Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Each sentence could support a theoretical economic dissertation about the motivation for these changes and the implications (technological, economic, political, and otherwise) for the sport. My head is about to explode. Good day overall.
However, I do think Ezpeleta is making another mistake, rhetorically and philsophically. MotoGP can't pick either technology or entertainment. MotoGP picked technology in 2007. Arbitrarily picking entertainment would be a folly of equal magnitude. Motorsport is always entertainment, but entertainment is not always motorsport. Motorsport always involves technology, but technology does not always involve motorsport. If they will just focus on sport, and the ideas of sports competition (competition being the key word), they won't have to pick between the lesser of two evils.
However, I do think Ezpeleta is making another mistake, rhetorically and philsophically. MotoGP can't pick either technology or entertainment. MotoGP picked technology in 2007. Arbitrarily picking entertainment would be a folly of equal magnitude. Motorsport is always entertainment, but entertainment is not always motorsport. Motorsport always involves technology, but technology does not always involve motorsport. If they will just focus on sport, and the ideas of sports competition (competition being the key word), they won't have to pick between the lesser of two evils.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
What future, if the rules he proposes are implemented, GP is dead. Just curious, does Ezpeleta attend all the manufactureres new season extravaganzas
Spec ECU, rev limit, restrictions on engine development and a weight handicap system.
Does that sound like the premier prototype motorcycle racing series on the planet. .... it, kill it off, or at the least change the name. This is like going to bed with Jennifer Aniston, and waking up with that loud mouth .... Rosie O'donnell
Spec ECU, rev limit, restrictions on engine development and a weight handicap system.
Does that sound like the premier prototype motorcycle racing series on the planet. .... it, kill it off, or at the least change the name. This is like going to bed with Jennifer Aniston, and waking up with that loud mouth .... Rosie O'donnell
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
this will inevitably look like wsbk where people constantly ..... and moan about supposed advantages/handicaps
acceptable in production racing, but in gp?
why can't they just put those guys on stock r6s so that at least they all have the same equipment so that its only about the riders ...stupid motorcycles
acceptable in production racing, but in gp?
why can't they just put those guys on stock r6s so that at least they all have the same equipment so that its only about the riders ...stupid motorcycles
Joined Feb 2008
2K Posts | 0+
home
Ok, I’ll bite.
It is my opinion that MotoGP should be a racing competition between different bikes and different riders. Success should, in my opinion, be a result of a combination of bike development plus rider skill plus luck. In my opinion, this is the basis of what Motogp should be. In my opinion.
How should it be paid for? With money.
Seriously though, in my opinion, it should directly be paid for by those that develop the bikes. They, in turn should also, in my opinion, reap some of the direct profits.
Well, that’s my opinion.
Fire away.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
And that my friend is why GP is different than any other bike racing series in the world. Its about INNOVATION, not spec engines, spec tires, spec ecu's and Oh My God, weight handicapping. You dont hear teams bitching in GP about other teams being faster because of tech regs, why, simple. All you are doing is drawing attention to your failure as an innovator. They may whine about being monetarily disadvantaged, but you rarely hear someone ..... about tech regs like they do in WSBK. The first thing that needs to change in GP is Ezpeleta himself.
Joined Jul 2006
11K Posts | 291+
Texas
Dude its Moto GP not Moto Proto GP..
the prob is they allowed it to get too high tech.. i dont care for the rev limit but a combined rider bike weight limit and and stock ECU is cool, the sport has been taken over by midgets and i hate midgets.. IMO they should strip off ALL and any rider assists also.
1 million Euro and you OWN the machine is wayyyy better than 3.5 million Euro to borrow a bike for a few months..
Joined Feb 2008
2K Posts | 0+
home
True, it is not by definition. However, not differentiating it as a prototype class is problematic as long as there is another championship out there that's pretty much fishing in the same pond. That is not the only reason to value the prototype aspect, but I believe it is the most important one when thinking about long term survival of the series.
Weight ballasting is a way to avoid spec equipment, that's why weight ballasting is used in GT racing, Grand Am, and any other series with balance of performance. Success ballast is not technically a balance of performance, but the main idea is still to incorporate different designs and performance levels into a single competitive formula. Sanctioning bodies don't use success ballast in spec series, like NASCAR or IRL, b/c there is no need.
The confusion amongst the punters is starting to piss me off b/c confused lunacy stops the governing officials from releasing information to the public. Just read between the damn lines. Three or four different sanctioning methods, all of which create different versions of MotoGP, have been mentioned in one article. Furthermore, Ezpeleta has said that a rules package must be finalized by May, which means a rules package isn't final now. The GPC are obviously still discussing how they will regulate the sport! Preziosi said last month that the GPC would spend the off season trying to find the right 'cocktail' of the rules, yet people still don't realize that the rev limit, spec equipment, success ballast, and reconciling the factory and CRT regs are part of a giant brainstorming session.
