Testing restrictions lifted for 2012

I've certainly not suggested this is a cure all, and I totally agree that that would be as pointless as saying more testing wont help the slower teams. Racing is an evolution, things don't just happen, they constantly change with positive and negative results...



Sorry for going into Yoda mode for a bit there but I just don't see the point of sweeping statements.



If zookie do end up having to use their 800's, the argument still stands that the more they are able to test and modify (without huge expenditure or having to employ a test rider) their bikes they'll be better off.



Again does anyone know the rules regarding the CRT's and testing?

Mental Anarchist said:

I have argued this before but if it is perceived that the sport is manipulated in favour of a rider or a manufacturer than sponsors will only spend money on the favoured rider/team because ultimately sponsors want to win. I have repeatedly offered my opinion which is well backed up by reality that the majority of sponsor dollars flow to Rossi's team be it yamaha or ducati.



Many argue that Rossi has been good for MotoGP. The reality is that MotoGP fails to attract sponsors and the sport can not sustain itself from sponsorship dollars. I argue that if the politics was equal then the sponsors revenue would be better balanced and the overall pool of revenue would be larger.



It is my opinion that Dorna has and continues to build the Rossi Brand rather than the MotoGP Brand. It is my opinion that this was foolish and continues to be foolish.

Click to expand...

What reality are you in ? It can't be the same one that the rest of us have been watching. Please show some facts of this reality so that I can tear apart your silly reality. The bottom line is that it cost more than 4 million euros to lease a satellite bike that will never see the podium unless we get rain or missing aliens on the grid. Do you even see how terrible the current formula is? Would you want to put money into this sport to lease a bike that can't win and that you have to return at the end of the season? The factories have GP held ransom, you are talking about revenue but how much money has Dorna given to any team that Rossi is on compared to the satellite teams, you have no clue what you're talking about and you have no clue of anything that Dorna has been spending money on. When we went to moto2 was that also Rossi's fault or was it because Aprilia was making the 250s way to damn expensive. What we're seeing now in GP was the same exact thing we saw in the 250s that led Dorna to create moto2, there wont be any riders to talk about if we can't get teams and sponsors to pay for the bikes.



Now who is behind the rule changes again? Was it Dorna, the MSMA, or Rossi ? Anyone who has a problem with the BS tires should love this rule, the riders will get more time to come to grips with the tires.

The proposal came from the factories, with Ducati pushing for the change with the full support of Honda, and though the change has to be formally approved by the Grand Prix Commission, which contains representatives of Dorna, the FIM and the teams, as well as the manufacturers, it is customary for the rest of the GPC's members to accept what the MSMA propose.

But Dorna is fully behind the change to the testing rules. At Phillip Island, Carmelo Ezpeleta told the Corriere dello Sport that it was absurd that MotoGP was "the only sport where the athletes cannot train, cannot improve." But the move may also prove to be a tactical one, giving the factories something they asked for just before the looming conflict over the Claiming Rule Teams

Click to expand...

http://motomatters.com/news/2011/10/28/motogp_testing_limits_to_be_abolished_fo.html

stiefel said:

As I've stated in my previous post, I'm not against lifting the testing ban. What I claim to abhor is turning every debate into a Rossi vs. Stoner deathmatch. What I have also claimed to abhor consistently in the last months, is gingerly tiptoeing around everything related to Ducati Rossi because they are having a bad season. I don't think I have done either.



The thing is, I don't think there's much else to debate with regards to lifting the testing ban. Everyone, including me, is in favour. The only thing interesting about it, to my mind, is the question I put to J4rn0: do you believe this would have happened if it weren't for Ducati's results this season?

Click to expand...

Look at it from the other direction. If the testing ban is not working due to unforseen consequences, such as that it is impeding riders new to the class and the introduction of a new formula (or 2 if you count the 1000 formula and CRT bikes), is not saving money and is increasing rather than decreasing the dominance of honda and yamaha, do you stick with it because changing it may advantage rossi and some fans of other riders (not meaning you) apparently like seeing him suffer ?



