CRT - The new prototypes

[RatsMC]

RDP's time is 0.3 seconds slower than the fastest race lap when WSB last ran at Valencia in 2009, and 0.7 slower than the best race lap on 800's in 2011, and that was in the wet, so I would say if that's the best they have to offer, they still aren't up to much.
But we could go round in circles all day here, I think the proof will be when the flag drops at the first race.

Even you can't believe that any team will put up the best they have to offer on the second day that their bike has ever been on track. The fastest lap at Valencia 2011 wasn't actually wet. It wasn't until the end of the race that there was anything close to rain. The conditions weren't ideal but there definitely wasn't rain when they were fastest.

We aren't really going around in circle here, I think I've addressed all of the issues you've raise and the only ones remaining seem to be somewhat unreasonable expectations. Ezpeleta has made it clear that if the CRTs cannot keep up with the "factory" bikes, they will change the rules to make the CRTs faster so, you don't need to worry much about them being slower than WSBK. The class will remain in tact as the premier class.


I think a lot of people have a problem with the CRTs because they view them as production bikes which simply isn't the case. More important, the only thing that makes a superbike a superbike is homologation and if Honda wanted to they could homologate an RC213V, they just need to produce enough and offer them to the public.

If they did that and someone took that motor and put it in a prototype chassis and called it a CRT bike would you still have reservations?

[yzr750]

Logically, the pinnacle of motorcycle racing has to be the class of motorcycles that lap any given circuit in the fastest time

I completely agree with you on the closeness of the racing being irrelevant but I disagree with you on the lap times. What do you think about my 600cc scenario? if there was 600cc prototypes along the same lines as last years 800's, i.e. full prototypes they would in all likelihood run slower lap times then WSB yet I would still consider them the pinnacle of motorbike racing and i bet the riders wouldn't all up and leave for WSB just because the lap times were faster.

I would totally disagree re the 600 scenario, as there would be so many riders able to run them at their limits the real top riders would no longer stand out, there has to be something that differentiates the top class from any other, and that has to be outright speed, because that's what separates the men from the boys.

[yzr750]

RDP's time is 0.3 seconds slower than the fastest race lap when WSB last ran at Valencia in 2009, and 0.7 slower than the best race lap on 800's in 2011, and that was in the wet, so I would say if that's the best they have to offer, they still aren't up to much.
But we could go round in circles all day here, I think the proof will be when the flag drops at the first race.

Even you can't believe that any team will put up the best they have to offer on the second day that their bike has ever been on track. The fastest lap at Valencia 2011 wasn't actually wet. It wasn't until the end of the race that there was anything close to rain. The conditions weren't ideal but there definitely wasn't rain when they were fastest.

We aren't really going around in circle here, I think I've addressed all of the issues you've raise and the only ones remaining seem to be somewhat unreasonable expectations. Ezpeleta has made it clear that if the CRTs cannot keep up with the "factory" bikes, they will change the rules to make the CRTs faster so, you don't need to worry much about them being slower than WSBK. The class will remain in tact as the premier class.


I think a lot of people have a problem with the CRTs because they view them as production bikes which simply isn't the case. More important, the only thing that makes a superbike a superbike is homologation and if Honda wanted to they could homologate an RC213V, they just need to produce enough and offer them to the public.

If they did that and someone took that motor and put it in a prototype chassis and called it a CRT bike would you still have reservations?

I don't have a problem with the crt's per se, the problem I have is the dumbing down of the class.
I cannot see how he could change the rules to make crt's faster? what's he going to do? give them a capacity advantage? allow them to be turbocharged? The only way that would be practical would be to give the crt's a significant weight advantage over the factory bikes, and this would more than negate the supposed cost savings of crt.
What I can see is him changing the rules to make the factory bikes slower, hence the crt;s would get relatively faster, this is the more likely scenario.

[RatsMC]

The primary way he makes them faster is by making horsepower cheaper. One of the easiest way to do this is by raising the fuel limits even more. They could also raise the number of motors the CRTs are allowed or remove the limitation altogether because, let's face it, the only reason that WSBK has gotten anywhere near MotoGP in lap times is because WSBK can burn through a motor every session if they want to.

[yzr750]

The primary way he makes them faster is by making horsepower cheaper. One of the easiest way to do this is by raising the fuel limits even more. They could also raise the number of motors the CRTs are allowed or remove the limitation altogether because, let's face it, the only reason that WSBK has gotten anywhere near MotoGP in lap times is because WSBK can burn through a motor every session if they want to.

Which would defeat the whole raison d'etre for crt, would it not?

