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

Motorcycle Racing Industry: Reading the Tea Leaves

Joined Mar 2007
8K Posts | 2K+
Texas
It's the offseason. Time to read some tea leaves. Maybe we can figure out where the motorcycle racing industry could be headed in the long term, and how the puzzle pieces will fit together.


Production Racing
Most of the new information each year pertains to production motorcycles. Euro 5 emissions standards are already taking a bite out of the performance motorcycle segments by strictly regulating unburned hydrocarbons. The most obvious change required by the regs related to valve overlap on high performance engines. To preserve published power figures, the manufacturers would necessarily implement new sophisticated variable valve timing systems. The better the VVT system, the more horsepower could be saved from the emissions regulators. The possibility of lower peak rpm was already pressuring short stroke 4-cylinder superbike engines, but Kevin Cameron recently revealed another hurdle. High compression performance engines tend to push unburned hydrocarbons into the piston rings, crankcase and head gaskets where they later evaporate and foul emissions. The easiest way to address this issue is to delete cylinders to reduce the piston-ring and head gasket area.

In response to Euro 5 strictures, and the looming Euro 5+ regulations for 2024, manufacturers have already started removing sportbikes from their model lineups. Suzuki has perhaps been the most affected by the regulations, and they've chosen to pull the GSX-R600, GSX-R750, and recently the GSXR-1000 from European showrooms. Long story short, competition sportbikes are in a tough spot. The 600s are already gone, and the 1000s may not be long for this world. Aprilia already ditched the 1000cc capacity limit to meet Euro 4 regulations. Now Suzuki has thrown in the towel. Unclear if more superbikes will be lost with Euro 5+ and subsequent regs, particularly if sales trends continue to move away from supersport motorcycles.

To be frank, production racing is in crisis, and at a major crossroads. If the SBK Comission want to continue competing with road-legal production motorcycles, they will need to introduce a new formula similar to World Supersport with higher horsepower regulations. But maybe the SBK Commission would rather adopt a different concept, like using competition-only production motorcycles that are not road legal.

My personal hope is that the World Supersport balance of performance is retuned for another 20-30 horsepower, and it effectively becomes Superbike. The 750cc super twins are tuned for another 20-30 horsepower, and they become the new Supersport. This would make the series more accessible to riders, and allow the promoters to return to classic venues like Monza, Imola, Laguna Seca, Albacete, and more. However, internal combustion engines may not be long for this world, and the MSMA may only be interested in maintaining the status quo for as long as possible.


Prototype Racing
Prototype racing functions independently of production racing, but the players in both series are the same, and MotoGP does not live on an island. If Superbike eliminates the existing crop of 600cc Supersports and 1000cc Superbikes from competition, it creates opportunity for GP. The 600s and 1000s are not less entertaining, they are simply not compatible with European emissions regulations. Plus, the manufacturers have time and money invested in these machines, and attaching them to a revenue stream, rather than retiring them is preferable. Dorna would also have access to lower cost competition machinery.

The most obvious potential change could be for Moto2. The 600cc Supersports already share a common engine architecture and a common bore number, though Kawasaki uses a long stroke crank. It seems like the Japanese manufacturers could somewhat easily create uniform regulations for competition-only 600cc bikes. This would provide the Japanese with a revenue stream, and allow Moto2 to run at the national level like the 250s before them.

But what about the 1000s? If they are being regulated out of existence, how do they relate, if at all to the GP paddock......which has engine homologations and freezes......and whose promoter once created a CRT class and has expressed an interest in substantially reducing engine power of MotoGP's 81mm 1000cc engines. I don't want to say anything heretical, but sort of wonder if the GPC will find a way to implement these engines and electronics packages into the MotoGP paddock, particularly if the manufacturers and promoters believe production racing is a lost cause, and they are merely counting the days until SBK is retired. Currently, MotoGP rev ceilings are much too high for production engines with valve springs, but future regulations could change the situation, particularly if MotoGP follows F1 by regulating fuel flow by rpm. Scant evidence exists for such a revolutionary change, but new engine regulations in automobile sport could point in that direction. Plus, Dorna has control over the spec ECU and software, in addition to regulating fuel pressure. I'm not sure it's far fetched to assume they could request a change to the ECU to control power.

