Ducati Monster Forum

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/06/ezpeleta_mulls_a_return_to_1000cc.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/06/ezpeleta_mulls_a_return_to_1000cc.html)

I for 1 would be very happy to see 1000cc's again...I liked the cowboy antics of the 990 era of riding...

Me too.  Though I wonder, if they have the same gas restrictions and with the current state of electronics, how different would the 1000s would be than the 800s?  They wouldn't be backin' 'em in and sliding 'em around the way they used to.  The electronics packages won't let them.  And they won't be lighting up the rear ala McCoy b/c the electronic won't let 'em.  And there will still be a huge advantage for the smaller riders, because the electronics will keep the tires planted.

all true.  but if you're a larger human it won't require you to ride the thing like a 250.  you can use some of that weight transfer and be able to square up some corners without losing tons of time.

(aka, the major complaint about the 800s... and my personal opinion about why they went to them in the first place)

Seems to be for sure....

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/07/motogp_back_to_1000cc_from_2012.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/07/motogp_back_to_1000cc_from_2012.html)

make the beast with two backs, I hope not. I like the high corner speed of the 800's. And I wonder whether keeping the formula the same for a while will give certain manufacturers a chance to get closer to parity? I know opinions vary on this, but I like these things way more than the point & shoot 1000cc bikes.

it's not necessarily a manufacturer/parity issue.

look at the number of race winners 990vs800:

Number of different MotoGP race winners by manufacturer:

990cc (2002-2006)
Honda: 10 - Valentino Rossi, Sete Gibernau, Max Biaggi, Marco Melandri, Nicky Hayden, Dani Pedrosa, Alex Barros, Toni Elias, Makoto Tamada, Tohru Ukawa.
Yamaha: 2 - Valentino Rossi, Max Biaggi.
Ducati: 2 - Loris Capirossi, Troy Bayliss.
Suzuki: 0
Kawasaki: 0
Aprilia: 0
Roberts: 0
WCM: 0
Moriwaki: 0

800cc (2007 onwards)
Yamaha: 2 - Valentino Rossi, Jorge Lorenzo.
Ducati: 2 - Casey Stoner, Loris Capirossi.
Honda: 2 - Dani Pedrosa, Andrea Dovisioso
Suzuki 1 - Chris Vermeulen
Kawasaki: 0
Roberts: 0
Ilmor: 0

ok, so it's the same three factory teams with winning 800cc bikes, but where are all the privateer winners like the 990cc era?

I'm not sure it's really that straight forward. The are more privateer Honda teams in both cases, Honda just didn't do as good a job with the 800 as they did with the 990. There's also the question of where the talented riders are in terms of manufacturers. Personally I think that they would be better off leaving it alone for a few more years. That way Honda could get their bike up to speed and you'd get more privateer wins. I doubt that the 990s wouldn't have ended up with the same state of tune that the 800s have if the teams had been allowed to continue development.

Ditto. I had the same thoughts on privateers, but sort of came to the realization that keeping the formula the same for several years might help things there. Each new change in displacement likely results in a flurry of changes in virtually everything else...electronics, etc. I say leave 'em alone for a while.

+2
The reason for change is almost always about lower cost - in racing, and business in general.  But, nobody ever measures how much the change itself costs, just the final product.

mitt

Can someone explain the physics of this to me? or give me a link?  Is it the same principle as 600 v. 1000 in non-MotoGP racing (which I understand intuitively, but can't explain that well in writing)?  Seems like the point-n-shoot style versus corner speed style makes much less of a difference with modern electronics.  Is that wrong?

I personally don't want point & shoot in GP, that's what superbike is for. It's not like Rossi is a small guy either.

Change always costs more in the short term and, if you don't achieve the goals the change was targeting, change costs more short, medium and long term.

Asking/telling manufacturers to develop a whole new engine & platform isn't going to save anyone any money. Having a stock 1kcc motor and custom frames like moto2 won't save anyone any money in the short term and will only make money for the people who own the rights and only if more teams join *and* fans actually give a shit about the new series. I personally think that the fans actually care about the brands. I think moto2 dilutes the value for brands because they can't really ever say it was their bike that won (think NASCAR). What is moto2 saying with a win? It's saying that the rider is the best on the day, it's not really saying anything about a manufacturer so why do they want to be in a series with that formula?

I think moto2 will probably be ok (not for sure though) but mainly because Piagio was the only manufacturer who cared. In GP, going to stock motor will see the manufacturers leave IMO which I personally don't want.

Spidey, I could be wrong but if you think about where the CoG is on a bike with a big/heavy person as opposed to a small/light person, in theory a lighter person can run at higher corner speeds. If you give he big/heavy person a more powerful bike, they can make up for the deficit.

I thought it was a matter of torque and horsepower?  That is, the smaller bike can't accelerate as hard, particularly from low rpms, so speed has to be conserved as much as possible.

I was under the impression that 1000cc were cheaper, because it's easy for everybody to make "too much" horsepower.  It's harder to squeeze the performance out of the 800s, so the ones with deep pockets (and good riders) run away from everybody else.  True or false?

true'ish

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/09/fim_president_world_superbike_contract_n.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/09/fim_president_world_superbike_contract_n.html)

closer... and could be an option for production-based engines (sorta)

basically the 1000cc powerplants are too much power.. but with more power available than you can really use, you can make line & racecraft adjustments mid-corner and still have enough in reserve to not lose time or place.  with the 800 there is, essentially.. at the GP level, one line through any corner. 

if you're on the limit 99.9% of the time, you get follow the leader racing.

I'm no expert (far from it) but I don't buy the "too much power" argument. I don't see factories saying "oh, well, we have an extra 20hp so we don't need to do any work on our motor or electronics". Nor do I believe that a change back to 1000cc will lead the factories to remove any of the electronics which have cost a lot of money to develop.

I've asked/said before and I look for a correction from some of the more knowledgeable members; GP bikes are a function of the riders, the best riders came through GP bikes, they focus more on corner speed, that's why the bikes have gone the route they have, the best riders are faster on bikes like this than point and shoot WSBK style bikes.

from an available traction point of view, you can definitely have "too much power."

I sort of agree.  Once the electronics pandora box has been opened, I don't know how to close it without a rules change.

However, if it's just as easy to park the bike on the apex, stand it up, and use ridiculous amounts of power to rocket off the corner, that might be a cheaper solution.  The theory is that 1000cc bikes make that strategy more realistic, especially for private teams (and Suzuki  ;D).

Sure but that's not the argument here is it? On one hand we're arguing that the 800s have too many electronic aids and on the other we're saying a return to 1000cc bikes would produce a bike which would overwhelm traction. I'm talking from a developmental perspective, with the 800s having enough power to overwhelm the rear as well (based on the highsides we've seen) what's the difference? How will 1000cc bikes change the equation?

Untill this year, we had 125/250/GP[800].

Now we'll have 125/600/800... Doesn't sound like there'll be too much difference between the two 'upper' classes.

I'm for 990cc GP class once again, all manufacturers have the tech to be on the same even playing field.

Regarding to weight, remember FIM told HRC to 'add' weight to Pedrosa's bike to have an 'even' weight field, back in the day? Stoner is heavier, not by much, but heavier than Pedrosa or should we add weight to Edward's motorcycle?

I'm for 990cc back on GP, the electronics, just make them to regulate fuel delivery and maybe, traction control, let the riders battle it out with both, man and machine, that's why Rossi is so good. He is from way when...

My 0.02

Kind of what we've been discussing.  One theory is that they can point-and-shoot a 1000cc bike just as fast (or possibly faster) than they can use a corner-speed style on a 1000cc.  Part of the theory is that point-and-shoot is cheaper and easier to produce than corner-speed, bringing costs down.  I can't prove the theory, but I think it's interesting.

Right, I'm asking why anyone thinks we can wind back the clock to the point and shoot style of riding? I'm saying that yes, we get more power with a 1000cc but the electronics we have now would probably be able to account for that so I don't see how it's going to change anything?

I don't recall where I saw it, but the 'cornerspeed' solution was said to be a result of the fuel capacity limits.

Less fuel consumed due to less acceleration.
Point'n'shoot could get quicker laptimes, but then run out of fuel before the end of the race.

i think you'd possibly end up with both; a cornerspeeder out front with a point-n-shooter trying to dive up under him to take a position without getting re-passed due to lost momentum.

Not totally on-topic, but here's a good article where The Ben talks about the differences between a WSBK bike and a GP bike:

http://www.roadracerx.com/features/tuesday-conversation/tuesday-conversation-ben-spies/ (http://www.roadracerx.com/features/tuesday-conversation/tuesday-conversation-ben-spies/)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though the main reason to go to "1000 cc" engines was because these (stock) engines can largely come 'off the shelf' and (supposedly) reduce major engine-developement costs to the racing team (whick keeps them around for a few more years).

I would think the cost of developing and maintaining the electronic systems on the bikes is very high.

Seems the 'governing bodies' are trying a little too hard to write equipment specs/standards....They could all race 500s again and I'd still enjoy watching it.

Just pick something and let's go racing    [moto]

the argument for going back to 1000 is flawed.  this is motogp this is not super stock or slightly stock class.  its an expensive proposition, tha tis the game if you aren't willing to do the development work then you don't go into it.  even when they go back to 1k motors they are not the same motors as what you get on a bike.

do you see ducati making all their bikes v4 like the d16? obviously not, and that is the only thing thing are using for racing, until they made the d16 they didnt' have a 1k motor that they raced in gp that was sold off the shelf.  even now that is basically a limited bike and really its not helping them "save money" by going back to that bike, because even though its 'like a gp engine" its not a motogp engine.

i think the only reason why some want to go back to the 1k motors is because thier 800 motors are basically being stomped so badly i the past years, ie, honda, suzuki, and kawa... i think when they go back to the 1k motors and they see the sam epeople winning they might might realize its not the engine size that is doing it but the riders only.

if they want to make motogp a bit tougher, make them use 87 pump gas instead, they can mod the electronics all they want but make them actually use pump gas and pass emissions too.   it would show what a factory backed team "could" do with an emissions legal motor but will be able to tweak everything else like they do.

....what?

the argument for going back to ~1000cc is that the 800cc racing sucks.

the argument for production-derivitive motors is that it'll bring costs down.

they're separate issues altogether.

of course, switching back to 1000cc could be a precursor to production-based motors

peter clifford:

http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/11/12/peter_clifford_interview_wcm_blata_and_p.html (http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/11/12/peter_clifford_interview_wcm_blata_and_p.html)

http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/11/13/peter_clifford_interview_part_ii_how_wcm.html (http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/11/13/peter_clifford_interview_part_ii_how_wcm.html)

that's already part of the equation

then go tell that to derby  ;)

there's a decoder ring problem here.  he knows.

