New rules for 2010

cheers for the heads up bro

heres abit more to add to your thread

Brivio hopes MotoGP cuts are temporary

Yamaha team manager Davide Brivio hopes that some of the cost-cutting changes being implemented in MotoGP can be reversed when the recession is over.

Practice and testing time has been reduced for 2009, with more dramatic technical alterations set to be announced for future seasons.

While Formula 1's budget-reducing plans are intended to be long-term measures, Brivio wants MotoGP to return to its previous format - particularly regarding track time - when the worldwide economy recovers.

"Some of the changes we've had to make from a sporting point of view are a little bit sad, because we've cancelled all the testing, we'll do less practice during the race weekends, and we're not happy about this," he said.

"But hopefully it will just be for these couple of years, 2009 and 2010. We have to continue to do the best possible for our sport.

"It's an emergency situation, but with prototype bikes we need time to improve and develop."

Brivio does not think the reduction in mileage will have any effect on the MotoGP show.

"I think probably when the races start the spectators will not feel these difficulties," he said.

"I hope that the riders will continue to provide a show, but I also hope that things get back to normal as soon as possible."

While being frustrated by the cut-backs, Brivio acknowledged that the FIM and Dorna had to do whatever it took to maintain a full field at present.

"This situation with the economy at the moment is quite critical," he said. "It's forced everybody to reflect and to think about how to cope with this.

"We are changing many things because at the moment the priority for everyone is to remain in the game. The target for all the manufacturers and all the teams is to remain here in MotoGP, so we are forced to reduce the costs because sponsors are coming in less.

"But this is normal in every business and every company in this difficult situation."

I don't understand.

Who is running this sport? Eccy or Ezy? Is there any difference?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 29 2009, 05:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't understand.

Who is running this sport? Eccy or Ezy? Is there any difference?
No-one is running the sport as far I can discern. Ill-advised rule changes have caused many of motogp's problems, so they are going to fix things with more rule changes, even though previous initiatives to reduce costs actually increased them.

I see the main consequence of the recent announcement about rookie riders as a further boost to wsbk; it will certainly help keep ben spies there going by his recent remarks which were presumably informed by knowledge of the coming change. Successful riders in wsbk or even national superbikes are likely to be older in the first place, and if the path to motogp involves a satellite ride on what is likely to be an uncompetitive bike for a drastic cut in pay it will take a very enthusiastic devotion to competition in the abstract to follow that path. I seem to recall a bloke called roberts winning in his rookie season and not proving too bad for the rest of his career; doubtless there were scores of very talented 50kg european riders being denied their chance by people such as him, eddie lawson and kevin schwantz. (EDIT) As someone said elsewhere not particularly helpful to suzuki or any future factory with no satellite team either. Even if it is theoretically partly designed to encourage such teams to make satellite bikes available it might also be a significant disincentive to continuing to compete at all, let alone a disincentive for new factories to enter in the first place.

What is the reason or justification for banning rookies from factory teams?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 29 2009, 08:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What is the reason or justification for banning rookies from factory teams?
A good question .

I saw this on crashnet yesterday but it is now also on other sites.

I dont have a lot of confidence in Dorna, they never really think things through before acting.
Is it cheaper to built an engine that lasts or several disposable engines ? How are new parts to be added if engines are dorna sealed ? Are they allowed to bring out a new engine halfway through the season still ? Are they going to scrap rookie of the year when there are no private or sat teams left ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Mar 29 2009, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I dont have a lot of confidence in Dorna, they never really think things through before acting.
Exactly. They have repeatedly made ad hoc decisions seemingly without thinking through many of the consequences, forseeing such consequences presumably being hampered by them appearing to know very little about bike racing. FIM are said to be in on the technical rule changes this time though.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 29 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Exactly. They have repeatedly made ad hoc decisions seemingly without thinking through many of the consequences, forseeing such consequences presumably being hampered by them appearing to know very little about bike racing. FIM are said to be in on the technical rule changes this time though.
Were they also in on the one set of tyres per race rule in F1 a few years back that nearly killed some drivers ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 28 2009, 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No-one is running the sport as far I can discern. Ill-advised rule changes have caused many of motogp's problems, so they are going to fix things with more rule changes, even though previous initiatives to reduce costs actually increased them.

You're right, no single person is capable of this level of schizophrenia when devising new rules packages.

The MSMA are in charge. Bridgestone didn't sign up to make control tires that actually controls performance. The MSMA don't have any interest in developing 1 liter engines and they don't have any interest in going slower. The manufacturers don't want any new entrants either.

If you look at almost all of the rules, none of them are designed to reduce cost. They are designed specifically to increase costs and complicate the technical aspects of participation. The new rules might decrease spending on engines but they are going to boost the total number of factory bikes a manufacturer must run. These rules should be called "cost allocation" not "cost cutting".

This is a great tragedy imo b/c motorcycling is so simple. High horsepower with hard tires that can sustain the brutal forces the engine produces at the rear wheel. Even with traction control, if the governing body design a more sensible control tire racing will improve. Hard tires may eliminate some of the sports most expensive components. If riders aren't pulling 2gs at corner entry, do they really need to add those extra expensive carbon and titanium bits to drop the last 2 kgs? If the front tire is hard, do they really need to upgrade to the latest $25,000 carbon brembo kit?

