What would YOU do to save MotoGP

[Japhrodisiac]

MotoGp wont be 'saved' by any technical regulations. A change in bore, stoke, weight, fuel type or amount. We are looking for technical answers to a human problem here.

MotoGp has little relevance because there is no system to build local talent through the various countries that it currently alienates. Dorna does this very well through the CEV, only, and we see plenty of Spanish talent coming up through the ranks.
Where are the similar series', with relevant machinery (the local and national moto2 and moto3 classes or ??? alternative) ? Dorna should be spending it's millions per year not subsidizing teams to lease satellite equipment, but at the grassroots level, supporting feeder series all over the place with contingency money and technical support, how to find and keep sponsors, PR basics etc. A MotoGP university if you will.

I suppose the RedBull cup was an attempt at this - but they again played the exclusivity card - very difficult to get into and a lot of failed feeders at the national level. Some of this was due to the equipment - bikes that you showed up and raced, but could not practice on or do anything else with. We need the moto3 equivalent of a CRF250. Dumb it down in all but the important areas - stock engine, electric start even, no mods allowed, simple but decent suspension and brakes - simple bikes, reliable, anyone can work on them, and start from there.

You're looking for the sport to grow? Start building the next Indian, Indonesian, Brazilian and Chinese (and everywhere else too) superstars through inexpensive participation. Yes it will take 10 years, but if you don't do it, it's gonna be game over at some point.

[Zaphod]

MotoGp has little relevance because there is no system to build local talent through the various countries that it currently alienates. Dorna does this very well through the CEV, only, and we see plenty of Spanish talent coming up through the ranks.
Where are the similar series', with relevant machinery (the local and national moto2 and moto3 classes or ??? alternative) ? Dorna should be spending it's millions per year not subsidizing teams to lease satellite equipment, but at the grassroots level, supporting feeder series all over the place with contingency money and technical support, how to find and keep sponsors, PR basics etc. A MotoGP university if you will.

Is this failing a result of four strokes are prohibitively expensive ?...... what did 125 cc cost to buy and run for a season ? Again, we don't need to go back to two strokes for the premier class.......factories can cop the cost of the full Moto prototype bikes at the elite level, but Mum and Dads sure as hell can't afford to run a moto3/2 bike the way that they did with the cheap little smokers.

Also, everyone who came up through those classes has lamented that the new generation of rider will not learn quite as much on a four stroke as they would on a two stroke.

I suppose the RedBull cup was an attempt at this - but they again played the exclusivity card - very difficult to get into and a lot of failed feeders at the national level. Some of this was due to the equipment - bikes that you showed up and raced, but could not practice on or do anything else with. We need the moto3 equivalent of a CRF250. Dumb it down in all but the important areas - stock engine, electric start even, no mods allowed, simple but decent suspension and brakes - simple bikes, reliable, anyone can work on them, and start from there.

Again.....small cc 2 strokes.......almost within the reach of "normal" mum and Dads who want to encourage little Johnny or Jane to follow their dream. I believe this is relevant, because as much as the future of the sport depends on institutions such as the RedBull cup etc, it definately starts much lower down the rungs at club, state or national level.

I believe, if Dorna want to improve and reap the rewards of the sport, they need to focus on Motocycle racing at a grass roots level. Whether this should be undertaken by the F.I.M, M.S.M.A or Dorna is moot........somebody needs to be the overall govenor of the sport. As long as these three sit around arguing, or doing nothing but focusing on the big picture and who's in charge of it, the TV rights etc,etc,etc, the sport will suffer at every level.............just as is starting to happen now.

One of the things F1 has over motorcycling is that the feeder classes, their governance and and structure has changed very little.....that makes it easier to feed talent into the class as people know the diffinitive route to get there. What do we have ?

It's almost willy-nilly......maybe RB cup...maybe superbikes....maybe wildcards and so on ? The sport needs a definative direction for people to be able to aim for the top. At the moment, it's an extremely large gamble as far as money is concerned, which will by and large remain, and probably an even bigger gamble as to whether you're noticed or not.This is especially the case for anyone who doesn't come from, or is willing to travel to, Europe.





