MotoGP cost cutting -- effective NOW

[gm2]

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

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

[derby]

 no carbon brakes,

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

[gm2]

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

i call this the "Gibernau clause"

[Spidey]

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

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

[derby]

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

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

[Spidey]

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

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

[Speeddog]

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

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

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

[GregP]

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

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

[derby]

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

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

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

it was pretty interesting.

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

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

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

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

[EvilSteve]

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

[derby]

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

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

[mitt]

That's my biggest problem with these rules to save money. F1 is particularly good at adding rules that end up having the opposite of the desired effect.

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

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

Raising legal drink age = more underage binge drinking

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

etc etc

mitt

[jimboecv]

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

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

[gm2]

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

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

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

[BastrdHK]

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

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