[Sloth27]

The primary way he makes them faster is by making horsepower cheaper. One of the easiest way to do this is by raising the fuel limits even more. They could also raise the number of motors the CRTs are allowed or remove the limitation altogether because, let's face it, the only reason that WSBK has gotten anywhere near MotoGP in lap times is because WSBK can burn through a motor every session if they want to.

How much more fuel would CRT's actually be able to use. I would have assumed 24L is about all you would need for a race? Even so, it's not necessarily engine power that's the problem, because the Moto2 bikes can put in faster lap times the way things stand at this early stage.

[RatsMC]

Which would defeat the whole raison d'etre for crt, would it not?

You'll have to explain. CRT was created to make racing at the top level cheaper. That's it, nothing else.

[Redbullmick]

Limit WSB to 12 engines a season they would lose at least a second a lap in a race, thats why Flamini doesn't. He has imposed 8 engines in WSS but that is still more than Moto2, for the top teams in that they will probably just let them, blow they can afford to start from pit lane and still finish in the top 5.

[yzr750]

Which would defeat the whole raison d'etre for crt, would it not?

You'll have to explain. CRT was created to make racing at the top level cheaper. That's it, nothing else.

Exactly my point, giving them unlimited engines is contrary to that ethos.

[RatsMC]

Only by a small margin and the cost is still significantly lower than leasing a satellite bike which was the bar Dorna was trying to get under. The improved results would almost certainly cover any additional cost by attracting more sponsorship.

That is however, a secondary step, increasing fuel is the first and that is free.

[yzr750]

Only by a small margin and the cost is still significantly lower than leasing a satellite bike which was the bar Dorna was trying to get under. The improved results would almost certainly cover any additional cost by attracting more sponsorship.

That is however, a secondary step, increasing fuel is the first and that is free.

I don't think just giving them extra fuel, as you suggest, would work, and would be far from free, given the extra development needed to use that extra fuel. If the motors where not restricted in rpm by the bore limit it could be viable, but there is an optimum fuel/air ratio for best power, and having an educated guess, I would say that any more than the current 24 ltr allocation could only be used for cooling. They are not like drag motors where the more fuel you can shove in the more power you get out.
The 24lts they have is probably optimal for the engine allocation as it stands, more fuel, (if it could be turned in to more power, which I doubt), would increase the stresses on the engines, and would have to be accompanied by an increased engine allocation, as longevity would suffer. It would also have to be accompanied by a weight reduction so as to not disadvantage them at the beginning of a race.

[JanBros]

They are still limited by the production geometry and frame. They cannot alter that and can only stiffen it by adding bulk. That's a serious limitation that the CRTs do not have.

the geometry isn't limited at all. because they can not change the steering angle a lot (only with limited inserts), doesn't mean you can't radicaly change the geometry : changing rear height, forks sticking out more or less, the distance from the forkes to the steering pen (yolkes are free), ....

WSBK's today are in fact prottypes that look like homologated models

[JanBros]

Logically, the pinnacle of motorcycle racing has to be the class of motorcycles that lap any given circuit in the fastest time, the best racing cannot even be considered in the equation. One make series and the smaller classes will always have closer racing (closer does not mean better in my book) because there are more riders able to take those bikes to their limits, as the bikes get faster they get harder to ride, and harder to set up. Consequently the amount of riders able to master those bikes is reduced, hence the reduction in close exciting races.

but still, back in the '90's, it was decided from one year to the next, the 500's would no longer be the "pinnacle of motorcross" , instead, it would be the 250's. No one really complained about that ...

the pinnacle will always be the one with the most money. If tomorrow is deceided by Dorna the pinnacle would be the Red Bull rookies cup (and open it up to everybody), only this cup would be broadcasted live, most money would be earned here, ... Stoner, Lorenzo, Rossi and everybody else would jump ship immediatly and the Cup would be what we would all be talking about all year

I would totally disagree re the 600 scenario, as there would be so many riders able to run them at their limits the real top riders would no longer stand out, there has to be something that differentiates the top class from any other, and that has to be outright speed, because that's what separates the men from the boys.

so suddenly in Mx, real man were riding boys-toys

[yzr750]

They are still limited by the production geometry and frame. They cannot alter that and can only stiffen it by adding bulk. That's a serious limitation that the CRTs do not have.

the geometry isn't limited at all. because they can not change the steering angle a lot (only with limited inserts), doesn't mean you can't radicaly change the geometry : changing rear height, forks sticking out more or less, the distance from the forkes to the steering pen (yolkes are free), ....

WSBK's today are in fact prottypes that look like homologated models

Spot on.

