Why the hate for MotoGP?

Kropotkin said:

I think you are misunderstanding me. I believe there is plenty of room to criticize MotoGP, and plenty of reason to. The sport has one main failing - it has become financially unsustainable - and two parties are to blame. The manufacturers, for fixing the rules to create a barrier to entry using costs, and Dorna, for being such an utter failure at raising sponsorship for the series. I think it is vital that the sport is criticized for these two failures, and I'm working no a couple of articles about this, to be written over the next couple of weeks.



What I do find curious is the favorable comparison to WSBK all the time, a comparison that is not backed up by numbers. MotoGP is massively more popular than World Superbikes, as a quick glance at the numbers will show. My main beef is not with criticism of MotoGP, but with the odd hypocrisy of saying "WSBK is way better" and then not watching the series or commenting on it. If people think WSBK is better, they have an odd way of showing it.

Click to expand...

B/c people are inept hypocrites (or the Flamminis suck at brokering TV deals), the racing in WSBK is not better than MotoGP? I'm not feeling it.



WSBK is more interesting in terms of the individual races and the competitiveness of the manufacturers. If they brought the same performance paradigms to MotoGP, it would overflow with participants. I don't blame the MSMA for refusing to rev-limit MotoGP (necessarily raising fuel capacity, as well), but they should be searching for a new style of formula. I don't care if Honda and Yamaha win everything--they probably deserve it--but the "no one shall ever build a brand or a company by having their photo taken with us in the paddock" is a level of subhuman BS that warrants heavy-handed reprisal from the FIM and Dorna. The more the MSMA push for corporate hegemony, the more likely it is that the sport will be dumbed down into some penny-dreadful clone of NASCAR. Look at F1.



The MSMA have an incentive to scorch the earth behind them, if they think they will lose control of GP. Supporting any of their agendas is a precarious strategy. Game theory tells us how the MSMA will play. Maxi-max says to maintain the status quo at all costs. Mini-max or mini-min, depending on the perspective, says to pull the plug and kill MotoGP stone dead. Same exact stuff just happened in the AMA. The distributors tried to maintain the status quo. When it failed, they fired everyone and completely pulled all factory investment to make sure that the AMA was not a launching platform for anyone else. When similar rules changes were implemented in BSB, the participants were largely enthusiastic. Smart vs. dumb. Adaptable vs. inflexible.



It might seem like the value of the people is of the utmost importance, but really, the crux of the matter lies in altering the incentives and coercive forces that guide people towards what they want. Managing their wants and expectations is also critical.

Funny.



When someone who has credibility (and actual knowledge of the sport) like Kropotkin starts a thread like this, stating in clear terms the exact opposite of the rubbish that has been written all over the wall here for quite some time, those same junkposters promptly start singing on a completely different note saying that this is such a nice and interesting thread etc. etc.



Priceless.

J4rn0 said:

Funny.



When someone who has credibility (and actual knowledge of the sport) like Kropotkin starts a thread like this, stating in clear terms the exact opposite of the rubbish that has been written all over the wall here for quite some time, those same junkposters promptly start singing on a completely different note saying that this is such a nice and interesting thread etc. etc.



Priceless.

Click to expand...

Priceless indeed.



The problem is that many posters here make very bold statements based on some rather sketchy assumptions.



Kropotkin, on the other hand, has facts.

yup thanks for pointing that out, rich contribution to the thread.



the pirellis in the truck story sounds outrageous and the indications about biaggi and aprilia make me much too curious.

thanks for teasing without release



its easy and comforting to think theres a series we can all tune into when we're fed up with gps (not that we would ever seriously be).

it would take faster machinery, a couple of gp front runners (not refugees) and better tv deals to make wsbk a real motogp threat.

who knows what new regulations, a couple of just as talented but fed up riders (spies...stoner??) and motogp on pay tv could do to wsbk tv ratings and attendence numbers

Imo motogp should be a minimum 16 full prototypes no questions, and only 8 CRTs. I dont understand why Ezzy wants to limit the prototype numbers only to get in more crappy CRTs. Production based engines are crap. Edwards had the right idea, under a stable formula, a two year old prototype engine design would still be in the ballpark and the likes of Honda should want to sell it by then.



The perfect model for the future of motogp was staring them in the face when KRSnr was buying Honda engines for his own chasis and they ignored it. This is what Ezzy should have pushed for, selling off engines at a reasonable price with a standard ECU. No confusion with SBK then.

birdman said:

Imo motogp should be a minimum 16 full prototypes no questions, and only 8 CRTs. I dont understand why Ezzy wants to limit the prototype numbers only to get in more crappy CRTs. Production based engines are crap. Edwards had the right idea, under a stable formula, a two year old prototype engine design would still be in the ballpark and the likes of Honda should want to sell it by then.



The perfect model for the future of motogp was staring them in the face when KRSnr was buying Honda engines for his own chasis and they ignored it. This is what Ezzy should have pushed for, selling off engines at a reasonable price with a standard ECU. No confusion with SBK then.

Click to expand...

Dorna and IRTA pushed hard for the factories to sell them engines. The factories offered to sell them engines for 70% of the cost of a bike, way north of a million euros. This is the thing, the factories have no interest in doing this.



Stable rules is key. They will come in 2014 or 2015, with a rev limit and spec ECU. No more rule changes after that, and then BMW and Suzuki will return. They are just waiting - like the rest of you - for a stable rule package.

J4rn0 said:

Funny.



When someone who has credibility (and actual knowledge of the sport) like Kropotkin starts a thread like this, stating in clear terms the exact opposite of the rubbish that has been written all over the wall here for quite some time, those same junkposters promptly start singing on a completely different note saying that this is such a nice and interesting thread etc. etc.



Priceless.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

stiefel said:

Care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

I'll do it for him ........ jumkie is an absolute ...... .......... which I have already alluded to re-his wanky post.

RCV600RR said:

The problem is that many posters here make very bold statements based on some rather sketchy assumptions.



Kropotkin, on the other hand, has facts.

Click to expand...

Kropo called Casey Stoner supernatural.



Definition

Supernatural: of pertaining to or attributed to Ghost goblins or un earthly beings, eerie, occult





Facts indeed

JohnnyKnockdown said:

Kropo called Casey Stoner supernatural.



Definition

Supernatural: of pertaining to or attributed to Ghost goblins or un earthly beings, eerie, occult





Facts indeed

Click to expand...

Is superunnatural a word? I think that would be more fitting.

Kropotkin said:

When they went from 990cc to 800cc, it took about half a season before they started breaking records again.



Does it matter, though? Do we have to keep breaking lap records? Are the riders racing against each other in the current year, or against the ghosts of the past?

Click to expand...

Short answer, YES!!!. When i go for a race weekend and spend anywhere from 600 to 1000 dollars, i personally need to have reasonable expectation of seeing a track record broken. It doesnt have to happen, but it has to be a possibility. If they miss it by 2/10ths or break it by 1/1000 doesnt matter, it just has to be possible if condition allow it. If Dorna can make that happen with spec tires, spec ecu, and a 15k rev limit, have at it. I personally think those regs will set them back 10 years or more in performance, but maybe im wrong.

povol said:

Short answer, YES!!!. When i go for a race weekend and spend anywhere from 600 to 1000 dollars, i personally need to have reasonable expectation of seeing a track record broken. It doesnt have to happen, but it has to be a possibility. If they miss it by 2/10ths or break it by 1/1000 doesnt matter, it just has to be possible if condition allow it. If Dorna can make that happen with spec tires, spec ecu, and a 15k rev limit, have at it. I personally think those regs will set them back 10 years or more in performance, but maybe im wrong.

Click to expand...

Moto3 and Moto2 are more popular than the 125s and 250s were, but they took a while before beating records. Doesn't matter to everyone, apparently, though clearly, it matters to you.

Kropotkin said:

Moto3 and Moto2 are more popular than the 125s and 250s were, but they took a while before beating records. Doesn't matter to everyone, apparently, though clearly, it matters to you.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I don't particularly value the breaking of circuit records as such. On the other hand, I cannot follow your previous argument that, since there are some technical regulations, real prototypes do not exist anymore so we might as well just not care about that aspect anymore at all. Rules do not negate the possibility of prototype racing.



To quote a wise man: 'Grand Prix car racing has had restrictions on technology since 1922. Since the 50's, it's even in the name: formula 1. In motorcycle GP racing, restrictions were there from the start. I think it's wrong to equate prototype racing to little or no restrictions. Restrictions have always been an accepted and a necessary part of Grand Prix racing. As technology evolves, the rules of the game sometimes need to be adapted in order to keep the players alive.



I do agree that currently, the game is over-regulated. Dictating 4 cylinder 81 mm bore effectively kills diversity in the engine department. I don't like it.'(Stiefel, 2011)



Every sport has regulations, and every technology driven sport needs to have it's regulations adapted every now and then in the context of new technology (skirts, turbo's, active suspension ring a bell?).

Kropotkin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Just noticed this. Does this not also apply to the CRT's? And if yes, what does that say about cost saving?

stiefel said:

Just noticed this. Does this not also apply to the CRT's? And if yes, what does that say about cost saving?

Click to expand...

That it's smarter to spread your R&D costs as widely as possible?

Kropotkin said:

That it's smarter to spread your R&D costs as widely as possible?

Click to expand...

