Maybe mismanagement. Perhaps complacency. Possibly both. Rossi was young & popular. On track, he could be relied upon to run relatively interesting races (not too many runaway victories). Off track/post-race his antics & feuds helped build up a following. As long as audiences were growing (particularly in the emerging Asian markets), I don't think Dorna were too eager to rock the boat.
Today, Rossi's become older, wearier and less demonstrative. Meanwhile his peers, while outstanding professionals, are generally sober, cautious and not very (for lack of a better word) spontaneous, despite their (relative) youth. The off-track drama still helps sell the event but Dorna needs more exciting races if its to continue growing especially as the Rossi-era comes to a close.
At least that's my opinion/assessment. I've watched recordings of older seasons and maybe its the video quality or lack of proper appreciation for 2-strokes on my part but I think future generations will look back at 2015 & 2016 as the most memorable seasons. Which bodes well for 2017 and the current direction of the sport.
For mine, 2015/2016 were nothing special in terms of the way the seasons panned out, albeit I accept that 2016 did have a number of races where the applecart was upended and we got 'unexpected' results, but as has already been mentioned by others, those unexpected results are easily explained by circumstance. Only a continuation of 2016 in terms of race winners etc will show that 2016 was not an anomoly but personally, I suspect that we had an anomoly borne of circumstance rather than the start of a new competitive trend or era.
As for the 2 stroke era, I am biased to it and would say that people who have only recently started to watch the series (recently being sometime during the 4 stroke era), while great to have as fans of the sport may well be unable to appreciate the nuances of racing the 2 strokes and why many people will attest that it was a better era as the bikes could be purchased and one was not beholden to a single spec supplier (that old chestnut again)
As for my opinion of why only now do DORNA care, I differ slightly although agree that the reason has a name.
Point is, DORNA are now trying to manufacture something that they can then market as they have realised that the goose has limited time and in doing so they are not concerned at all about satellite teams, but on building a product that they can market and sell (yes, sell) based on an artificial competitiveness. IMO only here but DORNA will be looking at selling the sport/series sometime around when the goose ceases involvement as they will know that the bottom line will be impacted, thus make it seem not so centric today, make it seem competitive and then sell at a profit leaving the real issue or sports development and growth to the next suckers (call me a cynic).
I don't think I entirely understood that. The way I see it, the teams (mostly founded by ex-racers or racing enthusiasts) are there because they love the sport... and it pays the bills. The sponsors are in it purely for the exposure - advertising & publicity.
For the teams, its a constant struggle to remain adequately funded and therefore competitive. From what I can tell, nobody's making any real money from the sport (aside from the top riders). Which is what landed Karel Abraham on an Aspar Ducati. And if a team does run the occasional significant revenue surplus, its probably reinvested for next year.
Is simple.
Tech3 are not involved to turn a profit for Tech3 as no body involved in this sport (aside from some riders) will make money.
Tech3 (and I use them as the example as it could be MarcVDS or any other) are involved to raise awareness of and for their sponsoring businesses and thus have these business then spend more money with the team and so forth, a circle if you will.
If having a single tyre supply is so conducive to lowering costs for the teams, one could well ask why more riders are not paid as opposed to paying riders could one not?
Your answer (reasonably) would be that the fact supports your point of the need to lower costs (ie. spec tyre), but it could also point that perhaps the team is having to spend more money on the bike due to that same spec item that is supposed to reduce costs, so the circle continues.
If Dunlop can provide Tech 3 with free tyres that allow its M1s to be equally competitive on - nothing like it. No reason to even consider shifting to Michelins IMO.
But we've been here before, haven't we? Tech 3 ran Dunlops for two years as did Pramac. Between the two, Dunlops accounted for 4 of the last 5 places in the 2006 rider standings.
Yep, we have been there and by all means correct me, but did not one of these minnow teams work with a tyre manufacturer and win something?
A world title perhaps?
And was it not this result that spurred Rossi to demand the tyre change (no problems there, he was off contract) which has subsquently led to today's situation which (IMO) feel would not have happened were Ducati not successful in 2007.
This plan hinges on Dunlop being willing and able to invest significant resources in a venture that, if successful would see them finish behind Michelin/Bridgestone and if unsuccessful, might result in Dunlop-branded bikes struggling to stay in the points. Sure the possibility of achieving a huge technical breakthrough on a lower budget is not inconceivable but its also not likely.
Now if you're in Poncharal's shoes and you've got the top non-factory team running ex-YRT M1s that were designed for Michelin/Bridgestone, would you risk that for a gamble on Dunlops? Would your riders want that? And even if you do take that gamble - Dunlop Tech 3 makes one team, still leaves 7 others (not including HRT & YRT).
Alternatively, you could stick with the tyre recommended by Yamaha for reliably strong results. But since that tyre supplier takes its cues from the factory team, the gulf between their riders & yours would increase.
Its the same for the other teams as well, all of whom would want to take upstage Tech 3, register some notable performances, and perhaps even score a podium if the stars align.
The attitude of Poncharal (who you seem to focus on ............. do you have a vested interest may I ask) is one for Poncharal as in your example, on one hand he has access to factory Yamaha equipment that is setup for a specific tyre combination so he knows he (should) have a win capable machine, but on another hand, the bikes are a year old and may not come with all the bells and whistles that they had the prior year. So, does he 'sit tight' and trust that the bike will work and that his team is capable of getting it to work (are his mechanics/engineers up to the task and equally trained as the factory techs, does he have access to the prior year data which may or may not work for his riders, will the bike still work with the ongoing spec tyre changes). Or does he go, yep, give me the bikes but as I am a 'standalone and unsupported team' I may just shop around to see what options are available, perhaps different suspension and brake packages, or maybe even tyres.
How he would do business is his call remembering that a change of tyre or suspension suppliers may bring an initial dollars due to associated ccompanies (may not happen as well I must say), but the question could well be whether he wants to settle and follow, or try to become a front runner and lead which means that sometimes one needs to look outside of the box in which the toy came.
I have no doubt at all that there would be teams in the field today who would drop Michelin like a hot potato if they were allowed to work with a supplier who wants to work with them to provide a product specifically designed around that teams needs (tyres/suspension). Now, I could not know which teams would and which teams would not take the offer, but there would be at least one and likely more as experience shows that sometimes looking outside the box gives a good view.
