| Author | Message | ||
     Trojan |
If a similar limitation is imposed on the top class, fans will feel they are no longer seeing the best bikes possible and it will hurt the series. Fans are not seeing the best bikes possible now, or next year. This is a fallacy. Rules restricting fuel tank size, engine life, engine bore size and many other 'tech' rules mean that the current bikes are just as compromised as they would be with a spec ECU or even a spec engine. The days of 'A money-is-no-object contest to build the fastest, most technologically advanced bikes on the planet' ended when the 990 4 strokes made way for the 800 class or even earlier maybe). I've been watching GP racing since the days when Agostini lapped the entire field at Spa on his MV Agusta, so I know that just trying to turn the clock back won't necessarily mean closer racing. What needs to be done is to think outside the box rather than to follow what they have done previously and what the major factories dictate. Honda in particular has been instrumental in getting the class to the precipice it now sits on. Succesful and entertaining GP racing only works properly in one of two ways. You either have lots of factory spec (or very close to it) bikes on the grid like we used to get in the 1970's when you could buy an RG500 or TZ500 from your local dealer, or you adapt the rules to ensure you get lots of equally highly skilled riders on relatively equal machinery. Anything else will fail and always has done unfortunately. Next year we already have the prospect of only 3 factory teams with 1000cc bikes (Suzuki will either continue with their 800 or pull out completely) and Honda face cutting 30% of their race budget, losing factory riders and satellite bikes as a result. With the best of the CRT bikes thought to be between 1.5 seconds per lap slower (at best) than even the satellite bikes, we could be in for another few years of decline unless something more is done. Real racing fans would pay to see Valentino Rossi/Stoner/Pedrosa/Hayden etc race on 125 scooters if that was all that was offered, and fans would very quickly get used to new rules just as they do now, so a change to spec engines/ecu's would not be the disaster some people think it would. | ||
| Crusty |
You're right that fans will come out to see the best riders. And maybe a spec engine is one way to make the racing closer. However, why not just kill Moto GP altogether? The bikes have little in common with anything that's rideable on the street. In anything other than a very well prepared paved track, they suck. Try riding through the Industrial area of any major city. The technology used is to make a better closed circuit race machine. That technology doesn't translate to making better real world motorcycles. Why not just make Superbike the top class, and get rid of the GP bikes altogether? I bet Rossi would be hell on an 1198 Duck, and I know Spies is tough on a FZR Yamaha. I bet the crowds would show up in the same numbers, or even more, and the "average" spectator would be able to identify with the bikes being ridden. I'd expound more on the benefits of killing off Moto GP; but I have to pack my bike so I can ride 900 miles to Indianapolis to see the Races this weekend.  | ||
| Trojan |
However, why not just kill Moto GP altogether? I think that there is still plenty of room for two championships, with a 'street' class and a prototype class, much the same as we have F1 and Touring cars in car racing. The prototype class wouldn't need to have a production based engine at all so it could still be a fire breathing monster with 220+bhp, just the same engine for everyone. Costs would be a lot lower when you only have one engine development budget, and competition would improve the chassis components that actually do filter down to street bikes pretty quickly. The only rule would be that each team has to run the same engine and fuel capacity. Other than that anything goes and improving chassis technology would be the way forward. At the moment the distinction between poor MotoGP grids and burgeoning WSB grids couldn't be starker though, and if the new owners decide that WSB has more to offer who knows what we will end up with  I'd be much more interested in seeing a grid full of this kind of bike rather than the sparse grids full of Honda clones we see now....   I bet Rossi would be hell on an 1198 Duck I would be willing to bet that we will find out in 2013/14 he has made no secret of the fact that he wants to have a go at WSB before he retires. Sure would give Biaggi a shock too | ||
| Blake |
