I take the argument that you and others including kropotkin have advanced that honda and yamaha have maintained a duopoly in motogp and are not interested in other manufacturers being in the series or being competitive if they are in the series. My question is how this would accord with competing in WSBK where those running the sport take active measures to attempt to make the multiple manufacturers competitive, albeit that some would seem to be more equal than others, and that some base level of technology is necessary as you say in your post regarding suzuki. I am doubtful they will go if they think they can't use technology to gain an edge, whatever their underlying motivation.
I take the argument that you and others including kropotkin have advanced that honda and yamaha have maintained a duopoly in motogp and are not interested in other manufacturers being in the series or being competitive if they are in the series. My question is how this would accord with competing in WSBK where those running the sport take active measures to attempt to make the multiple manufacturers competitive, albeit that some would seem to be more equal than others, and that some base level of technology is necessary as you say in your post regarding suzuki. I am doubtful they will go if they think they can't use technology to gain an edge, whatever their underlying motivation.
Joined Jul 2011
1K Posts | 872+
Dont Know
I was of the opinion if Haslam was given a USA spec Yoshi Suzuki he would have had a better chance of winning the title than he did having to rely on Suzuki Japan. In fact the ultimate was speculation the GSXR riden by Mladin would have given the GSVR 990 a run for its money, proving only how wrong the GSVR was, nothing to do with Honda.
Then there was the long article from one of the australian magazines from someone who had been associated with the motogp team about how they actively rejected/buried any innovation that didn't come from suzuki japan, and krjr wasn't exactly fulsome in his praise of their culture either.
Still, looking at it the other way they have done pretty well given their resources to win 6 premier class gp titles, and did seem to get frozen out by the expense of the technology required for the recent formulae and the instability of the rules. They have had success in wsbk as well.
What about a third option. Competition between the worlds fastest riders? With a level playing field in regards to an equipment ruleset.
I'm not sure when the phrase "pure prototype series" got burned into everybody's head but the truth is is that it's not. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. Anybody who is more than a casual fan knows this.
I'm not going to get into why it has never been pure prototype, it's been done to death. But once you accept that fact and realise these are still the fastest bikes in the world with most of the worlds best riders you can move on from the "pure prototype" business.
There are rules in place, there always have been always will be. They may as well be fair and not about outspending everybody else. If it's about that save yourself some time and just watch the stock ticker.
I want to see ingenuity from mechanics and skill and heart from the riders settling things. I don't think that's asking too much.
I don't give a .... about MPG or how many engines...
I think even honda and yamaha have admitted they need to be saved from themselves in terms of the unsustainable cost structure of the sport, and I don't have a problem with there being a cap of some sort on expenditure; spec ecu and rev limits seem to be the main suggestions to limit the expenditure, and I certainly don't have any better ideas. I would like to see some room for innovation remain, and the bikes need to be the fastest and/or most challenging as you say; I don't find much interest in totally spec racing series.
It's not. The desire to defeat your opponent is what makes competition work, but the goal is to create an environment that produces growth and progress (however it may be defined). Competition has macro objectives, not micro objectives. From a micro standpoint, the benefits of competition are as easily observed as the negative impact.
We as fans and consumers would be far better off if Honda had 6 or 7 serious competitors rather than one serious threat. Unfortunately, the nuances of competitive theory and competitive incentives are not well understood by the public, imo, and they lead themselves to believe that the world is better off if the most powerful people permanently maintain the rank they earned through meritocracy. Obviously, this creates plutocratic oligopoly which completely undermines the concept of free competition.
Unfortunately, the overriding factor is fear of losing a bird in hand. We are afraid to lose what we have right now b/c we cannot see what is on the horizon. A bird doesn't live forever. The biggest fallacy is assuming that the world will not change as long as we maintain a stranglehold on what we have. This merely expedites the asphyxiation of our beloved bird. Basically, we have a bunch of fans and businesses who are 'loving' the sport to death. Unfortunately, their ignorance kills. This is why competition, market or sporting, requires disinterested governing officials.
We are unbelievably better off if we have fierce competition b/c the sport strengthens the breed and it adapts to an ever changing environment. There shouldn't be any discussion over whether or not competition needs to be stimulated with regulation. The method of reintroducing competition and managing the competitors is the real debate.
Dorna at least understand that the status quo will lead to paralysis and death. They have mediocre solutions, imo, but they are still one step ahead of the MSMA. Similarly, Karl Marx was a baby step above the hell of feudalism and colonial mercantilism. Communism seemed attractive to people living in such squalor. If spec parts look attractive to MotoGP participants and governing officials, what does that indicate about the state of MotoGP?
Joined Aug 2008
6K Posts | 748+
Thailand
It doesn't accord with Honda's satisfaction to oppress their opponents before the competition begins, but they would no longer have that option. Why would a professed lover of chocolate ever choose to eat vanilla ice cream? B/c vanilla ice cream is the only choice.
More importantly, imo, are the implications of Honda's alleged preference for WSBK. If a grocery consumer used price to choose between Jif crunchy peanut butter and Peter Pan creamy peanut butter, you'd say that the consumer doesn't have a passionate preference regarding peanut butter. If Honda differentiates MotoGP from WSBK on the basis of price and marketing optics, what does that say about their passion for manufacturing. Obviously, MotoGP has an enormous advantage based upon technological manufacturing, but Honda are not particularly bothered with it.
In defense of Honda's 'competitive' spirit, they might be banking on their ability to manipulate the homologation papers, which are not controlled by IMS. Reducing the quantity of machines and loosening the technological reins would basically reincarnate the days of RCs, OWs, and SPs. Honda and Ducati were the only people with the brand power and client base to make the old 750cc rules work, which is why they were abandoned in the first place. Maybe they are confident that they can rewrite the homologation rules.
