Why the hate for MotoGP?

chopperman · Jul 28, 2012

So you see Krop, reading some posts above you see the speculation and conjecture accepted as fact by some. This provokes others to respond and the threads and posts end up many. What other series has this type of drama and speculation?

Kropotkin · Jul 28, 2012

Mental Anarchist said:
I agree with all that, but. There is a big difference from promoting riders into the series and promoting riders on to the best bikes.

I am surprised you would suggest the above is justification as you always look deeper than that. If Dorna was truly fair they would have said no to Honda and told them to put Bradl on the factory Honda. Bradl is world class and I declare it now, he will NEVER get a factory ride in MotoGP. The others you site will never get factory rides. Once Rossi is gone the earth will revolve around Marquez and the whole thing will just continue on in the contrived nature that it is now.

There is talk that Bradl could get a factory Ducati ride. The problem at Honda is not Dorna, it is Repsol, they want a Spanish rider to sell to their market (Spain). The problem is that the sport is popular in Spain and Italy, and that's where most of the sponsorship is coming from. This too is changing, with the focus shifting to Asia. Expect to see Dorna favoring Malaysian riders in the next 3-5 years.

As for Bradl being world class, he is an outstanding rider, but he is not an alien. He is at the same level as Crutchlow or Dovizioso, but he couldn't beat Lorenzo. Marquez has a legitimate shot at beating Lorenzo on equal terms. Ask people who know - people who are not Spanish - about Marquez, and they will tell you he is something special. Casey Stoner, noted hater of all things political, says Marquez is the rider who deserves his ride the most. Marquez has a silver spoon in his mouth, is on the best team and has the best equipment. But it's a chicken & egg situation: is he the best rider because he's on the best team, or is he on the best team because he's the best rider?

Personally, I can't wait to see Espargaro get into MotoGP. I think he can beat Marquez, and he is one of those riders that has not had the advantages, but has succeeded despite that. He could well end up being hampered by his nationality, rather than helped, but I see a lot of potential there.

Geonerd · Jul 28, 2012

Regarding the dumbing-down.

The issue for me is that the rule changes are always in the same direction - it seems they are always removing options. Nothing is ever relaxed, and the series is relentlessly squeezed closer to an eventual NASBIKE spec.

To my mind, the recent limits on engine configuration are the most damnable. I might be able to stomach the 21liter limit, or a stock ECU, IF the factories were allowed to develop something else. Cylinder limits - WHY? If you're going to pimp CRT, give BMW and triumph a way to squeeze their in-line 6 and triple engines into the series. Kill the absurd 81mm bore limit - how is it any cheaper to develop a long-stroke engine than a short stroke? (They will both wind up being pushed to the edge of destruction.) And what's with the 15K rev limit? I shouldn't be able to buy an off-the-shelf bike that can rev just as fast.

Kropotkin · Jul 28, 2012

Geonerd said:
Regarding the dumbing-down.

The issue for me is that the rule changes are always in the same direction - it seems they are always removing options. Nothing is ever relaxed, and the series is relentlessly squeezed closer to an eventual NASBIKE spec.

To my mind, the recent limits on engine configuration are the most damnable. I might be able to stomach the 21liter limit, or a stock ECU, IF the factories were allowed to develop something else. Cylinder limits - WHY? If you're going to pimp CRT, give BMW and triumph a way to squeeze their in-line 6 and triple engines into the series. Kill the absurd 81mm bore limit - how is it any cheaper to develop a long-stroke engine than a short stroke? (They will both wind up being pushed to the edge of destruction.) And what's with the 15K rev limit? I shouldn't be able to buy an off-the-shelf bike that can rev just as fast.

The 15k rev limit (the 81mm bore was just a surrogate for a rev limit) is because the faster parts move, the more difficult it is to stop them from blowing themselves up. As the forces on valves and pistons increase with engine speed, so the added value of rare and expensive materials increases. Therefore costs go up. The rev limit is a no-brainer. The Spec ECU is a no-brainer, given that the factories are pouring more and more money into electronics, and using electronics to do more and more stuff (Corrado Cecchinelli talked to me about using the ECU as an element of chassis setup). Electronics is like aerodynamics, it is something you can throw cubic dollars at and still get a return from.

