| Author | Message | ||
     Gaesati |
i think that one of the issues The FIM and the factories have lost sight of is that racing is more than an opportunity for the factory to display its technical excellence. It is also a SPORT where the participants have the opportunity to display intelligence, endurance, bravery, athleticism, and machine control. The motorcycle is a medium for that competition. Even a set of technical regulations that pitted pushrod ohv v-twins against each other could make outstanding racing. (it might even make sport bikes a bit more real world). Maybe a set of engine regulations which encourages thermal efficiency rather than volumetric efficiency would set the factories some interesting challenges e.g ecu's which limit revs to 10,000rpm. Interestingly Speedway has survived very well for a very long time as a sport with relatively little technical innovation . | ||
| Jaimec |
The factories can also "write off" a lot of the expenses because it is a laboratory that allows them to test and develop new technology that eventually trickles down into production motorcycles. Start limiting the amount of technology, and you take away a lot of their reason for being there in the first place. Instead of going faster and faster, I like the concept of limiting the amount of fuel they can use. Surely that has more real-world application than carbon/carbon brakes and GPS-based traction control. Limiting the number of engines also forces the factories to explore better ways of improving engine reliability and longevity (another useful characteristic in the real world). The last thing I want to see in MotoGP are spec engines, or a spec ECU. Might as well just watch World Superbikes. | ||
| Trojan |
Limiting fuel and engine allowance is a pretty crude way of trying to reduce costs. What it results in is poor racing for spectators rather than decreased costs (because factories inevitably spend a lot more on electronics to save fuel). These fuel saving technologies are not really making their way onto road bikes from GP racing. In fact the only major manufacturer that is trying to incorporate major fuel saving electronics in its big bikes is BMW, and they are not involved in GP racing. Engine longevity is pretty subjective, and in the real world has little to do with GP racing, where you can use 6 NEW engines over the course of very few miles (+re-use previous engines unless 'shelved' by the team). All this does is add expense somewhere else down the line for the teams. If cost saving was the major factor they should reduce the amount of rounds in the championship and the travelling between different areas, but we are actually getting more GP's every year. It makes no sense to have a GP in Europe, then go to the US, then back to Europe and then back to the US again? Streamline the calendar and they could save a fortune just in travel costs! A spec ECU and rev limit is a pretty failsafe way to save costs and keep a tight control on technology. This has been done in F1, Indycar and various other forms of motor sport (BSB will introduce this in 2012 for British Superbike racing) and has actually improved the racing for spectators at the same time as reducing costs for the teams. Having a spec ECU or even a spec engine hasn't reduced the excitement in Moto2, and has actually improved it over the previous 250 class (which was already better than the premier calss in terms of excitement!). It would make factories and teams concentrate on chassis development rather than engine power and we may just get to see some real breakthroughs and experiments in chassis design instead of the lookalike bikes we have now. Moto2 has been pretty conservative in chassis design so far simply because teams wanted to use what they already know and understand. However we are starting to see some real innovation from the likes of Vyrus and FTR amongst others and the class should start to look a lot more experimental before long I hope. There is no reason that MotoGP would lose any glamour or prestige by following a similar model. | ||
| Jaimec |
No, I don't believe we will see any breakthroughs in chassis or suspension technology. Above all else, the teams want to WIN, and it is very difficult to win with "unknown technology" (Ducati, for example). It'll be interesting to see how Vyrus does with their forkless Moto2 entry, but I don't expect it to set the world on fire. BMW leads the industry in suspension technology... but when they built a Superbike contender, they used standard, off-the-shelf telescopic forks like everybody else. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Jeremy Burgess thinks a variant of Moto 2 would be a better premier class. Mr. Burgess needs to stick to managing his racing team. Going to a spec engine for MotGP would kill the appeal of the competition for a LOT of folks, me included. Credit to Stoner. Going to liter sized engines will aid the larger riders, like Ben Spies. And it may totally reset the field as far as which brands are most capable. Let's hope so anyway. Sure was nice to not have Honda dominating for a while. Poor Pedrosa. | ||
| 46champ |
Spec classes are good for the support race NOT the main event. | ||
| Trojan |