Conclusion
Motorcycle racing is in a quandary, caught between the demands of regulators and the demands of the competitors. If I rendered a guess, the Japanese are pushing for Superbike to continue, despite adverse regulatory and consumer trends. The European manufacturers, including Ducati, are probably somewhat ambivalent, and Dorna is 100% in favor of merging the series. I believe all factions are simultaneously pursuing their own desired outcome, hence the confused mixing of concepts in production motorcycle racing, but all parties probably hold a common belief--that SBK cannot continue unchanged as a competition-only production motorcycle series. At minimum SBK gets a total reboot as WSS+. At maximum, the series plods along unchanged for 1 or 2 more 5-year-cycles before it is retired completely.

The fate of the SBK paddock will have a profound impact on the GP paddock, and since SBK cannot maintain the status quo indefinitely (imo), a major tectonic shift will also occur in MotoGP. The fog of war surrounding MotoGP's future is thick. Anyone who can guess what will happen has my respect. I doubt the competitors even know how this will all shake out.
 
It's the offseason. Time to read some tea leaves. Maybe we can figure out where the motorcycle racing industry could be headed in the long term, and how the puzzle pieces will fit together.


Production Racing
Most of the new information each year pertains to production motorcycles. Euro 5 emissions standards are already taking a bite out of the performance motorcycle segments by strictly regulating unburned hydrocarbons. The most obvious change required by the regs related to valve overlap on high performance engines. To preserve published power figures, the manufacturers would necessarily implement new sophisticated variable valve timing systems. The better the VVT system, the more horsepower could be saved from the emissions regulators. The possibility of lower peak rpm was already pressuring short stroke 4-cylinder superbike engines, but Kevin Cameron recently revealed another hurdle. High compression performance engines tend to push unburned hydrocarbons into the piston rings, crankcase and head gaskets where they later evaporate and foul emissions. The easiest way to address this issue is to delete cylinders to reduce the piston-ring and head gasket area.

In response to Euro 5 strictures, and the looming Euro 5+ regulations for 2024, manufacturers have already started removing sportbikes from their model lineups. Suzuki has perhaps been the most affected by the regulations, and they've chosen to pull the GSX-R600, GSX-R750, and recently the GSXR-1000 from European showrooms. Long story short, competition sportbikes are in a tough spot. The 600s are already gone, and the 1000s may not be long for this world. Aprilia already ditched the 1000cc capacity limit to meet Euro 4 regulations. Now Suzuki has thrown in the towel. Unclear if more superbikes will be lost with Euro 5+ and subsequent regs, particularly if sales trends continue to move away from supersport motorcycles.

To be frank, production racing is in crisis, and at a major crossroads. If the SBK Comission want to continue competing with road-legal production motorcycles, they will need to introduce a new formula similar to World Supersport with higher horsepower regulations. But maybe the SBK Commission would rather adopt a different concept, like using competition-only production motorcycles that are not road legal.

My personal hope is that the World Supersport balance of performance is retuned for another 20-30 horsepower, and it effectively becomes Superbike. The 750cc super twins are tuned for another 20-30 horsepower, and they become the new Supersport. This would make the series more accessible to riders, and allow the promoters to return to classic venues like Monza, Imola, Laguna Seca, Albacete, and more. However, internal combustion engines may not be long for this world, and the MSMA may only be interested in maintaining the status quo for as long as possible.


Prototype Racing
Prototype racing functions independently of production racing, but the players in both series are the same, and MotoGP does not live on an island. If Superbike eliminates the existing crop of 600cc Supersports and 1000cc Superbikes from competition, it creates opportunity for GP. The 600s and 1000s are not less entertaining, they are simply not compatible with European emissions regulations. Plus, the manufacturers have time and money invested in these machines, and attaching them to a revenue stream, rather than retiring them is preferable. Dorna would also have access to lower cost competition machinery.

The most obvious potential change could be for Moto2. The 600cc Supersports already share a common engine architecture and a common bore number, though Kawasaki uses a long stroke crank. It seems like the Japanese manufacturers could somewhat easily create uniform regulations for competition-only 600cc bikes. This would provide the Japanese with a revenue stream, and allow Moto2 to run at the national level like the 250s before them.