[yzr750]

Logically, the pinnacle of motorcycle racing has to be the class of motorcycles that lap any given circuit in the fastest time, the best racing cannot even be considered in the equation. One make series and the smaller classes will always have closer racing (closer does not mean better in my book) because there are more riders able to take those bikes to their limits, as the bikes get faster they get harder to ride, and harder to set up. Consequently the amount of riders able to master those bikes is reduced, hence the reduction in close exciting races.

but still, back in the '90's, it was decided from one year to the next, the 500's would no longer be the "pinnacle of motorcross" , instead, it would be the 250's. No one really complained about that ...

the pinnacle will always be the one with the most money. If tomorrow is deceided by Dorna the pinnacle would be the Red Bull rookies cup (and open it up to everybody), only this cup would be broadcasted live, most money would be earned here, ... Stoner, Lorenzo, Rossi and everybody else would jump ship immediatly and the Cup would be what we would all be talking about all year

I would totally disagree re the 600 scenario, as there would be so many riders able to run them at their limits the real top riders would no longer stand out, there has to be something that differentiates the top class from any other, and that has to be outright speed, because that's what separates the men from the boys.

so suddenly in Mx, real man were riding boys-toys

Rubbish,
That's like saying the walk to the top of the Eiffel tower is the pinnacle of climbing because more people climb it than climb Everest.
The pinnacle of anything is always the biggest/bad-est/fastest/hardest. Just throwing more money at a lesser item doesn't make it the pinnacle.

[JanBros]

Rubbish,
That's like saying the walk to the top of the Eiffel tower is the pinnacle of climbing because more people climb it than climb Everest.
The pinnacle of anything is always the biggest/bad-est/fastest/hardest. Just throwing more money at a lesser item doesn't make it the pinnacle.

I agree about the part of the rookies cup , but you can not deny what happenend in Mx

[yzr750]

Rubbish,
That's like saying the walk to the top of the Eiffel tower is the pinnacle of climbing because more people climb it than climb Everest.
The pinnacle of anything is always the biggest/bad-est/fastest/hardest. Just throwing more money at a lesser item doesn't make it the pinnacle.

I agree about the part of the rookies cup , but you can not deny what happenend in Mx

That is being a bit disingenuous regarding MX1/2 etc, that move was done to basically get rid of the two strokes (sound familiar?). and MX1 is still a 450 class is it not?

[Squidpuppet]

That is being a bit disingenuous regarding MX1/2 etc, that move was done to basically get rid of the two strokes (sound familiar?). and MX1 is still a 450 class is it not?

Which makes it basically equal to a 250cc 2-stroke. Not even CLOSE to the real earthquake inducing bikes of yesteryear.

[RatsMC]

the geometry isn't limited at all. because they can not change the steering angle a lot (only with limited inserts), doesn't mean you can't radicaly change the geometry : changing rear height, forks sticking out more or less, the distance from the forkes to the steering pen (yolkes are free), ....

WSBK's today are in fact prottypes that look like homologated models

There are still limitations that MotoGP doesn't have to consider. I agree that WSBK spec has gotten completely out of hand but there are still limits that they must work within.

However, this was a single point within a larger one: the CRTs are more free than WSBK and therefore are certain to be faster - unless the builders are incompetent.

Rubbish,
That's like saying the walk to the top of the Eiffel tower is the pinnacle of climbing because more people climb it than climb Everest.
The pinnacle of anything is always the biggest/bad-est/fastest/hardest. Just throwing more money at a lesser item doesn't make it the pinnacle.

MotoGP is already the lesser item. The fact is, you could build bigger, faster , more dangerous bikes but they have intentionally created rules to make that impossible. Why? Because it is too expensive and the fact is, the audience doesn't actually care.

That is being a bit disingenuous regarding MX1/2 etc, that move was done to basically get rid of the two strokes (sound familiar?). and MX1 is still a 450 class is it not?

It's not really disingenuous at all. The switch was to a less big, less bad machine and the audience followed. The class (at least here in the US) later moved to 450cc 4 strokes when the bigger four strokes finally became competitive with the 250s.

[phoenix1]

And that there is why the wsb chassis bear little resemblance to the stock chassis, there is a couple of pics of the wsb r1 compared to the stock r1, you would not think it was the same frame.

The frames are the same, and the rules require VIN numbers as well as other homologated items. The big difference is the swing arm, which can be swapped for a factory prototype replacement, and the "gussets", which I've heard are actually complicated dampening systems, like a steering damper. I believe Yamaha created an complicated electronically controlled chassis-damper, but I have no idea whether or not it is legal for WSBK. The triple trees can make a big difference, too.

