1000cc - MotoGP's Big Mistake

[motogpmd]

This topic is motivated by comments by Jeremy Burgess on the subject of the new 1000cc formula, and the mismanagement of MotoGP in general.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/mot ... 6314914389

I totally agree with JB on the subject of engine capacities: the move to 1000cc is incredibly dumb in my opinion. It's a move made with emotion, not reason. It's the equivalent of F1 returning to V10s and V12s. The whole world is moving to smaller engines, accepting the challenge of producing more with less, but MotoGP has taken the lazy, non-technological way. The irony is that 1000cc very likely will not produce the closer racing that was supposedly its justification, because the bikes are basically 800cc frames with a few extra ccs. Plus, all indications are that the class will continue to be dominated by just two riders, Stoner and Lorenzo, because they are simply better than anyone else in the field.

JB is also right about the management of the MotoGP series. It is ridiculous that a world championship has four races in one country. Asia is steadily becoming the economic powerhouse of the world, Asian savings are supporting the economies of America and Europe, yet MotoGP continues to focus on a small part of Europe which is economically stagnant.

I agree that we want to see close racing in MotoGP, but MotoGP is about more than just close racing. MotoGP is supposed to be the showcase of the motorcycle industry, the pinnacle of two wheeled sport, but instead, through mismanagement, its whole future is at risk. Discuss!

[Zaphod]

What's to disscuss ?

I agree 100% with your statements. The only thing I will be shouted down in regards to in my opinion on this matter is............

It all went south when they dropped the two bangers..........in all classes. Cheap ( by comparison), easy enoughto make safer (electronics can be screwed to them too....), and add to that, seeing what technical inovations could be made by the factories to an old design of engine ( although for it's weight and power output, it was unbeatably efficient)......make them keep thinking outside the box whilst being restrained by the box itself.

Dropped ball as I see it. Struggling to see a future.

..... in fact, since Honda made it all 4 stroke ( which may have worked.......except for the expense), Dorna have just made it a down-right circus act.......

"The rules are, 990cc.........hmmm,nah, wait a minute........make that 800 ( now it should be cheaper and closer racing).....CRAP !! that didn't work, ....well the 990's raced a bit closer than the 800's, and more people seemed to able to afford it....Soo-o-o-o..logically,... right, now we've got it !!. NEW RULES (again) This time it's 1000's, and will in two years be only CRT bikes, that is, independant engine and frame suppliers (except for Aprillia), and the factory specials can get stuffed as far as we're concerned !"

What a joke. Just like all TV shows that are run according to ratings.

DORNA.......the only way it can get worse is if when Ezpaleta retires, Prezioni gets his job.

Prez " New, new rule.....only Carbon Fibre frames adhering to my design geometry allowed"

Making me think about all this is just making me (even more than usual) irrational and angry about it all.

[Trev]

A move to 600cc would be incredibly stupid. It would greatly exacerbate all the issues that made 800's a mistake. With the lower capacity, every horsepower becomes more expensive. This also has a tendency to produce extremely peaky powerbands, which in turn has the effect of substantially increasing the need for complex TC/fuel management systems and drives costs through the roof. Furthermore, due to the lack of torque and rider friendly powerbands, corner speed would become all important. This means that riders will crash more in the corners, and at higher speeds with greater chance of serious injury. Finally, the aforementioned importance of electronics and corner speed would dull the racing even more than the 800's did, as the "single line" riding style returned. The move to 1000's was a sensible one. It has made horsepower less expensive. Top speed can be regulated with a rev limit, and this would have the beneficial side effect of making the engines even more rideable, due to the abundance of torque produced lower in the rev range. I agree that simply moving to 1000cc isn't enough on its own to solve MotoGP's problems but going to 600's would surely be the final nail in the coffin. I can't imagine anyone who would actually go for it, except maybe Honda.

[motogpmd]

A move to 600cc would be incredibly stupid. It would greatly exacerbate all the issues that made 800's a mistake. With the lower capacity, every horsepower becomes more expensive. This also has a tendency to produce extremely peaky powerbands, which in turn has the effect of substantially increasing the need for complex TC/fuel management systems and drives costs through the roof. Furthermore, due to the lack of torque and rider friendly powerbands, corner speed would become all important. This means that riders will crash more in the corners, and at higher speeds with greater chance of serious injury. Finally, the aforementioned importance of electronics and corner speed would dull the racing even more than the 800's did, as the "single line" riding style returned. The move to 1000's was a sensible one. It has made horsepower less expensive. Top speed can be regulated with a rev limit, and this would have the beneficial side effect of making the engines even more rideable, due to the abundance of torque produced lower in the rev range. I agree that simply moving to 1000cc isn't enough on its own to solve MotoGP's problems but going to 600's would surely be the final nail in the coffin. I can't imagine anyone who would actually go for it, except maybe Honda.