I used to think that the All-Japan 500 series (not that it needs to be 2 strokes)was a good thing. Last years bikes (so to speak) having a new home to go to in a feeder class. Never really followed through, I thought.

If that ( or something like it) had been pushed in other countries, it could also have been used to bolster the local image of the sport, as well as advertising/market sales of manufacturers and sponsors, then as well as having an ideal feeder class in each country, you could quite easily end up with fuller, more competitive grids in the MotoGP elite class.


At the moment, they've built a house that's just a roof........and wondering why it's tough to attract buyers..........They need to start at the bottom and get some good foundations going.

You're looking for the sport to grow? Start building the next Indian, Indonesian, Brazilian and Chinese (and everywhere else too) superstars through inexpensive participation. Yes it will take 10 years, but if you don't do it, it's gonna be game over at some point.

Agreed.

[phoenix1]

Eveything has gone ( or is slowly going ) to the dogs after Honda had the two biggest quanitfying rules for the sport (in place for many, many decades) changed to suit their own desires........

Remember ?

NO MORE THAN 500CC

NO MORE THAN 6 GEARS

Everyone knows I'm not lover of Honda, but the 4-cylinder, 2-cylinder, 1-cylinder rules for 500cc, 250cc, and 125cc caused Honda to leave. When the FIM failed mandate 4-stroke, MotoGP morphed into 2-strokes, and Honda stayed away until they thought they might be able to run a 4-stroke at 500cc. Also, JB has said on numerous occasions that the manufacturers were stunned by Dorna's proposal to use 990cc motorcycles. At the first available opportunity, Honda went to 800cc 21L, but the rev ceiling was much higher than they anticipated, and the costs were prohibitive. Back to 1000cc, rather than cut fuel another liter to reduce the rev ceiling.

The MSMA are definitely responsible for the state of MotoGP, and the lack of participation, but they didn't start the fire so to speak. The MSMA merely tried to extinguish the blaze by fanning it.

[phoenix1]

The only solution I see is to completely remove the manufacturers from the teams. They should basically be just shop fronts. Teams go to which ever manufacturer they want and buy whatever item they want. Any particular part/bike/chassis/engine the manufactures chooses to provide to the series, has to be available to any team that wants it for the same price. The same goes for the tyre manufacturers, suspension manufacturers, lube manufacturers, bearing manufacturers etc...

That's production bike racing, and that's more or less how WSBK should work, with the minimum production quantities.

They've tried to use similar systems in production prototype classes, most notorious was FIA Group 5, but it never lasts. Displacement limited formulas require too much proprietary technology. They used production-based rules in Group C, but fuel-limited formula created even more proprietary technology. To make it work, you need some kind of Can Am formula-libre-like arrangement. Then you've got to figure out how to stop people from killing themselves.

[tom]

Depends on your definition of production I guess. To me they are still prototypes as they are produced for this series only with no homogination requirement.

I'm not aware of the failed series you use as examples. Why didn't they work?

[TwoStroke Institute]

We don't need 'MotoGP' uni nor does Dorna need to throw money at some long term flight-of-fancy looking for the Chinger version of Casey Stoner. If a young rider is good enough and keen enough he will find a way. Two examples I'll cite who followed in Casey Stoner's footsteps have been Arthur Sissis and Jack Miller, both have good Moto3 rides this year. They got there through determination and results.
Just because you have a set of rules doesn't mean a manufacturer is obliged to enter, there would be more reasons not to enter a race series than to enter if you looked from a bean counters perspective.
Slashing costs is easier than raising revenues, but Dorna has to work much smarter, on the sponsorship front, namely to create a bigger pie not letting teams squabble over a bigger slice. I would lke to hear Aspar Martinez's opinion on what could be achieved in that aspect(hint hint Kroppers ). As he always seems to be cashed up and gazumped poor old Herve on the Bel-Ray $$$.
An idea could be for a Dorna CRTand Moto3 bikes paid for by pool skimmed from individual GP and series sponsors, with wild card rides granted to up and comers from a region where the GP is. The rider would be given some prominent fairing locations to promote their own sponsors.