[laugh] then I take it back

That's subjective IMO.

My question is when? F1 keeps doing this, it doesn't save money. It costs money to switch to a new engine. Who's production engine will it be btw? What value does GP provide beyond WSBK if they're using the same engines? How will that affect investment in the series in the long term? Why not allow manufacturers to have a more direct connection from the GP bikes to production bikes? Rather than saying no part of the bike can be part of a production motorcycle, why not let the manufacturers use GP as a testing ground for what will be in their production bikes. Yes, I know they do already but it's arbitrarily disconnected for the sake of regulation. That way the manufacturers could use the investment they're already making into production motorcycles more directly in the development of their GP bikes.

Agreed

I thought that was the proposal?  Not to force a production-based engine, but to allow it.

yes it is.  however just about everyone under the sun agrees.


there's a lot more to a bike than the engine.  and "based on" is not "the same". 

besides, in practice this new based-on rule will really only be used by satellite teams & people trying to get into the series.  i highly highly doubt that the 2012 M1 engine is going to come in an R1 case, that the RC213V or GSV-R will suddenly become inline 4's, etc..

yep.

Maybe semantics but I'm talking from the opposite direction. My understanding from the proposal was that GP bikes would use a production engine i.e. it's already in a production motorcycle. I'm saying that the rule restricting direct transfer of GP technology to production be removed so that the test motors that the manufacturers are working on would actually end up in the GP bikes i.e. GP motors are pre-cursors to production motors.

no, it would just make that an available option.

Seems kind of dumb to me, we're going to end up with some people running production motors and some not? How does that help the spectacle? How will that change the "800cc racing sucks" situation if the main teams are still running GP motors?

you're making the assumption that someone who starts with a production case and then builds an engine and bike around it is going to be way off the mark.

also, we really don't know what "production-based motor" means...

read the peter clifford interview where he talks about the (r1-based) motor they tried to use back in 2003.

It's not clear to me how it helps the racing situation either, but I can see how it brings the cost-of-entry lower.  Maybe combined with a "satellite team championship" and a "satellite rider championship" within the existing series, it might make it more attractive to private teams.  After all, the WSBK rides are producing good horsepower, and they have limits on the kinds of modifications they can make.

Poncharal says that the new motors would apply to everyone. I haven't seen any detail on the actual proposal however.

I think that we're then putting the horse before the cart. We're going to have a prototype series and run production motors? Yes there's more to a GP bike than the motor but why not let the manufacturers use GP as a test bed for their pre-production motors rather than restricting the transfer of technology as is currently the case?

I doubt there's going to be a split engine spec so whether or not someone could build a production based motor & be competitive is irrelevant. I'm not really sure how much money will be saved if everything but the cases are prototype.

I feel like I'm missing something here when I'm arguing against (it seems) the gm2s & derbys.

i'm basing most of my conjecture on this

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/09/fim_president_world_superbike_contract_n.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/09/fim_president_world_superbike_contract_n.html)

What this means in practice is that if a team turned up with a modified Yamaha R1, Honda CBR1000, MV Agusta F4 or BMW S1000RR, it would not be declared legal. However, if someone turned up with, say, a heavily modified engine based on Yamaha R1 crankcases in a Harris chassis, they could roll it out on track and compete. By the same token, if the teams turned up with a 2006 Yamaha M1, or the 2005 Ducati Desmosedici ridden by Loris Capirossi, they would also most likely be legal. The discussions at the moment are based around racing four-cylinder four-strokes, limiting the number of permitted cylinders in an attempt to cap costs.

i love this:


that's exactly the bike peter clifford/wcm tried to run that was found "illegal."

Don't know if I'd call it competing...going around the track, maybe. ;D

Fair enough.

What I'm saying is that the 2012 M1 motor would be (and even potentially the 2013 WSBK R1 motor and then) the 2014 R1 motor (for argument's sake) rather than the 2012 M1 motor being the Frankenstein 2012 R1 motor which is what's being proposed as far as I can tell.

Edit: A slightly different way of putting it would be to say that GP motors had to be pre-production rather than prototype.

As the rules stand (IIRC) manufacturers are forbidden from using any of the GP motor bits inside a production motor and vice versa. The net affect of this is that manufacturers have two different and for the most part unrelated engine development efforts going on and GP development can only be in theory used in production motorcycles. Combining this development cycle would lead to large (I would guess) cost savings on the part of the manufacturers.

A little fuel for the fire:

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/17/filippo_preziosi_on_the_new_ducati_engin.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/17/filippo_preziosi_on_the_new_ducati_engin.html)

Interesting. So they are planning on continuing prototype motors alongside "production" motors. Seems like a dumb idea to me. There are going to be some slow back markers!

We've already got some painfully slow backmarkers anyway.  Imagine the dogfights for the 15th-25th positions!  Bring on more bikes!   ;D

[laugh]

They could make the class really cheap if they let people race bicycles.

and interesting if the bicycles could be like this....

http://www.mad-ducati.com/Video/bsandusky/rocketbike.wmv (http://www.mad-ducati.com/Video/bsandusky/rocketbike.wmv)

Kawasaki could get back into GP too!

(http://pics.apartment808.com/users/CZroe/kawasaki_bicycle.jpg)

I'm tellin ya...Turbo 'Busas...with mandatory extended swingarms...it's the only logical answer.

how many stages of nitrous are they allowed in that class and what capacity of injection?

hasn't that been said/the topic of this thread for quite a while now?  yes, under the current proposed plan, there will be both.

I think if you add emphasis to "they are" you may get my meaning. It was more surprise that that option would be the one put forward. It pretty much sets in stone a 2 class GP structure.

Depends if there's limits placed on the prototype motors; air restrictors, rpm, etc.

I could see that happening.

gotcha.

regardless, the Flammini brothers sound like they're going to start pounding chests again re production being solely their domain...

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/17/flammini_on_1000cc_motogp_bikes_we_are_r.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/11/17/flammini_on_1000cc_motogp_bikes_we_are_r.html)

as opposed to now?  ;D

Only as much as the rider can huff before the race.

+1

Can't imagine Rossi/Lorenzo having to filter through backmarkers for the last few laps of a championship-deciding race.... [roll]  [bang]

This sort of thing was disturbing enough to watch in (pre-DMG) AMA Superbike - such as Spies and Mladin at Barber in 2007(?)...the race turned on Spies getting past a BM while Mladin got "stuck" for a while....with several laps to go in the race...

Would be an accident waiting to happen :P

MotoGP keeps talking about money, but I can't see starting a "premier class" race with 30-plus bikes/riders when ten of them might get lapped....

Overall, I just don't see strategic thinking on the part of MotoGP....just a lot of tweaking and in-flight corrections based on what's happened this year, or last.

I guess I'll sit back and enjoy the show. I hope they have some nice flourishes before they concede that they have no right to stop the GP plan and nor should they be worried. SBK isn't going anywhere.

Heh, yeah. Imagine what we have now but riders getting lapped every lap after #8. It's a scale thing.

That's kind of what I was getting at. I'm not sure what the value is to a company getting into GP to run around at the back. It's certainly possible to come up with a set of rules that would make the racing competitive but if that's achieved by restricting the prototype motors, they're going to lose fans over it. My suggestion (other than the pre-production option which would be my first choice) would be to remove the number of races per motor requirement and to allow the production based (shall we call them povo?) engined bikes more fuel. I guess the could try reducing weight of the povo motorcycles but I think a balance would be very difficult to strike.

nice to see a "250 guy" excited for the return of the big bikes:

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/154764/1/pedrosa_backs_fun_990cc_return.html (http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/154764/1/pedrosa_backs_fun_990cc_return.html)

I don't know--are WSBK times really that far off GP times?  The backmarker argument assumes that you cannot make a competitive bike using some off-the-shelf parts.  I'm not sure if that has been proved.

BTW, isn't there still a minimum qualifying time requirement?  Like a certain percentage of the pole-sitter time?

It's all BS AFAIC, it was BS when they introduced 800s to slow people down and it's BS now that they're increasing the capacity again to make it "cheaper". Unless they limit the electronic aides or introduce some other limits on the prototype motors in the form of budget caps the factories will always spend loads of cash and anyone running the production based motors will always be slower.

Cider, I was exaggerating (I like doing that) but the point is this: the new regulations are meant to reduce costs by allowing teams to produce engines from some production parts, if slightly out of date prototype motors can't compete, how are production based "cheap" motors meant to be up at that level?

If the difference between a factory prototype motor and a leased prototype is .5 seconds a lap (I'm being generous), can we really expect that factories would want their prototype leased motors to be beaten by the production motors? How do they then justify the investment?

They were talking about this in F1 and I absolutely agree that having two classes of motor within GP is a really bad idea. The whole ROI becomes blurred at that point because if the povo motors are competitive why are factories spending ridiculous amounts of cash on the prototypes and if they're not competitive why would anyone want to race them in order to trundle around at the back of the grid?

i don't think the move to 800s was ever about safety or slowing them down.  i think it was about making the most effective/successful path to GP be via the GP support classes.

They said it was about slowing down top speeds at the time. I'm not talking about actual reasons here, we don't actually know them, I'm talking about what we were told. It's the same deal with F1. Their intended goals always seem contrary to the means they introduce to achieve them.

right, agreed.  that is the party line about the move since, what, 2005?  i'm just giving my opinion.  :)

Oh, fair enough.

I'm not sure what they're aiming for behind the scenes this time but it won't result in cost reduction, that's for sure.

Probably not.  I wonder if they know that and don't care, or if they are just repeating mistakes?

Agreed.  In fact, when I heard this proposal my first thought was that maybe the manufacturers want a more direct tie-in between the prototype race stuff and the production stuff so that they can justify the R&D.  I'm not thinking take a street bike and make a GP bike out of it, I'm thinking the other way--detune a GP bike and sell it as a production bike.

at least one OEM already did that..  well, limited production anyway.

I thought I heard that part of the argument was that since GP-spec changed to 800cc, they could release the 990cc D16 as a production bike.

That's (almost ;)) exactly what I've been saying, remove the rule (or enforce a new rule) that would enable/require teams to use pre-production motors. That would mean that there'd be a direct developmental link between GP motors, WSBK motors and street motors. WSBK guys couldn't complain because the motors are pre-production, we'd get a nice trickle down and it'd be cheaper for the factories to develop these motors. Production based motors would then have some hope in hell of being competitive. They would then also remove the number of races on one motor rule because GP would then serve as development for the production motors.

I doubt they'll go for that idea though because this is based on the premise that the reason they're going down this road is to reduce costs and not some other hidden reason that us plebs aren't party to.

Cider - yes, that's correct.

