Of what benefit are any of the things you type?
You argue that the talent pool should be arbitrarily smaller than it could be if practical rules were used. The result is less competition amongst the riders which means they are possibly less deserving than if the rules were altered--the exact opposite of what you claim.
You argue that the manufacturers should be allowed to write whatever rules they please, though they didn't write the rules until 2002. Their underlying objective is to artificially alter the distance between the competitors at the finish line. They also undermine the 80/20 formula which is probably the most important part of GP's tradition, and one of the most important elements of separating 'the men from the boys'. You don't seem to care.
Now that you can no longer avoid the consequences of blanket endorsements for the manufacturers, your response is that you only wish you could have more. I read what you type, it is mind boggling--a Christmas list with no particular relation to reality. What have I been talking about for the last several years? Rev limits, tire regulations, increasing manufacturer participation, and rider stature. All of those things are on the front burner, and I've explained why people would be obsessing about them. I recently implied that success ballasting was the work of the manufacturers. Two-days later Domenicali fessed up.
If you want the things you want, you'll quit wasting your time trying to convince me I've lost the plot, and you'll start coming up with clever ways to preserve what you want.
