Future Moto2?

Debate and discussion about the feeder classes of MotoGP, including the fabulous 250s, the thrilling 125s, and the madness that is the Red Bull Rookies

Future Moto2?

Postby Domino on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:18 pm

With next years change from 125 GP to Moto3 and the change to bore limits in the main class which coincide with Moto3 (81mm I believe), it opens the doors up to the tiered system we are more familiar with in the GP series. Whereas before we had 125cc singles, 250cc twins and 500 cc fours we will now have 250cc singles and 1000cc fours which leaves the obvious gap for 500cc twins and again and 81mm bore limit. Obviously this is speculation on my part (and I can't even claim the idea as my own, having read about it here on the motomatters website), but is there anything more concrete other than an emerging pattern to go on? It would seem that if that is the direction the series is headed once the MSMA contract expires then as an organizer you would at least want to start "talking" about it to potential engine builders so that development could occur. If anything, the current Moto 2 formula's biggest criticism from a fans standpoint is the use of a spec engine in a GP series. Obviously Dorna are not keen to repeat that with Moto3 since they are leaving the engines open with a cost limit in place.
Domino
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Kropotkin on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:53 pm

Though that is an entirely logical conclusion to draw, it looks like we're going to have free 600cc four-cylinders from 2013 onwards, with strict regulation (spec ECU, rev limit) on the engines. That's what I'm hearing in the paddock, at any rate.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Domino on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:55 pm

Will the engines be closer to supersport build ~140-150hp or the current anemic engines supplied now?
Domino
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Kropotkin on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:56 pm

Domino wrote:Will the engines be closer to supersport build ~140-150hp or the current anemic engines supplied now?


A little. 140 is possible, but there will be a rev limit to keep things contained. Costs are too important for this class.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Domino on Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:00 pm

Which sort of leads down the path of why bother with 250 then? It would seem if the costs are important, then why didn't they just go with 450 or 500cc singles for the small class and keep the engines tightly controlled. Give the bikes more displacement to make more torque and consequently more power, more easily while utilizing something readily available off the shelf to almost anyone who wants to enter?
Domino
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby RatsMC on Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:08 pm

250cc single engines are pretty readily available. Should be no more difficult than finding a 450 and certainly easier than finding a 500 single.
User avatar
RatsMC
 
Posts: 5725
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Oakland

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Kropotkin on Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:14 pm

Domino wrote:Which sort of leads down the path of why bother with 250 then? It would seem if the costs are important, then why didn't they just go with 450 or 500cc singles for the small class and keep the engines tightly controlled. Give the bikes more displacement to make more torque and consequently more power, more easily while utilizing something readily available off the shelf to almost anyone who wants to enter?


250 had to be scrapped because Aprilia decided who would be champion, and wanted 1 million euros for a winning bike. They went with 600s because they needed the times to be competitive. A 500 twin would be a lot slower than a 250 two-stroke, and that would have looked bad.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Domino on Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:43 pm

Kropotkin wrote:
Domino wrote:Which sort of leads down the path of why bother with 250 then? It would seem if the costs are important, then why didn't they just go with 450 or 500cc singles for the small class and keep the engines tightly controlled. Give the bikes more displacement to make more torque and consequently more power, more easily while utilizing something readily available off the shelf to almost anyone who wants to enter?


250 had to be scrapped because Aprilia decided who would be champion, and wanted 1 million euros for a winning bike. They went with 600s because they needed the times to be competitive. A 500 twin would be a lot slower than a 250 two-stroke, and that would have looked bad.

I meant with Moto3. I would guess that a good running 125 is probably putting out around 56hp (maybe more) and will weight significantly less than a comparable 250cc four stroke. So the question becomes: Why 250cc and not 450cc singles? There are at least 7 manufacturers with 450cc engines to build off of right now and in terms of cost, it is much easier to build reliable horsepower with larger displacement simply because you don't have to spin everything so fast. There is not a huge weight penalty going from 250 to 450, at least not compared to going from the 125 two stroke to four stroke, so why not start with a better base?

As far as moto 2 and two strokes, I recognize that for the time being that battle is probably lost, maybe for good.
Domino
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby TwoStroke Institute on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:05 pm

Kropotkin wrote:250 had to be scrapped because Aprilia decided who would be champion, and wanted 1 million euros for a winning bike. They went with 600s because they needed the times to be competitive. A 500 twin would be a lot slower than a 250 two-stroke, and that would have looked bad.