The motor industry is now producing (via turbocharging and electronics) smaller capacity engines with the same power and more torque than the bigger capacity engines, wider powerbands, and lower fuel consumption. Besides, what was more peaky than the old 500 two-strokes that a lot of people rave about?

It doesn't have to be 600cc, it could be a modern high tech two stroke.

As for the single line, a number of riders have pointed out that very little has changed. The 1000s might help riders like Spies, Crutchlow and Hayden, but I am not at all convinced that there will be any real difference. We will see soon enough.

Is MotoGP the showcase of the motocycle industry or not? If you want simple low cost machines go to speedway. MotoGP is supposed to be the two wheeled equivalent of F1, not a dumbed down series.

And talking about costs, when you consider the amount of money sloshing around in F1, even for the bottom teams like HRT, it's just a crying shame that MotoGP has promoted itself so poorly and missed out on big sponsorship. Now we have a series that is barely distinguishable from WSBK.

In my view MotoGP is a prototype series that combines racing and modern technology and should point the way to the future, not wallow in the past.

[sir_nj]

to my knowledge JB has never had to find the money to run a MotoGP team let alone run a successful series that acutally turns a profit, and as such I wonder if he even considered for a second there ARE reasons why things are changing.

I suspect the 1000s are not permanent but allows the CRTs to be competitive with extra fuel and everyones rpm capped. The CRTs are only a stop gap measure as the factories priced themselves out of existance despite a decade of dwindling grids.

JB, might need to accept for the series to survive the exclusivity bar might have to be lowered for a while. I do agree with the comment that the series organises should not be in charge of the rules. IMO should actually be done by one and all but given everyone is a competitor they just dont seem to be able to do that and come up with something that works.

Other than that I wonder if JB would be so vocal if he was running a competitive team? He was quite frankly a bloody loud mouth with his comments regarding the Ducati before he got there. Yeah, sorry I've had enough of JB with his "my opinion is the big picture"

None of these series are here as a charity and with dropping profits and maufacturer participation JB suggests 600? Who makes 600s? Aprilia? BMW? No. So at very very best he would have Suzuki and Kawasaki back in the series. Oh oh, one slight problem there JB, for a world series you have now gone back to relying on the economy of ONE FRIGGING country! Genius. Maybe JB has failed to understand/remember that the difference between a F1 and jo blogs V6 saloon is a much much bigger gap than the MotoGp bike and jo bloggs R1. All the big bikes are quick and look very similar, why do F1 keep their cars open wheel? to be different. Maybe JB should have suggested that MotoGP bikes should be naked bikes.

Forgot to add, Welcome Trev!

[Rossifumi]

This topic is motivated by comments by Jeremy Burgess on the subject of the new 1000cc formula, and the mismanagement of MotoGP in general.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/mot ... 6314914389

I totally agree with JB on the subject of engine capacities: the move to 1000cc is incredibly dumb in my opinion. It's a move made with emotion, not reason. It's the equivalent of F1 returning to V10s and V12s. The whole world is moving to smaller engines, accepting the challenge of producing more with less, but MotoGP has taken the lazy, non-technological way. The irony is that 1000cc very likely will not produce the closer racing that was supposedly its justification, because the bikes are basically 800cc frames with a few extra ccs. Plus, all indications are that the class will continue to be dominated by just two riders, Stoner and Lorenzo, because they are simply better than anyone else in the field.

JB is also right about the management of the MotoGP series. It is ridiculous that a world championship has four races in one country. Asia is steadily becoming the economic powerhouse of the world, Asian savings are supporting the economies of America and Europe, yet MotoGP continues to focus on a small part of Europe which is economically stagnant.

I agree that we want to see close racing in MotoGP, but MotoGP is about more than just close racing. MotoGP is supposed to be the showcase of the motorcycle industry, the pinnacle of two wheeled sport, but instead, through mismanagement, its whole future is at risk. Discuss!

Where to start - I disagree with pretty much everything you've said. F1 has learnt the lesson of trying to be a 'technological showcase' for manufacturers; it's too expensive - Honda, Toyota, BMW and Renault all quit - and it produces poor entertainment and falling audiences both at the circuits (France, Austria, Holland, Portugal, Nurburgring amongst others couldn't make it financially viable even China is struggling and was rumoured to be pulling out) and TV audiences were falling too. F1 saw the light and has taken the 'lazy, non-technological way' - engine development freeze and equalisation, rev limits, spec ecu, banned electronic aids, banned active suspension etc etc there is more technology banned from F1 than used! and is now well ahead of MotoGP in terms of the spectacle.
As for 'the whole world is moving to smaller engines' - what market do you think motoGP is aimed at? do you think that seeing Honda in motoGP will sell Honda cubs in Asia? I just don't see that having any relevance to motoGP and as I said earlier it didn't work for the car manufacturers.