To me, removing the rules and leaving just an energy limit in place would create cheaper racing, but no racing series has ever done that. So you have to limit the marginal return on the most expensive parts of the package. That won't stop factories throwing cubic dollars at a problem, it just means that they will be wasting that money if they choose to.

povol · Jul 28, 2012

Kropotkin said:
They started dumbing down the sport in 1969, when they limited the number of gears and the number of cylinders. Or maybe even pre-war, when they banned supercharging.

Yet performance has increased by leaps and bounds. You know exactly what im saying. Proposing rev limits, spec ecu's and implementing CRT's has taken the sport backwards, period. As far as the riders, i have stated before that i could not care less if every rider was from the same home town in Spain or where ever, as long as they deserve to be there.If there is no rider from the US worthy, than there is no rider from the US worthy. Same for any country. Riders like Yonny Hernandez do not belong in Moto GP, its .... like this that makes a mockery of the sport. Second rate machines with second rate riders does not make for the pinnacle of motorcycle racing

hawkdriver · Jul 28, 2012

povol said:
Yet performance has increased by leaps and bounds. You know exactly what im saying. Proposing rev limits, spec ecu's and implementing CRT's has taken the sport backwards, period. As far as the riders, i have stated before that i could not care less if every rider was from the same home town in Spain or where ever, as long as they deserve to be there.If there is no rider from the US worthy, than there is no rider from the US worthy. Same for any country. Riders like Yonny Hernandez do not belong in Moto GP, its .... like this that makes a mockery of the sport. Second rate machines with second rate riders does not make for the pinnacle of motorcycle racing

Did you notice the times put in by CS and JLo today, the bikes are getting faster and they didn't have special qualifying tires on them to do it.

Geonerd · Jul 28, 2012

Kropotkin said:
The 15k rev limit (the 81mm bore was just a surrogate for a rev limit) is because the faster parts move, the more difficult it is to stop them from blowing themselves up. As the forces on valves and pistons increase with engine speed, so the added value of rare and expensive materials increases. Therefore costs go up. The rev limit is a no-brainer. The Spec ECU is a no-brainer, given that the factories are pouring more and more money into electronics, and using electronics to do more and more stuff (Corrado Cecchinelli talked to me about using the ECU as an element of chassis setup). Electronics is like aerodynamics, it is something you can throw cubic dollars at and still get a return from.

To me, removing the rules and leaving just an energy limit in place would create cheaper racing, but no racing series has ever done that. So you have to limit the marginal return on the most expensive parts of the package. That won't stop factories throwing cubic dollars at a problem, it just means that they will be wasting that money if they choose to.

Sure F=MV^2. (And $ ~= V^3)

But somehow, "15,000 RPM!" just doesn't produce the 'Wow!' factor that a MotoGP bike should.

15K is, however, just a hair above where the CRT bikes are currently revving.... Lowest common denominator, here we come!

Talpa · Jul 28, 2012

Thanks Kropo, great contributions and thread. It is interesting, I believe the phenomenon of the 990 era and the later 500cc era of course created a huge fanbase for Motogp, WSBK always has has good support and has no doubt its fair share of dubious political influence, particularly from Ducati. What WSBK has retained is good racing on track, Motogp has not. Somehow Pirelli and the format continues to deliver better competition and more manufacturers willing to participate for far less.

The huge fanbase that Motogp has enjoyed wants to see it return to a more entertaining spectacle, and most of us are usually venting our frustration at the reg changes, tyre issues and Honda influence. And then theres the soap opera that Rog mentioned, and the debate that will seemingly never end over two particular riders.......

Kropotkin · Jul 28, 2012

povol said:
Yet performance has increased by leaps and bounds. You know exactly what im saying.