I think that for sure....

look at it...the GP grid is not as exciting as it used to be and not as packed full of competition like it used to be when any rider on the grid can win on any raceday...unless it is a rainrace...then all bets are off...so they are pulling at loose strings looking for a cure....this happens to be the currently popular fat one they are grasping at...

i think it's a slightly more logical move than that.  the 800cc formula simply didn't work.  damn near everyone wants to go back to 1K.  that's one issue.

the 2nd issue, ~production motors and cost, is separate.  function of the economy blah blah.. but really just a more deliberate attempt to fix the major problem that there are only 16 bikes on the grid next year.

sure, the 4 (...or 5 ;D) aliens may still be in one race and the rest in another.  but if The Rest is 20 bikes and they are all scrapping and dicing rather than playing follow the leader, the whole series is a hell of a lot better for it.

My take: it didn't work for Honda who makes up and who's engines make up a large part of the grid.

Maybe so but what's the end result going to be?

We still won't see them because the focus will still be on the front runners, I doubt that will change (who the front runners are, how far ahead they are or that they're the only ones on camera 95% of the time).

the people who win are still going to be the people who win.  but maybe the gresinis etc of the world will start seeing the podium again.  regardless, if the racing gets better in the B group it's going to be better for the series as a whole.  both in terms of [the limited] tv coverage they get and the path from a satellite bike to a factory bike.

I think if Honda didn't suck so much we wouldn't be complaining about this.

In that vein, it would be more like wsbk.  The front runners in wsbk gap the field by quite a bit by race end, and really there are only 5-6 guys that can consistantly challenge up front in that series.  Its just that there are lots of scraps going on behind them that can be worth watching.  MotoGP could use the same scenario as gm2 says.  We just need more bikes filling out the rest of the field.

Haga/Spies/Fabri/Biaggi/Rea etc run off into the distance most of the time, just as Rossi/Stoner/Yorgie/Pedro do the same.

Ducati announced a 4 cylinder 1000cc bike at misano during world ducati week in 2004 and showed a prototype of the engine (I was there  ;D ).  I am pretty sure, but not 100% certain, that was before the talk of GP 800's happened.

mitt

yep.  but at least in wsbk you get certain riders at certain tracks that seem to have the place dialed; checa @ miller (well, before ben came along), biaggi @ brno, haslam @ donington and other random places, smrz here and there, shakey @ portimao, etc.  even if the top 5 guys are almost always involved it's not always ONLY those guys.

either way, dorna and fim both know they need a deeper field, more racing than just for the podium, and a much bigger pipeline of riders.  i don't think that anyone can argue that wsbk has been a LOT more exciting* to watch since 2007.

 
*save laguna '08 and catalunya '09, of course.  ;)

I really feel that as the pool gets larger, the talent (bikes and riders) will get thinner and the backmarkers will factor into the races.

If I get time I'll try to check lap times at tracks where WSBK/AMA and MotoGP raced about the same period in 2009...maybe I'm all wet.

Great point!  Implies (to me) that we're seeing the resulting thinning of the herd (from hard economic times) in MotoGP.  So, getting more teams into MotoGP seem to be only about keeping the series popular, entertaining, and a draw for the fan's money.

In that vein, they ought to take a look at how Nascar is marketed or, even, shut it down for a year (like the ML baseball strike)...the fans all came back in droves....and the Yankees still won the most championships for a - nothing changed.....

here's brno 2009 for comparison.  last place GP qualifier Talmacsi qualified 1.2 seconds ahead of WSBK pole-sitter biaggi.  and GP pole-sitter rossi was 3.8 seconds ahead of biaggi.

http://www.crash.net/motogp/results/151040/1/brno_motogp_-_qualifying_times.html (http://www.crash.net/motogp/results/151040/1/brno_motogp_-_qualifying_times.html)
http://www.crash.net/world+superbikes/results/150231/1/brno_-_qualifying_times_1.html (http://www.crash.net/world+superbikes/results/150231/1/brno_-_qualifying_times_1.html)

What were the race times?

i'm too lazy to do the work. iirc, the motogp races are longer than the worldsbk races, so you have to break out the lap chart and account for the difference.

The comparative race times based upon the 22 lap motogp race would be:

MotoGP 22 laps:  43:08.991
WSBK   22 laps:  44:20.13

So the winning superbike ( round 1 Biaggi ) at Brno would have finished approximately 1 minute and 11-12 seconds behind Rossi.  Talmasci finished 59.188 seconds behind Rossi for comparison.

So the fastest superbike of round 1 is still 12 seconds off the backmarker of the worst GP rider/bike combo.  ( personally I think Talmasci had no business on that grid, but money talks )

Dunno if these minimum weights are currently correct, but it was all I could find...

WSBK 162 kg
MotoGP 148 kg

So, about 31 lbs heavier.

And who knows what difference the tires make.

Not to mention the prototype chassis.

Oh, and the jockey-sized riders ;D

When did GP become proto type only?  It wasn't back in Kevin Cameron's time if I understood his book correctly? 


mitt

I believe the tires are significantly better on a GP bike.  Spies had said that the grip levels of GP tires are insane compared to what the sbk's use.

For another comparison sake, WSBK and the 250cc class run identical lap numbers of 20 on the Brno round.  Finals times of the winner ( race one Biaggi and Simoncelli ):

Biaggi WSBK  -    40:18.306
Simoncelli 250 -  41:06.490

So the SBK's are pretty much a middle ground in between 250 and MotoGP.

30 lbs and muuuch better tires will get you that kind of differential

i think it was by default during the 2-stroke era, and was made "official" with the move (back) to 4-strokes.

noyes says...

http://moto-racing.speedtv.com/article/motogp-1000cc-for-2012-or-even-2011-pt-1/ (http://moto-racing.speedtv.com/article/motogp-1000cc-for-2012-or-even-2011-pt-1/)

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/05/ezpeleta_we_will_not_define_what_a_produ.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/05/ezpeleta_we_will_not_define_what_a_produ.html)

Blah...

blah...

blah...

Blah blah. ;D

no kidding.  legalese. 

next they will tell us that, seeing as how they make 20 or 50 or whatever it is number of GP engines per year, that's "production".

That puts the special in "homoligation special".

You're catching on. ;)

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Dec/091211a.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Dec/091211a.htm)

<tingly (again)> 

Is that it?  Or is that a summary of the rule?  Cuz there's gonna be a big-ass fight if that's all the rules says.  

Edit:  Ah, its' just a general rule so that they can get started on development: 

“The main changes we have decided on are new rules for the MotoGP class,” added FIM President Vito Ippolito. “We will have four-cylinder engines, four-stroke of course, with a 1,000cc maximum. This base will give all the manufacturers the opportunity to start work. At the beginning of next year we will produce the new rules in a more complete format, but that is the basis. 2012 will be the year of a new era of MotoGP.”

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/155290/1/new_era_for_motogp_as_1000cc_returns_in_2012.html (http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/155290/1/new_era_for_motogp_as_1000cc_returns_in_2012.html)

http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=38940 (http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=38940)

I was asking specifically about the 2012 engine rule.  It looks like they've just laid out the general standards and will get the technical rules in place (like they have for 2010 engines in the RR link) later down the line.

Max bore of 81mm, so max stroke 48.5mm.
Bore/stroke ratio of 1.67.

Gonna put the hurt on Ducati, taking weight off of the front wheel...

I've heard generally that it's gonna hurt the Duc, but can you 'splain puh-leeze the part about the front wheel?

Area of the piston is pi * r² so max area is 40.5² x 3.14 or 515mm²

With a max displacement (per cylinder) of 250, that leaves us with a min stroke of 250cm³ / 51.5cm² or 48.5mm

81mm / 48.5 mm gives us a maximum (mightily over-square) bore-stroke ratio of 1.67
(Just checkin' yer maths  ;D)

The current bore/stroke on the 'Sedici (according to Wiki) is 104mm bore, 64.7mm stroke but this can't be right as this gives us a 2 liter engine. Maybe it's for one of their twins...

But at least the ratio is a similar 1.60, so it shouldn't hurt them too much.

Hmmm, I also found the more reasonable bore/stroke value of 86x42.56 on the web.

That's 2.02 so I can see that being a big change for them

Longer stroke means the distance from crank centerline to the front of the horizontal cylinder head is bigger.
So, effectively the engine moves back in the chassis.

I can't find a pic of the GP09 engine, so I may be talking out my arse.

Ah, that makes perfect, simple sense.  [thumbsup]  I thought it was gonna be a bunch more complicated than that.

Well, he didn't explain how the shorter stroke results in less space/time drag in the rotating Minkovskian reference sphere, leading to less graviton production around the centralized mass-space.

But his description is good for the lay-person  ;D

On a more serious note: Can anyone explain why they made the bore size restriction? Are they attempting to put a limit on how over-square (and peaky) the motors are? In other words, a round-about way to restrict output to a certain extent.

Or is it yet another 'switch from max 5 cylinders to 4 while conveniently dropping displacement by 20%' giveaway to a certain manufacturer who shall remain nameless (coughHondacough)?

Just an easy to enforce rev-limiter, as they've effectively decreed a minimum stroke.

I strongly suspect there will be additional rules prohibiting exotic-material pistons and rods, as that's the 1st engine-builder countermeasure against that kind of restriction to get more revs.

why not just make it another spec class....

like moto 2? [evil]

Please, never speak of this again. They might be listening.

A few more details:
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/12/more_on_the_motogp_rule_changes_6_engine.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/12/more_on_the_motogp_rule_changes_6_engine.html)

I'm hoping the return to 1000cc will give us 4 more years of Rossi.  2 years to wrap up 800cc's and hopefully he signs on another couple to retire on the 1000's.

What are the Odds that any of the teams will use a "Stroker motor" (Bore less than 81mm) and go for more tourqe?

Uhm....HI!!!
Unless, FIM/Dorna asks teams to 'hand out' engine blue prints???

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/18/flammini_production_based_bikes_won_t_be.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/18/flammini_production_based_bikes_won_t_be.html)

Read back in the thread.

I'd say the odds are 100% since they are mandating a max bore of 81mm.

Uh, I mean. "Yes, I'll take those odds. I bet $1000 that *all* the teams will make the switch."  ;D

Well, maybe not *all* of the bikes will be 1000cc in '12:

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/02/05/manufacturers_want_800cc_bikes_to_remain.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/02/05/manufacturers_want_800cc_bikes_to_remain.html)

 [popcorn]

related, sorta: latest issue of RRW has an article comparing/contrasting WSBK and MotoGP once they're both at 1000cc. 

also has an interesting article about how the differences in the spec tires between each series entirely dictates the different styles of riding we see between the two series.  includes a comment from The Ben, theorizing that JT spent too long on the pirellis to be successful on the 'stones... which, come to think of it, supports why he did a lot better on the Michelins when he first got to GP.

More 2012 specs released.  6 or 12 engines for the season.  A claiming rule, eh?