Wasn't Aprilia's fault they built a good bike, HRC could have done the same thing but chose not to(remember Katoh's twin crank NSR anyone) hang on they used to do that with the famous A-Kit stuff and no different to what Michelin did with the 3 tiered A,B and C tyres. The 'murder; of the 250 class was all about revenge. Namely for Aprilia ditching MotoGP and going (and subsequently winning) the WSBK championship and still making a profit from 125/250's.
How much was spent on Elias' bike out of interest?
If Jesus had ridden, he would have rode a two stroke
TwoStroke Institute
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:53 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Kropotkin on Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:14 pm

TwoStroke Institute wrote:
Kropotkin wrote:250 had to be scrapped because Aprilia decided who would be champion, and wanted 1 million euros for a winning bike. They went with 600s because they needed the times to be competitive. A 500 twin would be a lot slower than a 250 two-stroke, and that would have looked bad.


Wasn't Aprilia's fault they built a good bike, HRC could have done the same thing but chose not to(remember Katoh's twin crank NSR anyone) hang on they used to do that with the famous A-Kit stuff and no different to what Michelin did with the 3 tiered A,B and C tyres. The 'murder; of the 250 class was all about revenge. Namely for Aprilia ditching MotoGP and going (and subsequently winning) the WSBK championship and still making a profit from 125/250's.
How much was spent on Elias' bike out of interest?


Probably about 200K euros. The Moriwaki is about 130K off the top of my head, plus they had some special parts.

You're right about Dorna wanting revenge on Aprilia, but it's not all about them ditching MotoGP. It really is about the way that Aprilia have controlled the 125 and 250 classes for years, doling out championships as they saw fit. That is, of course, in part down to the other manufacturers pulling out, but Aprilia took maximum advantage from any weakness shown by their rivals. Mainly, though, they stitched everyone up with dodgy business deals and favoritism.

Incidentally, people inside Dorna are already referring to Suter as "the new Aprilia". Suter is doing the same, manipulating the Moto2 field, offering freebies here and taking support away there. It is not appreciated by Dorna.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Domino on Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:30 am

Kropotkin wrote:
TwoStroke Institute wrote:
Kropotkin wrote:250 had to be scrapped because Aprilia decided who would be champion, and wanted 1 million euros for a winning bike. They went with 600s because they needed the times to be competitive. A 500 twin would be a lot slower than a 250 two-stroke, and that would have looked bad.


Wasn't Aprilia's fault they built a good bike, HRC could have done the same thing but chose not to(remember Katoh's twin crank NSR anyone) hang on they used to do that with the famous A-Kit stuff and no different to what Michelin did with the 3 tiered A,B and C tyres. The 'murder; of the 250 class was all about revenge. Namely for Aprilia ditching MotoGP and going (and subsequently winning) the WSBK championship and still making a profit from 125/250's.
How much was spent on Elias' bike out of interest?


Probably about 200K euros. The Moriwaki is about 130K off the top of my head, plus they had some special parts.

You're right about Dorna wanting revenge on Aprilia, but it's not all about them ditching MotoGP. It really is about the way that Aprilia have controlled the 125 and 250 classes for years, doling out championships as they saw fit. That is, of course, in part down to the other manufacturers pulling out, but Aprilia took maximum advantage from any weakness shown by their rivals. Mainly, though, they stitched everyone up with dodgy business deals and favoritism.

Incidentally, people inside Dorna are already referring to Suter as "the new Aprilia". Suter is doing the same, manipulating the Moto2 field, offering freebies here and taking support away there. It is not appreciated by Dorna.


That is sort of a consequence or natural byproduct of being the only game in town. Moto2 will eventually follow the same path as the field converges on one really good chassis manufacturer who will then be able to dictate how much they can charge. Those with means will be able to buy and naturally compete, those without will fall by the way-side. The rich get richer as it were...

The only real solution is to keep changing the goal posts to keep the formula fresh, but you always run the risk of confusing the audience so it may not be a solution at all
Domino
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Kropotkin on Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:01 am

Domino wrote:That is sort of a consequence or natural byproduct of being the only game in town. Moto2 will eventually follow the same path as the field converges on one really good chassis manufacturer who will then be able to dictate how much they can charge. Those with means will be able to buy and naturally compete, those without will fall by the way-side. The rich get richer as it were...

The only real solution is to keep changing the goal posts to keep the formula fresh, but you always run the risk of confusing the audience so it may not be a solution at all


Dorna have a much bigger finger in the Moto2 pie than they had in 250s and 125s. They are already working to avoid a repeat of the Aprilia situation with Suter, actively encouraging Moto2 teams to go with other suppliers to prevent a monopoly. We'll end up with maybe 4 or 5 suppliers eventually, but that's enough to avoid a monopoly.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Domino on Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:48 pm

Kropotkin wrote:
Domino wrote:That is sort of a consequence or natural byproduct of being the only game in town. Moto2 will eventually follow the same path as the field converges on one really good chassis manufacturer who will then be able to dictate how much they can charge. Those with means will be able to buy and naturally compete, those without will fall by the way-side. The rich get richer as it were...