Actually, I don't. The pinnacle, like the best of the best, is a relative term, not an absolute term. As long as Jorge Lorenzo is riding in MotoGP, or being beaten by Marc Marquez or Valentino Rossi, or Pol Espargaro, then this is the best series in the world. These bikes are already dumbed down, the spec tire rule has forced design limitations, the fuel limit even worse design limitations. Why do we have both a capacity limit and a fuel limit? It makes no sense.

These are crippled machines. I don't think that the extent to which they are crippled really makes that much difference.

Here's a real prototype:

Kropotkin · Jul 28, 2012

Talpa said:
What WSBK has retained is good racing on track, Motogp has not. Somehow Pirelli and the format continues to deliver better competition and more manufacturers willing to participate for far less.

1. the development costs of WSBK are hidden. They are racing street bikes (..sort of...) and the sales of those street bikes cover the development costs. This is a massive factor.

2. You want to talk about manipulation? You should hear the rumored shenanigans (which I will not repeat, for fear of being sued) that go on about who gets which tires in WSBK, and why, and who decides.

mylexicon · Jul 28, 2012

povol said:
Everyone here wants to love GP, but look around at the state of the sport and then ask your question. You have .... machines running with factory prototypes. You have the owner of the series making statements like " Im calm, Valentino will be on a competitive bike in 2013". I still cant beleive he was stupid enough to make that quote to the press. True or not true, if the appearance of inequity is there, it exists. You have 2 of the best riders in the world bailing on the series because they are sick of the ........ that oozes from every pore. You have rules changes a month before the season starts, wiping out a year and a halfs worth of development. Then you change the regs again a third of the way through the season.. Should i go on. I told anyone who would listen that Moto GP was headed for the abyss when they started dumbing down the sport. Only a few would listen. That few is multiplying like a virus as they come to the realization manipulated racing is NOT what they really want. For GP to save itself, it has to ween itself from Rossi, the sooner the better. They have to come to grips that GP may never see the good times of the last 12 years. It was a strange phenomonon where for some reason, a very large group of people became mesmerized by a clown. They really cant explain it themselves what happened, just got caught up in the cult. Once the trance had been broken, more and more started listening to the heretics [ non Rossi fans ] and realized what they had been watching for the last decade was a charade. Some got embarrassed and went away, some got angry and switched allegence, some said who cares, as long as my guy wins i dont care what you do with regulations. First and foremost, you fire Ezpeleta, the fan has lost confidence in him to run a racing series. Second, you let Rossi sink or swim on his own. We dont hate Moto GP, we hate what a select few are doing to it.

What dumbing down? The bikes are the same as they have been for years. A few sensors have been banned, and bore measurements have been limited. Other than that, the bikes are the same 4-cylinder 4-stroke computers they have been since 2006. The control tire is unfortunate, but they worked hard to keep the tire war going in 2008, only to have some sort of falling out within the GPC over the tire regs.

The manipulation you rail against is only half the problem. The MSMA has been manipulating the rulebook since they convinced the FIM and Dorna to abandon the two stroke formula. Now Dorna are manipulating the sport to get the bills paid and draw new investors/sponsors. It is beyond me that you can be hypersensitive to one form of manipulation and oblivious to the other, based upon your love or hate for various participants.

MotoGP sucks b/c the sport suffers from a massive divergence between expectations and reality. The expectations are high (and they should be), Unfortunately, the GPC delivers a steaming pile of manure. None of us should ever be impressed with mediocrity. Our expectations are high, but not extraordinary. We only expect 4-5 manufacturers and two dozen riders. A proper formula would have the GP paddock teeming with prospective entrants, much like the 990cc 24L formula.

chopperman · Jul 28, 2012

Kropotkin said:
Actually, I don't. The pinnacle, like the best of the best, is a relative term, not an absolute term. As long as Jorge Lorenzo is riding in MotoGP, or being beaten by Marc Marquez or Valentino Rossi, or Pol Espargaro, then this is the best series in the world. These bikes are already dumbed down, the spec tire rule has forced design limitations, the fuel limit even worse design limitations. Why do we have both a capacity limit and a fuel limit? It makes no sense.

