Now that Ducati has burned up all their tests

Talpa said:

There is a lot of adverse criticism of Dorna at present, much of it justified. At least it seems to be apparent that they have realized there are major flaws in letting Honda run the show, it has created this expensive-ridiculous series that is current.



Testing regs are amongst the most stupid anyway, and changes to this are seen as blessings from most teams, bar Honda that is

What I would like to know is, why do we still need a 6 engine limit reg? Why do we still need a control tyre? Why do we need a fuel limit? These are the three major flaws in the design, much like Ducati, Dorna seems unable to address their major problems.



None of these regs have brought decreased costs, better/fairer racing or an increase in safety, Rossi, Pedrosa, Jorge, Spies, Aoyama, Caparossi, Edwards, Barbera, Crutchlow, have all suffered from devastating injury in the last 2 seasons, so much for increased safety, even in the 500 days we didn't see such a wide spread problem with injury. In fact these regs have done the complete opposite of what they were intended for, or at least what the MSMA would like us to believe they were intended for, as the primary goal was achieved for the architects last weekend.....



Forget about testing, the major issues are yet to be fixed, and Honda knows all to well that opening up these regs allows for many more variables with far less money spent, whilst the competition won't be 'level', it will be 'fair'......A 500 use to cost around 150K, you could run 5 of these with spares for the cost of Honda's gearbox today........

Click to expand...

How would allowing more engines cost less?



How would open "tyre war" cost less?



How would a higher fuel limit save money?



How would any of the above increase safety?



Can you provide evidence of what, say Mick Doohan's bikes cost ?



You truly make up the biggest load of tripe for yourself to believe.



If/when Rossi was winning .......... you had none of these concerns

Talpa said:

There is a lot of adverse criticism of Dorna at present, much of it justified. At least it seems to be apparent that they have realized there are major flaws in letting Honda run the show, it has created this expensive-ridiculous series that is current.



Testing regs are amongst the most stupid anyway, and changes to this are seen as blessings from most teams, bar Honda that is

What I would like to know is, why do we still need a 6 engine limit reg? Why do we still need a control tyre? Why do we need a fuel limit? These are the three major flaws in the design, much like Ducati, Dorna seems unable to address their major problems.



None of these regs have brought decreased costs, better/fairer racing or an increase in safety, Rossi, Pedrosa, Jorge, Spies, Aoyama, Caparossi, Edwards, Barbera, Crutchlow, have all suffered from devastating injury in the last 2 seasons, so much for increased safety, even in the 500 days we didn't see such a wide spread problem with injury. In fact these regs have done the complete opposite of what they were intended for, or at least what the MSMA would like us to believe they were intended for, as the primary goal was achieved for the architects last weekend.....



Forget about testing, the major issues are yet to be fixed, and Honda knows all to well that opening up these regs allows for many more variables with far less money spent, whilst the competition won't be 'level', it will be 'fair'......A 500 use to cost around 150K, you could run 5 of these with spares for the cost of Honda's gearbox today........

Click to expand...

All of those rules, with the possible exception of the spec tire, were at the behest of Honda the MSMA. Dorna sucks in many ways, but they do not deserve to get the blame for the awful racing, that's all down to Honda and the manufacturers.

BarryMachine said:

How would allowing more engines cost less?



How would a higher fuel limit save money?

Click to expand...

Allowing more engines would mean spending less money on designing engines to last for 3 races.



Allowing more fuel would drastically (and I mean massively) reduce the amount of money spent on electronics and computer simulation time designing engines which eke the maximum out of 21 liters of fuel. If they dropped the capacity limit (and bore limit) as well, being competitive would be a whole lot cheaper. Might even see other configurations, such as twins and triples, make a comeback.

Jumkie said:

Or more tires are allocated. Kinda like what is being proposed. If we've learned anything form the proposed relaxation of testing limits, its that limits are always negotiable according to the series needs and wants.

Click to expand...

Bridgestone will send the following reply to anyone requesting more tires for testing:



Dear X,



Go .... yourself,



Regards, Bridgestone.



They're providing those tires at cost and getting no benefit from them, so they think 240 tires is plenty.