Mr. Burgess needs to stick to managing his racing team. Going to a spec engine for MotGP would kill the appeal of the competition for a LOT of folks, me included. Mr Burgess isn't a team manager, he is a very talented engineer that has probably forgotten more about Moto GP tham most of us will ever learn. He isn't the only person in the GP paddock calling for major changes rather than the pointless rule fiddling we currently have, and with his considerable experience I think he and others like him need to be listened to. Changing to litre bikes will NOT make MotoGP cheaper, easier or any more exciting to watch than the current format, but somehow the wool has been well and truly pulled over our eyes once again. if anyone expects to see sliding, bucking replicas of the 990 or 500 bikes I think you will be sadly disapointed next year. The only real visible difference will be faster top speeds on straights and earlier braking points. I reckon that by 2014 we will be looking at yet another rule change aimed at slowing bikes and reducing costs, rather than settling into a set of rules that teams can work to for a number of years and that will increase the number of teams on the grid. A spec engine or at least spec ECU would actually make no difference to 90% of spectators and would actually improve the spectator experience, with more bikes and closer racing. Some people would of course moan and leave, but I would bet that there would be plenty of chassis manufactures ready to get involved in a 'Moto1' project just like there have been in Moto2 and Moto3. Having a premier class grid of 35-40 riders would be a lot better all round than the current 15-18 starters and only 5-6 prospective podium finishing riders. | ||
| Jaimec |
I disagree. I think the extra bottom-end power of the 1000s will give the riders more choices of lines through turns and more passing opportunities. With the current 800s, unless you hit the perfect line every time, you're doomed to be a backmarker. I really don't think "sliding and bucking" has anything to do with it. | ||
| Blake |
Exactly Jaime. That is what Ben Spies and Valentino Rossi have said too. >>> A spec engine or at least spec ECU would actually make no difference to 90% of spectators Let's take an opinion poll here. Right off the bat, you need to find eight others who agree with you. I already know of a number of folks who agree with me, so you're up to needing 40 or fifty to support your statement. | ||
| Blake |
A spec ECU wouldn't affect interest I don't think,but that is a HUGE step back from a spec engine. | ||
| Jaimec |
Changing the subject a bit: Elena Myers will FINALLY get her chance to ride the Suzuki MotoGP bike: http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/racing/elena-myers -rizla-suzuk-indianapolis-gp/ | ||
| 46champ |
I wouldn't care if they had a spec ECU racing would probably be better, they could get rid of traction control, launch control and or wheelie control. Spec engine count me out. | ||
| Blake |
Matt, There's a poll. Results are opposite of your estimation. Spec ECU would be fine. The engine, not so much. | ||
| Gaesati |
A better line of development for factories is to make their engines more thermally efficient, i.e. getting the maximum hp from each ml of fuel burnt than allowing factories to seek hp gains by increasing volumetric efficiency i.e. increasingly high rpm. The xb series amazed me because of the amount, the range and the quality of hp Buell could extract from a primitive base design with a 6600rpm limit on volumetric efficiency. Moto gp would be equally well served with sophisticated designs but limitations on pumping capacity of engines. | ||
| Gaesati |
On another note, will Elena Myers have a paddock boy to hold her umbrella? | ||
| Trojan |
Let's take an opinion poll here. Right off the bat, you need to find eight others who agree with you. I already know of a number of folks who agree with me, so you're up to needing 40 or fifty to support your statement. I don't think that argument holds water at all for one simple reason. MotoGP organisers don't write the rules to suit spectators (if they did we wouldn't be in this position right now!) so they really don't give a rats arse what we think. It really doesn't matter what they change the rules to. If they have a spec engine do you think that spectators will stay away? Maybe for year one the attendance/viewing figures would be donw slightly, but I know they would be back in year 2+. You only have to look at the figures when they changed from 2 stroke to 4 stroke, or from 990 to 800 to see that it really doesn't matter too much and that if people want to watch the highest form of motorcycle racing they will do so regardless of the rules in place. To the average spectator do you think that Moto2 is less exciting because of the spec engine? Most people don't even think about that any more and just enjoy the close racing. Something that is sadly lacking in MotoGP and probably won't be addressed just by changing capacity limits and playing around the edges of the rules. | ||
| Davegess |
Blake, your poll is interesting but hardly valid. I have to say the MotoGP has to do something. The racing this year is pretty boring, not enough bikes, and only 4-5 that could actually win, if that many. I would like to see a no holds bared class with very few rules BUT in this day and age who has the cash to field 20 bikes like this. | ||
| Blake |
Not valid? Please explain. It may not be statistically accurate for the entire population of MotoGP fans, but isn't it a valid measure of the opinions of some folks here who are interested in motorcycle racing? People act like having only a few bikes or competitors running for the win is something new. Seems like selective memory to me. One of the reasons that support classes are more closely contested is that the riders tend to be much more closely skilled. But recall when Danny Pedrosa won his 250GP championships? The race was for 2nd place. I am a LOT less interested in the back half of the field than I am in seeing the performance of different competing engine technology. I'd still watch and be virtually as interested if there were only eight competitors in the field, the factory bikes and a few satellite teams like Tech 3 and Gressini. I'm not sure what Matt is going on about.  | ||