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/02/17/motogp_2012_1000cc_regulations_more_fuel.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/02/17/motogp_2012_1000cc_regulations_more_fuel.html)

claiming.  BOO.

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/02/25/yamaha_to_stick_with_800cc_m1_in_2012.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/02/25/yamaha_to_stick_with_800cc_m1_in_2012.html)

It's gonna be like '02 all over again.  Alternatively, there's a chance that an entire factory's worth of motorcycle racing engineers knows more than I do.   :P  

Doesn't that also mean that Rossi is going to Ducati in 2011?

Quoth the article:
The company's MotoGP project director Masao Furusawa told MCN that...

Consider the source...

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/04/29/future_of_motogp_to_be_decided_on_saturd.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/04/29/future_of_motogp_to_be_decided_on_saturd.html)

I think I read the article...

I still don't know anything. :-\

hmm.. http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/05/06/herve_poncharal_i_don_t_think_there_will.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010/05/06/herve_poncharal_i_don_t_think_there_will.html)

I feel, it's only a feeling, that one of them, maybe more, will be ready to race with a 1000cc prototype, and if one is doing it, then all them will have to do it. So maybe, already, from 2012, the 800cc won't be a problem any more, because out of the rules we already have, you could almost already delete the 800cc.

herve has a history of being right about such things.

http://motomatters.com/analysis/2010/11/29/the_2012_motogp_revolution_part_1_the_ru.html (http://motomatters.com/analysis/2010/11/29/the_2012_motogp_revolution_part_1_the_ru.html)

some great reading....once again!

http://motomatters.com/analysis/2011/03/07/the_2012_motogp_revolution_part_2_motogp.html (http://motomatters.com/analysis/2011/03/07/the_2012_motogp_revolution_part_2_motogp.html)

its not a simple future for sure


mitt

Why do I feel dirty after reading that?

Must be all the lawyers in the room. [puke]

Funny. I had that same feeling. Off to the showers. [roll]

That there's whole lots of polytickin'... :P

Well, I guess the good thing about MotoGP is that it's nowhere near the $ of F1, so there's a whole lot less of the slimy stuff goin' on.  [coffee]

OK I'm gonna try and figure this out

Moto3=250 4stroke
Moto2=Spec Honda motor
Moto1=1000 production motors
MotoGP=1000 prototypes

with the Moto1 and GP on the track at the same time

I read another article that said the conspiracy is Moto1 is the reason Ducati pulled out of WSBK since the Ducati owners and Dorna chief are buds and think WSBK is beneath them. And I believe that as I see the direction Ducati is taking in all their bikes.

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/167288/1/1000cc_set_for_mugello_test_debut.html (http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/167288/1/1000cc_set_for_mugello_test_debut.html)

@motomatters: The BMW-powered Suter MotoGP CRT machine:

(http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg615/scaled.php?tn=0&server=615&filename=hhmii.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640)

(http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg620/scaled.php?tn=0&server=620&filename=8q9ps.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640)

pt 3:  http://motomatters.com/analysis/2011/10/31/the_2012_motogp_revolution_part_3_politi.html (http://motomatters.com/analysis/2011/10/31/the_2012_motogp_revolution_part_3_politi.html)

intereseting

So how does a 1200cc twin qualify for moto1?

GOOD PIECE!!! [thumbsup]

also of general curiousity to me is how there was supposed to be an announcement by the end of the SePang weekend IIRC about Suzuki and their general plans, but I don't recall hearing or seeing anything....

I'm not surprised that such an announcement either got cancelled or lost in the tragedy.

I would say Suzuki conveniently swept it back under the table.....

 ??? ???

This is stupid. Bring back tobacco money and while we're at it pharmaceutical companies can advertise on the track pavement. I dont care how, just bring back the good ol' days.

it doesn't.  but what are you talking about?

an suzuki, there's been no announcement so far.

i Know I'm questioning myself, but this still didnt make sense to me. Ducati doesn't make a 4valve 1000cc unless they will make a 1200 for the WSBK and 1000 for Moto1 

CRT bikes may be based on production engines, don't have to be.  for those that do start with production-based engines (which appears to be 100% of the CRTs so far) none of them will be using a Ducati twin, because they can't.  CRT bikes are 'Machines of up to 1000cc, accepted as Claiming Rule Team (CRT) entries, with a minimum weight of 153kg.'

I think the bottom line here is that Ducati doesn't get to field a Moto1 bike, as 1200cc twins simply aren't provided for in the rules.

Very interesting.

...nobody says they can't build a different motor that conforms to the rules.

Well, true.

The implied subtext was "I think the bottom line here is that Ducati doesn't get to field a Moto1 bike using their current superbike engine, as 1200cc twins simply aren't provided for in the rules."

Well, Ducati (or anyone) can build a 1000cc twin, or a 1000cc triple.

But the maximum bore is still 81mm.

So the twin would have ~97mm stroke, and the triple would have ~64mm stroke.

They'd be interesting motors, but not competitive against 4-cylinder engines with 81mm bore.

are u sure the bore limit is for moto one

give it a few mins, but I am betting derby or gm2 or one of those guys will post the specific regulations....

yup...

max cylinders is 4
max bore is 81mm

somebody could make a twin, but there really isn't a point.

edit:

(old) 2012 regulations link:

http://motomatters.com/news/2010/02/17/motogp_2012_1000cc_regulations_more_fuel.html (http://motomatters.com/news/2010/02/17/motogp_2012_1000cc_regulations_more_fuel.html)

comment at the end re 2013:  http://superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111103ryderntes.htm (http://superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111103ryderntes.htm)

Hm...

No shit.  That's pretty vague.

Is Ezpeleta on a mission to make motorcycle racing as homogeneous and as boring as possible?

Seems to me like he's thinking maybe going in the entirely opposite direction of the current MotoGP format will make things more exciting.

As MotoGP has been, for the 800 era, just about as boring as possible.

Well in a way it will destroy "grand prix" racing as we know it.  You might as well go watch WSBK, as those factory efforts will probably outspend anything in GP.  There would be no incentive or reason to pursue cutting edge technology when your neighbor in the paddock can just take it from you.  The racing might be a little closer, but the spirit of prototype racing would be dead.  MotoGP is supposed to be the pentacle of motorcycle racing technology, not some homologated type claiming series.  Its quite convenient that they are choosing 2013, since all the major name racers are without a contract.  It would be the perfect time to toss in the hand grenade and yell "run."

In a way it's actually interesting, but I agree with Jester. This would basically kill GP. It will also grind to a halt any new tech, how much advance technology has Nascar applied to day to day life. Stock racing is fun to watch and very competitive, but prototype racing introduces the real next gen go fast items. CRT bikes will not translate to the street if there are no "factories" to make them.

Smells more like he's staking out a radical position in the negotiation with the manufacturers, with an eye toward pushing them as far as possible on the CRT issue among others. Don't like my races? Fine. Go home.

Seems unlikely that he'd think the show would get better and draw more eyes by taking the fastest, most heavily promoted bikes off the grid.

Or that the sponsors would still hang around, considering the claim rule.

Pressure is one thing.

Who's going to run in his races if the manus go home?

why would the claiming rule have any effect on the sponsors?

the rest of the grid, just like they did in worldsbk when all the factory teams (except ducati) left.

the "show gets better" when the field is "tight" and you don't know who's going to win the race before the weekend is even run.

the team sponsors are paying for eyeballs, they could really give two shits how trick the bikes are or how much unobtanium they're constructed of.

if "the show" improves and the audience grows, more people see their brand. all the better if their costs go down. they may even be able to sponsor more bikes...

win-win for everybody.

the only thing motogp has to do is be faster at a given track than worldsbk. the tires make a huge difference here.

can I edit your post for spelling? [evil]

Sponsors want to be in front or at least on a "big name" bike. Even now MotoGP is having issues keeping sponsors, and they defninitely do not like parity. They will always prefer a Stoner taking up 60% of the broadcast when he's leading by 3 seconds or the fact that Rossi will get coverage even if he's in 15th place.

I'm not going to argue that making all the bikes claiming-rule bikes will kill GP as we know it. It will.

However, I also don't think anyone can make a reasonable defense for the last several years of GP as anything other than "the dullest it's ever been."

At this point I think they're willing to adopt anything they think will make the racing more entertaining, even if it goes completely against the traditional way of things.

Agreed, but getting rid of the factory bikes?!

to me there are several rules that are killing GP.
1) limited testing. this doesn't give the chance for teams to catch up like they could if they could test more.... fixed
2) bore rule. this makes every team basically build a similar motor... not fixed
3) tires. one manufacturer doesn't give the ability of a team to pick the best tire for their bike to make it more competetive... not fixed

Seems like the sort of thing you'd do if you knew there was a huge problem, and were desperately trying to assign blame.


Agreed. I think if GP is to be a "prototype class" then there must be fewer limitations (such as those).

i concur, especially about the tires.  what i've always wondered is if the cf frameless chassis would work if it had tires designed for it... by fixing the tires, you just force all the teams to build around the tires instead of building everything around the bike concept.

i think everyone, including carmelo, would like to see a totally or nearly totally open championship.  but the reality is that is not fiscally possible.

they absolutely all do built their bikes around the bridgestones now.  and while that takes some of the blue out of blue sky design, it arguably levels the playing field a bit also.  is it a racing competition or a tire competition?, etc.

Any while i know most of their actions are because their corporate purse strings are getting shorter and shorter, the MSMA is arguably ruining the show.  between 2.5 and 4.5 million euro to lease a satellite factory machine next year?  get the make the beast with two backs outta here.

that's what i get for pre-coffee posting.  ;D

carmelo gets a lot more vocal:  http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96261 (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96261)

He sounds pissed.

I wonder if the "no $ for satellites" is effective immediately or for '13?

Dorna has been pushing the new Claiming Rule Teams system, which will allow elements of modified production machinery, although riders like world champion Casey Stoner had threatened to walk out if the rules are steered towards production-based bikes.

Right. Where are these riders going to go that's so much better...a series that's completely based on production-based bikes? It would either be that or home.

Id say that the Dorna cash cow is empty or near empty and he need more sponsors on board.
I really don't see a problem with having one tyre supplier, it stops the likes of Rossi having a special tyre flown in for the race as has happened in the past. So what if the bike is built around the tyre at least that is one constant.

the MSMA, and honda in particular, were the ones who really pressed for 800s in the first place.  with what a raging success that was, no doubt he's fed up.

and somehow the AMA/DMG rule structure based on Daytona incidents comes into play into MotoGP

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111117fim.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111117fim.htm)

2.7.3.5
Motorcycles must be equipped with brake lever protection, intended to protect the handlebar
brake lever(s) from being accidentally activated in case of collision with another machine.
Acceptable protection includes the fairing extending sufficiently to cover the brake lever, as
viewed from the front.