Haha this is funny, I remember Ducati said they and the other factories would be willing to help BS with $ if they needed help after the earthquake. Ducati trying to butter that bread and get more tires lol

Kropotkin said:

Bridgestone will send the following reply to anyone requesting more tires for testing:



Dear X,



Go .... yourself,



Regards, Bridgestone.



They're providing those tires at cost and getting no benefit from them, so they think 240 tires is plenty.

Click to expand...

Fck Honda, the MSMA and their MotoGP: Let us have "Moto1" instead, with multiple engine suppliers and relaxed fuel rules. Thats' the future: less costs, more sponsors and bikes on the grid, a better show.

Kropotkin said:

Allowing more engines would mean spending less money on designing engines to last for 3 races.



Allowing more fuel would drastically (and I mean massively) reduce the amount of money spent on electronics and computer simulation time designing engines which eke the maximum out of 21 liters of fuel. If they dropped the capacity limit (and bore limit) as well, being competitive would be a whole lot cheaper. Might even see other configurations, such as twins and triples, make a comeback.

Click to expand...

As an engineer, I can say ........ take away one "thing" to design for ........ and "another" becomes the new "thing" of most import.



Suggesting that manufacturers would suddenly decide to not engineer for reliability ...... I doubt it. How was it in 06? No development for reliability was occurring?



I think you are speculating to the point of paranoid "dreaming" if you really think they will suddenly spend less money, by somehow having nothing to develop .

You don't think that should the fuel limit be lifted suddenly a tad more development seeking power and better engine management would occur? Lets face it luckily at least Honda, Yamaha and Ducati seem to be in it to win it.



How anyone can suggest that, say Honda, would now sink less money into supposedly more bikes, of less development, on the grid ( still competing with Yamaha ) is beyond me

Lets say they did that for a year, and Yamaha won ......... what do you think would happen next year? If it was Suzuki, who has been going on the cheap, maybe they would pull out completely? But I would suggest that "evil company Honda", in their present state of mind, would sink more money into whooping Yamaha's arse. So the "next year" suddenly we might find money is being spent again on a few selected bikes again.

Once forced to go "many bikes at a lesser price", even Honda and Yamaha may be pushed over the brink of what they are willing to afford.

To all those crying wolf at Honda, just think ......... they could decide to get like Suzuki ....... then Kawasaki .........

AT present Yamaha and Honda , and somehow Ducati, are willing to spend their money to win. Take that away and what will you have? Back to the 50's style is what I think. Perhaps it will end up a few major players who will attend all rounds but many "locals" may compete in the local GP, not really having a chance to take it out but filling wildcard spaces.



In the end if a manufacturer sees benefit in winning the series they will sink money into it.



All that matters is "how deep are the pockets". And in hard economic times the pockets may seem shallower.



CRT may seem a way of getting more bikes on the grid, if thats what is really wanted, but its all going closer backwards to the "blokes turning up in a van with the bike in the back" days.



I don't believe there is any real problem at all in MGP. The same thing happened for many Doohan fans when he retired ....... suddenly it seemed boring and they went elsewhere.





If the impetus is really to save money then perhaps a cap on the amount a company may spend is more pertinent ............. I can really see that happening

BarryMachine said:

As an engineer, I can say ........ take away one "thing" to design for ........ and "another" becomes the new "thing" of most import.

I think you are speculating to the point of paranoid "dreaming" if you really think they will suddenly spend less money, but somehow having nothing to develop .

You don't think that should the fuel limit be lifted suddenly a tad more development seeking power and better engine management would occur? Lets face it luckily at least Honda, Yamaha and Ducati seem to be in it to win it.



How anyone can suggest that, say Honda, would now sink less money into supposedly more bikes on the grid, still competing with Yamaha, is beyond me

Lets say they did that for a year, and Yamaha won ......... what do you think would happen next year? If it was Suzuki, who has been going on the cheap, maybe they would pull out completely? But I would suggest that "evil company Honda", in their present state of mind, would sink more money into whooping Yamaha's arse. So the "next year" suddenly we might find money is being spent again on a few selected bikes again.

Once forced to go "many bikes at a lesser price", even Honda and Yamaha may be pushed over the brink of what they are willing to afford.

