The problem remains that the tracks and the riders probably can't sustain unlimited increase in speed as has been said. I thought jerry burgess's argument from an engineering philosophy viewpoint that true protoype racing but with a 600cc limit was logically reasonable, but as david emmett/kropotkin said this would probably be even more expensive than recent formulae.
This thread is impossible/irrelevant without reminding people of the back story. Michaelm is up to the task, and I'd like to add my own .02
1. The 990cc formula was Dorna's idea, and, according to Burgess, the MSMA were bewildered by the extraordinary capacity
2. When Kato died, the MSMA used his passing to adjust the formula and reduce the performance potential of the bikes.
3. The 21L 800cc formula was a good faith effort to stabilize the sport, but Bridgestone's new tires, and the Australian kid who could ride them properly, changed the game completely. Stoner and Bridgestone reintroduced the specter of violent death as cornering speeds rose in 2007-2008.
4. The control tire was introduced by Dorna as a way to combat cornering speeds and tire costs (probably after tire war regulations failed in 2007/2008).
5. The MSMA refuse all horsepower regulations that create parity, thus, Honda have decided to save face and continue supporting the wayward 21L formula despite all of its glaring flaws. They continually cite (as does Povol) the unacceptable introduction of new undeserving competitors if the rules change and the sport is dumbed down. In reality, major factories are withdrawing from MotoGP, while combating insolvency and bankruptcy b/c the 21L formula is already quite dumb.
6. One of the most important tools for improving horsepower performance over race distance is the adaptive fuel computers. By mandating a spec ECU system, Dorna hopes to simplify the sport and improve parity. If the MSMA cared about saving the electronics, they would simply raise fuel capacity so the fuel computers could be developed ad naseum without disrupting the competition or the cost-curve. Obviously, the MSMA care about winning above all else, not the purity of prototyping. I think Dorna try to expose the MSMA for what they really are, but the general public seems to be lost (including some pundits).
To be frank, I think the solutions to motorcycling woes are obvious. If the motorcycle market is stratified by capacity, and 1000cc is the 'premier' capacity, why the hell do they Japanese sell 1000cc cookie-cutters? It wasn't a good idea from the outset, and the shifting global business environment, as well as currency realignment, has shown the problems with the 1000cc UJSBK (universal japanese SBK). It worked for about 3 years when Americans were buying record numbers of bikes on credit. 1000cc should be for MotoGP and MotoGP only. Consumer demands mandate 1000cc MotoGP (or MotoGP displacement superiority). Safety demands that the 1000cc engines be limited in some fashion (crappy tires, simply transmissions, fuel limits, rev limits, or whatever). The 21L limit is ineffective, thus, the limitation method must be changed or new supplementary regs will have to be added, like the spec ECU.
WSBK will have to adjust accordingly. Capacity should be reduced. Efficient manufacturing should be encouraged. All engines in excess of 2 cylinders should be inline configuration (for obvious cost reasons). WSS bikes should be engine scaled versions of the SBKs and interchangeable parts should be mandatory. For example, if a CBR-800RR is an 800cc inline for with bore-stroke of 72mm x 49mm. The CBR-600RR should be a 600cc triple with the same pistons, bore, stroke, cylinders, valves, etc as the SBK. The current 600cc 4-cylinder machines should become Moto2 exclusive.
I don't think establishing a smart direction is as important as determining which intransigent parities are making progress impossible. Honda is obviously the #1 culprit, but unveiling their motives is difficult for fans and experts alike.