I think the testing rule was brought in to lessen the advantage of honda and yamaha at a time when rossi was at yamaha so I don't think it was rossi-centric in the first place, and it doesn't have to be about rossi to change it, even if as would seem likely him struggling at ducati gives extra impetus to change the rule. I think ducati would be struggling with or without him, and hence the rule although perhaps well intended has not achieved its purpose of lessening the dominance of the big teams, ie honda and yamaha, rather the contrary.



I agree with you and others that lifting the testing ban will be no more a universal panacea than imposing it was, although there seemed little chance of ducati fixing their bike with the limited testing, and both ducati and (longer ago) suzuki did manage to win world championships with a less limited testing regime.



Another aspect which j4rno has raised concerns the testing limitations only applying to the race riders. Honda and yamaha could test as much as they liked with test riders, and could presumably afford more and better test riders, so I am unsure how the testing limitations were supposed to level the field even in theory or save money.

stiefel said:

I don't know. What do you think? Keep in mind that back when that decision was made, no one knew where Ducati was headed this season. They looked reasonably competitive. Who do you think was set to benefit?

I have personally considered the intentions behind the testing ban to actually be cost reduction, as it was not without precedents in other competitions (F1). Of course, that does not mean that it has not suffered from Kropotkin's law of unintended consequences, no debate on my part there.







I would be careful to brush all critical voices with the 'conspiracy theorist' brush, especially when suggesting foul play in the same breath.



I'm not against lifting the testing ban. Still I wonder J4rn0, do you believe this would have happened if Ducati would not have had a complete clusterfck of a season?

Click to expand...

NO, I do not like conspiracy theories. I was teasing those who do believe them, showing that such theories can have more than just one target.



I would never say that these rules were aimed against Ducati, what I said is that it is Ducati that has suffered the most because of them. Then the next question is, is there anybody that has benefited from these rules?



It's a fact that the regulatory trend has been making the game more and more difficult, more technologically (and financially) demanding: less fuel, less engine capacity, less testing time, less tires, more electronics. It is obvious that the more technological and expensive the game, the more it is the players with more resources that eventually prevail. It's not conspiracy, but it certainly is power games. There is a play of forces, and battles going on. And the player with the most power is....





HInt: it's certainly not a rider.

hawkdriver said:

What reality are you in ? It can't be the same one that the rest of us have been watching. Please show some facts of this reality so that I can tear apart your silly reality. The bottom line is that it cost more than 4 million euros to lease a satellite bike that will never see the podium unless we get rain or missing aliens on the grid. Do you even see how terrible the current formula is? Would you want to put money into this sport to lease a bike that can't win and that you have to return at the end of the season? The factories have GP held ransom, you are talking about revenue but how much money has Dorna given to any team that Rossi is on compared to the satellite teams, you have no clue what you're talking about and you have no clue of anything that Dorna has been spending money on. When we went to moto2 was that also Rossi's fault or was it because Aprilia was making the 250s way to damn expensive. What we're seeing now in GP was the same exact thing we saw in the 250s that led Dorna to create moto2, there wont be any riders to talk about if we can't get teams and sponsors to pay for the bikes.







Now who is behind the rule changes again? Was it Dorna, the MSMA, or Rossi ? Anyone who has a problem with the BS tires should love this rule, the riders will get more time to come to grips with the tires.







http://motomatters.c...olished_fo.html

Click to expand...

Are you sure you are supposed to be ranting at me as your rant is not even closely related to what I wrote in general or the bit you chose to highlight.







But to go along with it, are you suggesting that Rossi has not been Dorna's poster boy for the last decade?







Are you suggesting that Rossi does not draw more sponsors than every other rider?







Do you not understand the commercial reality that sponsors will put their money where they think there is the most chance of it being associated with success?







I seriously hope that you do not believe that these things are fantasy. If you can except these things then all I have done is drawn a circle around them and say that collectively these items have <u>contributed</u> to the demise of MotoGP. I say this as a lack of funds is affecting MotoGP as much as the stupid rules Dorna keep implementing.







