Ducati Monster Forum

probably more political threat than reality, but still...

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/2012/08/29/honda-goodbye-motogp-hello-wsb/ (http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/2012/08/29/honda-goodbye-motogp-hello-wsb/)

 [clap] [clap] [clap] [clap] [clap]

Samurai sword rattling ...

or not.

Interesting article all around. I think we all know that the biggest advantage the factory bikes have over their satellite and CRT counterparts are the electronics. Not sure if Honda would walk away completely, but they might downsize considerably.

Why not?

If you can't bring your best why come to the fight?

What is the saying of "as long as you talk about me"? Honda right now provides motors for Moto2 and 3 along with the prototypes. More likely they would go ahead with the plans to provide a lower spec bike that would be able to beat the CRT's.

IROC spec bike races are the future

No clue   ???

...or if they're serious they leave Carmelo hanging on all three series.


I'm gonna pm your wife.  ;D

i almost sent this to gm2 last week.

http://cyclenews.coverleaf.com/cyclenews/20120821#pg73 (http://cyclenews.coverleaf.com/cyclenews/20120821#pg73)

the king speaks and some of it is relevant to the situation at hand. this is not the first time honda has threatened to leave over rules.

We all have opinions.

I personally don't want to see prototype racing go away.

+1

we keep going in circles about this... just because there are rules/restrictions doesn't mean it's no longer a prototype.

even formula 1 says "build whatever you want as long as it fits in this box, doesn't weigh less than x combined w/ the driver, has a 2.4L v8 with a rev limit that doesn't exceed x, no traction control, and no moveable aero devices with a specific exception for drs".

it's an engineering challenge for the constructors.

the days of "build whatever you want" have gone/are going the way of tobacco sponsorship.

i'm still surprised that ducati and ferrari have managed to keep a sponsor that can't advertise on the vehicle at all.

Yes we do because of the importance of electronics.

It's what sets the also rans apart.

Remove rider aids if you must, I think that would be a great idea, but allow the manufacturers the flexibility to manage their design their way.

The tobacco thing is a completely different subject. :P

I got an idea....take away the electronic rider aids and limit them to 220hp at the wheel and let them build what they want...easy enough for tech to check after a race, with a simple dyno run, which in of itself could be its own draw as well...

Dyno results seem like they'd be too variable. A team could easily tune their bike at 219 hp on their dyno, only to have the Dorna Dyno show it at 222 hp.

then they'de fail and be DQ'd...the Dorna dyno would be the one that would matter in the end...you subject your machine to the tech people in the end for to make sure you are within the specs for confirmation of the results for to be official....kinda like a tech inspection after a race...

Too subjective since dyno runs are not very repeatable. For instance, a bike tuned in Italy may pass the dyno in Turkey, but the one tuned in Japan might not...for a host of environmental reasons that are difficult if not impossible to predict. It would be chaos.

A regulation needs to be able to be reliably measured, repeatedly.

Some of the specs/constraints would have to be "+/-" an acceptable percentage.

Maybe hp isn't one of the variables that should be regulated.

http://www.motogp.com/en/news/2012/Magneti+Marelli+ECU+available+to+all+MotoGP+teams+from+2013 (http://www.motogp.com/en/news/2012/Magneti+Marelli+ECU+available+to+all+MotoGP+teams+from+2013)

beginning of the end... :'(

love the 'available' word choice.  'mandatory' in 2-3 years.

good news for CRTs tho.

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Oct/121017ub2.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Oct/121017ub2.htm)

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Oct/121017nak.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Oct/121017nak.htm)

i agree, you know what one tire manufacturer has done to the sport

yup, improved racing from the preceding seasons that were partially decided by one of two competing tire manufacturers providing shit tires.

Can you expand on that? not being a smart arse, but how do you figure?

Yet still not good racing.

...and we disagree how to accomplish that. [thumbsup

michelin lost the script in 2007-2008. they were no longer bringing a competitive tire (and sometimes, not even a tire that would last through a race).

rossi jumped ship to bridgestone at the end of the 2007 season and 2008 was so bad for michelin, that edwards (long time michelin development rider) was publicly slagging them after giving very "political" answers through the previous season.

tire competition is good when you have companies providing a competitive product. if one can't even reliably finish a race, you've got problems.

Spec tire in a prototype series? If Michellin made a shit tire, then the manufacturer should be allowed to change it. In this day and age when they develop bikes on during the season, they should be able to slap on tires and figure out which works best.

nobody was disallowing michelin from fixing it, they straight up didn't/couldn't/whatever... racing was suffering as a result.

after two seasons of "we'll fix it," do you trust they'll finally figure it out for the third?

At that time Michelin and Bridgestone were the two major tire suppliers. Whose tire you ran depended mostly upon sponsorship contracts. Why Pirelli and Dunlop weren't there also may have had more to do with not wanting to spread themselves too thin as Pirelli had the supplier contract for WSBK and Dunlop was/is pretty much ruling the roost in AMA. The demands of bringing tires to MotoGP might have been too much for them but would have been allowed.
 
Michelin was also having problems with their Formula 1 tires around that time too I think.

Whatever...... the teams should be able to run whosever tire they choose at any given time in my opinion.  But then there's that sponsorship corporate greed/control thing again.

Unless I'm misunderstanding Nakamoto's statements, he is saying that Honda has a contract with Dorna that provides Honda with veto power over new rules.

I was under the impression that the MSMA defaulted on the previous contract by failing to provide a full grid, and that contract was not renewed.

WTF?

I believe the MSMA and the manufacturer contracts are 2 different things...like when DORNA let Kawasaki out of their contract and worked with Suzuki on their contract....the manu's have indivual contracts with DORNA for to race in the series...

michelin's problem was the thursday rule introduced at the start of the 2007 season.  evidently they did not retain data from year to year, track to track? 

they more than arguably ruined the 2007 season.