Most folks don't watch MotoGP for the support classes; whatever is done to them won't matter much for the overall series popularity. That said, I don't care a wit about Moto2. I don't like spec engine classes, especially Honda spec engine classes. If they were Ducatis, I might watch now and then. Matt, wasn't it you arguing against AMA Superbike adopting more limiting tech rules, and wasn't your point based on the notion that the AMA Superbikes would no longer represent the best/fastest technology which is what the fans wanted to see? Now you are arguing that MotoGP go to a spec engine?  Blake confused. Please explain. >>> Fans are not seeing the best bikes possible now, or next year. This is a fallacy. You seem to be saying that absent no restrictions whatsoever, we are not seeing the "best bikes possible"? Okay, I can see that point, though it seems a bit grasping at straws. Question: Over time, would going to a spec engine tend to make the bikes better or worse versus the current trend? The trend in best in class engine performance in MotoGP has gone from Honda, then shared with Yamaha, then to Ducati, then Yamaha, now back to Honda. One may quibble with the exact trend, but the point is that advancement through competitive efforts is what drives improvement in performance. It also makes the series much more interesting. For instance, with a spec engine rule, we likely wouldn't have seen the new Honda seamless shifting innovation. What a pity that would have been, no? >>> I'd be much more interested in seeing a grid full of this kind of bike. But that will never happen. Why would a different chassis be more interesting than different engines? You might see one or two. Even that is highly doubtful. We've yet to see one even in Moto2. That chassis is so bewilderingly behind the curve in racing development that it would likely be years before becoming competitive. See for example the time it has taken to get Erik's perimeter brake system up to par for Superbike level performance. Can you imagine the work required to get an entirely new chassis concept up to speed? Yikes. I agree though, it would be very cool. Question: Would you be so enthusiastic to see such a chassis on the grid in droves, even if it dominated the rest of the field? Question: What is stopping anyone from using that chassis now, and how would going to spec engines promote its use in MotoGP? I just don't see it. If high speeds are a concern, and the FIM want to reduce them, the solution is beyond simple, chicanes. No need to touch the machinery rules at all, just alter the tracks to make them more technical with shorter straights. D'uh. Me? I'd like to see a mix of both. There's room for Monza, Mugello and Laguna Seca; a good mix is nice. Preoccupation with trying to artificially achieve closer racing is detrimental to the class that is supposed to be about the latest greatest technical innovation. In my estimation that allure represent at least half of the attraction of the class. A spec ECM would be okay though, as that tech is much less tangible to most folks, they just don't much care about unseen, invisible electro-wizardry and vaporware. | ||
| Blake |
Note that some of the above posts were moved here from the "Opinion Poll" thread and may reference statements that voters included as explanatory content to their vote in that poll, so you won't see it here, only there. I have no easy way of copying posts. | ||
| Davegess |
WSBK and MotoGP are drifting closer together and WSBK is more interesting because of the variety of motors and brands at far lower cost. I rather doubt there is enough money floating about for MotoGP to build full fields of exotic race bikes. 5 bikes is not enough for real motor racing. May be OK for a two minute horse race but not for a 20 lap GP. I doubt that a full spec series is a long term solution, it would help in the short term but the factories will back out. A solution would be for each factory to provide motors (and each one must be full factory spec) to a bunch of teams who can provide any chassis they want. I doubt there is money to pull this off. F1 cars had this happen in the early fifties and they dropped F1 for several years in favor of the smaller F2 BUT they will look kinda dumb if they are slower than WSBK. The races are certainly not very entertaining as they are. | ||
| Trojan |
Matt, wasn't it you arguing against AMA Superbike adopting more limiting tech rules, and wasn't your point based on the notion that the AMA Superbikes would no longer represent the best/fastest technology which is what the fans wanted to see? I will be the first to admit that the current economic crisis has had to mean a change of position from my part. Affordability now has to be the number one priority just to ensure that series survive in any form. If that means watering down the performance potential then so be it. BSB will change to a spec ECU and one bike rule next season although they actually think speed and performance will be very similar to this years 'full fat' bikes while saving somewhere in the region of US$100,000 per team per year! There is a subtle difference between superbike racing and Prototype racing. My argument for Superbikes was that national superbike series should be based on the current WSB rules so that everyone can host a round of that series and run wildcard riders using similar rules with their usual bikes. It also made it much easier for teams to maove between national and international series if the rules are standard. You can go into a Yamaha/Suzuki/Ducati/Aprilia showroom and buy the basis for a Superbike, then spend as much as you like making it competitive (or not). There is no factory monopoly (not at national level anyway) and