If any of you have ever wondered why racing is a cloak and dagger business that operates in complete non-disclosure under the dark of night during the new moon, you need only look at how people react when they get a window into the sport.
Joined Feb 2008
2K Posts | 0+
home
Yeah. Much better to wait until decisions are made until you make your concerns be heard. Let the ones in charge make their decisions in peace. I mean, they don't have their power for no good reason, right? Oviously, they know what's best. Really, who are we to interfere?
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
You first. I specifically said IF these rules are implemented, so yes, i realize that these are rules changes being kicked around, and that one, or maybe all, can be implemented. Im just saying, if GP ends up a spec tire, spec ecu, rev limited, weight handicapped racing series, it will die on the vine.
You already know Ezpeleta wants a spec ECU and a rev limit. He reiterated his stance at Wroom. Who do you think it proposing the success ballast?
As you have said letting the manufacturers set the formula has been a dismal failure. However the last failed formula also was related to public opinion, or at least a concern that something had to change because of the effect of a tragedy on public opinion.
My concern is that ezy is a merchant banker, not a racing guy, and I am not convinced he knows what he is doing. Even bernie, despicable though he may be these days, actually ran a car racing team. Ezy just seems to be running through various schemes that have been tried in car racing. His bottom line usually seems to be to ape what bernie has done in F1, F1 being commercially successful. WCW wrestling is or was commercially successful as well, but it isn't a sport.
As you say the EU bureaucrats or whomever who forced the sale of the sport when it was thriving apparently for philosophical reasons have a lot to answer for.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
There is no reason to add ballast if Dorna are already pushing for rev limits and spec ECU. Ezpeleta already stated emphatically that rider/bike ballasting is stupid (and complicated). Why would Dorna suddenly be interested in adding ballast?
BTW this is an interesting time to point out that SBK, which has almost no performance controls
I tend to agree about Ezy. I admire his fervor and his willingness to take on the manufacturers, but he's not a racing guy like Bernie, and his not an uber-intellectual barrister like Max Mosley. Thing about Ezy, though, is that he knows he's not a racing man or an uber-intellectual, and he's quite open about it. I think he has been content to let the FIM and then the MSMA have the rulebook b/c he knew he couldn't handle it. When he realized he might want the rulebook, he hired Corrado Checcinello to help communicate with the MSMA. Now that he has problems with Bridgestone and the control tire in general, he has hired Hiroshi Yasukawa, Bridgestone's ex-racing director and one of the most qualified race tire gurus on the planet.
Ezpeleta is not a great communicator, and I think that is his only real downfall. He says things and invokes ideas that are often confusing or controversial. In this article he said that it is more important for GP to be entertainment than technological sport. If that's the case, WCW is a possibility under Ezy's philosophy. However, it is highly debatable, imo, whether Checchinello, Yasukawa, and the technical partners they represent will blindly follow Ezpeleta down the road to WCW. I think IRTA will follow Ezy wherever he goes, but not the rest of the paddock.
Joined Apr 2011
1K Posts | 87+
Pangea
The first rumblings of discontent from the factories.....
Ducati boss Claudio Domenicali says Aprilia’s decision to supply a new 1000cc MotoGP bike based on its RSV4 World Superbike machine is not in the spirit of new CRT rules introduced for 2012.
"CRT was born to make the possibility for someone to buy an engine and to tune it and build a prototype. But here we are in front of a superbike machine just painted in a different colour and saying it is a MotoGP bike. I don’t think this is very nice but let’s say for one year only we consider it is not a big problem. But if we end up with a championship in which every motorcycle manufacturer races with a superbike, it is a different animal and not anymore prototype. And that is a bit of a problem.”
If MotoGP is to be dumbed down then WSBK must surely follow this trend otherwise the two series risk eventually evolving into the same thing.....it is simply unacceptable to have a production based bike series setting lap times similar to race specific prototypes.
Personally I think WSBK should be a purely production based series with few if any modifications allowed to the bikes, run on production based tires you can buy at your local bike shop.... the latest streetbikes are insanely fast so speed is not really an issue - it will still be exciting and more indicitave of which manufacturer is building the best bike that you and I and the man on the street can walk into a shop and buy. Now that the 2 series are owned by the same entity this might actually be possible.
MGP on the other should be the pinnacle of technology with the fastest bikes and the best riders on board...but it must also become more financially sustainable/viable to survive. However, this must not come at the expense of making it a contrived racing spectacle which it already has become to a certain degree....MGP has never been about "equity" between competitors but unfortunately with the MSMA controlling the rules we have seen an increase in the number of regulations that I simply dont feel should be a part of the sport....spec tires, fuel regs, engine regs etc etc. These rules have benefitted the companies with the deepest pockets and subsequently many of the other manufacturers who were so keen to be a part of MGP when it went 4 stroke have left with now only the 2 big factories remaining....not a good situation for the sport with anorexic grids and spiralling costs being the result.