The only real solution is to keep changing the goal posts to keep the formula fresh, but you always run the risk of confusing the audience so it may not be a solution at all


Dorna have a much bigger finger in the Moto2 pie than they had in 250s and 125s. They are already working to avoid a repeat of the Aprilia situation with Suter, actively encouraging Moto2 teams to go with other suppliers to prevent a monopoly. We'll end up with maybe 4 or 5 suppliers eventually, but that's enough to avoid a monopoly.


That all depends on how good the other suppliers are. if the other suppliers are not able to produce a chassis that is able to compete with the Suter having them there will be irrelevant. Teams will want to buy their way to the front.
Domino
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Kropotkin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:09 am

Domino wrote:That all depends on how good the other suppliers are. if the other suppliers are not able to produce a chassis that is able to compete with the Suter having them there will be irrelevant. Teams will want to buy their way to the front.

The Moto2 teams are poor. If Dorna offers them money to run different chassis, they'll take the money.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Squidpuppet on Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:46 am

Kropotkin wrote:
Domino wrote:That all depends on how good the other suppliers are. if the other suppliers are not able to produce a chassis that is able to compete with the Suter having them there will be irrelevant. Teams will want to buy their way to the front.

The Moto2 teams are poor. If Dorna offers them money to run different chassis, they'll take the money.


Sad.

Why doesnt Dorna just put a cap on the chasis and engine price?
User avatar
Squidpuppet
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: CdA, ID

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby axxexs on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:29 am

Kropotkin wrote:250 had to be scrapped because Aprilia decided who would be champion, and wanted 1 million euros for a winning bike. They went with 600s because they needed the times to be competitive. A 500 twin would be a lot slower than a 250 two-stroke, and that would have looked bad.


The 1 million euro 250 was all included equipment for the season. (2 bikes, all tires + fuel + oil, spare parts and 2 engenerings from aprilia). Only 2 riders did have that full deal in 250. So not fair to compare that to a price of a Moto2 chassie. A chassie in 250 (frame, swingarm, suspension, wheels, brakes, radiator, fueltank and 2D datarecording) was 100.000 euro.
axxexs
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:20 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Domino on Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:41 am

Kropotkin wrote:
Domino wrote:That all depends on how good the other suppliers are. if the other suppliers are not able to produce a chassis that is able to compete with the Suter having them there will be irrelevant. Teams will want to buy their way to the front.

The Moto2 teams are poor. If Dorna offers them money to run different chassis, they'll take the money.


But that doesn't really address the issue at all. You have the "haves", teams with funding (or political clout or whatever) and the "have nots",i.e. the rest of the grid, who will get access to the best chassis while the rest will take Dorna funding and run whatever they can. How is this different than the 250 situation where the "haves" had the full factory Aprilia bikes and the "have nots" ran whatever kitted form they could get? Ultimately, there is no difference because if you aren't on the right chassis, you aren't going to be racing at the front. It is no different than the 250 situation, except the bikes look and sound different and the price tag is cheaper for now.
Domino
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Kropotkin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:20 am

Domino wrote:But that doesn't really address the issue at all. You have the "haves", teams with funding (or political clout or whatever) and the "have nots",i.e. the rest of the grid, who will get access to the best chassis while the rest will take Dorna funding and run whatever they can. How is this different than the 250 situation where the "haves" had the full factory Aprilia bikes and the "have nots" ran whatever kitted form they could get? Ultimately, there is no difference because if you aren't on the right chassis, you aren't going to be racing at the front. It is no different than the 250 situation, except the bikes look and sound different and the price tag is cheaper for now.


You can win a Moto2 race on either the Suter, the FTR, the Kalex or the Moriwaki. The rider is a bigger part of the equation (though mostly, their ability to override the useless tires). On a 250,if you didn't have an RSA you didn't have a chance of finishing within 20 seconds of the winner. Look at Eugene Laverty or Jules Cluzel as prime examples, 10th at best on 250, winning when they have a chance on better equipment.

Having four competitive chassis means that they will be able to compete on price. The difference between a 100K package and a 500K package is not 2 seconds a lap, as it was with the 250s.

Of course, it is true that there will always be haves and have nots. The rich teams will be able to afford the best engineers and the best riders, and will keep winning. But a talented rider without backing - or an upcoming talented race engineer - can do enough to make their reputations, and not start off with a disadvantage due to machinery.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the 250s, they were the ultimate and perfect racing motorcycle. But their demise was as much due to Aprilia's monopolistic manipulation of the grid as it was down to Honda's demanding four strokes. Much like the tires, when Michelin decided who got the Saturday night specials and therefore who was going to be competitive, which brought about the tire limits.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports
User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby TwoStroke Institute on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:51 pm