no limit to the amount of privateer superbikes you can get on a grid trying to qualify. MotoGP is solely relient on 3 factories deciding how many bikes they are willing to lease to teams and to run as a factory aquad. If Honda decided tomorrow to pull out of MotoGP (they have done it before remember) where would that leave the series other tan up sh*t creek? There is no way that you or me could turn up at a GP with a bike we had bought over the counter. Even under the new rules for CRT teams there will effectively be a two tier race with a big gap in the middle. With factories running out of money and cutting back their involvement in GP racing there has to be a way of ensuring that numbers improve without reliance on 'the big 3', and the only real way to achieve that is to make it a spec engine class with free chassis mods. Prototype racing is an entirely made up formula, so can run to any rules the organisers want to impose. There are no national MotoGP championships so there is no need to standardise rules for anyone to fall into line with. A Spec engine rule in MotoGP could actually encourage national championships, just like moto2 has done in Spain and Italy, so could actually grow the class further than it can now. Question: What is stopping anyone from using that chassis now, and how would going to spec engines promote its use in MotoGP? I just don't see it. If you have limited engine tuning then chassis development would be the primary route to a performance advantage. We have all known for years that hydraulic forks are not the most efficient form of motorcycle suspension, and that some form of hub centre steering would be better at separating steering and braking forces. However until now the preferred option has always been to increase power rather than to develop better chassis technology. With a set engine rule the teams would have to start looking at alternatives to give them an advanatge over other teams/riders. Moto2 is very young, and teams wanted to hit the ground running with equipment they already knew and understood (ask Steve Bones at FTR about his frustration with teams in this respect!). As time goes on and the series is established I think we will start to see more developments in frame and chassis technology than we ever saw in 40 years of 250 racing. There is no reason to suspect that MotoGP would be any diferent with a spec engine rule. If high speeds are a concern, and the FIM want to reduce them, the solution is beyond simple, chicanes. No need to touch the machinery rules at all, just alter the tracks to make them more technical with shorter straights. D'uh. Nobody wants more chicanes or speed restriction built into tracks. However the tracks are 'fixed' and most have no more room to expand rum off areas or safety measures because speeds increase. Chicanes actually cause accidents rather than reduce them (check out the first lap at Monza WSB every year!) and have very little effect on overall corner speeds for the remainder of the lap. The new 1000cc bikes fly in the face of every argument that was used to promote the 800 class (by Honda chiefly) regarding safety and speed. In fact they are the worst of both worlds as corner speeds are only around 2kph slower than the current 800 bikes according to Lorenzo yet straight line speeds will be up to 20kph faster. So long as they continue to use the high grip Bridgestone tyres the racing will stay pretty much as it is now but will be faster. Preoccupation with trying to artificially achieve closer racing is detrimental to the class that is supposed to be about the latest greatest technical innovation. In my estimation that allure represent at least half of the attraction of the class. How are artificial chicanes and other speed restrictive track architecture any different to mechanically restricting speed? same result surely but with better racing using the second method. That chassis is so bewilderingly behind the curve in racing development that it would likely be years before becoming competitive. Hub centre steering has never stopped developing sonce the 1970's Elf project. As new materials become availabel they have solved most of the issues that were stopping progress such as weight and stiffness. Vyrus and Bimota have now pretty much cracked the technology of this and it is just a matter of getting it out there and up to speed. Their biggest problem will be geting a top rider on the bike in order to show the true potential. (Message edited by trojan on August 25, 2011) | ||
| Trojan |
