So how do you control costs in MotoGP? As well as top speeds ...
Is it about controlling costs, or about making it affordable to compete? Because they aren't mutually exclusive, IMO.
If the rules weren't so stringent, you could run all sorts of engines. Sure the HRCs and Yamaha's of the world will still want to spend millions to win, but when some smart cookie from engine design school gets his weirdo push-me-pull-you engine working and is competitive at a cost 1/5th of that of HRC, they will start to see that an outright materials arms race is less productive than smart engineering.
I think the problem started when Dorna decided to regulate the hell out of everything.
With a simple formula like 1000cc, any cylinders, 150kg minimum weight (to remove the need for expensive lightweight compositse) no fuel limit, we would see more prototypes like the Csysz and Britten and such.
With no regulations about production v prototype, we would see the reallly fast boys from SBK pushing the GP guys along, then improving thier product further.
Stoner was right - the reason for the costs is the ever-changing playing field. It isn't like 500GP got boring, did it? They said it was too fast - but it took no time at all for MotoGP to break all 500GP records.
If they settled for something simple like an RPM limit, that wold keep speeds relatively safe.
But really, I want to see a return to 'run whatcha brung' with very few rules. I want to see a new breed of V4 500cc FI 2 strokes!