"the class will continue to be dominated by just two riders, Stoner and Lorenzo, because they are simply better than anyone else in the field." Again I disagree - to rule out Rossi and Pedrosa is pretty short-sighted and to have 4 genuine title contenders at any one time is, historically, a very good situation.

"JB is also right about the management of the MotoGP series. It is ridiculous that a world championship has four races in one country. Asia is steadily becoming the economic powerhouse of the world, Asian savings are supporting the economies of America and Europe, yet MotoGP continues to focus on a small part of Europe which is economically stagnant."

Again, what do you think motoGP is all about? the 4 races in Spain are 4 of the best attended races on the calendar. And where is the interest in Asia for motoGP? Qatar is pretty much empty and I was at the last Shanghai motoGP for which again, there was little interest - getting hold of a ticket was a nightmare as no one in the city seemed to know it was even taking place, even in the tourist information office in the centre of the city. MotoGP is about racing and there is little interest in motorcycle racing in Asia and so Dorna should concentrate on it's core business and core market and that is producing close, exciting racing at a sustainable cost in countries where there is an interest in motorcycle racing. What will do more good for the future of motoGP - more events like Qatar or more events like Jerez?...


"Is MotoGP the showcase of the motocycle industry or not? If you want simple low cost machines go to speedway. MotoGP is supposed to be the two wheeled equivalent of F1, not a dumbed down series."

NOT!! as I said before, the 'technological showcase' model didn't work for cars and it definitely won't work for bikes. F1 realised this eventually and is now itself 'a dumbed down series' and is all the better for it. MotoGP should be about the riders and producing racing that people want to watch not a science fair.

[Trev]

A move to 600cc would be incredibly stupid. It would greatly exacerbate all the issues that made 800's a mistake. With the lower capacity, every horsepower becomes more expensive. This also has a tendency to produce extremely peaky powerbands, which in turn has the effect of substantially increasing the need for complex TC/fuel management systems and drives costs through the roof. Furthermore, due to the lack of torque and rider friendly powerbands, corner speed would become all important. This means that riders will crash more in the corners, and at higher speeds with greater chance of serious injury. Finally, the aforementioned importance of electronics and corner speed would dull the racing even more than the 800's did, as the "single line" riding style returned. The move to 1000's was a sensible one. It has made horsepower less expensive. Top speed can be regulated with a rev limit, and this would have the beneficial side effect of making the engines even more rideable, due to the abundance of torque produced lower in the rev range. I agree that simply moving to 1000cc isn't enough on its own to solve MotoGP's problems but going to 600's would surely be the final nail in the coffin. I can't imagine anyone who would actually go for it, except maybe Honda.

The motor industry is now producing (via turbocharging and electronics) smaller capacity engines with the same power and more torque than the bigger capacity engines, wider powerbands, and lower fuel consumption. Besides, what was more peaky than the old 500 two-strokes that a lot of people rave about?

It doesn't have to be 600cc, it could be a modern high tech two stroke.

As for the single line, a number of riders have pointed out that very little has changed. The 1000s might help riders like Spies, Crutchlow and Hayden, but I am not at all convinced that there will be any real difference. We will see soon enough.

Is MotoGP the showcase of the motocycle industry or not? If you want simple low cost machines go to speedway. MotoGP is supposed to be the two wheeled equivalent of F1, not a dumbed down series.

And talking about costs, when you consider the amount of money sloshing around in F1, even for the bottom teams like HRT, it's just a crying shame that MotoGP has promoted itself so poorly and missed out on big sponsorship. Now we have a series that is barely distinguishable from WSBK.

In my view MotoGP is a prototype series that combines racing and modern technology and should point the way to the future, not wallow in the past.

The 1000's won't change much due to the fuel limit and consequential electronics but it is an improvement at least. As for "dumbing down" the series, whether you like it or not the money simply isn't there for most teams to compete anymore. You can choose to accept this or not but it doesn't change the situation. The era of virtually unfettered technology is over. As others have mentioned, vastly more people drive cars than ride bikes, giving F1 a much greater audience worldwide. Despite this, they have accepted that unrestricted technology at this level of racing is unsustainable. If the current model is allowed to continue, Ducati will probably be out within a couple years. After that it will be Yamaha next and then the series becomes a parody of itself. As fans of the series, we need to seriously look at options for reducing costs. I don't think that CRT is the way to go in this regard however, as I feel the series should be restricted to pure prototypes only. I would prefer to see the fuel limit increased to 24L, a spec ECU with minimal TC and a 16K rpm limit, and more tire manufacturers. The increased fuel limit will decrease the reliance on a single line to get around the track in the most fuel efficient manner possible, a spec ECU would drastically reduce costs for electronics as well as providing a method to govern top speed, and more tire manufacturers would perhaps mean that teams like Ducati could find a tire to work with their radically designed bikes, rather than having to completely re design their bikes from the ground up to more or less match what the Japanese factories are using. It makes more sense for factories to develop and tune electronics for their road bikes in WSBK anyway.