But what about the 1000s? If they are being regulated out of existence, how do they relate, if at all to the GP paddock......which has engine homologations and freezes......and whose promoter once created a CRT class and has expressed an interest in substantially reducing engine power of MotoGP's 81mm 1000cc engines. I don't want to say anything heretical, but sort of wonder if the GPC will find a way to implement these engines and electronics packages into the MotoGP paddock, particularly if the manufacturers and promoters believe production racing is a lost cause, and they are merely counting the days until SBK is retired. Currently, MotoGP rev ceilings are much too high for production engines with valve springs, but future regulations could change the situation, particularly if MotoGP follows F1 by regulating fuel flow by rpm. Scant evidence exists for such a revolutionary change, but new engine regulations in automobile sport could point in that direction. Plus, Dorna has control over the spec ECU and software, in addition to regulating fuel pressure. I'm not sure it's far fetched to assume they could request a change to the ECU to control power.

Conclusion
Motorcycle racing is in a quandary, caught between the demands of regulators and the demands of the competitors. If I rendered a guess, the Japanese are pushing for Superbike to continue, despite adverse regulatory and consumer trends. The European manufacturers, including Ducati, are probably somewhat ambivalent, and Dorna is 100% in favor of merging the series. I believe all factions are simultaneously pursuing their own desired outcome, hence the confused mixing of concepts in production motorcycle racing, but all parties probably hold a common belief--that SBK cannot continue unchanged as a competition-only production motorcycle series. At minimum SBK gets a total reboot as WSS+. At maximum, the series plods along unchanged for 1 or 2 more 5-year-cycles before it is retired completely.

The fate of the SBK paddock will have a profound impact on the GP paddock, and since SBK cannot maintain the status quo indefinitely (imo), a major tectonic shift will also occur in MotoGP. The fog of war surrounding MotoGP's future is thick. Anyone who can guess what will happen has my respect. I doubt the competitors even know how this will all shake out.
Pretty obvious why Suzuki quit motogp,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick D
Pretty obvious why Suzuki quit motogp,
Yeah, Suzuki seem to have run out of steam. New biofuel regs reach MotoGP in 2024, and mark the beginning of a rapid transition to sustainable carbon neutral fuel. In Superbike, the GSX-R1000 needed an update to the hydraulic variable valve timing system to achieve Euro 5. They also needed to put more cash into WSBK.

Suzuki just packed up and went home. The craziness is too much.
 
Also wanted to provide a practical example of the phenomenon Kevin Cameron outlines in his article about unburned hydrocarbons:

Yamaha have patents pending for the name R9, and for some design aspects of a new R9 supersport. Given the cost of developing new models and engines, all signs point to a CP3 powered machine with roughly 120hp. In essence, the new R9 would be a replacement for the outgoing R6, despite the 50% increase in engine displacement.

The Yamaha R6 engine has 67mm bore and 4 pistons, which equates to 842mm linear piston ring measurement. If the R9 is indeed equipped with the CP3, the engine would have 78mm bore and 3 pistons, equating to 735mm linear piston ring measurement. When the R9 is introduced stock power will remain unchanged, torque will increase, the rev ceiling will decline 30% (alleviates valve overlap problems), and linear piston ring measurement will decrease by about 13%. Assuming proper emissions tuning, the R9 would be a significant reduction in unburned hydrocarbons.

In race trim, the Yamaha R6 produced about 150hp before BoP and engine durability regulations. The peak power was limited mostly by the spring valves, but in a theoretical world, the engine power is limited by the surface area of the pistons. The stroke controls the rpm, and the availability of torque. This is a mediocre layperson's way to understand engine performance, but it works for this example.

The R6 has 67mm bore and approximately 141cm2 piston surface area. In a world of optimum performance, the R6 could produce about 175-180hp at the crank. The R9 would have 78mm bore and approximately 143cm2 piston surface area. In an optimum world, the R9 would also produce 175-180hp, but unlike the R6, which would require about 18,000rpm to make peak power, the R9 would be making peak power at 12,500rpm---relatively easy to achieve with spring valves.

Anyway, the point is not to inappropriately view the world through the calculations of a layperson, but to demonstrate the unconventional changes that could be in the immediate future, and how their design will affect the stock machine and the competition machine. We get a lot more torque, and apparently the world gets less greenhouse gases.

