1000cc in 2012

[zarn02]

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

Hm...

[DRKWNG]

Hm...

No shit.  That's pretty vague.

[MadDuck]

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

[zarn02]

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.

[Jester]

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."

[duccarlos]

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.

[triangleforge]

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.

[duccarlos]

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.

[ducpainter]

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.

Pressure is one thing.

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

[derby]

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

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

[derby]

Pressure is one thing.

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

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

[derby]

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.

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.

[ducpainter]

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 they're 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?

[duccarlos]

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

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.

[zarn02]

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.