Such devices must be strong enough to function effectively and designed so that there is no risk
for the rider to be injured or trapped by it, and it must not be considered a dangerous fitting (at
the sole discretion of the Technical Director).

In case the brake lever protection is attached to any part of the braking system (eg. brake master
cylinder), then the brake system manufacturer must officially confirm in writing to the Technical
Director that the device does not interfere with the proper brake operation.

2.5.1
The following are the revised minimum weights permitted:

- Moto3: motorcycle & rider 148kg

 [clap]

based on, is you kidding?  i'm pretty sure the FIM doesn't refer to the AMA for anything. 

there have been plenty of horrific examples in motogp of why this is a good idea.

That's the most tragically lame wording for a rule I've seen in quite a while.

Shameful.  [roll]

they started with "shit better work"

I was kidding, but I can't think of any specific incidents offhand in WSBK or MotoGP that are anywhere near to being like the one at Daytona on a general basis....and it would seem to me that the racing is WSBK is pretty durned close with the fairing bashing that can and does occur...in GP, when it occurs, usually it seems there are other circumstances beyond that point of control or impact that a device like this wouldn't necessisarily change any outcome....only thing it might do is make a bike more returnable to the race track after a minor crash or keep someone from grinding off a pinky if their hand is stuck on the bar....

gibernau -> capirossi, melandri, pedro.  catalunya 2006, t1.

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111118electr.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111118electr.htm)

I like Dean's .02 on this in regards to Carmelo's whole diatribe...

I approve of that article. [thumbsup]

Apparently, he hasn't heard what Carmelo said regarding Spec ECU's.  [coffee]

 [thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup]

It's the electronics stupid.

not 2012 related, but whatever:

http://www.twowheelsblog.com/post/8355/valentino-rossi-i-wouldnt-have-problems-riding-a-crt (http://www.twowheelsblog.com/post/8355/valentino-rossi-i-wouldnt-have-problems-riding-a-crt)

"it’s clear that we must use less expensive bikes and if this is the only way I wouldn’t have problems riding a CRT, although no one is excited by this."


oh, and rossi got 2nd at the WRC Monza event.  2nd!

“I’ll do a few more years in MotoGP, then I’d race in rallies : these machines are really fun to drive because they have less electronics.”



Yup

Now with Edwards finally swinging a leg over the BMW S1000RR-powered Suter prototype, surely more comparisons between the factory prototypes and CRT offerings are to ensue. Posting a best lap time of 1’40.188 at the Spanish GP earlier this year, Edwards was roughly 2.5 seconds off his own pace, finishing the three-day test with a best lap to f 1’42.6. That news seems discouraging on its face, though it should be noted that the team dropped 1.3 seconds between Wednesday and Thursday’s tests.

Edwards also rated the bike at about 65% of its potential, while the Texan’s own fitness was questionable, as Edwards was till recovering from the injuries he sustained at the Malaysian GP. WIth all those caveat, does this week’s test equate to excuses for a lackluster performance, or justify that more leaps and gains will be made before the start of the 2012 MotoGP Championship?

http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/racing/colin-edwards-crt-debut-jerez/ (http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/racing/colin-edwards-crt-debut-jerez/)

still shaping up to be 2 races run every race... the factory race and the crt race, but this is a bit more promising.

that's pretty much what everybody has been expecting. the crt guys are much like the factory teams in f1, beating a factory bike will be a victory for them.

it'll take a season or two for the factories to work this out of their system, but i expect them to eventually embrace the crt formula (even if carmelo needs to force it down their throats).

yeah, but the Aspar 'Priller concept that is alledgedly skating the thin ice around the rules, may tip some of the CRT shit to the fine edge of speculum kinds of examination if they do anything exploitive like they did in WSBK....

the other factories having the ability to claim the engine should help curb this, no?  only so much they can do to the engine when they know that everyone else will get their secrets for pennies on the dollar.

but yeah... the aprilia is already a bit of a ringer and in full motogp dress might push the rules a bit too much.

that being said... having more manufacturers pumping out production v4 engines/bikes to compete in crt motogp would be sweet  ;D

getting their engine is one thing...using it is another....given the chassis's and how custom they are going to have to be for the production engines....

so if two teams are using different frames for the same engine, seems that if one crt is dominating with that motor, the other team could claim their motor and see if it was the motor?

yeah...in theory...

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111130trac34control.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Nov/111130trac34control.htm)

A good read.

Indeed. [thumbsup] Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think it speaks volumes about the double edged sword that DORNA is now dancing on...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96777 (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96777)

http://motomatters.com/news/2011/12/15/aspar_doing_everything_within_the_crt_ru.html (http://motomatters.com/news/2011/12/15/aspar_doing_everything_within_the_crt_ru.html)

Lemme get this straight-- so the Aprilia was too GP for WSBK and now it's too GP for CRT?  Why don't they just build a damn GP bike and be done with it?

here's where carmelo's deliberately vague CRT rules start to come into play...

besides, this was absolutely going to happen as soon as Aprilia announced they were going to build 'full' CRT bikes. 

Noyes writes about this very Priller and then some...

http://moto-racing.speedtv.com/article/motogp-the-aprilia-heard-round-the-world/P1 (http://moto-racing.speedtv.com/article/motogp-the-aprilia-heard-round-the-world/P1)

Well written, intelligent and insightful article. Change is a coming, batten down the hatches. [thumbsup]

2013 will be the beginning of the end of Honda's full involvement in MotoGP. Yamaha and Ducati might stick it out, but Honda has had a lot of say in the direction MotoGP has gone, specially in the 800 era. They were the main reason there's even an 800 era to start with! I doubt Casey will retire, but he will complain the whole time.

Like the article says, Dorna et al will force the "new MotoGP" down the throats of the factories. I too believe the factories' day of having a hand in running the show is coming to an end. 125cc and 250cc GP classes no longer exist and 5-6 years ago I couldn't imagine them not being around today. I can see the factories someday looking at their checkbooks and bank accounts and wondering what they are really getting out of racing the GP classes. The bang for the buck isn't what it used to be and they are partly the reason. Shitty world economy doesn't help either.  

With the direction Honda took in regards to the 800cc era, could one stretch a bit and say that Pedrosa was actually the driving force and the pioneer of the 800 class?   ;D

Pedrobot certainly walked away from the 800cc era with empty hands. But he did have some cool surgeries! [laugh]

He showed that he had a marked advantage on the starts. There was no doubt about that, but his general bad luck and the fact that he's fragile, caused him more than one possible championship. We have never truly seen him 100% throughout a whole season.

True that. If he didn't have shitty luck he wouldn't have any luck at all. Although he did manage quite a few podiums and at least three wins if I remember right. I bet a lot of folks would like that kind of shitty luck. ;) He's just so damn breakable, so many injuries. That's got to be frustrating as hell.

tiny man or not, he had more than his fair share of brutal get-offs.  i would call him tough as nails before i'd call him fragile.

Porcelain

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/817/11818/Motorcycle-Article/How-Will-CRT-Work-in-MotoGP-.aspx?WT.i_e_dcsvid=1464739915 (http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/817/11818/Motorcycle-Article/How-Will-CRT-Work-in-MotoGP-.aspx?WT.i_e_dcsvid=1464739915)

interesting op/ed piece about that 800lb pink elephant in the GP press room...

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Jan/120112mk.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Jan/120112mk.htm)

...the longer version: http://www.motomatters.com/analysis/2012/01/11/ezpeleta_on_the_future_of_motogp_bikes_c.html (http://www.motomatters.com/analysis/2012/01/11/ezpeleta_on_the_future_of_motogp_bikes_c.html)

With Argentina already on the schedule for 2013, I would love to get a race in Chile.

no you gotta go to Argentina and eat entrana and churrasco and dont forget the chorizos ...

Convergence...

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Jan/120116b.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Jan/120116b.htm)

I'm already planning on going to Argentina for the race. It's the perfect excuse. Having another race in Chile would be the icing on the cake.

Aprilia has always been able to tap dance around rules and seeing how "anti big 3 manufacturers" MotoGP has been going recently, I don't see how Ducati would win by throwing a hissy fit. So, for now, they sit back and see how the Ape does. I doubt they'll get it right for the first few years. By the time they get it all sorted, MotoGP will most like be a different animal all together.

I think Honda will pitch a fit faster than Ducati...perhaps even Yamaha....you think Suppo or Jarvis are going to sit idley by if the Ape makes any kind of serious headway result?

if they

 - can prove the frame.. in some way.. is a prototype, and they
 - sell, not lease, the bikes to the teams

as the rules read today, the OEMs have nothing to complain about.  operative word being 'today'.

http://superbikeplanet.com/2012/Feb/120223d.htm (http://superbikeplanet.com/2012/Feb/120223d.htm)

Ago chimes in....

Thank you Ago, or should I call you Captain Obvious?

Seems to me Ago is forgetting the addition of the CRT bikes. Hard to have them with 800cc motors since no one makes one.

there easily could be an 800cc CRT bike, if one of the OEMs wanted to sell one to a team

Ago hasn't turned a wheel in anger in far too long and fears losing notoriety due to a lack of a twitter account or something that the younger generation uses and therefore is looking to churn the fire for to keep people noticing him by using the media any way he can...


the "show" as it were pretty much died with the 990's because the 800's dictated the new parameter of 1 race line in order to finish a race in the fastest way possible....I think Ago needs to ride an 800 bike like King Kenny did in order to get a complete idea

Don't the CRT motors need to be production based, or is that just the idea and not an actual requirement? Either way, several manufacturers have 1000cc motors available, whereas they'd have to develop a new 800cc one.

nope.


yup.

the rule book for CRTs is actually very short.  1000cc max, whatever bore/stroke, prototype chassis, and you have to own the bike.  can't be leased.  nor can it be factory supported; no engineers on 'loan', etc..

says nothing about prototype engines.  but it's a self-reinforcing non rule: if any OEM sold a prototype/satellite bike to a CRT team, they effectively just gave away all their engineering secrets.  that thing is going to be Claimed in a heartbeat.  so.. production cases are used.  no secret sauce there.  then the gresini, aspar, etc mechanics go to work on them making them mega versions.

it's not like the Aprilia RSV CRT bike is just an RSV4 engine in a prototype chassis.  it's a very hot-rodded RSV4 engine.

the CRT rule book is also very clever in that CRT status can be revoked.  if carmelo et al decide you are getting factory support/you're really just a factory team in hiding, they revoke your CRT status.  that means you are limited to 21 liters of fuel instead of 24 (?) and you are limited to 6 engines, rather than 9.  so if mid-year they decide the ART CRT bike is really just an Aprilia MotoGP machine, it's not like those teams are suddenly out.  they just have to use less fuel and fewer engines.  but then the bikes can't be Claimed, either...  clever.  i halfway wonder if Aprilia is planning on this.

this will all mash together even more next year when everyone is subject to rev limits and has to use a spec ECU.  carmelo aint no dummy.