Yamaha-R9.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barbedwirebikerr
Also wanted to provide a practical example of the phenomenon Kevin Cameron outlines in his article about unburned hydrocarbons:

Yamaha have patents pending for the name R9, and for some design aspects of a new R9 supersport. Given the cost of developing new models and engines, all signs point to a CP3 powered machine with roughly 120hp. In essence, the new R9 would be a replacement for the outgoing R6, despite the 50% increase in engine displacement.

The Yamaha R6 engine has 67mm bore and 4 pistons, which equates to 842mm linear piston ring measurement. If the R9 is indeed equipped with the CP3, the engine would have 78mm bore and 3 pistons, equating to 735mm linear piston ring measurement. When the R9 is introduced stock power will remain unchanged, torque will increase, the rev ceiling will decline 30% (alleviates valve overlap problems), and linear piston ring measurement will decrease by about 13%. Assuming proper emissions tuning, the R9 would be a significant reduction in unburned hydrocarbons.

In race trim, the Yamaha R6 produced about 150hp before BoP and engine durability regulations. The peak power was limited mostly by the spring valves, but in a theoretical world, the engine power is limited by the surface area of the pistons. The stroke controls the rpm, and the availability of torque. This is a mediocre layperson's way to understand engine performance, but it works for this example.

The R6 has 67mm bore and approximately 141cm2 piston surface area. In a world of optimum performance, the R6 could produce about 175-180hp at the crank. The R9 would have 78mm bore and approximately 143cm2 piston surface area. In an optimum world, the R9 would also produce 175-180hp, but unlike the R6, which would require about 18,000rpm to make peak power, the R9 would be making peak power at 12,500rpm---relatively easy to achieve with spring valves.

Anyway, the point is not to inappropriately view the world through the calculations of a layperson, but to demonstrate the unconventional changes that could be in the immediate future, and how their design will affect the stock machine and the competition machine. We get a lot more torque, and apparently the world gets less greenhouse gases.

Yamaha-R9.webp
How do desmo valves go with all this ?. Ducati seem to be unkeen.
 
How do desmo valves go with all this ?. Ducati seem to be unkeen.
Production market and prototype racing have both been moving away from desmo for some time. Benefit of desmo is the ability to run huge valves and high rpm without valve float. Desmo was critical for old demodue (2-valve) performance engines. When everything switched to desmoquattro (4-valve), the importance of desmo took at hit, but rev ceilings were high enough to justify investment in desmo. Euro 5 could shift the paradigm. Ducati supposedly already abandoned desmodromic valve operation for the Multistrada. Haven't verified on the spec sheet, but it was widely reported a couple of years ago. Ducati to lose Desmo’ valves for 2021 Multistrada V4

MotoGP ditched the screaming 800s for 81mm 1000cc engines. Rev ceiling is still high enough to justify using desmo or pneumatic actuation. Dorna regularly hints and reducing engine power output. Biofuel will knock the power down apparently. Reducing the rev ceiling could also be in the works.

I think Ducati will probably continue with Desmo on all of their performance production bikes, since the competition version will surely run at higher rpm than the Euro 5 street bike. Standard Ducati models may ditch desmo to reduce cost and maintenance. In prototype racing, desmo is probably safe, even if they cut another 2,000-3,000 rpm off the top. The winds of change are blowing against Ducati's vaunted valvetrain technology, but maybe not hard enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Havey and Mick D
When Ducati first started using the desmodromic valve system, high rpms were the main reason, but in the Prototype class now they are all restricted to the same peak rpm, but due to the Desmo system, the Ducati still produces more power than any of the other sprung valve engines, and always will.

The limiting factor that all the other engines face, is that they have to design the cam profiles, lift acceleration and duration, to be sympathetic to the sinusoidal action of a spring, gas or metal.

The Ducati can use cam profiles to produce faster opening and closing rates to produce more peak torque, with full control of the valves knowing that the valves and piston will never meet.

It was a good move for Ducati going back to springs on the road models to make them more user friendly, but there is no way they will abandon Desmos for the racing engines, they want to continue winning.

Dorna can’t ban the use of Desmo and leave the other factories using pneumatic springs, as Ducati have production models using the same technology, where as there are no other production bikes, using the pneumatic valve actuation.

I agree that they need to slow the GP bikes down, just too fast, as you say Biofuels may do it, but that won’t stop Ducati Desmos from producing the most power and dominating the racing.