MotoGP reminds me so much of Formula 1. They refuse to change the rules b/c they are worried about safety but when it really comes down to it, they intentionally make it more dangerous. They don't control performance with the control tire and they seem unwilling to devise a formula that provides riders with usable power. They put forth new rules designed to help riders make more mistakes, but they never talk about allowing racers to find more pace/rhythm or new lines.

I wish a were a fly on the wall at MotoGP technical meetings b/c this type of self-destruction is only possible when political capital controls governance. Some of GP's major players must be the most self-centered, egotistical .......s on the planet. It's a private sport so they can do whatever they want, but the entrenched stupidity is beyond belief.

Agreeing with Lex 100% - it is endemic to motogp's current stakeholders and there should be revolt, sooner rather than later.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 29 2009, 06:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You're right, no single person is capable of this level of schizophrenia when devising new rules packages.

The MSMA are in charge. Bridgestone didn't sign up to make control tires that actually controls performance. The MSMA don't have any interest in developing 1 liter engines and they don't have any interest in going slower. The manufacturers don't want any new entrants either.

If you look at almost all of the rules, none of them are designed to reduce cost. They are designed specifically to increase costs and complicate the technical aspects of participation. The new rules might decrease spending on engines but they are going to boost the total number of factory bikes a manufacturer must run. These rules should be called "cost allocation" not "cost cutting".

This is a great tragedy imo b/c motorcycling is so simple. High horsepower with hard tires that can sustain the brutal forces the engine produces at the rear wheel. Even with traction control, if the governing body design a more sensible control tire racing will improve. Hard tires may eliminate some of the sports most expensive components. If riders aren't pulling 2gs at corner entry, do they really need to add those extra expensive carbon and titanium bits to drop the last 2 kgs? If the front tire is hard, do they really need to upgrade to the latest $25,000 carbon brembo kit?

MotoGP reminds me so much of Formula 1. They refuse to change the rules b/c they are worried about safety but when it really comes down to it, they intentionally make it more dangerous. They don't control performance with the control tire and they seem unwilling to devise a formula that provides riders with usable power. They put forth new rules designed to help riders make more mistakes, but they never talk about allowing racers to find more pace/rhythm or new lines.

I wish a were a fly on the wall at MotoGP technical meetings b/c this type of self-destruction is only possible when political capital controls governance. Some of GP's major players must be the most self-centered, egotistical .......s on the planet. It's a private sport so they can do whatever they want, but the entrenched stupidity is beyond belief.
Superb post

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 29 2009, 06:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You're right, no single person is capable of this level of schizophrenia when devising new rules packages.

The MSMA are in charge. Bridgestone didn't sign up to make control tires that actually controls performance. The MSMA don't have any interest in developing 1 liter engines and they don't have any interest in going slower. The manufacturers don't want any new entrants either.

If you look at almost all of the rules, none of them are designed to reduce cost. They are designed specifically to increase costs and complicate the technical aspects of participation. The new rules might decrease spending on engines but they are going to boost the total number of factory bikes a manufacturer must run. These rules should be called "cost allocation" not "cost cutting".

This is a great tragedy imo b/c motorcycling is so simple. High horsepower with hard tires that can sustain the brutal forces the engine produces at the rear wheel. Even with traction control, if the governing body design a more sensible control tire racing will improve. Hard tires may eliminate some of the sports most expensive components. If riders aren't pulling 2gs at corner entry, do they really need to add those extra expensive carbon and titanium bits to drop the last 2 kgs? If the front tire is hard, do they really need to upgrade to the latest $25,000 carbon brembo kit?

MotoGP reminds me so much of Formula 1. They refuse to change the rules b/c they are worried about safety but when it really comes down to it, they intentionally make it more dangerous. They don't control performance with the control tire and they seem unwilling to devise a formula that provides riders with usable power. They put forth new rules designed to help riders make more mistakes, but they never talk about allowing racers to find more pace/rhythm or new lines.

I wish a were a fly on the wall at MotoGP technical meetings b/c this type of self-destruction is only possible when political capital controls governance. Some of GP's major players must be the most self-centered, egotistical .......s on the planet. It's a private sport so they can do whatever they want, but the entrenched stupidity is beyond belief.


fair play man...we dont always agree but nice post

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 29 2009, 06:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You're right, no single person is capable of this level of schizophrenia when devising new rules packages.

The MSMA are in charge. Bridgestone didn't sign up to make control tires that actually controls performance. The MSMA don't have any interest in developing 1 liter engines and they don't have any interest in going slower. The manufacturers don't want any new entrants either.

If you look at almost all of the rules, none of them are designed to reduce cost. They are designed specifically to increase costs and complicate the technical aspects of participation. The new rules might decrease spending on engines but they are going to boost the total number of factory bikes a manufacturer must run. These rules should be called "cost allocation" not "cost cutting".