[Zaphod]

We don't need 'MotoGP' uni nor does Dorna need to throw money at some long term flight-of-fancy looking for the Chinger version of Casey Stoner. If a young rider is good enough and keen enough he will find a way. Two examples I'll cite who followed in Casey Stoner's footsteps have been Arthur Sissis and Jack Miller,

Wow ! bet you're really good at diplomacy !

so you can cite two out of how many world wide that missed the chance to show their talent through lack of a recognisable path to the top ?..........or funds.

Never mind that Stoners parents laid everything on the line to give him a shot........not sure what Arthur or Jacks parents had to sacrifice, but I bet it wasn't light.....

Lets continue down this path and have riders have to front with wads of moolah to secure their ride, like Bradl.............and in the vein of F1.

The days of packing up your bags (for an Aussie) and heading over, working a shit job while you try to pick up a ride are long gone. The last person ( from Aus at least) to do that was Gardner. Now it costs hundreds of thousands.

Kudos to Wayne for putting it all on the line, like Stoners parents, to give his kid a shot.

When interviewed on TV, his estimated running costs bike and equipment, hotels, food fuel etc, etc, etc) for the season were $500 000 plus.

Meanwhile, motorcycle (in particular, sportsbikes) markets and intrest in this sport ( other than Spain and Italy)continue to dwindle, and general public intrest in the sport continues to wane due to poor tactics employed to generate said interest.

The numbers in attendance for the P.I GP is the equivelant of the crowd numbers for one or two AFL games........and if Stoner wasn't racing ?

Your answer is to get better accountants to show a better return for sponsorship signage in an ever more irrelevant (to the general public) sport.

You then propose to skim a couple of bucks off that revenue and give some poor kid a one off ride at his home GP on a second rate piece of machinery in the hope that his 28th place may inspire a team to pick him up.

Well done !....can see how the sport, industry and all involved will thrive and prosper on that.

Spoken like true middle-management/acountant material.



It's not about Dorna throwing money at the problem.......it's about someone setting rules in place that create a clear pathway to the elite class, and manufacturers producing a machine that is reasonable enough cost wise to encourage participation.


"Chinger version"............nice.........

Have a look at the AMA and ASBK..........that's what happens when interest in the sport is lost, and when manufacturers fail to participate at the level they should to generate the sales they so desperately need.......to be able to participate.


Have a look at WSBK and MotoGP......that what happens when there is no clear direction in implemetation of policies and governance.


You gotta spend some money to make some money, as well as having a clear cut agenda and system so that you can know exactly where you stand in the world, so as to have any chance of successfully marketing and growing your "business"

Here's one......CRT, if the major manufacturers do indeed leave the sport due to being unable to run prototypes, exactly what kind of sponsors are teams, and the sport in general likely to attract ?

Does anyone really think that the current level of input, dollar wise, will remain the same or increase ? Will Repsol, for example, throw the same money at.....let's say ART ?.......or because the running cost of the bike/team is now less, would they instead choose to offer less money.........remembering that it's even a big gamble as to whether spectator (including TV) interest will remain at todays levels (Ezpaleta and dorna are counting that they will).......I'm sure that's how their bean counters would look at it.

[Pantah]

What does it take to raise/create/find another Japanese superstar rider that can win a lot of races? Do it. Then find an italian replacement for Rossi that can bring the fight to Lorenzo and Stoner and repeat the Japanese experiment in southern Asia.

And keep pushing rules to cut the gap between CRTs and the rest of the field.

All the fast riders in Japan ride on the road....daddy doesnt have a millon to put his little boy on the track.......Normal Japanese boys have to go to work Monday to Friday.........dont hold your breath for salvation from Japan,but if you want to ride fast on the road...Japan is your answer...

[Spinmaster]

Step 1: Accept that the only way to greater financial stability is for closer racing across the entire field. Factories do not want this. Grid filling will not solve this.

