The end of FACTORY racing

povol said:

Dorna is trying to appease the whining masses [you the fan] who cry that Honda is evil and they are not being properly entertained. Its the fan who wants to punish success, that is, unless success is coming from a different source.

Click to expand...

Good luck trying to put me on the defensive with non-sequiturs. The point of CRTs isn't punishing Honda, or leveling the playing field, or [insert straw man here]. It's that it costs too much both for championship-contending bikes and for leased satellite bikes. The MSMA is willing to ride the sport over a financial cliff, so Ezpeleta is done talking and is going to do something about it.



It's not really very complicated. Read Krop's piece again, I don't know what else to say about it.

birdman said:

What is the price of the current Suzuki vs the 990 one, I have no idea? But in performance terms the fuel restricted 800cc Suzuki (and Ducati) won more races and podiums than the 990 versions!



If there are NO sponsors, anything is too expensive. Kroppo just stated even clothing manufacturers are walking away from the sportbike market. Makes it sound like a wider problem than motogp. And Motogp are sportbikes afterall.

Click to expand...

An RC211V cost in the region of 1.5 million to lease. A 213V will cost 3 times that much. In 6 years. Do the math.

@Pov - I figured out Ayn Rand was a .... at twelve... r u still workin' that .... out?

Kropotkin said:

An RC211V cost in the region of 1.5 million to lease. A 213V will cost 3 times that much. In 6 years. Do the math.

Click to expand...

How much of that is actually due to the economy and the value of currencies.

povol said:

How much of that is actually due to the economy and the value of currencies.

Click to expand...

Most currencies are under deflationary pressure. Price increase of 300% correlates with 20% annual compounding inflation.



Costs are going up b/c fuel efficiency technology is not cost effective under racing conditions. If fuel efficiency determines who wins and who loses, a cost explosion is imminent. I don't understand why you defend the current rules. You don't strike me as a crusader of fuel-efficient technology and engine downsizing. Doesn't matter if they place a few restriction on the motorcycles, racing will improve if the fuel capacity increases.

mylexicon said:

Most currencies are under deflationary pressure. Price increase of 300% correlates with 20% annual compounding inflation.



Costs are going up b/c fuel efficiency technology is not cost effective under racing conditions. If fuel efficiency determines who wins and who loses, a cost explosion is imminent. I don't understand why you defend the current rules. You don't strike me as a crusader of fuel-efficient technology and engine downsizing. Doesn't matter if they place a few restriction on the motorcycles, racing will improve if the fuel capacity increases.

Click to expand...

I do not defend current rules, im on record as despising them. My question was How much of that increase was due to currency values, not as a defense of current regs, but i simply would like to know, how much of that increase is due to currency values.Back to the regs, i have always been against fuel restrictions and spec tires. I am even more against turning Moto GP into Moto2

Jumkie said:

Pov, I suspect its a bit like health care cost in the US. Nothing to little to do with currency values.

Click to expand...

Would be interesting to find out. During the time frame in question[ RC211v to current] Japanese motorcycles have gone up around 35% here in the states, with most of that being blamed on the weakened US dollar.

povol said:

I do not defend current rules, im on record as despising them. My question was How much of that increase was due to currency values, not as a defense of current regs, but i simply would like to know, how much of that increase is due to currency values.Back to the regs, i have always been against fuel restrictions and spec tires. I am even more against turning Moto GP into Moto2

Click to expand...

It is a bit of a precarious time. I think it is critical for MotoGP to allow production-based motorcycles while still protecting the true prototypes, but there is reason to believe that allowing both prototypes and production-derived machines might be impossible from an organizational standpoint. The MSMA do not want production derived machines b/c they are dedicated to maintaining hegemony via full prototypes and fuel-efficiency competition. Dorna may not want to continue prototypes for nefarious reasons as well. If the manufacturers are making money by selling bespoke machinery to privateers (engines mainly), Dorna can claim that MotoGP provides the manufacturers with a profit-motive and a sales motive; therefore, Dorna should not be required to share MotoGP's bounty with the MSMA and their prototype programs.



It can go either way. If given the choice between Moto1, production-derived rules or MSMA hegemony, I'll take production-derived engines any day. It would be like ALMS racing. However, I hope Dorna forgo the allure of easy profits (cheapening the equipment), in favor of a long term strategy. If Dorna guaranteed big bucks to the manufacturers for their cooperation, racing could be a primary source of income in the fully-faired segment. If major manufacturers race for direct profits, we get the best of both worlds.