These are crippled machines. I don't think that the extent to which they are crippled really makes that much difference.

Here's a real prototype:

And here's another one

13859:ELF2 1.jpg]

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 28, 2012

Kropotkin said:
Miller came with his parents and raced wherever he could (sound familiar?).

Racing wherever you could was possible when there was space given over in the paddock to riders in the support classes, perhaps with a trailer or a large van - the grass roots, as opposed to being mown down by ostentatious profligate corporate hospitality.

Kropotkin · Jul 28, 2012

Arrabbiata1 said:
Racing wherever you could was possible when there was space given over in the paddock to riders in the support classes, perhaps with a trailer or a large van - the grass roots, as opposed to being mown down by ostentatious profligate corporate hospitality.

So I heard about the ban on Moo2/Moto3 trailers in the paddock. Yet every race weekend, I see Scott Redding and Jasper iwema's standing there (they share a motorhome). I asked Jasper about it, and he said only the rentals are banned. If you own your own motorhome, you can still park up in the paddock.

As for hospitality units, I am ambiguous about them. They often do look stupid, but they pay for the sport. The sponsors want to come and see what they are paying for, they want to be able to do business with their partners there. They need somewhere to do that.

The real problem is that teams bringing sponsors to the sport too often find that Dorna steals them to be a title sponsor of an event...

Kropotkin · Jul 28, 2012

chopperman said:
And here's another one

13859:ELF2 1.jpg]

I have had several interesting conversations about why we don't have any hub steering or other FFE bikes in MotoGP. The problem is feel: riders grow up racing a particular kind of bike with a particular feel. If you give them something that feels different, they don't understand the feedback they are receiving. The rider, too, is a major limiting factor for technology. They have to be able to ride the thing, and they have to be able to understand what's going on.

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 28, 2012

mylexicon said:
What dumbing down? The bikes are the same as they have been for years.

I think that Pov is referring to the compromising of a 'prototype' series with the emergence of proddie based engines to slash costs and the concern that the CRT model is the future of the sport. Production derived engines have been seen on the past in the sport but the bid to swell grid numbers via this route threatens to usurp the thoroughbred prototype which has become a hallmark of the series.

The demise of qualifiers is in my opinion a lost art. The change to all four stroke albeit not a recent switch was inevitable progress with road going two strokes inevitably superseded by the eco friendly four stroke counterparts - but the disappearance of the 500's marked the end of an elitist era. Moves are now afoot to ban carbon discs unless supplier costs can be vastly reduced which is unlikely.

chopperman · Jul 28, 2012

Kropotkin said:
I have had several interesting conversations about why we don't have any hub steering or other FFE bikes in MotoGP. The problem is feel: riders grow up racing a particular kind of bike with a particular feel. If you give them something that feels different, they don't understand the feedback they are receiving. The rider, too, is a major limiting factor for technology. They have to be able to ride the thing, and they have to be able to understand what's going on.

The problem with it back in rocket Rons day was "bump steer" although that can be eradicated with today's technology. There are clear advantages ie rake and trail remaining consistent under braking compared to the conventional telescopic fork. I take you point about new riders being too unfamiliar with this set up these day and that's a shame imo.

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 28, 2012

Kropotkin said:
So I heard about the ban on Moo2/Moto3 trailers in the paddock. Yet every race weekend, I see Scott Redding and Jasper iwema's standing there (they share a motorhome). I asked Jasper about it, and he said only the rentals are banned. If you own your own motorhome, you can still park up in the paddock..

Which Casey didn't although according to today's rules he would still be ok in the trailer he shared with Chaz. (I've often wondered where were Colin and Bronwyn?)

I'll wager that Jack Mlller does not own a motorhome btw.

Historically and currently I can name a stack of riders that raced week in week out out of hire vehicles

Kropotkin · Jul 28, 2012

Arrabbiata1 said:
The demise of qualifiers is in my opinion a lost art. The change to all four stroke albeit not a recent switch was inevitable progress with road going two strokes inevitably superseded by the eco friendly four stroke counterparts - but the disappearance of the 500's marked the end of an elitist era. Moves are now afoot to ban carbon discs unless supplier costs can be vastly reduced which is unlikely.

