Ducati Monster Forum

pretty much all the things that Ezpeleta mentioned wanting.. limited practice and testing, no carbon brakes, no launch control, no electronic suspension, and a limitation on the number of engines you can use.  i can hear the rev maximums coming down as we speak...  good news for the non-factory teams.

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Feb/090218a.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Feb/090218a.htm)

of everything listed, this will likely have the biggest impact on the racing.

i call this the "Gibernau clause"

Absolutely.  They're going to have trouble matching last year's times at many tracks, despite the extra year of technological improvement.  The engines are going to be detuned a bit too.   That said, the engines are already running at less than 100% because of the tight fuel requirements.  I wonder how much more OOMPH they'll need to take out of them for longevity.

...or how much money they're going to have to spend to re-engineer the motors for longevity w/o giving up power.

Doh.  Didn't think about that.  Then again, they'd spend that $ on engineering anyway.  This way it'll just go toward longevity rather than improvement.  And cuz there'll be fewer engines, they'll have to spend less time on maintenance and $ on replacing engines.

What's Brembo going to do with the ~400 sets of Carbon brakes they've got on the shelf or in production?
They'll get to sell (give?) conventional brakes to the field, but man, that won't cut costs for them.  :P

The 5 engines over the last 8 races... I imagine most of the change that will be noticeable will be max rev reduction.
I foresee lots of dyno time and brand-new parts to re-tune the engines.
IMO, it'll be a good while before this actually reduces costs.

How is the 'no launch control' going to reduce costs much?
Maybe remove one switch button, and a batch of code?
One bike loops out on the start, and the cost of the broken bits will outstrip the savings.  [coffee]

Is the engine complete rubbish after the race or are there parts that can be reused?  I'm still in awe that they slap a new lump in the bike every week.  Or are they using multiple engines in the course of a weekend?

I can see why a team like Kawasaki that isn't posting results regardless of the costs would use the "economic downturn" as an excuse to bow out.

i'd imagine the cases see multiple races, but there are wear items (rings, pistons) that are replaced more regularly...

while not the same thing, i wish i could find the article i read years ago about the life of a ducati superbike engine. it basically detailed how they were rebuilt over the race weekend and what the service life was for the various components, including the engine cases.

it was pretty interesting.

another "not the same thing, but use it as a guideline" example would be the last decade of engine rules in formula 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines)

funnily enough, something about the rules has changed every year for the last 5 years, all in the name of "cost containment." from 3L run what ya brung, to 3L v10 w/ 5 valves, to 2.4L v8s, to the 2.4L motors with mandatory multi-race longevity requirements.

i wonder how much money they've really saved to date.

That's my biggest problem with these rules to save money. F1 is particularly good at adding rules that end up having the opposite of the desired effect. The only way any of this will reduce costs is if these measures stay in place and unchanged for an extended period (and are actually cheaper).

yeah, the ever-changing aero rules were/are ridiculous. every single one of those rule changes sent an army of engineers back into the wind tunnel. hell, some of the teams even went through the expense of building their own tunnel facility!

Not to get political, but it is like that with almost everything. More rules = more undesirable results.

Campaign finance reform = only candidates that can afford dozens of lawyers run now

Raising legal drink age = more underage binge drinking

More farm subsidies = more industrial scale farms and fewer ma and pop

etc etc

mitt

I'm 100% with Mitt.  He's right on the racing-thing, too.

The motors will be detuned somehow, lower revs are the easiest (desmo's looking good now, fancy air-valve teams).  I think the slower teams will just get really slow OR race for wins and hope the motors last.  To be positive, I think satellite teams could push for the front at a few races and see what stays together.  They won't win otherwise.

the gresini team have already discussed the fact that elias' factory-spec bike runs at significantly higher revs that De angelis' customer spec bike.  wonder if they both step down, making no real change in the championship (other than lap times), or if the customer bikes get a better shot.

i think derby's right tho.  more factory money will be spent as a result.  the rotor money.  =)

and launch control.. uhh, it's already there.  the money is spent.