Step 2: Accept that the race coverage is crap. Everyone gets board of watching processional racing and missing the passes because of commercial breaks. Especially when its a tape delayed telecast. Most of the world is not where the race is located. They watch it after the race has run.

Step 3: Accept the fact that pure prototypes are not the answer. Only factories have the financial and technical means to participate. However, they will only do so if the participation investment translates into sales and that means wins. Without the wins, the investment is a loss despite what ever the R&D creates. See Suzuki and Kawasaki.

Step 4: Accept that technology has to carry over to public use or its of no use. For example, no one will ever see CF brakes or GPS enabled electronics on a road bike so ditch them. Allow technologies that do have carry over to public use like ABS.

Step 5: Accept that fuel is a leveler of finance. If you want to invest in fuel management so you can carry less and have a lighter bike, so be it. The team next to you may chose to spend less and carry more fuel. Nothing wrong with that.

Step 6: Accept that diversity is good. If someone wants to use a V2, rotory, hybrid electric engine, CF frames, let them. If they succeed that will be good for the sport and if they fail, they will move on and let the next guy have his try. Which would be more fun to watch, Honda winning because they spend 50M on fuel management or a team that came up with a 500K turbine/electric hybrid win?

Step7: Accept that a single tire choice dictates successful bike designs and this is bad. Allow multiple suppliers so teams can chose the tire best fits them, not the other way around. However, all tires are available to all teams. No preferential contracts allowed so tire suppliers cannot choose the winners and losers.

Seems simple to me.

[tom]

Amen spinster! You hit my sweet spot with that post

[Japhrodisiac]

Is this failing a result of four strokes are prohibitively expensive ?...... what did 125 cc cost to buy and run for a season ? Again, we don't need to go back to two strokes for the premier class.......factories can cop the cost of the full Moto prototype bikes at the elite level, but Mum and Dads sure as hell can't afford to run a moto3/2 bike the way that they did with the cheap little smokers.

Also, everyone who came up through those classes has lamented that the new generation of rider will not learn quite as much on a four stroke as they would on a two stroke

Again.....small cc 2 strokes.......almost within the reach of "normal" mum and Dads who want to encourage little Johnny or Jane to follow their dream. I believe this is relevant, because as much as the future of the sport depends on institutions such as the RedBull cup etc, it definately starts much lower down the rungs at club, state or national level.

I used to think that the All-Japan 500 series (not that it needs to be 2 strokes)was a good thing. Last years bikes (so to speak) having a new home to go to in a feeder class. Never really followed through, I thought.

As much as I love 2 strokes, they are not the answer either. We need to be able to get any mom and pop into the sport, and to do that, you need a bike that starts and runs the same every time out with little effort involved, and without Dad being an engineer. We are talking about participation and track time here, not learning to read combustion burn, jetting for atmospheric conditions and to revalve suspension. Look at the kids who start motocross - they buy a bike and ride it until it breaks. The parts are cheap to fix it and off they go again. We need that.

When I started out, it was on two stroke 125's, and without help from Dad, I spent many frustrating weekends with poor or non running equipment. It took a couple of seasons to get the hang of what to do to the bikes and when and the steady diet of parts required. Time that would have been better spent on track for sure.

Personally, I would like to have a moto3 bike for track days. What are my options? An NSF250 for 35,000 dollars or roll my own?

[CLX]

What does it take to raise/create/find another Japanese superstar rider that can win a lot of races? Do it. Then find an italian replacement for Rossi that can bring the fight to Lorenzo and Stoner and repeat the Japanese experiment in southern Asia.

And keep pushing rules to cut the gap between CRTs and the rest of the field.

All the fast riders in Japan ride on the road....daddy doesnt have a millon to put his little boy on the track.......Normal Japanese boys have to go to work Monday to Friday.........dont hold your breath for salvation from Japan,but if you want to ride fast on the road...Japan is your answer...

Well, that's a pity. The way I see it, the people/fans/sponsors will fall back in love with MotpGP, or any other sport, as soon as they have a rising/winning star again. No technical regulation can replace that feeling, even if it can help promote closer fields, more controled costs and exciting races. It's 50/50 or so between the racing and having someone people will love and follow.