The real difficulty is trying to decode the remarks made by Ezpeleta. He says that all bikes will be like CRTs in the future. What does that mean? All machines will have production derived engines? Not so good. All bikes will have 24L of fuel and rev to around 16,500rpm? Probably a good thing.

mylexicon said:

It is a bit of a precarious time. I think it is critical for MotoGP to allow production-based motorcycles while still protecting the true prototypes, but there is reason to believe that allowing both prototypes and production-derived machines might be impossible from an organizational standpoint. The MSMA do not want production derived machines b/c they are dedicated to maintaining hegemony via full prototypes and fuel-efficiency competition. Dorna may not want to continue prototypes for nefarious reasons as well. If the manufacturers are making money by selling bespoke machinery to privateers (engines mainly), Dorna can claim that MotoGP provides the manufacturers with a profit-motive and a sales motive; therefore, Dorna should not be required to share MotoGP's bounty with the MSMA and their prototype programs.



It can go either way. If given the choice between Moto1, production-derived rules or MSMA hegemony, I'll take production-derived engines any day. It would be like ALMS racing. However, I hope Dorna forgo the allure of easy profits (cheapening the equipment), in favor of a long term strategy. If Dorna guaranteed big bucks to the manufacturers for their cooperation, racing could be a primary source of income in the fully-faired segment. If major manufacturers race for direct profits, we get the best of both worlds.



The real difficulty is trying to decode the remarks made by Ezpeleta. He says that all bikes will be like CRTs in the future. What does that mean? All machines will have production derived engines? Not so good. All bikes will have 24L of fuel and rev to around 16,500rpm? Probably a good thing.

Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like Superbike. WSBK is going to be the big loser more than likely, especially since they are owned by the same entity. We will get performance cuts across the board to ensure GP can still be called the pinnacle of bike racing. Can WSBK survive running ASB or BSB Superstock regs

mylexicon said:

The real difficulty is trying to decode the remarks made by Ezpeleta. He says that all bikes will be like CRTs in the future. What does that mean? All machines will have production derived engines? Not so good. All bikes will have 24L of fuel and rev to around 16,500rpm? Probably a good thing.

Click to expand...

My interpretation is that Ezpeleta means that eventually the claiming rule will apply to all participants, so any engine can be claimed by another team for a nominal price. Obviously, that provides a strong disincentive from having very expensive engines (whether prototype or production).



And yeah, with an 81mm bore, you have limits on revs as well.

Why the name CRT, Claiming Rules Teams?

CE: The name will be changed. They were originally called this, but it’ll be changed without looking for a super name, because I expect that in two years the whole grid will be on these bikes, the CRTs.



Define the basics of these bikes.

CE: A CRT is a bike that is not made by a factory but by the teams, that can use parts from production engines, each one with a preferred chassis, with 24 liters of fuel instead of 21, they can use 12 engines instead of 6, and those engines can be claimed by other teams for 20,000 euros, but no one will buy engines.

Click to expand...

povol said:

Sounds a lot like Superbike. WSBK is going to be the big loser more than likely, especially since they are owned by the same entity. We will get performance cuts across the board to ensure GP can still be called the pinnacle of bike racing. Can WSBK survive running ASB or BSB Superstock regs

Click to expand...

It sounds like Superbike to the layperson. You're not a layperson so I have no idea why you would say it.



Most of the major development in SBK happens at a snail's pace b/c it flows through the production markets. In MotoGP a team can start with an I-3 and end the season with a V5. As far as we know, MotoGP teams can run as many variants as they want each season.



GP bikes rev much higher that SBKs, and they will continue revving much higher than SBKs in 2012. SBK doesn't need to be dumbed-down to maintain MotoGP's performance advantage. A fixed rev limit and parts homologation will do the trick. The "dumbness" of the parts will depend upon what the manufacturers chose to supply. Ducati builds bikes with titanium internals, balanced cranks, magnesium wheels and magnesium subframes. Customers can also order factory parts like titanium exhaust without voiding the warranty. The Japanese seem to think that a "super"bike should be made of aluminum and steel, and it should be available to every squid who can get their hands on cheap credit.

mylexicon said:

It sounds like Superbike to the layperson. You're not a layperson so I have no idea why you would say it.



Most of the major development in SBK happens at a snail's pace b/c it flows through the production markets. In MotoGP a team can start with an I-3 and end the season with a V5. As far as we know, MotoGP teams can run as many variants as they want each season.