| Blake |
Matt, >>> I don't think that argument holds water at all for one simple reason. I was simply refuting your assertion that "A spec engine or at least spec ECU would actually make no difference to 90% of spectators and would actually improve the spectator experience, with more bikes and closer racing." I think you are dead wrong. Like I've said before, if close competition is the only parameter attracting fans, then you could televise marbles rolling down my driveway. The machinery matters. I still contend that it's vital to have two of the following three factors in any successful racing series, in no particular order: 1. Exciting competition. 2. Interesting, well-known competitors. 3. Interesting Machinery | ||
| Blake |
I think what you are contending is equivalent to saying that if Formula 1 switched to IndyCar spec engine type rules, that 90% of the fans wouldn't care. I think again the opposite is closer to reality. | ||
| Trojan |
I am a LOT less interested in the back half of the field than I am in seeing the performance of different competing engine technology. I'd still watch and be virtually as interested if there were only eight competitors in the field, the factory bikes and a few satellite teams like Tech 3 and Gressini You would be in a minority then I'm afraid. How many people really want to watch 8 bikes (maximum) race? I would rather watch MZ250 racing with 40 competitors racing for a win than 8 factory bikes with maybe 3 possible winners. It comes down to value for money rather than engineering for most spectators. If you sit in the grandstands and watch MotoGP bikes racing past I would defy anyone to tell the diference between a spec ECU bike and a current bike in terms of design, speed or spectacle. It is simply the idea of 'dumbing down' that seems to offend people rather than actual racing experience. 1. Exciting competition. 2. Interesting, well-known competitors. 3. Interesting Machinery A spec engine or ECU would not detract from any of the above points. In fact itr would enhance two of them at least (and the riders would haev to ride what was provided for them under the rules, so would also cover that point!). If your definition of 'interesting machinery' depends on having a factory engine then maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but 'interesting machinery' to me could include innovative suspension and frame technology just as much as engines. We have got too used thinking that 'manufacturers' has to be a term used exclusively for established engine/motorcycle manufacturers. If you look at Moto2 you'll see that the manufacturers names may be unfamiliar (FTR,Moriwaki,Suter etc) but they have got a long history of making frames for other bike manufacturers and are just as valid as Ducati or Honda. I think what you are contending is equivalent to saying that if Formula 1 switched to IndyCar spec engine type rules, that 90% of the fans wouldn't care. I think again the opposite is closer to reality. F1 has relied on chassis manufacurers using customer engines rather than outright car makers for many years. Even teams such as Renault, Honda and BMW were actually outside contracted teams running under the factory name rather than direct factory projects. F1 also now uses a spec ECU with limited electronics and driver aids, and has done since the start of this season. Rather than diminish spectator numbers F1 is growing faster than most other motorsports and is loking to expand next year into more new areas of operation. Indycar hasn't suffeed from tightly restricted engine rules either. It has suffered from poor management and marketing as a series, but the racing itself is always pretty close and spectator interest still very good. Bike racing needs to move away from direct factory involvement in order to grow and encourage new teams otherwise,as we have seen recently, it is largely dependant on Honda and they get what they want when it comes to rule making. | ||
| Jaimec |
There were FIVE horses in the Belmont Stakes in 1973. The winner won by over THIRTY lengths. I wonder who, watching that race, found it boring?? | ||
| Trojan |
I wonder who, watching that race, found it boring?? I would hazard a guess to say that everyone who didn't have money on the winner would have been pretty disapointed  Horse racing and bike racing are two different things though, so it is diffcult to compare. People watch hore racing because they have money riding on the result rather than for pure entertainment. If 5 GP riders took to the grid in MotoGP (regardless of who the 5 are) there would be plenty of people demanding refunds and complaining that the racing was dull thats for sure. | ||
| Jaimec |
The odds on the winner actually winning were so good that the payout was peanuts. Quite a few people never even bothered to cash in their tickets and just held on to them as souvenirs instead. I didn't have any money at all on it (not old enough to gamble legally)... but I was glued to the TV nonetheless. So were most of my friends. | ||
| Trojan |
So if five riders make the start of the 2013 Inianapolis GP and the winner (lets say Valentino Rossi for arguments sake ) wins by over 30 seconds, would that be classed as an interesting race? What if 40 riders make the start and 20 of them have a chance of the win? Stir in a few mega star riders and reputations along with some up and coming young guns on pretty equal machinery and I know which I would rather spend money to watch. | ||
| Josequinones |