[phoenix1]

Depends on your definition of production I guess. To me they are still prototypes as they are produced for this series only with no homogination requirement.

I'm not aware of the failed series you use as examples. Why didn't they work?

Your system would ultimately require homologation b/c without homologation, the governing body cannot enforce access to equipment. Regs could be written for parts comparisons, but that's basically homologation after the fact rather than before the fact.

Group 5 (Porsche 917, Ferrari 512S, etc) didn't work b/c the cars were faster than the 3L prototypes. The Group 5 was made the new 3L premier class and production quantities were dropped. New Group 5 fell apart after 4 seasons and it never attracted widespread participation b/c the manufacturers became leery of putting their prototype technology in the public domain. Porsche pulled out when Group 5 went became the premier class. Ferrari basically quit after Matra raised the bar. Matra basically quit after Alfa raised the bar. Win and quit b/c the winning car represented the max technology they wanted to put in the public domain. Capacity restrictions tend to have that effect.

Similar forces were at play in 750cc SBK with the homologation specials. The Japanese were not comfortable putting bikes with titanium internals, gear cams, twin injection, etc into the public domain, though most of the racing mods were not in the public domain. The 750cc formula was cancelled, and the new 1000s were supposed to be more like everyday road bikes with a much lower cost point.

Group C liberalized engines so engine technology would be less sensitive. If 600hp is required for competitive running, the manufacturer can up the capacity or the boost without divulging sensitive technology. Plus, the engines were production based (loosely). Worked great during the 956 and 962 dominance b/c Porsche sold the same car to everyone. However, the fuel regulations were made more stringent over time to reduce top speeds, and factory backed teams like Silk Cut Jaguar (Walkinsahw Racing) or Sauber Mercedes began to dominate competition. The customer Porsches became also-rans. The availability of customer technology began to dry up so they turned Group C into a 3.5L prototype class. It collapsed almost immediately.

Production prototype isn't a bad idea necessarily, but it is a different motorsport concept, and you have to approach it from a different angle. Capacity restrictions and fuel restrictions don't seem to jive with production prototypes so you'd need new performance controls.

[Zaphod]

As much as I love 2 strokes, they are not the answer either. We need to be able to get any mom and pop into the sport, and to do that, you need a bike that starts and runs the same every time out with little effort involved, and without Dad being an engineer. We are talking about participation and track time here, not learning to read combustion burn, jetting for atmospheric conditions and to revalve suspension. Look at the kids who start motocross - they buy a bike and ride it until it breaks. The parts are cheap to fix it and off they go again. We need that.

When I started out, it was on two stroke 125's, and without help from Dad, I spent many frustrating weekends with poor or non running equipment. It took a couple of seasons to get the hang of what to do to the bikes and when and the steady diet of parts required. Time that would have been better spent on track for sure.

Personally, I would like to have a moto3 bike for track days. What are my options? An NSF250 for 35,000 dollars or roll my own?

That's my point.

I don't think 2 bangers are the answer, but what they have been replaced with prices most out of the chance of competeing.

$35 000 is the same as most spend on a family car, and that $35 000 doesn't include the seasons running costs for the bike, that's just the bike itself.

What did an RS 125 cost $12/15 000 ?.....with about 1/3rd of the cost in consumables to run it for the season.


Manufacturers are biting one of the hands that feeds them, and the sport ( in general) is trying to find ways to increase revenue from sponsors etc into a sport that has less and less people getting involved in it.

Catch 22.

I think that the sport, and all in charge of it are taking(and have been for the last ten years or more) a very short sighted, minimum commitment attitude to it's survival and development which is now really starting to come home to roost.

Now, here's one for everyone to misinterperate................what makes speedway so popular ?

Forget the almost singularity of the bikes etc,etc,etc...............I think it's because it has a strong foundation and following at the smallest local level......people know how to aim for the "stars" if they want/are able to afford to.


How else does a a small manufacturer, such as JAWA, survive in such a small market for so long.