The eco-friendly argument was Honda ........ propaganda. Honda have always hated two strokes, and the switch to four strokes was very much engineered by them. In fact, two strokes is where the real advances are being made in cleaning emissions. In some marine applications, four strokes are being banned and only two strokes are allowed to be used. Also, if MotoGP is an R&D exercise, then all you would need to do is impose emissions restrictions (maybe better than a fuel limit, actually) and allow people to race whatever they wanted. You would soon see big improvements in emissions and power.

As for the brakes, they won't ban carbon. They may well impose a spec braking system, however. What they want to do is get rid of the price increases year by year. Basically, we already have spec brakes and spec suspension, with only Gresini the odd man out using Nissin and Showa. Guy Coulon said some interesting things to me about diversity:

"[font=Verdana, sans-serif]Sometime, or nearly every time, a rider like better to use the same thing than others, so that is why we have less and less [chassis] makers.[/font]"

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]Q: Which is why everyone is on a Kalex now. Because one rider, Stefan won , so it must be the Kalex, so give me a Kalex and I will beat him, is that how it is?[/font]

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]GC: Yes, this is exactly it. And everybody wants the same brake, and the same suspension, because if you have a different suspension and if you are behind others, it is because of the suspension, even if your suspension is working very well. [/font]

The riders are a big part of why we have spec equipment. They want the same as everyone else has, that gives someone a monopoly position, and they start to abuse that to make money.

BarryMachine · Jul 28, 2012

Kropotkin said:
The eco-friendly argument was Honda ........ propaganda. Honda have always hated two strokes, and the switch to four strokes was very much engineered by them. In fact, two strokes is where the real advances are being made in cleaning emissions. In some marine applications, four strokes are being banned and only two strokes are allowed to be used. Also, if MotoGP is an R&D exercise, then all you would need to do is impose emissions restrictions (maybe better than a fuel limit, actually) and allow people to race whatever they wanted. You would soon see big improvements in emissions and power.

As for the brakes, they won't ban carbon. They may well impose a spec braking system, however. What they want to do is get rid of the price increases year by year. Basically, we already have spec brakes and spec suspension, with only Gresini the odd man out using Nissin and Showa. Guy Coulon said some interesting things to me about diversity:

"[font=Verdana, sans-serif]Sometime, or nearly every time, a rider like better to use the same thing than others, so that is why we have less and less [chassis] makers.[/font]"

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]Q: Which is why everyone is on a Kalex now. Because one rider, Stefan won , so it must be the Kalex, so give me a Kalex and I will beat him, is that how it is?[/font]

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]GC: Yes, this is exactly it. And everybody wants the same brake, and the same suspension, because if you have a different suspension and if you are behind others, it is because of the suspension, even if your suspension is working very well. [/font]

The riders are a big part of why we have spec equipment. They want the same as everyone else has, that gives someone a monopoly position, and they start to abuse that to make money.

We're talking ships here aren't we!!??

Sticking a sticker on the side of an outboard saying "eco" and then DI'ing the fuel in tiny amounts, at much reduced potential power of a "ye olde" two stroke, is not curving the momentum of four strokes in outboards.

Saves on tooling up for a "ye olde" manufacturer though

Mind you I'm all for it, if they ever manage to make miniature ships engines that are proportionally as dynamically efficient as a big 50,000HP diesel.

Why the hate for MotoGP?

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

chopperman

Kropotkin

Geonerd

Desert Varmint

Kropotkin

povol

hawkdriver

Geonerd

Desert Varmint

Talpa

Kropotkin

Kropotkin

mylexicon

chopperman

Attachments

Arrabbiata1

Blue Smoker

Kropotkin

Kropotkin

Arrabbiata1

Blue Smoker

chopperman

Arrabbiata1

Blue Smoker

Kropotkin

BarryMachine

Similar threads

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions