3400111357593561
I don't think people grasp the issues with the 4-stroke displacement formula.
MotoGP bikes can probably make use of 230hp-250hp (or so). If the engine formula is 1000cc, hp can be made relatively cheaply. The problem is that tire technology continues to improve, the amount of useable power continues to increase, and the top speeds and trap speeds quickly get out of hand. If they reduce capacity to control the performance, the costs skyrocket b/c the smaller engines must rev harder and faster to make the same performance as the larger engines.
The MSMA attempted to solve the 4-stroke Catch-22 (the impossibility of both large and small engines) with fuel capacity limitations, which would theoretically control the rev ceiling. We all know how the MSMA's theory played out. Development made the fuel limitations ineffective for controlling the performance of the bikes. The costs skyrocketed. Superfluous electronics were created. Most tragically, another rider was killed before the 800s were gone. Beside the cost and safety issues, fuel limitations do not work in qualifying either.
The GPC must find a way to limit the bikes to around 230-250hp, while controlling costs and top/trap speeds. They can't limit horsepower too strictly or the MSMA will not participate. Displacement and bore limits do not accomplish this mission as the manufacturers would simply add more cylinders. Qualifying performance (possibly race performance as well) would be excessive, 'excessive' meaning the GPC is knowingly putting MotoGP bikes on track with speeds that exceed the FIA dimensions for runoff. Excessive speeds create safety and insurance liability problems.
The situation is extraordinarily complex, and within the debate are factions of individuals who refuse to compromise on tire technology, electronics, qualifying format, etc. Some of their biases are related to misconceptions held by the fans.