Look at football.............it survives and grows because of the support it generates from community/local level enabling it to able to feed itself and grow larger, bringing exorbitant amounts of revenue from sponsorship and T.V etc.


Now..........what does our sport have ?

I know here in Aus that Superbikes are recieving only slightly more exposure that croquet. Glenn Allerton won last years title on a B.M.W that for all intents and purposes had no sponsorship or factory backing.

Bloody hell, if it wasn't for Barry Sheene, Chris Vermullen wouldn't have even got a start on the world stage !...... he even had to pay for his own leathers until Barry rang Dianese !!!

Same goes for the majority of the grid.

Go back 10 to 20 years and have a look at the difference !!!

Way back when, things like local level racing, the local Suberbike scene, The Suzuka 8 hr etc were all supported by manufacturers, which it turn created sales and interest in the sport. This all grew to a level where things were working so well and growing that the manufacturers seemed to take the point of view that enough had been done and it should continue in this vein under it's steam.

ASBK, WSBK and the 8hr all immesurably helped get people like Crosby, Gardner, Doohan, Magee, Corser, Mladin,Campbell, Phillis,Beattie, Curtain etc,etc go on to bigger and better things.

Who outside of Aus has heard of Allerton, Maxwell, Waters, Stauffer etc ?......how do they take the next step ?

It's all good and well to say "if they have enough talent and desire, they will find a way".................how many here would be willing to sell there house and everything they own to gamble on what they hope is a good idea ?

Big ask !

.......and if you feel like the risk of not being picked up is too great, then you don't do it..........and the sport as a whole has to face problems it currently experiences.


Local level.

It's no good trying to sell something if people don't know it's there.

We have ben lucky with the Phillip Island GP attendance as there has always been an Aussie racing in it.......usually in a good position to do well. People turn up.Amazing, considering that for the rest of the year the sport hardly gets a mention.

Lets see the P.I crowd numbers when Stoner pulls the pin on Racing.


I don't know the crowd numbers for Laguna, but considering the size of the poulation, and the size of the market,.....it's probably just as, if not smaller by comparison to Aus.

[tom]

Depends on your definition of production I guess. To me they are still prototypes as they are produced for this series only with no homogination requirement.

I'm not aware of the failed series you use as examples. Why didn't they work?

Your system would ultimately require homologation b/c without homologation, the governing body cannot enforce access to equipment. Regs could be written for parts comparisons, but that's basically homologation after the fact rather than before the fact.

OK that makes sense we need to homogenate the parts but I still dont think that makes it a production series. There is still an incentive to modify existing parts or come up with new parts with no restrictions on whether or not its a production or production based part. I would let the race teams modify any part they buy or even create their own without having to provide that part or even details of that part to everyone else. but manufacturers and outside suppliers would have to homogenate and make available all their parts to any team.

This seems an elegant solution to me, manufactures can not come up with ultra expensive parts because no team could afford to buy them and no team is disadvantaged by being excluded from using top shelf parts. R&D costs kept within the series means and closer fairer racing. Team innovation also makes a difference again.

Group 5 (Porsche 917, Ferrari 512S, etc) didn't work b/c the cars were faster than the 3L prototypes. The Group 5 was made the new 3L premier class and production quantities were dropped. New Group 5 fell apart after 4 seasons and it never attracted widespread participation b/c the manufacturers became leery of putting their prototype technology in the public domain. Porsche pulled out when Group 5 went became the premier class. Ferrari basically quit after Matra raised the bar. Matra basically quit after Alfa raised the bar. Win and quit b/c the winning car represented the max technology they wanted to put in the public domain. Capacity restrictions tend to have that effect.

Similar forces were at play in 750cc SBK with the homologation specials. The Japanese were not comfortable putting bikes with titanium internals, gear cams, twin injection, etc into the public domain, though most of the racing mods were not in the public domain. The 750cc formula was cancelled, and the new 1000s were supposed to be more like everyday road bikes with a much lower cost point.