It should be "no holds barred" racing. You know, real racing. We all think it should be, in a perfect world with no economic crisis and with manufacturers with unlimited budgets to spend on racing. However it isn't 'no holds barred racing' now and hasn't been since the mid 1950's when they banned the V8 Guzzi and other technical wizardry from competing. Those were the last days when 'anything goes' was allowed in GP racing and since then it has been progressively 'dumbed down' by the introduction of more adn more rules and regulations governing engine size/configuration etc. I remember 5 & 6 cylinder 125cc racers with 12 gears and all sorts of wonderful jewel-like engineering from the 1950's-1960's, and the MotoGP of today is pretty stale in comparison. Next year the rules pretty much oblige a 4 cylinder engine with a maximum bore of 81mm (the same as the current 800 bikes), so all manufacturers will have to build engines that are virtually identical in power and other properties. The only thing they can still decidde is whether to build a V4 or a straight 4 configuration. It would not be a huge leap to have a spec engine from this point, and I really don't think it could do any more harm to the series than it has already endured since 2004. The best compromise would be for factories to supply engines only to privateer/satellite teams for use in their own choice of chassis, as in F1. Unfortunately that is never going to happen simply because the factories insist that they have to service and 'fettle' the motors. Even now the satellite teams cannot work on the engines supplied and have to return them to Honda/Yamaha/Ducati for ANY work whatsoever. I'd rather see Moto GP go away then be dumbed down. The way things are going now you may just get your wish sooner rather than later | ||
| Blake |
I fail to see any serious problem with MotoGP. I'm still VERY interested in it as are a huge number of fans. The races are very well attended. I just see zero need to turn it into a more affordable series. It needs to be the best of the best factories and those privateers who are willing to give it a go. It's good as is. That rookies have to ride for a satellite team is dumb though. | ||
| Blake |
I guess what I's saying is that they shouldn't trash the series to make it less expensive for teams to run. Just weather the downturn, accept the smaller grids for a time and before you know it, the boom-times will be back. I sure hope so. | ||
| 46champ |
Matt I sort of understand the teams in Moto2 wanting chassis that are just about the same as the next guy's, but I think they are wrong. If someone were to run a bike with a different front end from everyone else and the were running mid pack, they would definitely get more publicity than any other mid pack bike and probably get more than anyone finishing outside of the first three. So where are the people that are willing to take a chance because the way it is now he who has the biggest budget will win. The only way to beat money is with radical innovation. | ||
| Blake |
The racer matters. | ||
| Jaimec |
I'm sitting here in Indianapolis watching the Honda Cup... sorry... Moto2 race, and all I can think is: So much for the idea that a spec engine and tires will make for closer racing... :-/ | ||
| Blake |
Must be pure torture having to watch and hear that.  | ||
| Blake |
GO ELBOWZ!!! | ||
| Smoke4ndmears |
Casey putting on a masterclass. Ben showing he has some serious heart. | ||
| Jaimec |
Paris' boys did well... second and fourth in the 125GP. Too bad she wasn't there to see that (she was apparently in Barcelona). | ||
| Gaesati |
Hmmm, that would be 7 wins and 11 poles this season for Mrs Stoner's boy? Must be electronics, an already developed bike, a careless attitude or something else I wonder? | ||
| Gaesati |
Ben Spies, bad luck aside, bears out what I thought when i first saw him at PI when he started WSBK: a racer of Wayne Rainey's stature. And he possesses maturity and courteousness beyond his years. Mrs Spies educated her boy well. | ||
| Vagelis46 |
I think that Bridgestone control tires , are making the Ducs look even worse than they are ...........It is obvious that they do not work with the Ducs. | ||
| Trojan |
I'm sitting here in Indianapolis watching the Honda Cup... sorry... Moto2 race, and all I can think is: So much for the idea that a spec engine and tires will make for closer racing... :-/ After watching what was supposed to be a 'race' in the MotoGP class I defy anyone to say that a spec engine wouldn't make the class more enjoying to watch. Other than Spies charge through the field and Rossi's comedy atempts to get past the track marshalls into the pits, the race was DULL as dishwater. The term Honda cup could well be better attributed to MotoGP as well as Moto2, but at least in Moto2 we had 4 different chassis manufacturers in the top 6 places and a decent race from 2nd to 6th places. The track surface at Indy pretty much killed off any chance of a decent MotoGP 'race' unfortunately, and unless it is addressed better than just a simple resurface I can't see this GP being on the 2013 calendar | ||
| Trojan |
The CRT engine rules for the motoGP is the future and no single spec engine is needed. Just wait and see what happens next year, before we get negative about it. The problem with CRT is that the spec is so much worse than teh factory bikes that it will effectively be a two tier series with a huge gap between them. If the series made EVERYONE run a CRT spec bike then it would be a very good series but I'm pretty sure tha factory bikes would still be head and shoulders above the rest. CRT is just a sticking plaster trying to bolster grid numbers while doing nothing about the main problems unfortunately. | ||
| Crusty |