This is a great tragedy imo b/c motorcycling is so simple. High horsepower with hard tires that can sustain the brutal forces the engine produces at the rear wheel. Even with traction control, if the governing body design a more sensible control tire racing will improve. Hard tires may eliminate some of the sports most expensive components. If riders aren't pulling 2gs at corner entry, do they really need to add those extra expensive carbon and titanium bits to drop the last 2 kgs? If the front tire is hard, do they really need to upgrade to the latest $25,000 carbon brembo kit?

MotoGP reminds me so much of Formula 1. They refuse to change the rules b/c they are worried about safety but when it really comes down to it, they intentionally make it more dangerous. They don't control performance with the control tire and they seem unwilling to devise a formula that provides riders with usable power. They put forth new rules designed to help riders make more mistakes, but they never talk about allowing racers to find more pace/rhythm or new lines.

I wish a were a fly on the wall at MotoGP technical meetings b/c this type of self-destruction is only possible when political capital controls governance. Some of GP's major players must be the most self-centered, egotistical .......s on the planet. It's a private sport so they can do whatever they want, but the entrenched stupidity is beyond belief.
Well said. Bridgestone's control tyre seems to perform not only better than michelin's non-control tyre last year, but also their own, although james toseland may unfortunately disagree.

I think you are correct that the manufacturers are at least as much to blame as dorna, and care little if at all about the smaller factory teams, satellite teams or new entrants. WSBK has the advantage of the flamminis being firmly in control, and having some idea about bikes and bike racing, allowing them to make autocratic decisions with a chance of being correct. I guess the manufacturers are more malleable because of this and the much lower cost structure involved for them in wsbk. Dorna are fairly clearly unlikely to be capable of making the right decisions even if the manufacturers let them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 29 2009, 04:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What is the reason or justification for banning rookies from factory teams?

Trying to give riders like Elias, token Japanese riders, dePuniet, veterans of the top class, a chance at a factory ride. Earn a ride just because of experience. All it will create is a bunch of one season only specials like Rossi in 2000. A factory bike run as a privateer team.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Son of Doohan @ Mar 29 2009, 08:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>In 2010, no rider eligible for Rookie of the Year will be allowed to go straight to a factory team. Instead, they will have to go to a private or satellite team for at least one year, after which they will be eligible to join a factory team.

I had to read this twice. This is ........!
I hope this 'rule' was "lost in translation" and is supposed to read - Only Rookie riders on a Satellite or Privateer team will be eligible for the 'Rookie of the Year Award'.
It would still be gay and stupid, be far less ........ than above!

I doesn't make any sense Dorna telling a team who they can hire. What about Suzuki
and Kawi who only have (or had) factory bikes.
If this rule is put in place I will have lost a lot of interest in MotoGp. I don't care to watch the next Lorenzo waste an entire year on a satellite team. His performance at the beginning of last year
was one of the only highlights of the entire year. If he was on the Tech bike I doubt he would have been as competitive.
This rule will go a long way to ruining this sport.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JohnnyKnockdown @ Mar 29 2009, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I doesn't make any sense Dorna telling a team who they can hire. What about Suzuki
and Kawi who only have (or had) factory bikes.
If this rule is put in place I will have lost a lot of interest in MotoGp. I don't care to watch the next Lorenzo waste an entire year on a satellite team. His performance at the beginning of last year
was one of the only highlights of the entire year. If he was on the Tech bike I doubt he would have been as competitive.
This rule will go a long way to ruining this sport.

It's just a bone thrown to the IRTA satellite team owners. They can't land sponsors because they don't have the riders or the equipment. Dorna is handing the satellite teams a sponsorship check by writing this rule. Maybe it will result in a satellite team nabbing its first win in the 800 era?

The major factory teams are probably happy to give the rookies away, because IRTA are attempting to force the MSMA into providing more factory equipment. The manufacturers will incur huge costs if they have to hand out 4 or 5 real factory bikes, this is a cheap concession designed to silence the IRTA for a while. It might be designed to silence their pleas for a 1 bike rule as well.

As you have pointed out, only factory teams with satellite efforts benefit b/c they can have first right of refusal on new talent via options clauses (like the options that allowed HRC to poach Dovi from JiR).

The political quagmire gets worse with each new rule.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hayden Fan @ Mar 29 2009, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Trying to give riders like Elias, token Japanese riders, dePuniet, veterans of the top class, a chance at a factory ride. Earn a ride just because of experience. All it will create is a bunch of one season only specials like Rossi in 2000. A factory bike run as a privateer team.

My thoughts exactly.


<span style="color:#0000FF"As of 2010, only one bike per rider will be permitted. Teams will be allowed to scrutineer one machine for each rider. If a rider damages a chassis, a replacement chassis will have to be offered for technical inspection."

So many crazy changes I don't know where to start. But the one bike rule (if I understand it correctly) stands out as wholly impractical and dangerous. What happens if it starts to rain in the middle of the race? We're going to have riders coming in and standing around waiting for a tire change - on a bike that's not dialed in for rain tires? Sure they want to budget - but this is like low-level club racing .........