Group C liberalized engines so engine technology would be less sensitive. If 600hp is required for competitive running, the manufacturer can up the capacity or the boost without divulging sensitive technology. Plus, the engines were production based (loosely). Worked great during the 956 and 962 dominance b/c Porsche sold the same car to everyone. However, the fuel regulations were made more stringent over time to reduce top speeds, and factory backed teams like Silk Cut Jaguar (Walkinsahw Racing) or Sauber Mercedes began to dominate competition. The customer Porsches became also-rans. The availability of customer technology began to dry up so they turned Group C into a 3.5L prototype class. It collapsed almost immediately.

Production prototype isn't a bad idea necessarily, but it is a different motorsport concept, and you have to approach it from a different angle. Capacity restrictions and fuel restrictions don't seem to jive with production prototypes so you'd need new performance controls.

Thanks for that explanation. From your description, the scenario most like what I propose is the Group C one during the period when the 956 and 962 dominated. It seems to me that if the other factories were forced to supply the same car to everyone (like Porsche was doing off their own bat) then it would still be a successful series.

Although I'm sure there are flaws in my model (and like you say one of these flaws is factory reluctance to have their R&D shared around) I still think it is the only way to force all participants in the series to live within their means. And to me that is the over arching and terminal fault of the current model.

[Japhrodisiac]

That's my point.
I don't think 2 bangers are the answer, but what they have been replaced with prices most out of the chance of competeing.
$35 000 is the same as most spend on a family car, and that $35 000 doesn't include the seasons running costs for the bike, that's just the bike itself.
What did an RS 125 cost $12/15 000 ?.....with about 1/3rd of the cost in consumables to run it for the season.
Manufacturers are biting one of the hands that feeds them, and the sport ( in general) is trying to find ways to increase revenue from sponsors etc into a sport that has less and less people getting involved in it.
Catch 22.

I think that the sport, and all in charge of it are taking(and have been for the last ten years or more) a very short sighted, minimum commitment attitude to it's survival and development which is now really starting to come home to roost.

Now, here's one for everyone to misinterperate................what makes speedway so popular ?

Yes, this was my point. If there is no system - a logical and known progression from which to start from, and where talent and determination could lead you to the show - then we are doomed to a situation where only the anomalies can race - the super rich, the lucky etc. Add to that the fact that there is no basic platform to buy which is used everywhere (ok maybe 600ss) and it's a tough gig all around.

Speedway? No idea, but using one bike for 20 years and having the whole race visible to every spectator at all times, and serving alcohol - seems like a good idea

[motor]

"Michael Czysz: How to save MotoGP"

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/178268 ... otogp.html

[RatsMC]

Guys, can I ask that when quoting another post, that you only quote the relevant part? 1000 word quotes that take up the whole page make it really difficult to know what you are actually responding to. And it make the pages stupidly long.

[tom]

"Michael Czysz: How to save MotoGP"

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/178268 ... otogp.html

There is a lot of sense in that article. The rule changing every year is obviously extremely debilitating, he makes that point very well.

[Hansd]

"Michael Czysz: How to save MotoGP"

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/178268 ... otogp.html

There is a lot of sense in that article. The rule changing every year is obviously extremely debilitating, he makes that point very well.

Great read indeed. And very relevant to this topic.
Based on a "250 multiplier" he proposes to:

lock down the lowest common denominator, the single cylinder. The obvious choice is a 250cc 4 stroke

Next he proposes to base Motogp on 750cc 3 cilinders and WSBK on 1000cc 4 cilinders. (would mean end of Ducati superbike)

[phoenix1]

OK that makes sense we need to homogenate the parts but I still dont think that makes it a production series. There is still an incentive to modify existing parts or come up with new parts with no restrictions on whether or not its a production or production based part. I would let the race teams modify any part they buy or even create their own without having to provide that part or even details of that part to everyone else. but manufacturers and outside suppliers would have to homogenate and make available all their parts to any team.

This seems an elegant solution to me, manufactures can not come up with ultra expensive parts because no team could afford to buy them and no team is disadvantaged by being excluded from using top shelf parts. R&D costs kept within the series means and closer fairer racing. Team innovation also makes a difference again.