Sure. Still, you may understand that to me, it is a bit perplexing to talk about CRT as cheap while not factoring in development cost (of the engine, in case of the bmw/kawasaki powered ones; of the whole bike in case of the aprillia) but to recognize simultanously the sunk cost of R&D of superbikes. Not having a go at you, I really don't get it.

stiefel said:

I don't know. I don't particularly value the breaking of circuit records as such. On the other hand, I cannot follow your previous argument that, since there are some technical regulations, real prototypes do not exist anymore so we might as well just not care about that aspect anymore at all. Rules do not negate the possibility of prototype racing.

Click to expand...

Ah, but everybody's definition of where the line is drawn on what constitutes a prototype differs. Like the schisms among some branches of the Amish over whether a particular technology breaches the Ordnung or not, everyone draws a line at some arbitrary point and then argues over the logic. There is no philosophical difference between a bike limited to four cylinders (and remember kids, the 500s were limited to four cylinders) and a bike limited to 15,000RPM. There is no philosophical difference between a bike banned from using a dustbin fairing and a bike forced to use a spec ECU. The four cylinder two stroke 500cc bike is no more a prototype than the four cylinder four stroke, limited to 15,000 RPM and using a spec ECU. Neither has much relevance or resemblance to a production bike (those ARTs are substantially different to the RSV4).



I think what I am saying is that real prototype racing would have just a single limitation (well, two: two wheels and an energy or emissions limit). What we have now is prototype racing with restrictions. We can argue over which restrictions are best, but you cannot use the argument that one particular restriction means a bike is no longer a prototype, while a different restriction still leaves a bike as a "proper" prototype.

stiefel said:

Sure. Still, you may understand that to me, it is a bit perplexing to talk about CRT as cheap while not factoring in development cost (of the engine, in case of the bmw/kawasaki powered ones; of the whole bike in case of the aprillia) but to recognize simultanously the sunk cost of R&D of superbikes. Not having a go at you, I really don't get it.

Click to expand...

It's simple: People are saying that WSBK is cheap. It is not cheap, the engines are developed using a different budget, and then tuned using the racing budget. It's just that the racing budget only sees part of the cost. Prototype engine development in MotoGP all falls under the racing department budget, and so it seems much more expensive. CRT just leverages a large part of the engine development budgets of the production departments.



So, CRT is cheap in the same way that WSBK is cheap. The engines already exist, the magic is in what you do with it. For the prototypes, the engines don't already exist.

Kropotkin said:

Ah, but everybody's definition of where the line is drawn on what constitutes a prototype differs. Like the schisms among some branches of the Amish over whether a particular technology breaches the Ordnung or not, everyone draws a line at some arbitrary point and then argues over the logic. There is no philosophical difference between a bike limited to four cylinders (and remember kids, the 500s were limited to four cylinders) and a bike limited to 15,000RPM. There is no philosophical difference between a bike banned from using a dustbin fairing and a bike forced to use a spec ECU. The four cylinder two stroke 500cc bike is no more a prototype than the four cylinder four stroke, limited to 15,000 RPM and using a spec ECU. Neither has much relevance or resemblance to a production bike (those ARTs are substantially different to the RSV4).



I think what I am saying is that real prototype racing would have just a single limitation (well, two: two wheels and an energy or emissions limit). What we have now is prototype racing with restrictions. We can argue over which restrictions are best, but you cannot use the argument that one particular restriction means a bike is no longer a prototype, while a different restriction still leaves a bike as a "proper" prototype.

Click to expand...

Mhmm. Agree that an essentialist debate can not be won on this. Personally, I don't mind rules that are aimed at increasing if safety is becoming a real issue (killing group B, for instance), or rules that restore the essence of the sport if that is in danger of being lost (not meaning when one rider or manufacturer dominates, but when new technology really starts to defeat the purpose of the sport, as some may argue was the case with active suspension in f1). I do object to rules that are aimed at increasing show value, changing the competitive balance between riders or manufacturers and cost saving. The latter because I don't not believe that a sanctioning institution is necessary to enforce cost saving in the long term.



I don't know if your example of the energy limit only racing was meant to be doomscenario or not, but I would personally love that kind of racing.

Kropotkin said:

It's simple: People are saying that WSBK is cheap. It is not cheap, the engines are developed using a different budget, and then tuned using the racing budget. It's just that the racing budget only sees part of the cost. Prototype engine development in MotoGP all falls under the racing department budget, and so it seems much more expensive. CRT just leverages a large part of the engine development budgets of the production departments.



So, CRT is cheap in the same way that WSBK is cheap. The engines already exist, the magic is in what you do with it. For the prototypes, the engines don't already exist.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Makes me wonder though, how much does it cost to develope a road going, every day useable suberbike engine, and to then taking that engine and develop it further so it will run semi-competitevily in motogpraces, compared to a purpose built racing engine.