Why doesn't Aprilla just build a prototype and race it themselves? All the juggling/smoke and mirrors to pretend to be a CRT just for the extra fuel and 3 more motors? And why do the factories insist on leasing their bikes instead of just selling them to teams like Yamaha and Honda did years ago in the old 2 stroke days?

Probably cost, no? It's much cheaper to hot rod an RSV4 motor than it is to build a prototype.

I think it is their idea of how to get back into MotoGP cheaply....slide through the door as it were...because I think the factory teams pay a higher fee to Dorna for to race than the Satelite's or CRT's...specially since Carmelo was subsidizing the Satelites to a degree I think IIRC...


okay...lets talk hypothetically using LCR...Honda sells LCR their motors for the year...couple things can happen...LCR can do hot tuning themselves if they had the resources and kick the factories ass and they don't have to give the factory shit at the end....so the factory gets no feedback or technological information and loses control of what culminates and can potentially get their butt kicked in the process....the other thing that could happen is that at the end of the year, LCR doesn't like how they were treated or the deal they were offered by Honda and say Yamaha wants to get a look at their technology and says..Hey LCR...We'll sell you your motors for the coming year at 10% less than Honda and we want you to turn over your Honda motors from last year to us....technology gets out of the factories control real quick and games get played and the racing gets screwed....

i think they still have the bore limit.
if not i would like to see a superquadrata 1000

they do.  sorry, wasn't clear: 'whatever' meant whatever the numbers are, i don't recall at the moment.

zoom, I don't think the racing gets "screwed", it could just as easily get better. Spy vs spy ala MAD magazine! [thumbsup] [beer] [popcorn]

I get where you are going...and don't get me wrong...when I say racing gets screwed...I mean that "the show" as it were gets boiled down to less that differentiates the machinery and becomes a procession or something less than entertaining to watch....

Which is........ almost exactly........where it's been at for a while.

I say put a weight limit on them. Put a displacement limit on them. That's it. Run whatever electronics you want. Run whatever tires you want. Turn them loose.

Or, no electronics, which would be even more entertaining.

Personally I think this would even up the playing field more than anything else.  You should be allowed to find the race tires that work the best for your bike, not the bike that works the best for the race tires.  Bring back Michelin and the overnight specials as far as I'm concerned.

And Pirelli. They made a tire that works with the frameless design on the 1199.

except for Honda, no one can afford a free for for all.  if the rules were totally open the series would shut it's doors inside of 4 years.

conversely, the moto2 experiment obviously worked.  create limits that teams can afford and then let them actually race.  

it's not like if you take the 2012 M1 or the RC213V and give them rev limits and a spec ECU they're suddenly going to be an R1 and CBR1000.  it's still a prototype series, always will be.

Not sure if this is the right thread, but what is the idea behind the fuel limits?  I always think of as one of those limits that is unrelated to cost-cutting.  The only value of it--that I can see--is that it evens the playing field between CRT bikes and factory prototypes.    But if some folks are kicking around the idea of GP heading in the direction of Moto2, why is no one talking about ditching it?

Personally the 81mm bore limit is shit to me. specifically keeps out 2/3cyl same with the 4cyl max, keeps out a 5/6 cyl motor

i would like to see 1000cc limit on displacement but no other motor limits, ie you could run a 5v mono if you felt that would work..

at least two tire manufacturers - but any team can choose any tire. so pirelli for a short track or bridgestone for a long track if they like

spec fuel - street spec super plus

spec oil - full syth street spec

spec fuel limit - 21 liters seems to work

spec min weight - same for all no matter the cylinders/position last year/etc

fuel limits are a way of controlling engine development.. if you don't have to worry about how much fuel you can consume, you can go apeshit with horsepower

Right.  What's the problem with that?  If anything, the engine development (and even more so, the use of and costs involved in electronics development) in the 800cc was driven by the fuel limit.  With unlimited fuel, wouldn't engine development costs go down?  They could be sloppy with fuel efficiency and not have a spend a gazillion dollars to squeak every last bit out of the engine.  Besides, we're reaching the point with the tires and the contact patch where extra HP doesn't really mean that much.  All the bikes can overwhelm the tires with ease in any gear.

the idea is that reducing power reduces costs.  ..i only said it's the idea.  ;)

but you're right in that the 800 idea backfired: smaller displacement was supposed to make things for more affordable.  but instead the factories went crazy spending money to get 990 times out of 800s.  i don't know if anyone ever said it was for safety with a straight face.

IIRC, the manufacturers wanted the fuel limits.

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Mar/120308e.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Mar/120308e.htm)

It just cracks me up that basically one guy owns the racing and can just mess with it.  [puke]  Sort of like Eccelstein.

I agree. If he wants to run the manufacturers off he is doing a damn good job. [bang] What will be left? A spec race bike class ala the universal NASCAR race car? [roll] Zzzzzzzz...

Hey! When's the next WSBK race? [popcorn] [Dolph]

the factories are doing a good enough job of spending themselves into oblivion... where's the suzuki factory team? kawasaki?

Couldn't you argue that Dorna has caused this?  Going from 990 to 800 caused a complete redesign from the manufacturers.  Then changing fuel limits which forces the engineers to spend a fortune to make an efficient engine keep peak horsepower for race distance.  Not to mention limiting engines, which also forced engineers to spend a fortune to not only have an engine running peak horsepower on less fuel, but also with components that could withstand 3 race weekends.  I'm pretty sure building a fresh, less efficient engine each week is cheaper than designing new engines to comform to such strict rules.  After that, they decide to go back to 1000 cc, which again forces the engineers to redesign new bikes and engines.  Lets not also forget that bikes have to be designed around tires now, instead of finding tires that work for your bike, which is more pressure on factories to spend money.

They can claim they are trying to cut costs, but Dorna is actually making MotoGP more expensive by the day, because they can't settle on a format.

I thought the factories had been making the rules for the last few year? So all of the changes mentioned, with maybe the exception of the switch back to 1000cc, were the factory's decision.

To me the way to fix MotoGP is simple.

1000cc limit
25 liters of spec fuel limit
Prototype motor and frame

Moto 1
1200cc limit (1000cc 4cyl - 1100cc 3cyl - 1200cc 2cyl)
25 liters of spec fuel limit
Prototype frame

Moto 2
750cc limit
22 liters of spec fuel limit
prototype frame

Moto 3
600cc spec motor
20 liters of spec fuel limit
prototpe frame

let the teams pick their own tires
Moto 1 and Moto 2 can be off the shelf motors from anyone

yup.

Dorna did push the 800 idea, but it was the MSMA's doing.  Mainly Honda.

a spec ECU and rev limits do not equal a spec bike.  carmelo has said from the beginning that it will always be a prototype series.

last of the CRTs breaks cover.  it'll be slow, but it's nice to look at...

http://motomatters.com/news/2012/03/16/the_last_crt_bike_takes_to_the_track_pir.html (http://motomatters.com/news/2012/03/16/the_last_crt_bike_takes_to_the_track_pir.html)

(http://www.gpone.com/images/ARCHIVIO/2012/Foto/03_Marzo/gresini-crt3.jpg)

http://motomatters.com/interview/2012/03/15/honda_press_release_fausto_gresini_talks.html (http://motomatters.com/interview/2012/03/15/honda_press_release_fausto_gresini_talks.html)

and a good interview with fausto.  some about marco of course, but some choice brass tacks words about the state of MotoGP and his move to a CRT bike.

Nakamoto sounding pretty reasonable:

http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2012/03/17/shuhei_nakamoto_interview_on_crt_spec_ec.html (http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2012/03/17/shuhei_nakamoto_interview_on_crt_spec_ec.html)

The ECU is where everyone will have issues and not because of cost. The reality is that a computer keeps these bikes from flying off the tracks. They can also get away with a ton of rule "bending" using the proprietary ECU. Of course, this is ultimately a prototype class and hence they should be able to "run what they brought".

yup... the spec-ECU totally destroyed formula 1.  [roll]

This part (about CRT) does not bode well for our favorite red machines (assuming it's not gamesmanship)...

"But motorcycle is different. Aerodynamics is maybe less than 5% of machine performance. On a motorcycle, the most important thing is the chassis, the swingarm. To make a very good chassis, you need a lot of experience. For the constructor, they can make an average level of chassis, but I think it will be very difficult to make a competitive machine," he added.

So it would possible for a constructor to get to maybe 90% of the performance of a factory prototype, but the really difficult part, the final 10%, would only be possible for manufacturers?

"Yes," Nakamoto replied...."

What's wrong with "run what you brought"? Isn't this a prototype class? If I wanted stock anything I would watch Nascar.

I think you're missing the point.

Continuation of the "run what you brought" will result in you watching NASCAR, as there'll be no more MotoGP.

what's wrong with it is then there'll be 10 bikes on the grid.  then all three classes fail.

and how is a spec ECU stock?

Then don't call it a prototype class. I'm sure spec ECU will not impact at all, like spec tires didn't impact either  [roll]

does "spec" necessarily mean "not prototype" to you?

Spec means same as everyone else. Prototype for me means outside of the norms. Where does a prototype series turn into a spec series? Is it a prototype when you have just 1 aspect different from everyone else? What if they rode spec bikes to the last detail except for the engine? Would it still be a prototype? What if they only allowed engine and swingarm? Soon WSBK will be more prototype racing than MotoGP.

to me. prototype means

you have a set number for wheels, weight, and cc's

other rules help limit speeds like limits on amount of gas, electronic suspension or traction/wheelie control

spec means
bore size (this forces 4cyl), ecu, etc the same.

yes.

as soon as the rules mandate identical parts or tires which limit or control performance they are no longer prototypes.

gp racing as we know it is done.

Thank you.  This is what I have been feeling/saying for a while now.  As soon as any feature, especially such a critical one as an ECU, is decided for you, it is no longer a prototype. 

+1

Prototype doesn't simply mean "not mass-produced and homologated." It is, definitionally, something more like a one-off. A whole motorcycle assembled from spec parts may be many things, but a "prototype" it is not.

"Spec" and "prototype" are concepts at odds with each other.

i don't necessarily disagree.  the unfortunate truth however is that gp racing was going to kill itself off otherwise.  i'd rather see mostly prototype bikes and the best riders compete than see nothing at all.

i'll give you that it's a slippery slope however.  very.

It already has killed itself off.

There is very little room for motorcycle performance to increase.

SBK is already close to GP level and as we've all noticed there is better 'racing' in SBK.

The addition of 'spec' items makes the two series even closer.

Carmello is shitting himself and the Flammini's are grinning like Cheshire cats.

SBK is pretty 'spec' driven.... and most folks here seem to like it a lot.

In a perfect world, we'd all have a Panigale in the garage (or whatever we wanted).

Those of you who are saying 'no limits' or 'nearly no limits'.... how do you propose to make that concept economically feasible?

That isn't the spectator's job.

No one is sending me any survey money.

They need to figure out how to make both series economically viable.

The question is how "spec" is the ecu. Isn't the F1 spec ecu only spec in certain functions...like not allowing traction control? I thought other parts of it could be programmed as desired by the teams?

I think there are various levels of a prototype series. I don't think anyone can say that F1 cars aren't prototype, despite all the spec rules in the series.

If you don't want traction control, then make that a rule...

although if one team can figure out how to put 400 hp to one wheel and make it work...

that is prototype racing. ;D

ok, but how do you propose to enforce that rule?


my understanding is that it's a sandboxed ecu that allowes the rule-enforcement organization to see whether or not certain things (like traction control) are happening. the constructors can still write custom code within that sandbox.

again...not the spectators job.

What is the difference between 'custom code'...

and traction control?

i'm not asking how you'd enforce it as a spectator, i'm asking how you'd enforce it as a rules-making-and-enforcing organization.

you can't have unenforceable rules.


here's the current f1 rule:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/FD189C37496939BEC12579C60037D0E4/ (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/FD189C37496939BEC12579C60037D0E4/)$FILE/1-2012%20TECHNICAL%20REGULATIONS%2009-03-2012.pdf

9.3 Traction control :
No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive torque demand by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.


"custom code," in this case, is anything except that.

actually, reading further, here is the actual "control electronics" regulations:

8.2 Control electronics :

8.2.1 All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA.
Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

8.2.2 All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA. Details of the homologation process may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
Each and every component of the control system will be sealed and uniquely identified and their identities tracked through their life cycle.
These components and units may not be disassembled or modified in any way and seals and identifiers must remain intact and legible.

8.2.3 The control system wiring loom connectivity must be approved by the FIA.
All wiring looms must be built to ensure that each control sensor and each control actuator connected to the ECU is electrically isolated from logging‐only sensors connected to either the ECU or a team data acquisition unit.
In general, there must be no active or passive electronic component in the control loom. Exceptions (e.g. termination resistors) must be approved by the FIA before use.
Additional wiring guidelines may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

8.2.4 If sensor faults or errors are detected by the driver or by the on‐board software, back‐up sensors may be used and different settings may be manually or automatically selected. However, any back‐up sensor or new setting chosen in this way must not enhance the performance of the car. Any driver default turned on during the start lockout period may not be turned off before the end of that period.

8.2.5 Pneumatic valve pressure may only be controlled via a passive mechanical regulator or from the ECU and its operation will be monitored by the ECU.

8.2.6 The ECU will be designed to run from a car system supply voltage of 12V nominal provided by a homologated voltage regulator.

That was my understanding, but I'm a tech. moron so I didn't know if I had it right.  [laugh]

Personally I think F1 has done a good job...and the cars are still prototype, if not "run what you brung".  [thumbsup]

That's the point.

I wouldn't have the rule.

I personally want to see the big kids run what they brung.

I don't have much interest in 'racing' that requires a team of lawyers to run or participate in.

They're not prototype bikes!

MotoGP could be the premiere class again, IF, they had bigger grids and more riders able to run up front and PURE prototype bikes without spec parts and teams with UNLIMITED budgets.
Why do any of the manufacturers go racing, image. If you want to run with the big boys it costs big money, just ask Ferrari or Mercedes Benz about their F1 teams budgets.


I personally would rather see WSBK step up to the top rung.

It serves the manufacturers, the racing is close, the talent is deep and the grids are full. You can pretend to have Carlos Checca's Ducati in your garage and the budgets being smaller mean more teams can compete. For the price of a MotoGP team you could probably run a 3 bike WSBK squad. Fan access is better and the 2 race format means a whole day of racing, not just 45 minutes.


Just my .02

IMHO...given the way GP has been in processional arrangement...WSBK is the top rung when it comes to seeing "competition"


so what you are saying is that it is about buying a championship and there should be no small budget giant killers?!?!?!....the manufacturers go racing now to develop technology for the implement in homologated bikes that hit the street...look at the crossplane R1, the technology that hit the 1199, the traction controls that now seem to adorn all street liter bike class superbikes and some various other machines, and so forth....in days of old...yes, GP racing was for the prestige and image...and it still is to a degree...but the benefit of using an R&D budget for racing is to trickle down the tech to the common man eventually...


it serves the fans and promoters and sponsors just as much as the manufacturers to have a grid that is full...and that reinforces the "Win on Sunday, Buy on Monday" mentality that needs to happen for to keep the whole cycle alive....and the fact that it now seems in WSBK that really and truly any machine brand has the potential to be on the podium, or even the top step, makes it even more attractive to all...

I don't get the argument that they're not prototypes.  [roll]

Can you buy a Desmosedici with a twin spar aluminum frame...or any Ducati with that frame? Nope. How about an M1? How about any Yamaha with a dry clutch? Nope and nope. How about a bike by anyone that tracks your position by GPS and adjusts the fuel settings accordingly? Nope. The list goes on.

Of course they're prototypes. Just because their development is restricted by a few rules doesn't mean they aren't one-off bikes. While I don't like the tire rules, all the bikes running the same tires doesn't mean they aren't prototypes. Same goes for the fuel limits and the engine reliability requirements. Even if they move towards a spec ecu (which likely would follow the F1 sandbox formula)...the bikes, and most of the electronics, would still be prototype.

You can buy the GP11.

MotoGP is a spec series that develops technology that is readily not available. I will give you an apples to apples comparion with F1. ECU is used in F1 to control a specific rule, the use of traction control. ECU in MotoGP is used to bring the manufacturers down to the same level as the CRT bikes. The only way you can convince me otherwise is if they create a new rule, like no traction control, that would require the use of a standard ECU.

If you want to limit costs, limit budgets. Period. Sure, it'd be difficult to enforce and teams would cheat like crazy (just like in every single other motorsport category), but the fact is the sideways attempts to limit the cost of a MotoGP effort have had exactly the opposite effect - they've made fielding a team MORE expensive. How much do you think Ducati has spent trying to come to terms with the Bridgestones, compared with what they'd spend to figure out what tire actually worked best with the bike they want to build? Or how much more teams are spending to deal with the engine limits instead of just building fresh motors? How much have all the teams spent trying to get maximum power out of the fuel allotment instead of just burning a few more liters of racing gas?

I would submit that all these oblique efforts to "cut costs" have actually put a MotoGP effort out of the financial reach of any of the potential small budget giant-killers that might be out there - can you imagine John Britten or Michael Czysz coming in with an outside-the-box idea, and then having to spend millions to cram it back inside the various spec tire, spec ECU, engine number limit, fuel limit, and whatever-the-hell-is-coming-next-year boxes?

Regulate what you want to regulate instead of being surprised that your oblique efforts to get at a problem through craftiness and excessive cleverness end up doing the opposite of what you intend.

They are selling their 2 actual race bikes. 2 people (with loads of money) can buy them. That doesn't mean they aren't prototype.

I'd argue that this isn't possible. No matter what you regulate, engineers will try to find a work around. It's the nature of racing.

Correct, and we benefit from it.

I neglected to add "Or don't regulate it." I just think that if money is the root problem, find a way to go after that. It's like trying to turn an ocean liner by seeding the clouds a thousand miles away in hopes of affecting the path of ocean currents.

What he said. [thumbsup]

so what you are saying is that it is about buying a championship and there should be no small budget giant killers?!?!?!....the manufacturers go racing now to develop technology for the implement in homologated bikes that hit the street...look at the crossplane R1, the technology that hit the 1199, the traction controls that now seem to adorn all street liter bike class superbikes and some various other machines, and so forth....in days of old...yes, GP racing was for the prestige and image...and it still is to a degree...but the benefit of using an R&D budget for racing is to trickle down the tech to the common man eventually...

When has there ever been small budget giant killers? Ducati won a MotoGP world championship, and they're a small company, but small budget and MotoGP racing are not terms that co-exist in the same world, not if you want to be competative.
The technology is being developed because it's what these companies do. Honda has developed a lot of thechnology that has trickeled to street bikes that wasn't introduced in MotoGP. Actually most of that technology was developed for automotive use and then adapted to bikes afterward.
That R&D money could be spent in WSBK too and with the same reults that would transfer to street bike applications as well if not better.

Can you buy a Desmosedici with a twin spar aluminum frame...or any Ducati with that frame? Nope. How about an M1? How about any Yamaha with a dry clutch? Nope and nope.

Part of the reason manufacturers don't build these MotoGP replica bikes is that they're not economically viable. Even at 75k a pop I'll bet Ducati barely made money on the D16RR, which by the time they released it was old technology. Halo products like those are built to attract attention to the rest of a companies line up and to prove to the competition that they can build it, more then anything. If you could make heaps of money selling GP replica bikes, don't you think Honda or Yamaha, with their deep pockets, would have done so by now?
Oh and you can buy a Ducati street bike with the monocoque frame, just like Rossi used to ride...
:)

You missed my point. You can't go to the dealer and buy a MotoGP bike...hence they're prototypes, regardless of the rules in the race series they're in which limit aspects of their development. I agree on why no one makes them available, but that isn't the point. They aren't available, so the race bikes are prototypes.

Just because the 1199 has a monocoque frame doesn't make it a GP bike. Most everything else is still different. GP = prototype.

You can't go to the dealer and buy a MotoGP bike...hence they're prototypes, regardless of the rules in the race series they're in which limit aspects of their development.

You cant go to the dealership, or the factory for that matter, and by an 1198 F10.
Does that make it a prototype too?
(and yes I know technically you can "buy" one, but do you know anyone, other then a well funded race team with a track record who actually has?)
Someone mentioned John Britten and MotoCyzst, to me those bikes were really prototypes.

This is pointless. If you can't understand the difference between a professionaly race-prepped 1198, R1, CBR1000RR and those companies MotoGP bike then I don't know what to say.

...and actually I believe you can go to the factory and get one since WSBK teams are privateer. Hence the 1199RS delivered to a BSB team recently:
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=55539.0 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=55539.0)

If you can't understand the difference between a professionaly race-prepped 1198, R1, CBR1000RR and those companies MotoGP bike then I don't know what to say.

J,

The differences are very clear, but the point you seem to be making is that the fact that a MotoGP bike isn't offered for sale makes it a prototype, and that's not the case. "One off" bikes and things that NEVER see the light of day are really prototypes. MotoGP are extremely sophiscated test beds, but true prototype as DORNA would have us believe is mis-labeling them.