Now I say Dorna implementing under the complete understanding that the MSMA is pulling Dorna's strings but it is my view that Dorna are only manipulated by the MSMA because they are complete muppets who have not chosen to build the MotoGP Brand but have built only the Rossi Brand. Because of this they are in a weak position. We saw this in 2008 when Rossi threatened to leave if he didn't get Bridgestones. If Dorna had of invested in Sete, Loris, Marco, Hopper etc etc then Rossi would not have been able to leverage them. The same applies to MSMA. If Dorna knew where they were taking the sport then the MSMA would not have got control. If Marco had of come to Dorna and said give me Bridgestones or i'll leave they would have laughed and said see ya we have Rossi.







Now explain to me what would happen if Satellite Team A could raise the funds to buy a 'Factory' spec Honda/Yamaha, factory spec technicians to set it up and a factory spec rider to ride it, would they stand a chance? I think they would. But the problem is that a satellite team will never raise those funds because the sponsors will only sponsor big money on the rider/team that has the best chance of success.







Now here is the part you can disagree with if you like and I will be completely happy for you to do so.....it is my view that business operates with relatively no emotion and they will assess the sport including its politics and make a choice as to where they spend their money. I think that they make the non emotional assessment that the sport over the past decade has been geared towards Brand Rossi and that that is the best bet when it comes to investing.







I will complete my comment with the FACT that it does not matter how much the sport costs if there is revenue to cover the cost. F1 costs infinitely more than MotoGP but there is enough money up and down the grid to field more cars, more teams, more show so there is no problem. Sure they have had to reduce costs but they are not looking at changing to touring cars to do so.

Double.



Sorry about all the html but I can't get rid of it. Have googled the fix and done it to no avail.

Mental Anarchist said:

Double.



Sorry about all the html but I can't get rid of it. Have googled the fix and done it to no avail.

Click to expand...

This happened to me previously....I fixed the problem by using the edit mode (click on edit underneath your post) and then copy all the text to the RAM buffer (select all the text Ctrl+A then copy all the text Ctrl+C) and then repaste the text back into your original post (Ctrl+V). After I did this the garbled formatting disappeared.



PS: I may have even pasted the text into a new text editor document (ie run notepad etc) reselecting and re-copying the text again and then pasting it back into the post.

hawkdriver said:

What reality are you in ? It can't be the same one that the rest of us have been watching. Please show some facts of this reality so that I can tear apart your silly reality. The bottom line is that it cost more than 4 million euros to lease a satellite bike that will never see the podium unless we get rain or missing aliens on the grid. Do you even see how terrible the current formula is? Would you want to put money into this sport to lease a bike that can't win and that you have to return at the end of the season? The factories have GP held ransom, you are talking about revenue but how much money has Dorna given to any team that Rossi is on compared to the satellite teams, you have no clue what you're talking about and you have no clue of anything that Dorna has been spending money on. When we went to moto2 was that also Rossi's fault or was it because Aprilia was making the 250s way to damn expensive. What we're seeing now in GP was the same exact thing we saw in the 250s that led Dorna to create moto2, there wont be any riders to talk about if we can't get teams and sponsors to pay for the bikes.



Now who is behind the rule changes again? Was it Dorna, the MSMA, or Rossi ? Anyone who has a problem with the BS tires should love this rule, the riders will get more time to come to grips with the tires.



http://motomatters.c...olished_fo.html

Click to expand...

It sounds about right, they are in a pickle with the current grid numbers but the problem also includes the GFC and a Tsunami, each affecting many grids and forms of racing, not just motogp.



Also, how do they get the cost aspect right for teams including Suzuki who dont want to spend money. Dont tell me thats because of the current formula and the cost of electronic mapping etc. Look at Suzuki's results during 990's with all the things available we now hold dear, such as lots of fuel, few electronics, plenty tyres, unlimited testing. .... they even had a w/c rider in Roberts jnr. Where did Suzuki finish, how many 990 races did they win?



When privateer riders were able to win what bikes did they have? Oh, oh, Honda's, cheating V5's.