What can then other factories do? I think it is too late for Honda and Yamaha to spend the time or money to develop new engines, (as Suzuki have found) as the change to electrics are coming too fast, Ducati are already into them with the Moto E bikes like it or not.
 
When Ducati first started using the desmodromic valve system, high rpms were the main reason, but in the Prototype class now they are all restricted to the same peak rpm, but due to the Desmo system, the Ducati still produces more power than any of the other sprung valve engines, and always will.

The limiting factor that all the other engines face, is that they have to design the cam profiles, lift acceleration and duration, to be sympathetic to the sinusoidal action of a spring, gas or metal.

The Ducati can use cam profiles to produce faster opening and closing rates to produce more peak torque, with full control of the valves knowing that the valves and piston will never meet.

It was a good move for Ducati going back to springs on the road models to make them more user friendly, but there is no way they will abandon Desmos for the racing engines, they want to continue winning.

Dorna can’t ban the use of Desmo and leave the other factories using pneumatic springs, as Ducati have production models using the same technology, where as there are no other production bikes, using the pneumatic valve actuation.

I agree that they need to slow the GP bikes down, just too fast, as you say Biofuels may do it, but that won’t stop Ducati Desmos from producing the most power and dominating the racing.

What can then other factories do? I think it is too late for Honda and Yamaha to spend the time or money to develop new engines, (as Suzuki have found) as the change to electrics are coming too fast, Ducati are already into them with the Moto E bikes like it or not.

Desmo definitely provides and advantage, but there is a caveat. It's superiority is linked to the other manufacturers using camshaft-driven pneumatic valves. If camless pneumatic systems were introduced or possibly electromagnetic systems, Desmo could be jeopardy. I'm sure this is unlikely, but camless systems are still worth mentioning regarding potential threats to desmodromic valves in racing.

Regarding rpm ceiling, Shell could be as important as Ducati. Eliminating friction is critical to raising engine rpm in a bore-stroke limited formula. Shell have a huge chemical division and F1 motorsport pedigree. Not sure Repsol, Motul, et al are on par, but I could be mistaken. KTM just switched to Mobil1, which is a bigger development than people may realize.

Biofuels are on the way. and based upon the claims by Dorna of lower horsepower, it seems that the fuels will be less dense, which points to alcohol based fuel. Alcohol has much lower lubricating properties than petroleum-based fuels. Increased friction could knock down the rpm, but it could also start a lubrication arms race, hence KTM's move to align with Mobil1.

Your post has also made me think about engine homologation procedures. As you say, demo has virtually no delay or flex, compared with air-springs. It makes me wonder if the GPC ratified static compression limits in the name of engine longevity and fairness for all competitors. This would also explain a precipitous decline in horsepower if less dense biofuels are introduced. Anyway, just thinking out loud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Havey
The industry is heading towards electric bikes... How much longer will manufactures commit resources (time, money) to developing gas engines?
 
The industry is heading towards electric bikes... How much longer will manufactures commit resources (time, money) to developing gas engines?
It's possible that electric bikes will be the only road-legal bikes in the near future; however, this doesn't necessarily spell the end of ICE racing, but the GPC and SBKC would both need a completely new business model to continue ICE racing.
 
These brands race on Sunday to sell on Monday, so if their products are not racing then their products will not be selling. The market for high performance motorcycles is very small compared to the rest of the industry, I just dont see the brands committing to ICE long term.
 
Manufacturers will have to build the bikes with a fragrance dispenser that emits the smell of raw gas and exhaust fumes - and a 1000 Watt RMS Macintosh stereo sound system to produce the sound of a 180 Hp engine and maybe a synchronized vibrator under the seat.
 
Desmo definitely provides and advantage, but there is a caveat. It's superiority is linked to the other manufacturers using camshaft-driven pneumatic valves. If camless pneumatic systems were introduced or possibly electromagnetic systems, Desmo could be jeopardy. I'm sure this is unlikely, but camless systems are still worth mentioning regarding potential threats to desmodromic valves in racing.

Regarding rpm ceiling, Shell could be as important as Ducati. Eliminating friction is critical to raising engine rpm in a bore-stroke limited formula. Shell have a huge chemical division and F1 motorsport pedigree. Not sure Repsol, Motul, et al are on par, but I could be mistaken. KTM just switched to Mobil1, which is a bigger development than people may realize.