From what I understand, the manufacturers create tons of new subframes and brackets to relocate various reservoirs and systems on the bike (including the fuel tank). Perhaps this is what you are seeing along with the swing arm?

Also, when I was referring to the possibility of incompetent chassis manufacturers, Aprilia were excluded b/c they've built a competitive chassis in both WSBK and 250GP. I was speaking mainly about FTR, Moriwaki, Suter, etc. They've built MotoGP bikes before with other teams, but in most instances, the teams were doing the designing and the prototype shop was simply churning out the parts.

[phoenix1]

I am curious though as to your thoughts regarding defining CRT and where the line is when a team becomes a factory team?

I hold my opinion in high esteem, but not on this particular issue Differentiating production methods from rapid-prototyping is beyond my pay grade. The manufacturers can't even outline the specifics, and I think it was Krop who said that the MSMA treat the line of demarcation as "I'll know it when I see it". Dorna had to hire Cecchinello to tell Ezpeleta what's going on. I feel just as clueless as everyone else.

I will say, the entire "claiming" aspect seems like a bit of a red herring. It's either ineffective, or it's nonsense. If the ART is just an SBK as Domenicali claims, then claiming is just nonsense someone put on paper b/c it sounded good. Why would Aprilia equip factory WSBK parts, and run the risk of engines getting claimed? Furthermore, how can you allow the MSMA to buy something that the team is not legally able to sell due to lease agreements? Leasing thwarts claiming, which is another reason I'm okay with leasing for now. If technology can't be claimed, or if Aprilia don't treat their SBK technology as sensitive, the rule was never going to work in the first place.

If the ART is actually a mildly revised WSBK factory engine, with technology Aprilia are not afraid to lose, then claiming seems ineffective. The ART engine could be competitive with slightly detuned engine internals, and the manufacturers can't use it to stop CRTs.

[Sloth27]

By all accounts, it looks like the Aprilia CRT is a reasonably decent package. What will happen if as the season progresses, the Aprilia begins to edge closer to the factory prototypes while the other CRTs continue to flail around at the back getting lapped every race? Any changes Ezpeleta intends to make to the rules will surely just widen the gap between the best of the CRTs and the rest.

Assuming Ezpeleta wants all the field to follow CRT style rules, you could end up with the factories wanting out and the only competitive bike left being an Aprilia pseudo factory CRT.

Maybe Biaggi could come back for one last crack at the title?

[yzr750]

By all accounts, it looks like the Aprilia CRT is a reasonably decent package. What will happen if as the season progresses, the Aprilia begins to edge closer to the factory prototypes while the other CRTs continue to flail around at the back getting lapped every race? Any changes Ezpeleta intends to make to the rules will surely just widen the gap between the best of the CRTs and the rest.

Assuming Ezpeleta wants all the field to follow CRT style rules, you could end up with the factories wanting out and the only competitive bike left being an Aprilia pseudo factory CRT.

Maybe Biaggi could come back for one last crack at the title?

Good point, any messing with the rules to make crt's more competitive would only work if all the crt teams where on a more or less equal level, otherwise you will end up with exactly the same as we have now.

[RatsMC]

By all accounts, it looks like the Aprilia CRT is a reasonably decent package. What will happen if as the season progresses, the Aprilia begins to edge closer to the factory prototypes while the other CRTs continue to flail around at the back getting lapped every race? Any changes Ezpeleta intends to make to the rules will surely just widen the gap between the best of the CRTs and the rest.

Assuming Ezpeleta wants all the field to follow CRT style rules, you could end up with the factories wanting out and the only competitive bike left being an Aprilia pseudo factory CRT.

Maybe Biaggi could come back for one last crack at the title?

If the gap continues to widen even with increased freedom from the rules, then clearly the CRT builders who are following behind shouldn't be in MotoGP.

It is way, way too early to make any sort of guesses as to how the CRTs will do. I expect we'll be seeing closer performance out of some and failure of others. This is exactly as it should be. Despite what the naysayers seem to believe, the CRTs aren't easy to build and be successful on and it isn't just a matter of taking a motor off the shelf and slapping it into a frame you welded together in your garage. Only teams that have the ability to run at the front in WSBK or Moto2 are going to be able to pull this off.

[AL-2]

I wonder if Suzuki is planning to come back to MotoGP through the CRT path. They are developing a bike but the story is that they can't afford a race team. Could they be planning on not having a factory team, but to sell production race bikes like Aprilia. The only problem might be that with 24L of fuel and a fast rider it might be too fast for a CRT.