To all those crying wolf at Honda, just think ......... they could decide to get like Suzuki ....... then Kawasaki .........

AT present Yamaha and Honda , and somehow Ducati, are willing to spend their money to win. Take that away and what will you have? Back to the 50's style is what I think. Perhaps it will end up a few major players who will attend all rounds but many "locals" may compete in the local GP, not really having a chance to take it out but filling wildcard spaces.



In the end if a manufacturer sees benefit in winning the series they will sink money into it.



All that matters is "how deep are the pockets". And in hard economic times the pockets may seem shallower.



CRT may seem a way of getting more bikes on the grid, if thats what is really wanted, but its all going closer backwards to the "blokes turning up in a van with the bike in the back" days.



I don't believe there is any real problem at all in MGP. The same thing happened for many Doohan fans when he retired ....... suddenly it seemed boring and they went elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Here's the point. Right now, the restrictions force development in a particular direction and forces up the marginal utility of spending: spending more gets you more. Open up the rules and there are multiple solutions to a particular problem. Want better power delivery? You can either sink a lot of money into electronics development, or you can add 250cc and build a longer stroke motor. And if you build a longer stroke motor, you don't have to worry about making it eke out 21 liters of fuel.



Of course the factories will spend money to try and win, but the point is to make the marginal benefits of that extra spending so small that they don't bother, or only bother because it provides them genuine R&D benefit.

Kropotkin said:

Here's the point. Right now, the restrictions force development in a particular direction and forces up the marginal utility of spending: spending more gets you more. Open up the rules and there are multiple solutions to a particular problem. Want better power delivery? You can either sink a lot of money into electronics development, or you can add 250cc and build a longer stroke motor. And if you build a longer stroke motor, you don't have to worry about making it eke out 21 liters of fuel.



Of course the factories will spend money to try and win, but the point is to make the marginal benefits of that extra spending so small that they don't bother, or only bother because it provides them genuine R&D benefit.

Click to expand...

Them's the magic words ........... 21 litres or not, the money will be spent.



Interesting you see developing electronics as more expensive than developing a better long stroke motor, kinda fly's in the face of why a lot of electronic devices are used these days, ie. the mechanical fix is very expensive. Perhaps you need to identify why the "just making a long stroke motor" is so inexpensive?



Either way "spending more gets you more" will still apply. Tell them what to develop/design to and they will. Don't tell them and ........ well you are saying "they won't spend money" ......... I can't see it.

To limit spending you need to have a limiting component that regardless of how much you spend you can't overcome that limiting component. So when your package's performance potential can achieve and exceed that limit it is pointless to continue spending. When it is easy to design and build a motorcycle that can perform up to and exceed the potential of that limit if it was not there then close racing occurs. In my opinion the limiting component should be tyres. Everything else could be open slather.

BarryMachine said:

Them's the magic words ........... 21 litres or not, the money will be spent.



Interesting you see developing electronics as more expensive than developing a better long stroke motor, kinda fly's in the face of why a lot of electronic devices are used these days, ie. the mechanical fix is very expensive. Perhaps you need to identify why the "just making a long stroke motor" is so inexpensive?



Either way "spending more gets you more" will still apply.

Tell them what to develop/design to and they will. Don't tell them and ........ well you are saying "they won't spend money" ......... I can't see it.

Click to expand...

Electronics are the big money item in MotoGP right now. A lot of money and R&D is going into ways of saving fuel, especially on corner entry. Most common phrase heard this year "we've been working on the clutch." No new parts involved, just engine braking strategies.



Designing a long stroke engine is piss easy, the parameters are much more limited, especially if you've got fuel to burn.



Spending more will get you more, but the trick is to find a way that the return on investment makes no sense. If spending 10% more gets you 10% more improvement, everyone will do it. If spending 10% more will get you 1% more improvement, only the rich will do it (and benefit). If spending 1000% more will get you 1% more, nobody will do it.



As MA said, tires are the obvious way of limiting performance.

BarryMachine said:

CRT may seem a way of getting more bikes on the grid, if thats what is really wanted, but its all going closer backwards to the "blokes turning up in a van with the bike in the back" days.