I, for one, am in favor of removing electronic aids.  I think removing launch control and electronically controlled suspension ( did not even know about that...wow) are steps in the right direction.  I want to see who the best man is that day at that given moment.  Who has the nerve to control a 250hp lump of twisting metal on the edge.

Regardless if it saves money immediately, it is the direction all racing should go!

oThe factorys will supply ecuw's with lower rev limits.  Poor teams will stay slow. Forget what I said

electronically controlled ohlins shocks were brand new in the latter half of last season.  to my knowledge the only bikes that tried running them in competition were the factory yamaha world superbikes.  ...they've since been banned there, too.  preemptive move by FIM.

i'm on board with fewer electronic aids, but launch control would not be at the top of my list.  fer chrissake, the TC systems have become predictive.

(yeah, there'd be no easy/fair/cost-effective way to limit TC in time for this season.)

f1 had to go to a spec ecu to eliminate traction control.

Seems that the brake rule was prohibiting Ceramic composite, not Carbon-Carbon.
So it seems Brembo isn't hosed.

But no *real* cost savings now.  [coffee]

Interesting info:
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Feb/090218i.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Feb/090218i.htm)

How will they regulate the electronics reduction?  These things are so small now and seems it would be easy to hide a few aids if teams wanted to cheat.  How do they distinguish between "routine maintenance" and swapping/rebuilding parts?

This is the same path that F1 went down, it's a no win situation. They keep trying to control racing with rules; it doesn't work. They need to set budget caps and then focus on making them work. That way, the team who can afford Rossi can't spend as much on development and vice versa. If they want electronics then they sacrifice somewhere else. What makes racing great is it's unpredictability and the struggle of it all, having everyone on the same bike is bullshit just as having everyone driving the same car in F1 is NASCAR.

and how do you propose they enforce the budget caps?  ;D

Every team gets allotted 50 million MotoGPBux, and must  buy everything with them. Problem solved.  ;D
<Ain't no way budget cap's gonna work. IMO >

It's easier to enforce technical limitations but the only way to easily enforce them is to have everyone on the same ECU, same tires, same gas, limited/no testing, blah blah blah. All that effort going into making things the same. I'm not some financial guru here guys, I just think that a cap should be set and then they should spend their energy making sure the cap is adhered to. There would need to be a discussion obviously and people who know GP racing and where the money goes would need to work it out.

How does it work in professional sport in the US? It's not as though I'm suggesting something that's never been tried before.

which fundamentally goes against the spirit of GP racing.

How exactly is this prototype racing if they begin to dumb down all these bikes.  I'm all for no traction control, but to be entirely honest, I have a feeling that the SBK's will end up being as fast and as good as GP bikes if they remove better brakes, no TC, already lower displacement, limited testing, limited engine usage, etc.  I'm not sure GP will have much point to the series if you aren't allowed to push the envelope with technology.  If the GP manufacturers have as good of bikes that you can buy on the street, then why waste money on this series.  The SBK's are already within a couple seconds of the back markers on the GP field.

I mean isn't it likely that superbikes will in theory have more technology usage than GP bikes next year?  Yeah you may have carbon frames etc, but SBK's will have traction control, more displacement, and already sporting engines that are built for relative longevity.  If the GP bikes can't stay far enough ahead of SBK's, then from a racer's standpoint, I would rather just pack my bags and go to world sbk anyway.  More elbow to elbow racing and probably a bike that is just as good or arguably better and more refined.

With the loss of traction control, its my opinion that the Ducati as currently built will have some issues.  That bike isn't really the best sorted bike imo.  I think Casey has mastered the use of that TC system and I really don't see him being as good a rider after they strip TC off that bike.  He won't be able to ride the bike anywhere near the way he does now... or I don't see it anyway.  I'm aware all the riders will have to adjust, but it just seems the Ducati, as we've seen for a while now, needs to be flogged all to hell and requires the rider to just believe in the TC system.  Nicky has already commented on it.  Take away that TC system and I don't see that bike being all that good.  Stoner mastered it, give him credit, but its gone brother.