The fastest rider in the world is leaving the series because he has lost faith in it. How can you have the fastest riders if they don't want to stay. Then look back through the field. How many of the riders there can be considered the fastest in the world? Give me the list of how many of the 21 riders would go and win WSBK races if they switched tomorrow?
Hate to break the news to you but the days of mechanics tuning carbs etc are long gone. They are never coming back. Right now the mechanics are more important than ever. Why do you think the top riders take their crew with them from one team to the next? Right now we are seeing the best ever fight it out.
Here is another tip. The spec ECU is top of the line MM. It has all the stuff they have now. Therefore if you don't like what there is now or think it is preventing some riders competing at the front then you are not gonna like whats coming up because it is more of the same. They have just removed the variety.
I know you don't give a .... about MPG or engine reliability but guess what? You ain't paying for it. The manufacturers are and they want it. The consumer who buys the bikes that result from the R&D want it. Read any bike test or comparison and front and centre is the electronics system and how delivers brutal power for us meer mortals.
Joined Jul 2011
1K Posts | 872+
Dont Know
I would have thought consumers and society as a whole have macro objectives, rather than active competitors. The business aim is always to maximise profit. Competition forces them to find more innovative ways to do it. Producing milk these days in Australia means farmers, the ones we really need to support as primary producers, are going bankrupt thanks to greedy oligopoly supermarket chains. Consumers choose to ignore this. Consumerism often fails. The greedy monopoly of motogp is not Honda to me, they give as much as they take. Its DORNA. It is here we need greater competition as consumers, rather than fret over Honda all the time.
Explain to me how spec ECU will create growth and progress?
In my opinion growth and progress comes from looking for ways to beat your competitor.
The world is changing. It is moving towards heavily electronically controlled mechanics. This is where the MSMA were heading and Dorna is pulling them back. The reason the other potential competitors fell off or failed to turn up is because of the constant rule changes and the blatant manipulations to ensure the superstar kept winning. The lack of fairness in the sport has nothing to do with the MSMA innovating and progressing. It has to do with the politics of governance, marketing and euro centric dominance.
How can you be so naive? If Honda or any other competitor can't develop their own ECU at MotoGP level whilst MM can what do you think is going to happen in regards to who ends up with the best product in 5 years time?
What happens when 1 company has a dominant product? I will tell you as you don't seem to get it. It eliminates competitors and then it charges what ever it wants for its product. Result: that bike you buy will jump several % in cost as MM charge more and more for their monopolised product.
I wouldn't argue with you about economics, or sociology for that matter. My question is really whether there is an option that they may forgo ice cream altogether.
1)The fastest rider in the world leaving the series is a crime and we are all going to miss him. It shouldn't happen, period. As for your next question, and given competitive equipment, of the 21 riders I should think
Stoner
Lorenzo
Pedrosa
Rossi
Hayden
Spies
De Puniet
Dovi
Crutchlow
could win the whole thing.
Edwards
Bradl
Barbera
Bautista
Espargaro
could show up and win a race.
That's 14 of the 21 riders. And four of them could mop the floor with the series. Give me the list of how many of the 25 WSBK riders would go and win MotoGP races if they switched tomorrow? Yeah, doesn't look so good the other way. How did Jonathan Rea do with his tomorrow? And he was given the competitive equipment. I'm not trying to take away from Rea here, I think he did really well all things considered, but I think we take for granted how hard these bikes (and tires) really are to ride.
2) Nowhere in my post did I state mechanics and crew chiefs are no longer important or relevant, they clearly still are. I think it should stay that way.
3) I got nothin'. Can't argue with that. I actually don't have a problem with a spec ecu. I'd prefer none, but that's not going to happen and I've accepted that.
4) Actually I am paying for it. I'm sending my dollars to MotoGP to watch the racing. Pretty clear cut.
Honda can figure out how to get 150mpg out of a moped on their own time. Give 'em 26+ Liters or .... off. Same goes for reliability. Run those CBR600RR motors to death on a bench. The heart of the RC213v only has to make it 70 or so miles. Those two rules are thinly veiled attempts at driving competitors out of the sport, neither of them have anything to do with who made the fastest bike.
And just between you and me, the vast majority of guys on Liter bikes out there aren't going to benefit from the trickle down electronics for two reasons.
i) Not enough talent to even take the bike there.
ii) Rider aids being nullified by risk compensation.
Joined Aug 2008
6K Posts | 748+
Thailand
In your fantasy world is it naive to know that BMW and Kawasaki have, arguably, the best street electricks without developing them in MotoGP?
Joined Jul 2011
1K Posts | 872+
Dont Know
Jonathan Rea says his superbike is really so dumbed down that he could never develop the riding technique to be successfull in motogp by riding a dumbed down superbike. DORNA are trying to turn motogp into dumbed down superbike, because then it wont matter if one guy is really so exceptionally talented, they will always get their close racing entertainment. See the problem.
Joined Jul 2011
1K Posts | 872+
Dont Know
Thanks to who? DORNA? SBK? No, Honda, their primary sales competitor, forcing them to go harder, bigger, better to beat them on the sales floor. Who benefits?
Joined Aug 2008
6K Posts | 748+
Thailand
Since Honda hasn't brought anything to the street bike electronics game yet, it is hard to imagine BMW and Kawi rushing to catch up to a non-existent CBR with traction and launch control!! Their motives have absolutely nothing to do with a Honda gorilla in the room... Where did you come up with that gem?
Joined Jul 2011
1K Posts | 872+
Dont Know
Joined Jul 2006
11K Posts | 291+
Texas