I don't believe there is any real problem at all in MGP. The same thing happened for many Doohan fans when he retired ....... suddenly it seemed boring and they went elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Part of the charm (for me anyway) of even relatively late period 500s was that blokes on bikes from the backs of vans /car boots occasionally won against the might of the factory teams, notably garry mccoy 3 times and simon crafar once.



Whether or not a less popular rider winning the championship is causing complaint, I dispute that there are no problems in motogp.



There is no doubt that the costs are relatively greater than in days of yore and quite likely unsustainable. Not only are the satellite bikes uncompetitive, they are unaffordable for the satellite teams, who I believe have to be subsidised by dorna . Yamaha can run only 2 factory bikes, even honda claim to be stretched, kawasaki have left , suzuki may do so, and ducati do not currently appear to be able to compete technically, at a time when sponsorship ie tobacco money is more restricted than in the past, and natural rusted-on supporters of the sport like michelin in particular and dunlop have been dispensed with, for reasons good or not, perhaps even partly accidentally.



Without getting into more slanging matches about the current formula, and acknowledging that at least 1 rider transcended it and that his particular talents were imo and that of others the major determinant of the winning of the championship I have been persuaded by/agree with engineers other than you that making fuel economy the determinant militates in favour of the bikes being "one -line". I also think the bikes for whatever reason are too prone to letting go with apparently little warning even if one rider has managed largely to avoid doing so so, with too many resultant injuries.



The question from an engineering perspective is what should be being developed? The problem of the bikes becoming too fast for the tracks and possibly even for human physiology is a real one as recent events in another form of motorsport have demonstrated. Another engineer, one jeremy burgess, has the best solution I have heard from the limiting the speed perspective ie make it open to wider development but limit the capacity to 600 cc, not viable when the competition is the 1000cc wsbk formula though.



Also am not aware of many historical precedents for long term successful motorsport series with the rules made by manufacturers.

michaelm said:

The question from an engineering perspective is what should be being developed? The problem of the bikes becoming too fast for the tracks and possibly even for human physiology is a real one as recent events in another form of motorsport have demonstrated. Another engineer, one jeremy burgess, has the best solution I have heard from the limiting the speed perspective ie make it open to wider development but limit the capacity to 600 cc, not viable when the competition is the 1000cc wsbk formula though.

Click to expand...

Burgess' idea is complete idiocy. It is a guarantee of making MotoGP immensely, unsustainably expensive. If you thought the 800s were bad, just wait till you get 600cc bikes. There would be 2 Hondas and a Yamaha on the grid.



Trouble with Burgess and a bunch of the other purists on the grid is that they love the blue skies engineering, and don't have to worry about the costs.

Kropotkin said:

Burgess' idea is complete idiocy. It is a guarantee of making MotoGP immensely, unsustainably expensive. If you thought the 800s were bad, just wait till you get 600cc bikes. There would be 2 Hondas and a Yamaha on the grid.



Trouble with Burgess and a bunch of the other purists on the grid is that they love the blue skies engineering, and don't have to worry about the costs.

Click to expand...

Sure. Since purpose building 18 or 20 new tracks new safer tracks for motogp would presumably also be quite expensive, then the reluctant conclusion is that you have to limit development and particularly developments for more speed, which probably means controlling engine performance as well as tyres. Lex argued this to that logical conclusion, a conclusion I don't like but find hard to refute.



The concensus on the las vegas thing seems to be that indy cars have too much performance for oval tracks designed for nascars; I would think they bunch them up with yellow flags like nascars too much as well. Nascars I understand have basically capped engine performance among other things.

michaelm said:

Sure. Since purpose building 18 or 20 new tracks new safer tracks for motogp would presumably also be quite expensive, then the reluctant conclusion is that you have to limit development and particularly developments for more speed, which probably means controlling engine performance as well as tyres. Lex argued this to that logical conclusion, a conclusion I don't like but find hard to refute.



The concensus on the las vegas thing seems to be that indy cars have too much performance for oval tracks designed for nascars; I would think they bunch them up with yellow flags like nascars too much as well. Nascars I understand have basically capped engine performance among other things.

Click to expand...