I think Matt is on to something by mentioning F1. It would be interesting if Factories could only supply ENGINES and support and leave the chassis to others, all using common ECU and tires. | ||
| Jaimec |
In case some of you younger folk missed my reference: You can hear the snoring from the bored crowd, right? | ||
| Crusty |
I think Matt and Jose are on to something. If the Factories could only supply engines, with a spec ECU in a chassis built by a third party, things might get interesting. I'll be at Indianapolis this weekend. If Rossi wins by 30 lengths, I'll consider it a very interesting race. If the little rat weasel crashes out like he did two years ago, I'll enjoy it even more! Seeing that happen just tickled the hell out of me! | ||
| Simond |
F1 not only has a spec ECU but also a standardised engine layout. I miss listening to the range of sounds created by Matra, Ferrari, Cosworth, Alfa et al back in the seventies/eighties but I would much rather have some decent competition. The races were pretty dull back then in F1 despite the wonderful soundtrack - that Matra really hurt the ears! It has taken some drastic artificial tweaking of aero and tyres that don't last very long to spice up the show in F1. It seems to have worked; I never thought I'd say that I'd rather watch an F1 race than MotoGP........! | ||
| Jaimec |
Crusty: There you have it. If Spies/Lorenzo/Hayden/Edwards/Rossi wins by a half a lap, I'll find that VERY exciting. If anyone on a Honda, however, runs away from the race, I'll declare the race "boring." All depends on who is in front to me. | ||
| Jaimec |
It's looking like you're a little bit outnumbered here, Matt. But you are right about one thing... Dorna doesn't seem to give a rat's patootie WHAT the fans want. | ||
| Trojan |
As an interesting comparison, BSB is changing to a spec Motec ECU for British Superbikes next year. This will eliminate traction control, wheelie control, auto throttle blippers etc etc and make a level playing field for all teams in BSB when it comes to electronics. Last year they introduced the 'one bike' rule which banned spare bikes for riders, and which is going to be copied in WSB next year. Rather than limit competition the organisers have had to put a limit on the number of teams racing and the series is oversubscribed. Spectator numbers and TV audiences for BSB continue to rise despite the economic downturn, and organisers don't believe next year will be any different. The racing will be just as close (or closer) and the fans won't see any diference in the bikes despiet cutting many many thousands from the cost of competing  Win/Win surely? | ||
| Trojan |
NO!!! A POX on spec engines in Gran Prix Racing!!!! If it wasn't for the innovation from such racing, we would all still be riding side valve singles There is very litle evidence for that argument I'm afraid. Racing improves the breed in terms of chassis development more than engines (and even that has stagnated in recent years to due other factors). MV, Gilera, MotoGuzzi and Honda had multi valve, multi cylinder engines in Grand Prix racing as far back as the 1950's with top speeds almost as fast as we have today. The big advance has been in suspension, chassis and tyre technology. A spec engine rule would actually force teams into developing new ideas in chassis and suspension thatcould actually get us to break out of our established pattern of what we think works best. | ||
| Trojan |
no, hell i find it barely interesting now. Making into a spec class will just make it worse, in my opinion. Worse in what respect? I keep hearing that it would make the racing worse, but that is almost impossible. The same argument was pushed before Moto2 started and it has proved entirely the opposite. More bikes, more riders capable and equipped to win, more teams and more ingenuity, more money to go around because the sport is no longer dominated by 4 factories? What's not to like? Once the bikes take to the track nobody would know if it was a spec engine/ecu anyway, sothe racing wouldn't suffer. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
In my opinion, it would be worse because it'd be ANOTHER spec class. Like I said, I like spec classes, but when you change TO a spec class I really am not for it. Like Nascar - I think it sucks there are sooo many rules that it ends up being a spec class where when it first started there were rules but more 'run what you brung' | ||
| Trojan |
In my opinion, it would be worse because it'd be ANOTHER spec class. It wouldn't be a SPEC class at all, because the chassis would all be different. Only the engines would be the same. This hasn't hampered Moto2 or F1 so far has it? With the new MotoGP engine regs from next year restricting bore size and maximum revs, engines from all manufacturers will start to become very similar anyway, so having a standard engine fitment would make very little difference to the racing other than to make it more affordable and closer. Whichever way we prefer, MotoGP has to do somehting pretty drastic in the next 2-3 years in order to save itself from dying out. Whether that is a spec ECU, Spec engine or some other way of getting more teams on the grid doesn't really matter. What matters is that they do SOMETHING. Off track it aseems that the deal between Bridgepoint Capital (the owners of MotoGP) to buy Infront Motorsports (the owners of WSB) is near completion. If they think that there isn't the viability of two distinct premier class championships in the future I don't think they would hesitate to amalgamate the two in some form. They are financiers and not motorcycle fans, so all they are interested in is the bottom line profit |