IMO, motogp wasn't broke, so they shouldn't be fixing it.  Last year was some of the best racing in my brief moto histroy.

F1 was broke - boring racing, and impossible to pass. For me, F1 changes were more for competition and less for cost, but I am not an F1 expert.

I have another way to cut racing costs - how about you limit the amount of equipment that can travel from track to track to 1 cargo container?  How about limiting the number of team members to say 6?  Lets get back to the idea of 1965, like Kevin Cameron, where some gp teams had 3 people and drove from European country to country in the back of a van with 1 bike.  How much of a season's cost is really in development, and how much is in the logistics of shipping 8 bikes + 3 semi trucks + 100 people from exotic country to exotic country every week or two.

mitt

Dorna has no spirit.

That's the way all racing was then. There were no garages. You changed 350s to 250s in the back of a van, and then back again, so the bike could be ridden in two classes.

I think you're on the right track, but the public won't accept less of a spectacle IMO.

F1 was broken yes, but it was broken *because* of the regulations not the other way around. It was precisely because they implemented restrictions on just about everything and homogenized the cars that passing became so difficult. I realize the F1 thing is a little OT but my fear is that we're going down the same path with MGP. Once you make all the bikes the same, the only difference is the rider. What does that mean for GP? The best rider will usually win (the best rider should win but the races become processional). What does that mean for the sport, look at F1, they're now talking about a medal system rather than points (so retarded) and reverse grids to spice the racing up (totally retarded). The minute you make all the bikes the same, their theoretical performance maximum is the same but worse, their performance characteristics are all the same too. That means, for a given track and corner, all the bikes behave exactly the same way except for the rider. In a car I think the homogenization is a lot more noticeable because the driver plays less of a part in the performance equation but logically, if they're all the same, how does that improve passing? Not only that but in F1 they've had the same guy designing all the tracks for ages so all the tracks are the same too.

I think Jester made a very good point as well - what's the point of prototype racing if they're all the same?

The thing about WSBK is that it has built in limits, F1 & GP don't. Because WSBK and WSS are based on machines that have to be homologated, the manufacturers have only so far they can go.

They should just let them make any kind of Motorcycle they want to get around the track the fastest. Let the factory figure out what works & what doesn't. Same with F1.

more.... http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Mar/090329c.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Mar/090329c.htm)

hmmm..

no rookie factory riders?

How does that cut costs?

Did DMG buy Dorna? ;D

This part of the rule is gonna lead to some interesting strategery . . .


f) The penalty for using an unauthorized engine will be a deduction of 10 points from the total point of the Championship ranking of the rider concerned.

Spies is gonna be pissed.  Though he was going to Tech 3 anyhow.

WTF is up with this? 

1. Only one machine can be used during each MotoGP event.

If your favorite rider crashes on Fri and wads his bike, you don't get to see him at all that weekend?  That's bullshit.

from the No Shit Dept.: http://www.crash.net/World+Superbikes/News/144533/1/exclusive_spies_i_may_not_be_leaving_soon.html (http://www.crash.net/World+Superbikes/News/144533/1/exclusive_spies_i_may_not_be_leaving_soon.html)

just like in formula 1, you can only tech one machine per rider. if that machine gets wadded up, you can submit another machine.

The no rookies on factory teams is specifically to force the manufacturers to support satellite teams and keeps the field larger.  Its a good rule and needed considering the field is shrinking so bad.

What does this mean for rain races? Will there still be a second bike with rain tires waiting for the quick swap?

Haha, maybe they'll do a pitstop and have the bike jacked up and swap the tires like other series.  This would change the shape of things!

Dunno what they're going to do about the carbon brakes, AFAIK they don't use them in the wet.
And what about suspension setup?

I'm surprised they left in Carbon brakes, and also went with one bike.. seems like the wet weather races might be hard to do. Or they'll stop and restart?

In general I was meh on most of the rules... except the one bike rule, that one seems a bit crazy, and I've read somewhere that when it's been done in the past it did not work out so good.