Look back at the last year of 500's, the first year of 990's. Look at the past season. Really, how much have things changed. Rules plenty, cost plenty, the ultimate winner not very much. Maybe, but dont say it out loud, Honda are just a better engineering company? I really liked that V5 they made.

Mental Anarchist said:

Are you sure you are supposed to be ranting at me as your rant is not even closely related to what I wrote in general or the bit you chose to highlight.







But to go along with it, are you suggesting that Rossi has not been Dorna's poster boy for the last decade?







Are you suggesting that Rossi does not draw more sponsors than every other rider?







Do you not understand the commercial reality that sponsors will put their money where they think there is the most chance of it being associated with success?







I seriously hope that you do not believe that these things are fantasy. If you can except these things then all I have done is drawn a circle around them and say that collectively these items have <u>contributed</u> to the demise of MotoGP. I say this as a lack of funds is affecting MotoGP as much as the stupid rules Dorna keep implementing.







Now I say Dorna implementing under the complete understanding that the MSMA is pulling Dorna's strings but it is my view that Dorna are only manipulated by the MSMA because they are complete muppets who have not chosen to build the MotoGP Brand but have built only the Rossi Brand. Because of this they are in a weak position. We saw this in 2008 when Rossi threatened to leave if he didn't get Bridgestones. If Dorna had of invested in Sete, Loris, Marco, Hopper etc etc then Rossi would not have been able to leverage them. The same applies to MSMA. If Dorna knew where they were taking the sport then the MSMA would not have got control. If Marco had of come to Dorna and said give me Bridgestones or i'll leave they would have laughed and said see ya we have Rossi.







Now explain to me what would happen if Satellite Team A could raise the funds to buy a 'Factory' spec Honda/Yamaha, factory spec technicians to set it up and a factory spec rider to ride it, would they stand a chance? I think they would. But the problem is that a satellite team will never raise those funds because the sponsors will only sponsor big money on the rider/team that has the best chance of success.







Now here is the part you can disagree with if you like and I will be completely happy for you to do so.....it is my view that business operates with relatively no emotion and they will assess the sport including its politics and make a choice as to where they spend their money. I think that they make the non emotional assessment that the sport over the past decade has been geared towards Brand Rossi and that that is the best bet when it comes to investing.







I will complete my comment with the FACT that it does not matter how much the sport costs if there is revenue to cover the cost. F1 costs infinitely more than MotoGP but there is enough money up and down the grid to field more cars, more teams, more show so there is no problem. Sure they have had to reduce costs but they are not looking at changing to touring cars to do so.

Click to expand...

Motogp was going well under the previous management till the sale of motogp was forced by bureaucratic means, in the name of "maintaining competition". This is the same sort of thing that will likely soon see australia with no national airline, the current airline having been constrained after privatisation while government owned/subsidised competitors were/are allowed free rein.



I agree there has been little plan for the last decade other than riding the wave of rossi's popularity, with both dorna and the msma probably having a false idea of the long term income stream of the sport. Hardly rossi's fault though.



Still doesn't have much to do with the presence or absence of the now defunct testing rule imo; that it wasn't helping rossi may well have hastened its demise, but I can't see that its introduction had anything to do with him, nor did I ever understand the rationale of limiting testing by race riders but placing no restrictions on testing by test riders.

Mental Anarchist said:

I am not a disinterested observer at all. I have decided to withdraw from several hours a day on MotoGP/Motorcycle forums. Just so happens in the last few days I have had some time up my sleeve so have been playing a bit.



As far as conspiracies go I hardly call this a conspiracy. Any thinking observer could have predicted that testing rules would change as soon as Rossi failure to ride and develop the Ducati became apparent. Only mushrooms would fall for the BS being peddled at the moment.



It is my opinion that the sport has moved past Rossi and he is now irrelevant to it. Unfortunately it seems that just like in the climate change debate there are some dinosaurs who are clinging to fossil fuels being relevant to the future. The new breed of rider - Stoner, Lorenzo, Spies etc don't require nor seek unfair advantages they just want a fair and just treatment for all and in my opinion the sport will be better for it.