You know what I'd like to see tried? Take away all the rules. Period. If some team wants to use dustbin fairings, or forced induction or have a displacement of 2500cc, or even use a different brand of tire (or even tyre), let them. The racing might get boring for a year or two, but after the teams with the most money kill off their star riders, then maybe some real development will take place in motorcycle design. Maybe we'll see a re-emergence of two strokes and Wankels and possibly even turbines. The racing sucks, with all the rules in place right now. Why not get radical in the other direction? | ||
| V74 |
Can't see factory teams racing with control engines,i watch partly because of the riders and partly because of the different factory engines.it would not be the pinnacle of motorcycle racing without them and can't wait for Norton to join in. | ||
| Gaesati |
My brother likes crusty's idea too. | ||
| Trojan |
Crusty's idea has some merit, but unfortunately we would end up with a re-run of the 1950-1960's probably. One rich factory willing to spend whatever is required to win (probably Honda) versus a bunch of no hopers riding technically uinferior machines that don't stand a hope of winning or getting near the front...... Oh hang on, that's what we have now isn't it? Seriously, you simply can't have an 'anything goes' champhionship like that sugegsted becasue it simply wouldn't work. It has been tried in virtually everey formula from F1 to MotoGP when these classes were first introduced, but over time you need to have rules to keep numbers up and stop the richest guys winning everything. An unlimited formula would be even less relevance to street bikes than we have now (and that is saying soemthing!), and would probably die out in just a few years becasue the expense would be too much for anyone to bear. Can't see factory teams racing with control engines, Bike racing has become fixated with 'factory' teams being the ones form mainstream motocycle manufacturers rather than chassis builders. F1 and Indycar have moved away from this now and the majority of teams buy in engines for their own (or bought in) chassis design. This hasn't made the racing any worse and in conjunction with Spec ECU's and less electronics has improved things a lot in the case of F1. Why do we need factory teams in MotoGP? We could still have factory teams in the guise of Suter, FTR, Kalex, Tech3. Motobi, JIR, Harris/Promo, Vyrus and various other chassis manufacturers who already build chasssis for Moto2 and in some cases already build/design chassis for MotoGP 'factory' teams. We ned to shift our perspective away from the big 4 Japanese manufacturers and think of teams in a different way in futurer if we are to continue with a viable MotoGP/Moto1 series By the way, Norton are unlikely to run with a Norton designed/built engine if at all. The last I heard they were trying to buy an engine in for their MotoGP/IOM racer. Norton have distanced themselves quite considerably from their initial claims of MotoGP entry, and I would be very surprised to see them on the grid at all in 2013 or before. | ||
| Slaughter |
So it looks like the vote is to let MotoGP die. I'm fine with that. | ||
| Trojan |
So it looks like the vote is to let MotoGP die. I'm fine with that. Me too, because doing that would promote Moto2 to the top class, and the prospect of Rossi/Stoner/Spies/Lorenzo etc duelling it out on equal machinery with young guns Marquez/Bradl/Smith/Redding/Iannone is much more exciting than what we currently have to sit through on a Sunday afternoon The Moto2 race at Indy had two people on the podium who have never finished in the top 5 before. On top of that, Stefan Bradl raced from 24th to 6th place in the race! Admittedly tyre issues played a part in the eventual result, but it isn't something you would see in MotoGP under the current sysem (even if MotoGP could muster 24 starters, which it can't get close to) | ||
| Blake |
>>> I defy anyone to say that a spec engine wouldn't make the class more enjoying to watch. It would make it far less interesting for me and about 90% of poll respondents here. If I don't care about the machinery, I don't care near as much about the racing. Why is that so difficult to accept? You're in the minority Matt. | ||
| Blake |
>>> The term Honda cup could well be better attributed to MotoGP as well as Moto2, I sure don't see it. Moto2 uses all Honda engines. >>> but at least in Moto2 we had 4 different chassis manufacturers in the top 6 places and a decent race from 2nd to 6th places. I couldn't name a single one, and they are all pretty much the same. I just don't care. It holds very little interest for me. The racing between 5th through 8th places in MotoGP was quite exhilerating (Hayden performed some uncharacteristically bold passing, and the battle between him, Edwards, Simoncelli, and Bautista was very interesting) as was Ben Spies' charge after a goofed start and first lap. >>> The track surface at Indy pretty much killed off any chance of a decent MotoGP 'race' unfortunately, and unless it is addressed better than just a simple resurface I can't see this GP being on the 2013 calendar. That's silly. |