If you allow the teams to modify parts you'll need tuning rules, otherwise it will become prototype. Honda starts with production Ohlins forks, but they build new externals and then they build new internals. Clearly, Honda have created a bespoke prototype part with no relation to the original piece. If manufacturers can make prototype parts, it's the same arrangement we have now. AMA Formula Xtreme (the 1000cc+ version) had the same issue. Production frames could be modified. Teams built prototype frames and claimed they had modified the original piece. AMA created the 50% rule--50% of the frame had to be production. Then AMA fought about whether the 50% rule was by weight or by volume. Frame cutting/welding/semi-prototyping was banned b/c they couldn't figure out how to enforce the rules. Somewhere in the middle of that hubbub, the infamous R1/R7 was created. A heavily modified R1 engine, wedged into a Yamaha R7 frame. Crazy times.

Homologation doesn't necessarily make a series "production"; however, rules requiring suppliers and manufacturers to sell parts is basically production. The words production and prototype are not terribly important, though. If you want to move MotoGP closer to the road production market by creating a racing production market (instead of a prototype formula), you haven't really compromised the spirit of MotoGP.

From your description, the scenario most like what I propose is the Group C one during the period when the 956 and 962 dominated. It seems to me that if the other factories were forced to supply the same car to everyone (like Porsche was doing off their own bat) then it would still be a successful series.

Although I'm sure there are flaws in my model (and like you say one of these flaws is factory reluctance to have their R&D shared around) I still think it is the only way to force all participants in the series to live within their means. And to me that is the over arching and terminal fault of the current model.

Your model is not inherently flawed. Writing rules is like any other engineering exercise. When you gain something in one place, you lose something somewhere else. It is always a compromise. For instance, let's say you ran Group 5 by homologating complete bikes at 25 units per year. The manufacturers are probably happy, IRTA is competitive, but bored. So you allow modification. IRTA is not bored, but they are not competitive, which leads them to complain in the long term.

Sounds like the current formula. Clearly, you're not any farther off the mark than "the experts".

[phoenix1]

Czysz's idea is predicated on no rev limits, no bore/stroke, and no pneumatic valves. In a world without pneumatic valves, the man with desmo wins everything. Seems like an elementary mistake for a guy who built his own GP bike; although, personality theory says that conceptual thinkers tend to overlook the obvious details.

I'm sure Ducati would ratify Czysz's rules at the first available opportunity.

[Hansd]

In a world without pneumatic valves, the man with desmo wins everything.

Didn't we have a period in Motogp where not all Japanese bikes were pneumatic and Ducati was also participating. I do not recall Ducati being dominant then? (they were fast, but not dominant). Aren't you putting this a bit too black and white. Desmo surely is an advantage, but no guarantee to win. If you're right, shouldn't we expect a desmo Moto3 engine?
Also, who stops other manufacturers from building (some sort of) desmodromic engines too. I do not believe Ducati holds the rights to all desmo variants.

Finally, if feel saying a man like Michael Czysz is making an elementary mistake is not very respectful. Give him a bit more credit please.

[phoenix1]

If you're right, shouldn't we expect a desmo Moto3 engine?

No, b/c Moto3 is rev-limited. However, I thought Ducati would build a Moto3 engine anyway b/c they have a legacy of building small singles.

Honda and Yamaha used springs in the 990 era b/c fuel and horsepower were well beyond what the tires could handle. When displacement dropped to 800cc, Stoner overtook Rossi like he was standing still, and Ducati walked off with the WC. Honda and Yamaha quickly switched to pneumatic valves. If GP bans pneumatic valves and prohibits bore/stroke limitations or rev limits, GP racing will become a one-make series. Honda and Yamaha will burn cubic dollars to develop their own desmo systems.

Tell Nakamoto that he must race valve springs against Ducati's desmo system. Compare his reaction to mine. Then tell me if pointing out an elementary oversight is disrespectful.

[tom]

Phoenix in my suggested series the factory's are not allowed to race, only to supply bikes and parts. I want it to be a prototype series I'm just trying to remove the manufacturers big budgets from the equation.