Biofuels are on the way. and based upon the claims by Dorna of lower horsepower, it seems that the fuels will be less dense, which points to alcohol based fuel. Alcohol has much lower lubricating properties than petroleum-based fuels. Increased friction could knock down the rpm, but it could also start a lubrication arms race, hence KTM's move to align with Mobil1.

Your post has also made me think about engine homologation procedures. As you say, demo has virtually no delay or flex, compared with air-springs. It makes me wonder if the GPC ratified static compression limits in the name of engine longevity and fairness for all competitors. This would also explain a precipitous decline in horsepower if less dense biofuels are introduced. Anyway, just thinking out loud.
Camless/free-valve technology is the way ICE should be heading. I'm not sure if it is but it should be. They got 400hp out of a N/A SR20. I think it is about 50% or so upgrade in engine efficiency. From a performance POV the compromises involved when choosing a camshaft are no longer a problem. Chev spent $100m on development for the lt1. Electronics now run everything on a car, bar the valve system. I have a hard time believing that if the same amount of money was put into coming up with a camless engine that they would have changed the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mylexicon
Camless/free-valve technology is the way ICE should be heading. I'm not sure if it is but it should be. They got 400hp out of a N/A SR20. I think it is about 50% or so upgrade in engine efficiency. From a performance POV the compromises involved when choosing a camshaft are no longer a problem. Chev spent $100m on development for the lt1. Electronics now run everything on a car, bar the valve system. I have a hard time believing that if the same amount of money was put into coming up with a camless engine that they would have changed the game.
Yes free valve technology has been around for a while, but I don't believe they have them running in the 10k to 16k rev range that the GP bikes do.
 
Camless/free-valve technology is the way ICE should be heading. I'm not sure if it is but it should be. They got 400hp out of a N/A SR20. I think it is about 50% or so upgrade in engine efficiency. From a performance POV the compromises involved when choosing a camshaft are no longer a problem. Chev spent $100m on development for the lt1. Electronics now run everything on a car, bar the valve system. I have a hard time believing that if the same amount of money was put into coming up with a camless engine that they would have changed the game.

We live in a tail-pipe-emissions-obsessed regulatory environment. Free-valve technology certainly pays huge dividends for overcoming these new regulatory hurdles. Ultimately though, I think the manufacturers are scared of the risks, and don't see a proportionate reward.

They receive a 10% bump in fuel efficiency with lower exhaust emissions, but they introduce the potential for regular catastrophic engine failures. It seems the shareholders will not allow them this engineering indulgence. Instead, they will find the path of least resistance to emissions compliance. As of right now, Konigsegg is the only manufacturer publicly touting free valve technology? I'm not sure, but I know they were keen not long ago. If they succeed in creating a technology that can be affordably licensed, maybe free valve could happen in the production market. I'm not particularly optimistic.
 
I think its less about regulatory and more about profitability... The manufactures will have wider profit margin across their entire brand fleets because the technology will be interchangeable once they move to electric.
 
Yeah, Suzuki seem to have run out of steam. New biofuel regs reach MotoGP in 2024, and mark the beginning of a rapid transition to sustainable carbon neutral fuel. In Superbike, the GSX-R1000 needed an update to the hydraulic variable valve timing system to achieve Euro 5. They also needed to put more cash into WSBK.

Suzuki just packed up and went home. The craziness is too much.
Biofuel is fraud. As is the whole concept of carbon neutrality. It is sad that nobody with brains can stand up for anything remotely related to common sense.

And nobody has any fight in them. Suzuki just backed out. Instead of fighting it. Looks like all the brands will just cuck to our neo Malthusian masters.

Plus there will be no end to the regulatory BS. If all bikes go electric , there will be new regulations on the tires. Tires are made or oil. And cause climate change they say. The war on tires will be the new thing. Max tire size regs. Then when the world is drowning in dead battery packs , there will be size regs on those. Nothing will be fast. Or fun. But hey, progress.
 
Last edited:
I think its less about regulatory and more about profitability... The manufactures will have wider profit margin across their entire brand fleets because the technology will be interchangeable once they move to electric.
You sound like an environmentalist dreamer. All the manufacturers lose money on every electric car sold. And they subsidize their electric offerings with ICE sales. But hey , everyone's gonna go electric for the profitability !
 

Recent Discussions