The exact same thing could have been arranged with 250's KTM even offered to build identical FRR 250's and Aprilia's offer to scrap RSA's,so the over riding influences in Dorna's decision had to be the Honda arm twisting and a 'square up'. Not the phurphy of lease fees.
HRC has been mighty guilty of deciding winners in the past .Look at the late Dajiro Katoh's crushing of the field in 2001 where he won half the races, try to lease that Honda off HRC (rumoured twin crank like the Aprilias):lol:
If Jesus had ridden, he would have rode a two stroke
TwoStroke Institute
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:53 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Domino on Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:16 pm

Kropotkin wrote:
Domino wrote:But that doesn't really address the issue at all. You have the "haves", teams with funding (or political clout or whatever) and the "have nots",i.e. the rest of the grid, who will get access to the best chassis while the rest will take Dorna funding and run whatever they can. How is this different than the 250 situation where the "haves" had the full factory Aprilia bikes and the "have nots" ran whatever kitted form they could get? Ultimately, there is no difference because if you aren't on the right chassis, you aren't going to be racing at the front. It is no different than the 250 situation, except the bikes look and sound different and the price tag is cheaper for now.


You can win a Moto2 race on either the Suter, the FTR, the Kalex or the Moriwaki. The rider is a bigger part of the equation (though mostly, their ability to override the useless tires). On a 250,if you didn't have an RSA you didn't have a chance of finishing within 20 seconds of the winner. Look at Eugene Laverty or Jules Cluzel as prime examples, 10th at best on 250, winning when they have a chance on better equipment.

Having four competitive chassis means that they will be able to compete on price. The difference between a 100K package and a 500K package is not 2 seconds a lap, as it was with the 250s.

Of course, it is true that there will always be haves and have nots. The rich teams will be able to afford the best engineers and the best riders, and will keep winning. But a talented rider without backing - or an upcoming talented race engineer - can do enough to make their reputations, and not start off with a disadvantage due to machinery.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the 250s, they were the ultimate and perfect racing motorcycle. But their demise was as much due to Aprilia's monopolistic manipulation of the grid as it was down to Honda's demanding four strokes. Much like the tires, when Michelin decided who got the Saturday night specials and therefore who was going to be competitive, which brought about the tire limits.


And that is the situation now, but the class still in its infancy. look how much has happened in one season. Attrition has dropped the number of builders by what, half? Any you have guys like Ant West who have had some spectacular rides on very lowly 250s mired deep down the field on lesser Moto 2 chassis. The point is it is heading in the same direction and there isn't anything Dorna can really do about it other than change up the rules enough to keep someone from having a package that best suits the rules. Basically maintain enough confusion in he class that there is not one clear leader in the constructors.
Domino
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby Gustav O on Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:09 pm

TwoStroke Institute wrote:The exact same thing could have been arranged with 250's KTM even offered to build identical FRR 250's and Aprilia's offer to scrap RSA's,so the over riding influences in Dorna's decision had to be the Honda arm twisting and a 'square up'. Not the phurphy of lease fees.
HRC has been mighty guilty of deciding winners in the past .Look at the late Dajiro Katoh's crushing of the field in 2001 where he won half the races, try to lease that Honda off HRC (rumoured twin crank like the Aprilias):lol:

Amen.
User avatar
Gustav O
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:41 pm
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby phoenix1 on Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:22 am

Kropotkin wrote:Though that is an entirely logical conclusion to draw, it looks like we're going to have free 600cc four-cylinders from 2013 onwards, with strict regulation (spec ECU, rev limit) on the engines. That's what I'm hearing in the paddock, at any rate.


Dorna should be crazy like a fox and run 675cc triples. Steal Triumph and MV Agusta away from the Flamminis. Get BMW and Aprilia to join in the fun. Kawaskai might even come along (636 was once rumored to be the spec Moto2 engine, right?).

Four new European manufacturers and Kawasaki are back in the GP paddock. Allow them to run factory machines, and require them to sell homologated engines to private teams. The sound would make grown men weep. Power would be ample at modest engine speeds as well, and the torque would be spectacular.
phoenix1
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:35 am

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby RatsMC on Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:26 am

phoenix1 wrote:Dorna should be crazy like a fox and run 675cc triples. Steal Triumph and MV Agusta away from the Flamminis.


:lol:


:D

:|

Actually, that makes an assload of sense.
User avatar
RatsMC
 
Posts: 5725
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Oakland

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby oldboyonrgv on Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:59 am

The groundswell in MOTO3 is that the rules are percluding small manufacturers from competing, rumor is that a lot of the teams looking at it are now looking elsewhere.
User avatar
oldboyonrgv
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Peeortsmuff U.K

Re: Future Moto2?

Postby TwoStroke Institute on Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:04 pm

So another Honda drone-a-thon class?
If Jesus had ridden, he would have rode a two stroke
TwoStroke Institute
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:53 pm

Next

Return to Moto2, 250s, 125s, Red Bull Rookies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest