increased sponsor participation. Also will this bring more manufacturers
back to the grid. Would love to see Kawasaki return. Wouldn't mind seeing a few
of the Yamaha street-bike/proto-frame hybrids on the grid either.

Production engines aren't going to solve anything either. Under a prototype arrangement, the entire engine (production-based or not) is going to be built out of magnesium, titanium, and other exotics.

The only way to make the sport cheaper is to ban the exotic materials the teams use to build the engines. If they ditch the exotic engine materials the bikes will be heavier, and have more reciprocating mass. It wouldn't bother me b/c the riders would have to be bigger and stronger so the midgetization of the sport would come to a halt, but MotoGP might drift into the performance realm of WSBK if the bikes gain another 5 or 10 kilos.

FIM rules for WSBK control what the consumers purchase. If they want to make sweeping changes, they need to start in WSBK. Production bikes should have rev limits and engine life rules.

Ding dong the witch (800cc's) is dead clap your hands get out of bed!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Dec 11 2009, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Production engines aren't going to solve anything either. Under a prototype arrangement, the entire engine (production-based or not) is going to be built out of magnesium, titanium, and other exotics.

Speculation? Or is there a source for this info? Not that I don't love the idea of an
all titanium/magnesium GSXR 1000!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Keshav @ Dec 11 2009, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Speculation? Or is there a source for this info? Not that I don't love the idea of an
all titanium/magnesium GSXR 1000!

They've been using magnesium in GP for at least 20 years. I don't know how much they still use it b/c the min weight has been increasing (the old NSR500V weighed 103kg), but the production engine teams will need to reduce the weight of the engine.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pigeon @ Dec 11 2009, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A LOT of ...... about since 06

990s, should have stuck to the formula, eh buddy.

Well thank .... for that, finally a hint of sanity!! Can't wait.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Dec 11 2009, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>They've been using magnesium in GP for at least 20 years. I don't know how much they still use it b/c the min weight has been increasing (the old NSR500V weighed 103kg), but the production engine teams will need to reduce the weight of the engine.

Understood. I was referring to much talked about production engines in
prototype frames for purposes of economy. From what I understand teams
using these engines will be permitted pretty much unlimited tweaking and
electronics - stuff not permitted in WSBK - so already, not so cheap. Recasting
the engines etc in exotic materials sounds pricey. I was just wondering if you'd
heard from any reliable source - that this was in the works. I've got nothing
against intelligent speculation (especially at this time of the year when anything
intelligent to be discussed is food on the table of a starving man) but like I said
just wondering.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Goatboy @ Dec 11 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well thank .... for that, finally a hint of sanity!! Can't wait.


Don't worry - Dorna will think of some cost cutting rule to make things weird.
Maybe to save money they will make the riders personally inflate the air fences
when they hit them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Goatboy @ Dec 11 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well thank .... for that, finally a hint of sanity!! Can't wait.
How exactly do you "thank ...."? Is this related to your sig?

What is the purpose of this rule?

The cylinders have to be between 3 and 5mm smaller than they were previously (estimated). In theory, the pistons will be lighter, but acceleration and maximum revs will be lower because the stroke has been lengthened.

So the FIM have made a rule that stops teams from using massive oversquare engines, but then the FIM is encouraging them to use as much exotic lightweight material as possible so they can still rev even with the artificially long stroke?

Why didn't they just rev limit? Rev limits don't require specification of bore and stroke, and rev-limits would allow them to introduce other engine configurations so the sport doesn't get boring. How cool would it have been to see rules that actually allowed the manufacturers to compete with twins, triples, fives, and sixes?

Now that GP is control tire, the stratified weight system doesn't work. They should have enforced one standardized weight and then used stratified rev limiting to make the sport interesting.

EPIC FAIL. In my opinion anyway. MotoGP is going to be another version of WSBK but without any twins. BORING.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Dec 11 2009, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What is the purpose of this rule?

The cylinders have to be between 3 and 5mm smaller than they were previously (estimated). In theory, the pistons will be lighter, but acceleration and maximum revs will be lower because the stroke has been lengthened.

So the FIM have made a rule that stops teams from using exotic materials to allow them a massive overbore, but then the FIM is encouraging them to use as much exotic lightweight material as possible so they can still rev even with the artificially long stroke?

Why didn't they just rev limit? Rev limits don't require specification of bore and stroke, and rev-limits would allow them to introduce other engine configurations so the sport doesn't get boring. How cool would it have been to see rules that actually allowed the manufacturers to compete with twins, triples, fives, and sixes?

Now that GP is control tire, the stratified weight system doesn't work. They should have enforced one standardized weight and then used stratified rev limiting to make the sport interesting.

EPIC FAIL. In my opinion anyway. MotoGP is going to be another version of WSBK but without any twins. BORING.

An excellent point has been made in an earlier post regarding the off the shelf nature of the current motogp machines. I suspect it was yours and it was right (forgive me for not confirming this). The only thing then designating the difference in the machine from factory to factory is the frame and most importantly the engine, everything else being purchased from specialized suppliers available to everyone. The limit of engines for a rider is a big incentive for the manufacturers to use the most exotic material available that gives them the ability to sustain an engine for several races. Failure in an engine is caused only by the breakdown of the materials used to build it. Material science is a very interesting field and the open nature of material selection in the upcoming series fulfills my prototype requirements. Don't forget that material sells by the pound (or whatever measure of weight you use). The lower the weight the lower the cost of the base material. If unobtainium is $250/lb and you use .1 pounds there is no reason to specify anything less as the material cost is nothing in the whole scheme of things. To specify mild steel rather than titanium is almost a non issue. The critical nature of any part manufacture is the labour involved and the process required to turn raw material into a usable part. There are few shops that can't process either mild steel or titanium. It is just a minor software adjustment and tooling insert change, nothing else. CNC process time of material like titanium compared to a dense material like steel is far less. Setup in normal production is spread out over as many units as are sale able. Since 6 engines is the maximum the processes to produce the final race machines will be determined on that figure which will streamline and lower costs. The calculus of these factors is very simple. Intelligent design and the understanding of the integration of rider to machine will clearly be the focus. To think that some yahoo with the dream of fielding a titanium GSXR1000 with the hope of winning against a factory with such design capability as referred to above is just not realistic under any future rule set.

Valentino, in his lame attempt at protest at Indy, has unwittingly predicted the future face of pseudo budget limited motogp. Practice will be mainly done with practice engines. Races with race engines. Everything will be even more calculated, not less. Teams that come into the series in order to race at the highest level will never advance past mid pack thereby shutting off any incentive for sponsors to spend money on them. The factories will respond with full on 999cc motors capable of lasting for 6 races and still produce mid 200 hp. And then there is the software...

Speaking of software (the most insidious technology in motogp) I believe that the software will still separate the men from the boys. Controls and logic have the potential to sort out most of the handling problems before the tires get warm on the first lap and at any time during the race. Can every team afford it? I suspect the factories will make that impossible. Sure you can get a Magneti Marelli system but then you have to set it up and that is a tough deal when every major team has had 10 years of development under there belt.

In the end what will change? It will still come down to the best rider and the best tires.

Rule after rule can be written but all they are trying to do is limit expenditure. To my way of thinking why not just do that? Limit the money and then let the rest shake itself out. If every factory team was limited to 20 million per team of two riders then the sponsors know what they are looking at. 20 million (pick a figure). Then let the technicians and engineers and project managers and mechanics and riders take it to the track. All costs are known right up front and the rest is racing.

Maybe, one day, we'll get it right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Dec 11 2009, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>An excellent point has been made in an earlier post regarding the off the shelf nature of the current motogp machines. I suspect it was yours and it was right (forgive me for not confirming this). The only thing then designating the difference in the machine from factory to factory is the frame and most importantly the engine, everything else being purchased from specialized suppliers available to everyone. The limit of engines for a rider is a big incentive for the manufacturers to use the most exotic material available that gives them the ability to sustain an engine for several races. Failure in an engine is caused only by the breakdown of the materials used to build it. Material science is a very interesting field and the open nature of material selection in the upcoming series fulfills my prototype requirements. Don't forget that material sells by the pound (or whatever measure of weight you use). The lower the weight the lower the cost of the base material. If unobtainium is $250/lb and you use .1 pounds there is no reason to specify anything less as the material cost is nothing in the whole scheme of things. To specify mild steel rather than titanium is almost a non issue. The critical nature of any part manufacture is the labour involved and the process required to turn raw material into a usable part. There are few shops that can't process either mild steel or titanium. It is just a minor software adjustment and tooling insert change, nothing else. CNC process time of material like titanium compared to a dense material like steel is far less. Setup in normal production is spread out over as many units as are sale able. Since 6 engines is the maximum the processes to produce the final race machines will be determined on that figure which will streamline and lower costs. The calculus of these factors is very simple. Intelligent design and the understanding of the integration of rider to machine will clearly be the focus. To think that some yahoo with the dream of fielding a titanium GSXR1000 with the hope of winning against a factory with such design capability as referred to above is just not realistic under any future rule set.

Valentino, in his lame attempt at protest at Indy, has unwittingly predicted the future face of pseudo budget limited motogp. Practice will be mainly done with practice engines. Races with race engines. Everything will be even more calculated, not less. Teams that come into the series in order to race at the highest level will never advance past mid pack thereby shutting off any incentive for sponsors to spend money on them. The factories will respond with full on 999cc motors capable of lasting for 6 races and still produce mid 200 hp. And then there is the software...

Speaking of software (the most insidious technology in motogp) I believe that the software will still separate the men from the boys. Controls and logic have the potential to sort out most of the handling problems before the tires get warm on the first lap and at any time during the race. Can every team afford it? I suspect the factories will make that impossible. Sure you can get a Magneti Marelli system but then you have to set it up and that is a tough deal when every major team has had 10 years of development under there belt.

In the end what will change? It will still come down to the best rider and the best tires.

Rule after rule can be written but all they are trying to do is limit expenditure. To my way of thinking why not just do that? Limit the money and then let the rest shake itself out. If every factory team was limited to 20 million per team of two riders then the sponsors know what they are looking at. 20 million (pick a figure). Then let the technicians and engineers and project managers and mechanics and riders take it to the track. All costs are known right up front and the rest is racing.

Maybe, one day, we'll get it right.

I'm really not trying to be a whiner b/c I'm happy GP is returning to 1000cc, but what is the point if they continue killing the art of building racing motorcycles?

The teams always claim that costs are getting out of hand so the FIM eliminates some technology in the interest of saving costs. In the end, the diversity of the sport is ruined so, naturally, the manufacturers stop diversifying. The MSMA put all of their financial eggs in one basket (usually lightweight engine technology, or software). The cost of winning grows exponentially. The manufacturers face extreme diminishing marginal returns, but they have performance targets to maintain so they beg, borrow, and steal more funding.

The GP lesson is simple. Four stroke engines = expensive rev wars. They knew that back in the sixties when they wrote the original 4 cylinder rule in order to stop the rising cylinder count (the original rev war strategy). They've known for 40 years that 4 strokes are expensive and they've still done little but continue killing creativity and allowing the manufacturers to invest their entire budget in the rev war.

Whatever, I will have to wait 2 more years to see what kind of racing the formula will produce.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Dec 11 2009, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Limit the money and then let the rest shake itself out. If every factory team was limited to 20 million per team of two riders then the sponsors know what they are looking at. 20 million (pick a figure). Then let the technicians and engineers and project managers and mechanics and riders take it to the track. All costs are known right up front and the rest is racing.[/b]

Maybe, one day, we'll get it right.

Zen thinking. Too ....... easy, too simple and too obvious. Right under their noses.
Only problem is when it come to accounting practices - it's too easy to cheat. If
budgets were enforceable - it would be a smart way to go.

I see many people are happy about it, personally I think this doesn't solve any of the problems in MotoGP (which are mainly caused by electronic aids).

At least I wont have to read any whining about the 800cc.

Like others have mentioned I think the bore limit is a not the best way to control revs, it's much easier to set a rev limit.

The budget cap would be the best solution, but that's hard to impose in a series where the manufacturers have so much control on the rules. We'll see how that goes in F1. It will be hard to police for sure.

i think 1000cc and less electronic about 70%

The most expensive thing in any formula or motorsport is change.
They should have never changed from 990's. Any moron could see that soon enough the 800's would be as fast (or faster) than the 990's. I'm not entirely in favour of changing from the 800's back to 1000cc.
There is just as much liklihood of close racing in 800's as there is in 1000cc bikes (or 500 2-strokes) with the current teams and riders. The problem is that there are 4 guys better than the rest, and on any particular day when one of those 4 guys gets it exactly right, they are untouchable.
The other teams and riders are just not as good. Nothing will change by going to 1000cc bikes.

If they really want to change, MotoGP should go back to the old 990 formula.
Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki, Ducati, Kawasaki, (and anyone else that wants to play) could pull out their 2006 model bikes, and start from there. No need to develop from scratch, with massive development costs.
But then somehow limit the development - I agree with rev limiting engines.