Click to expand...

Dude, you're talking ....!

Mental Anarchist said:

Double.



Sorry about all the html but I can't get rid of it. Have googled the fix and done it to no avail.

Click to expand...

Mr Squiggle said:

This happened to me previously....I fixed the problem by using the edit mode (click on edit underneath your post) and then copy all the text to the RAM buffer (select all the text Ctrl+A then copy all the text Ctrl+C) and then repaste the text back into your original post (Ctrl+V). After I did this the garbled formatting disappeared.



PS: I may have even pasted the text into a new text editor document (ie run notepad etc) reselecting and re-copying the text again and then pasting it back into the post.

Click to expand...

Time to get a Mac fellas.

chopperman said:

Maybe its to help get all the crt bikes sorted.

Click to expand...

I think that's part of it, but I also think they can't enforce a testing ban on CRTs. Suter supplies an M1 with a BMW engine, but they don't field a team. Can MotoGP really ban Suter from testing their M1 during the season with a test rider? Would they disqualify Aspar, a team that bought equipment from a supplier, if their supplier violates the test ban?



I think the MSMA realized that they can't control CRTs, and they realized that new manufacturers might be planning to enter. Neither CRTs nor new manufacturers can be controlled with the current testing rules so the ban needs to be lifted.

You are using f1 as an example when dorna is getting their advice directly from F1. The bikes are not changing that much. In f1 a team can decide what engine it wants to run. In GP this not allowed, what you are saying is complete bull. GP will be just like F1 in the end with less electronics and teams getting to decide what they want to run instead of leasing equipment a true constructers series

Mental Anarchist said:

Are you sure you are supposed to be ranting at me as your rant is not even closely related to what I wrote in general or the bit you chose to highlight.







But to go along with it, are you suggesting that Rossi has not been Dorna's poster boy for the last decade?







Are you suggesting that Rossi does not draw more sponsors than every other rider?







Do you not understand the commercial reality that sponsors will put their money where they think there is the most chance of it being associated with success?







I seriously hope that you do not believe that these things are fantasy. If you can except these things then all I have done is drawn a circle around them and say that collectively these items have <u>contributed</u> to the demise of MotoGP. I say this as a lack of funds is affecting MotoGP as much as the stupid rules Dorna keep implementing.







Now I say Dorna implementing under the complete understanding that the MSMA is pulling Dorna's strings but it is my view that Dorna are only manipulated by the MSMA because they are complete muppets who have not chosen to build the MotoGP Brand but have built only the Rossi Brand. Because of this they are in a weak position. We saw this in 2008 when Rossi threatened to leave if he didn't get Bridgestones. If Dorna had of invested in Sete, Loris, Marco, Hopper etc etc then Rossi would not have been able to leverage them. The same applies to MSMA. If Dorna knew where they were taking the sport then the MSMA would not have got control. If Marco had of come to Dorna and said give me Bridgestones or i'll leave they would have laughed and said see ya we have Rossi.







Now explain to me what would happen if Satellite Team A could raise the funds to buy a 'Factory' spec Honda/Yamaha, factory spec technicians to set it up and a factory spec rider to ride it, would they stand a chance? I think they would. But the problem is that a satellite team will never raise those funds because the sponsors will only sponsor big money on the rider/team that has the best chance of success.







Now here is the part you can disagree with if you like and I will be completely happy for you to do so.....it is my view that business operates with relatively no emotion and they will assess the sport including its politics and make a choice as to where they spend their money. I think that they make the non emotional assessment that the sport over the past decade has been geared towards Brand Rossi and that that is the best bet when it comes to investing.







I will complete my comment with the FACT that it does not matter how much the sport costs if there is revenue to cover the cost. F1 costs infinitely more than MotoGP but there is enough money up and down the grid to field more cars, more teams, more show so there is no problem. Sure they have had to reduce costs but they are not looking at changing to touring cars to do so.

Click to expand...

Keshav said:

Time to get a Mac fellas.

Click to expand...

Not so much Kesh... I've had the same problem from my MacBook Pro!