Racing motorcycle performance is almost entirely defined by tire performance. Why do WSBK riders in MotoGP suck? Because the Bridgestones are so totally different. Put them on crappy grooved tires with no grip and everything slows down. It's the obvious solution. If there's no grip, you can't get power to the ground so producing it is a waste of time. If there's no grip, then corner speeds drop, and less runoff is needed. It's cheap and it's simple, mechanical grip is the defining factor in motorcycle racing.

Kropotkin said:

Racing motorcycle performance is almost entirely defined by tire performance. Why do WSBK riders in MotoGP suck? Because the Bridgestones are so totally different. Put them on crappy grooved tires with no grip and everything slows down. It's the obvious solution. If there's no grip, you can't get power to the ground so producing it is a waste of time. If there's no grip, then corner speeds drop, and less runoff is needed. It's cheap and it's simple, mechanical grip is the defining factor in motorcycle racing.

Click to expand...

Thats all fine and good if you want another Superbike series. I personally would lose interest. GP is not meant to be cheap and simple. If GP cannot considerably differentiate itself performance wise from numerous other racing series, what is the use in having it all. As it stands, there is zero doubt which i would pick to spend my money on, if given the choice of attending only one race a year. Make it cheap and simple, and my decision on which race to attend will be cheap and simple.

Kropotkin said:

Bridgestone will send the following reply to anyone requesting more tires for testing:



Dear X,



Go .... yourself,



Regards, Bridgestone.



They're providing those tires at cost and getting no benefit from them, so they think 240 tires is plenty.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Oddly enough, that's what they told Rossi and the series. Then...not only did he get the tires, but the entire series did, remember? Bridgestone certainly has its own power, but it still doesn't trump the series organizers. That's my point, and we should have learned it several times now.

hawkdriver said:

Haha this is funny, I remember Ducati said they and the other factories would be willing to help BS with $ if they needed help after the earthquake. Ducati trying to butter that bread and get more tires lol

Click to expand...

Ducati also said they would like to work with Michelin when Dorna proposed the single tire suppliers. You remember, when Stoner's victory was chalked up to Bridgestone (among other things), then Rossi demanded Bridgestones, then Bridgestone said, "go .... yourself", then Dorna said, Michelins are looking pretty good to be a single tire supplier, then Bridgestone gave Rossi tires, then Dorna said, Bridgestones are looking pretty good to be a single tire supplier, then Ducati said, Michelins are looking pretty good, then Dorna said, "go .... yourself". You remember?

povol said:

Thats all fine and good if you want another Superbike series. I personally would lose interest. GP is not meant to be cheap and simple. If GP cannot considerably differentiate itself performance wise from numerous other racing series, what is the use in having it all. As it stands, there is zero doubt which i would pick to spend my money on, if given the choice of attending only one race a year. Make it cheap and simple, and my decision on which race to attend will be cheap and simple.

Click to expand...

Surely theres got to be some kind of middle ground though, the way Moto-gp is at the moment means lots of would be potential manufacturers hoping to compete at the top level are effectively priced out the game....Kawasaki being 1 and potentially Suzuki being the other. It shouldnt just be about whoever has the deepest pockets, the series is ...... for that reason alone.

povol said:

Thats all fine and good if you want another Superbike series. I personally would lose interest. GP is not meant to be cheap and simple. If GP cannot considerably differentiate itself performance wise from numerous other racing series, what is the use in having it all. As it stands, there is zero doubt which i would pick to spend my money on, if given the choice of attending only one race a year. Make it cheap and simple, and my decision on which race to attend will be cheap and simple.

Click to expand...

Pov, you seem obsessed with wanting the factorie(s) to spend unsustainable amounts of money. According to you, this would make you stop watching if the series was more cost effective (or the label you've assigned "dumbed down".) If they wanted to, they could spend twice as much as they are spending now. So perhaps by your standard of more is more, you are already watching less. Just about any material being used now can be traded for a more expensive material costing much much more. I remember you making the same argument with the AMA, though I think you're still watching. This is a challenge of engineering and rider within parameters, do you understand this? Its the parameters that are a function of what is developed. You think sky is the limit, but its not. Otherwise there wouldn't be all these restrictions. They would simply say, build something with two wheels and race it, spend all you want.