1000cc in 2012

[duccarlos]

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

[gm2]

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.

[Spidey]

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?

[Raux]

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

[gm2]

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?

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

[Spidey]

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.

[gm2]

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.

[Speeddog]

IIRC, the manufacturers wanted the fuel limits.

[gm2]

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

[MadDuck]

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

[fastwin]

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

Hey! When's the next WSBK race?

[derby]

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

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

[Jester]

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.

[Triple J]

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.

[Raux]

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