Prototype: "one of the first units manufactured of a product, which is tested so that the design can be changed if necessary before the product is manufactured commercially."
Privateer teams in racing are another grey area.
Checca's team is technically a "privateer team" but watcha  WSBK broadcast and the same guys that are at a MotoGP race are in his pit box.

back in the 500 era and even a little bit in the 990 era...a satelite small guy company had a chance to be competitive due to the machine being less of a computer and more of a machine guided by the rider/pilot...so yes, there were giant killers way back when...but nowadays....the technology is soooo proprietary than if you don't have someone able to adapt and write code of the proper format for the bike based on the rider feedback...you are sunk and that to me is half the issue with GP that the spec ECU is theorized to possibly fix/replace....whether it will or not is a horse of a different color entirely...


Honda had developed some things...for sure...but most of those things were under a guise of when you could make a small production of minimal machines for public sale and call it homologated...and while V-Tec technology you are refferring to developed in cars was applied on various things like the VFR800 streetbike or the CVT transmission that is in the new Honda Shamu VFR1200 for example....these are nothing like the technologies that are being developed by the bike divisions on GP racing that could be applied....

example...before the VFR1200 Shamu was released/revealed...the rumor mill was rife with speculation that it would be the most awaited and wanted piece of technology that Honda could have done...the RC211V powerplant enlarged and put into a HyperSportTourer to punch down the Kawi 1400 and the 'Busa and do so with style and grace....instead...we got Shamu...bad choice by Honda...and it would have sold and been VERY marketable....

in the end, MotoGP is the testbed...not WSBK, because WSBK has very regimented restrictions on using a production based motor and frame...and the rules have been changed over the years to lean more and more into keeping it that way...look at the Ape and rules that came about to keep them from changing the motor to the gear driven cam set-up for example...so as to keep it production based and not a prototype series...

In the end... I was right, as always.

So by your logic F1 cars aren't prototype either since they aren't the first test unit of a product destined to be manufacured commercially?

Some privateer teams have factory support. So what. The fact remains, you can buy a factory race prepped production bike. No one can buy a current GP bike...the best you can do is lease one.

Hey... that's my line! [laugh] At least that's what I say to the wifely unit. ;D

And it gets you the same mileage there, as he got here.  [laugh]

It's a curse... ;D

So by your logic F1 cars aren't prototype either since they aren't the first test unit of a product destined to be manufactured commercially?

Actually I don't.
They are also "experimental" test beds for new technologies and materials, but not true prototypes.
But you're right, arguing semantics is pointless.

It all boils down to the fact that while MotoGP bikes are undoubtedly cool and great to watch, when the races are close, WSBK has offered better racing in ALL of it's classes then MotoGP.
I don't have the answers to how to make it better, if I did I'd be running DORNA, not posting here.

I would venture to say that watching the top 8 guys in MotoGP battle for the podium on WSBK bikes would be just as cool.
Who wouldn't want to see Rossi on the Panigale and Biaggi on the Aprilla battling again. 
I know I was always on the edge of my seat watching Bayliss and Haga.

jimi

Agreed. WSBK has had better competition in general over the last few years..at least for the top levels. The lower MotoGP levels have also been good though...Moto2 is always a madhouse!

I also agree that it would be just as cool to see the top riders on WSBKs as on GP bikes.

...this statement supports the direction carmelo is going for GP....

:)

http://superbikeplanet.com/2012/Mar/120322po.htm (http://superbikeplanet.com/2012/Mar/120322po.htm)

CEII amusing and on point as always...

maybe/probablys for 2013+

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2012/03/25/motogp_bikes_to_go_to_5_engines_per_seas.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2012/03/25/motogp_bikes_to_go_to_5_engines_per_seas.html)

[roll]

I don't like it one bit.

I don't get a rev limit as low as 15,000 or 14,500...even 16,000. Doesn't F1 have a limit of 18,000? If it's in the realm of production bikes, then what is the point of developing a new engine specific to GP? Ducati is the only one that would benefit from the new motor since they don't make a production 4, and the GP rules don't allow an increase in displacement for twins (I think, Derby will correct me if I'm wrong  [laugh])...everyone else could just use production motors.  [thumbsdown]

Might as well use the Moto2 formula at that point.

I think that's the idea. Transitioning from MotoGP to a CRT-based "Moto1."

It'd be more honest, and ultimately less expensive for the factories if they'd just say "Hey, this is a transitional period, so by 2014 be ready to shove a production motor into some kind of chassis, 'cause that's what we're doing now."

Keep everybody from unloading a dump truck full of cash on pseudo-prototype machines in the meantime.

Why would the factories have any interest in participating in Moto1?  You might as well dump all your efforts into WSBK at that point, since technology development would mean more to them there than a "Moto1" formula.  Right now, technology trickles from MotoGP to street bikes, aka WSBK.  If you do a similar formula to Moto2, then forget it.  The factories will use WSBK as their test beds and leave the GP championship for good.

the only "other" reason I could find for a rev limit could be potentially for some level of noise control ?!?!?!

noise control.. that's cute  :)


rev limit is about $.  like everything else they're doing/considering.

I have little problem with a rev limit really...it seems to work in F1. It has to be beyond the realm of everyday street bikes though.

JB :)

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/motorsport/motogp-engine-boost-overkill/story-e6frecuu-1226314914389

http://superbikeplanet.com/2012/Mar/120330burgess.htm (http://superbikeplanet.com/2012/Mar/120330burgess.htm)

BURGESS BLASTS AWAY!

Derby?

'...the guys doing the TV shouldn't be making the rules...'

Priceless.....this current arrangement will be the death of MotoGP, and it sounds like he's ready to retire.  When the only constant in an uber-expensive sport is the tracks where the races are held then nothing has any meaning, including the value of the championships.

Has it all become a reality show within a reality show, with the only incentive being maximizing advertising dollars (i.e., greed)?

Must point out....

The folks making the rules, up 'til now (MSMA), have done a pretty stellar job of make the beast with two backsing up the ballgame.

Why is it that I become less and less interested in MotoGP and the season hasn't even started? [bang] [roll] [popcorn] Isn't there a WSBK race this weekend? [thumbsup]

sorta kinda but not really....

Its really too bad Marco isn't around this year to take it to Stoner.   :'(

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/178124/1/ezpeleta_15_million_euros_for_a_motogp_team.html (http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/178124/1/ezpeleta_15_million_euros_for_a_motogp_team.html)

http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2012/04/ducati-turns-to-red/ (http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2012/04/ducati-turns-to-red/)

Desperate to run at the front, and running out of options with the season opener rapidly approaching, Ducati is exploring its final option . . . writing a check to lease Honda MotoGP bikes for both Rossi and Hayden.....

Nooooooooooooo  [bang] [laugh]

(note, this was posted yesterday)

It's a pretty weak prank. they should have used a random Italian name as a source and quoted that source using some bad english.

rev limit put off 'til 2014; single bike in 2013

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2012/05/01/the_factories_win_a_reprieve_motogp_rev_.html (http://www.motomatters.com/news/2012/05/01/the_factories_win_a_reprieve_motogp_rev_.html)

Wait....

did DMG buy Dorna? [bang]

yep.  and Johnny Rock Page is the new President.

How are wet/dry races going to work??  Quick-change pit stops?  Restart the race?

He probably has a better handle on the pulse of the fans than Carmelo. ;)

dunno.  derby is probably busy packing but i'm sure in about 12 seconds he can still find the right page in the WSBK rule book about how they're handling this now...

Well, why did they red flag the first WSBK race at Assen?  Because of the pile-up, b/c of liquid on track or b/c of the rain?  I never figured it out. 

With the current brake configuration, they could quick-change rear wheels.

But the carbon front brakes require the rotors and pads stay married... so no Q/C there.

"...MotoGP is to undergo a radical transformation from the pure technology exercise that the 800 era became to a sport focused on entertainment where costs are kept in check."

Finally, they admit it's going to be NASCAR on two wheels.

If that's true, at least there will be some real racing.  ;)

+1

the ONE change that will give it a better feel is losing the bore restriction.
Ducati has said it wanted to do a twin for it's bike. Why not let them!

I've seen quick disconnects for the brakes on the front....so if they have a set of the married pads set up on calipers all ready to go, it could be done....that I thought in the rain, they sometimes don't use the carbon...I could be mistaken on the last bit though...

They don't use carbon in the rain.

They don't stay hot enough.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100159 (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100159)

Is that the real reason? Or just a convenient excuse for a very small manufacturer without a large racing budget?

catch-22 question.  bc if you're a very small manufacturer without a large racing budget, if you're going to contemplate going to GP you need the major rules to be pretty static.

I don't think they need to have an excuse. The RSV4 was pretty much a prototype when it come on the scene. If they have learned anything in the last few years is that they don't need to be in MotoGP to develop an excellent SBK. Ducati is probably thinking the same thing. I'm not sure if they would have developed a frameless bike and raced it in WSBK directly, but I think they are realizing that their core product does not fit in the world of prototypes. If the 1199 does well next year, I think they will be looking at Aprilia and their success in a single series.

Fixed it for ya...

sure it's got an engine, 2 wheels, and handlebars.  but that's more or less where the similarity ends between the GP bike and their core product.

 

That was my point. Prototype racing is supposed to fuel new innovations. SBK's are adopting new technology mcuh quicker than they used to. Why would Aprilia want to dump millions into MotoGP if they can simply supply any new technology directly to WSBK, and hence their road bikes?

I can only see it as a valid reason to be developing the full top to bottom next gen bike...  the RSV4 wouldnt have come about without the aprilia motogp effort, they would have probably stuck to refining the twin they were using if it was just SBK development.  Same with the 1199 I'd say.  I'm sure a lot of the engine development ideas they had for the superquadrata came from motogp.

For me, WSBK fuels the evolution in bike design, MotoGP fuels the revolutions in bike design... or at least it used to before all the rule changes.  Now it will fuel the revolution in bike design within a narrowly set limit of what bike/engine design can be i.e. 4 bangers with twin spar frames running on bridgestone tires.

For me... I just really dont understand the issue with opening up more variations in engine design for the series.  I cant see how it would affect the series in any negative way.

over the last 20 years or so, including when the engine rules were "wide open," the series has seen twins, triples, four-, and five-cylinder machines. only the latter two have won races.

just depends on their attitude toward racing.  ducati for instance considers (or used to?  we'll have to see post-Audi) racing to be core to their existence.  that is also the case with honda: in the consumer world it might not seem that way, but they actually consider themselves to be a racing company first.

so if as a corporation you really believe that racing is central to what you do, then you do it at the highest level.  for a long time that meant it was pretty black & white you had to be in MotoGP, but i can understand why recently the OEMs might feel differently.  the cube exploded, and clearly aprilia built the RSV4 with wsbk in mind.