I guess compromises need to be made to slow the bikes down, make them cheaper to produce and make them as safe as possible. I dont believe in rules being issued in a bid to make racing "more exciting". It becomes more entertainment than sport when this happens...think wwf. Success ballast...you got to be ....... kidding me!
As we already have a control tire in the series surely that can be used to keep the speed aspect under control without having engine rev limits and fuel regs. This also makes the bikes cheaper to produce as you dont need to spend R&D money developing fuel efficiencies etc
The fuel regs also disadvantage heavier riders who need to run different engine mappping to get to the finish line. Piss off fuel regs altogether. Now there is no need to introduce a rule to disadvantage lighter riders....anyway Pedrosa should be a 10x world champ by now if he had such a distinct advantage.
Spec ECU....I am OK with that but I would prefer ZERO electronics other than some very basic allowances as they are supposedly one of the most expensive aspects of developing these prototypes. It also gives control back to the pilots...no more TC won rider X his WC ........!
Engine rev limits....no need if the control tire is the factor determining outright speed for these machines.
Now that control of the rulebook is being wrestled away from the MSMA (no doubt a good thing) they (the faceless puppet masters) have an opportunity to rewrite these rules to the benefit of everyone in the paddock. Unfortunately it seems to me that they are just increasing the number of rules in a vain attempt to concoct a spectacle for todays ADD afflicted spectators....all the while ignoring the traditions of what this series has been built around over the past 60 odd years.
Lastly I would like to add that what I just said means jack .... and I really havent got a clue what I am talking about
Ducati boss Claudio Domenicali says Aprilia’s decision to supply a new 1000cc MotoGP bike based on its RSV4 World Superbike machine is not in the spirit of new CRT rules introduced for 2012.
"CRT was born to make the possibility for someone to buy an engine and to tune it and build a prototype. But here we are in front of a superbike machine just painted in a different colour and saying it is a MotoGP bike. I don’t think this is very nice but let’s say for one year only we consider it is not a big problem. But if we end up with a championship in which every motorcycle manufacturer races with a superbike, it is a different animal and not anymore prototype. And that is a bit of a problem.”
If MotoGP is to be dumbed down then WSBK must surely follow this trend otherwise the two series risk eventually evolving into the same thing.....it is simply unacceptable to have a production based bike series setting lap times similar to race specific prototypes.
Personally I think WSBK should be a purely production based series with few if any modifications allowed to the bikes, run on production based tires you can buy at your local bike shop.... the latest streetbikes are insanely fast so speed is not really an issue - it will still be exciting and more indicitave of which manufacturer is building the best bike that you and I and the man on the street can walk into a shop and buy. Now that the 2 series are owned by the same entity this might actually be possible.
MGP on the other should be the pinnacle of technology with the fastest bikes and the best riders on board...but it must also become more financially sustainable/viable to survive. However, this must not come at the expense of making it a contrived racing spectacle which it already has become to a certain degree....MGP has never been about "equity" between competitors but unfortunately with the MSMA controlling the rules we have seen an increase in the number of regulations that I simply dont feel should be a part of the sport....spec tires, fuel regs, engine regs etc etc. These rules have benefitted the companies with the deepest pockets and subsequently many of the other manufacturers who were so keen to be a part of MGP when it went 4 stroke have left with now only the 2 big factories remaining....not a good situation for the sport with anorexic grids and spiralling costs being the result.
I guess compromises need to be made to slow the bikes down, make them cheaper to produce and make them as safe as possible. I dont believe in rules being issued in a bid to make racing "more exciting". It becomes more entertainment than sport when this happens...think wwf. Success ballast...you got to be ....... kidding me!
As we already have a control tire in the series surely that can be used to keep the speed aspect under control without having engine rev limits and fuel regs. This also makes the bikes cheaper to produce as you dont need to spend R&D money developing fuel efficiencies etc
The fuel regs also disadvantage heavier riders who need to run different engine mappping to get to the finish line. Piss off fuel regs altogether. Now there is no need to introduce a rule to disadvantage lighter riders....anyway Pedrosa should be a 10x world champ by now if he had such a distinct advantage.
Spec ECU....I am OK with that but I would prefer ZERO electronics other than some very basic allowances as they are supposedly one of the most expensive aspects of developing these prototypes. It also gives control back to the pilots...no more TC won rider X his WC ........!
Engine rev limits....no need if the control tire is the factor determining outright speed for these machines.
Now that control of the rulebook is being wrestled away from the MSMA (no doubt a good thing) they (the faceless puppet masters) have an opportunity to rewrite these rules to the benefit of everyone in the paddock. Unfortunately it seems to me that they are just increasing the number of rules in a vain attempt to concoct a spectacle for todays ADD afflicted spectators....all the while ignoring the traditions of what this series has been built around over the past 60 odd years.
Lastly I would like to add that what I just said means jack .... and I really havent got a clue what I am talking about