GP bikes rev much higher that SBKs, and they will continue revving much higher than SBKs in 2012. SBK doesn't need to be dumbed-down to maintain MotoGP's performance advantage. A fixed rev limit and parts homologation will do the trick. The "dumbness" of the parts will depend upon what the manufacturers chose to supply. Ducati builds bikes with titanium internals, balanced cranks, magnesium wheels and magnesium subframes. Customers can also order factory parts like titanium exhaust without voiding the warranty. The Japanese seem to think that a "super"bike should be made of aluminum and steel, and it should be available to every squid who can get their hands on cheap credit.

Click to expand...

Somehow i dont see any of that happening once the factories are gone. These "racing companies" will almost assuredly be perpetually underfunded and technology will stagnate. it will be like having an entire field of satellite bikes with many spending the minimum on bike and rider so the company can show a viable bottom line to sponsors.



Oh, are you saying a rich Ducati buyer is any less squidish than someone who buys Japanese. I can assure you, they are not. Probably more.

povol said:

These "racing companies" will almost assuredly be perpetually underfunded

Click to expand...

An example of a team being "underfunded" is when a Moto2 champion (Bradl) can't afford to get into MotoGP, or when another team (Aspar) can't afford to lease bikes, and that's happening right now, pre-CRTs. Maybe once CRTs take hold, Bradl could scrape enough sponsor interest to field a CRT in 2013.



Somehow, I don't think cheaper CRT bikes are going to lead to increased "underfunding." It's like saying 3 - 2 = 5.

Just because the machinery becomes less expensive doesnt mean they will be flush with cash. Cost goes down, sponsorship per bike goes down with it.

povol said:

Just because the machinery becomes less expensive doesnt mean they will be flush with cash. Cost goes down, sponsorship per bike goes down with it.

Click to expand...

Right, so the less the bike costs, the more likely limited sponsor money can accommodate running a MotoGP team.



And still no word from Suzuki. LCR is still a possibility for Bautista, but they have funding issues like Aspar, and Bautista may have to bring in some more sponsor money if LCR is going to lease a Honda.

povol said:

It sounds like Atlas Shrugged was an attack on your senses.,

Click to expand...

Atlas shrugged, and frankly, so did I.

povol said:

Just because the machinery becomes less expensive doesnt mean they will be flush with cash. Cost goes down, sponsorship per bike goes down with it.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but you are right to point out that cost is only one side of the equation. The big problem with MotoGP is the disastrous failure to secure sponsorship. I will put good money on Yamaha running without a sponsor again next year, and that doesn't have all that much to do with cost. The income side has always been the series' Achilles heel because of tobacco sponsorship. Those years, the teams had money thrown at them, and it distorted their view of reality. They are only just waking up to the reality of the situation now.

povol said:

Somehow i dont see any of that happening once the factories are gone. These "racing companies" will almost assuredly be perpetually underfunded and technology will stagnate. it will be like having an entire field of satellite bikes with many spending the minimum on bike and rider so the company can show a viable bottom line to sponsors.



Oh, are you saying a rich Ducati buyer is any less squidish than someone who buys Japanese. I can assure you, they are not. Probably more.

Click to expand...

Funding is already bad enough to force manufacturers out. Kawasaki is gone, and Suzuki are apparently on the way out. Ducati live on Marlboro welfare, though Marlboro aren't even allowed to show their company logo. Honda and Yamaha have money, but both companies continue to cut back.



Revs and fuel-efficiency have caused exponential cost growth since the 990s. Revs cause engines to deteriorate quickly, and most of the manufacturers are required to lease their pneumatic valve technology (Honda have their own kit from F1). Fuel-efficiency is behind the exorbitant cost of electronics, transmissions, lubricants, etc. It isn't a big deal if the GPC reduce the rev ceiling and add fuel. I still find it odd that you would support bad fuel regulations just to keep production equipment out of the sport. Are you a closet Prius driver?



Ducati are known for courting wealthy armchair GP riders, not squids. The Japanese are known for keeping licensing regulations out of the US so they can sell cookie-cutters to teenagers. Yay for freedom, boo for abusing it. Regardless of squid culture, I'm merely pointing out that superbike is getting dumber b/c the Japanese refuse to smart up their production bikes. They believe superbikes should be aluminum and steel. It was Ducati who insisted that SBK remain titanium and magnesium, and they are the only manufacturer to continue building homologation specials with titanium internals.

--