Also I'm not sure that the recent advancements in turbo charging/DFI will be relevant to motorcycle grand prix racing. Totally different applications.

[motogpmd]

Where to start - I disagree with pretty much everything you've said. F1 has learnt the lesson of trying to be a 'technological showcase' for manufacturers; it's too expensive - Honda, Toyota, BMW and Renault all quit - and it produces poor entertainment and falling audiences both at the circuits (France, Austria, Holland, Portugal, Nurburgring amongst others couldn't make it financially viable even China is struggling and was rumoured to be pulling out) and TV audiences were falling too. F1 saw the light and has taken the 'lazy, non-technological way' - engine development freeze and equalisation, rev limits, spec ecu, banned electronic aids, banned active suspension etc etc there is more technology banned from F1 than used! and is now well ahead of MotoGP in terms of the spectacle.

It's a about finding a balance. F1 is still relatively high tech compared to most other motorsport series. The reason that Toyota, Honda and BMW got out was that they simply couldn't match the F1 chassis and aerodynamics skills of the independent teams like Mclaren, Red Bull etc.

As for 'the whole world is moving to smaller engines' - what market do you think motoGP is aimed at? do you think that seeing Honda in motoGP will sell Honda cubs in Asia? I just don't see that having any relevance to motoGP and as I said earlier it didn't work for the car manufacturers.

Honda Cubs?? I am talking about smaller, high performance engines, which is what the entire motor industry is developing. And already we are seeing electric motors in motor racing.

Again I disagree - to rule out Rossi and Pedrosa is pretty short-sighted and to have 4 genuine title contenders at any one time is, historically, a very good situation.

We shall soon see. Sure Pedrosa will be in the mix, maybe Rossi, Spies and a couple of others, but it is still most likely that Stoner and Lorenzo will dominate the season.

Again, what do you think motoGP is all about? the 4 races in Spain are 4 of the best attended races on the calendar. And where is the interest in Asia for motoGP? Qatar is pretty much empty and I was at the last Shanghai motoGP for which again, there was little interest - getting hold of a ticket was a nightmare as no one in the city seemed to know it was even taking place, even in the tourist information office in the centre of the city. MotoGP is about racing and there is little interest in motorcycle racing in Asia and so Dorna should concentrate on it's core business and core market and that is producing close, exciting racing at a sustainable cost in countries where there is an interest in motorcycle racing.

International sponsors couldn't care less about the local crowds in Spain or Qatar. What they care about is international television coverage. MotoGP is supposed to be a world championship. It needs a worldwide TV audience to attract the big sponsors. Who wants to sponsor something that is mostly seen in the relatively small market of Spain? As for Asia, in a region where hundreds of millions of people ride motorcycles everyday, ask yourself why it is that MotoGP is so poorly known and promoted. That's a problem with the organizers and promoters of MotoGP, not with Asia itself.

If you want to take such a narrow view of MotoGP you are guaranteeing that it will not get the sponsorship it needs to be a genuine world series.

NOT!! as I said before, the 'technological showcase' model didn't work for cars and it definitely won't work for bikes. F1 realised this eventually and is now itself 'a dumbed down series' and is all the better for it. MotoGP should be about the riders and producing racing that people want to watch not a science fair.

F1 is still perceived as high tech. Designer still have a fair degree in freedom in certain areas. The engine freeze was partly a cost control measure and partly a temporary measure while F1 decided its future direction, which is to be 1.6L V6 turbos. And world championship motor racing is NEVER just about the riders or drivers. It is always the combination of humans and machines. If it just about the riders then MotoGP should be a one make series, and no-one will bother to watch it. Just imagine: no technical discussions about the various makes...All we could ever do is debate the relative merits of the riders, the kind of debates that already causes complaints from some people in this forum.

[motogpmd]

... Maybe JB should have suggested that MotoGP bikes should be naked bikes.

The purpose of this thread was to debate the direction of MotoGP, to see what opinions are out there, not to make personal attacks on Jeremy Burgess. He is just as entltled to an opinion as anyone else. The real issue is not whether it should be 600cc specifically, it could just as easily have been a return to modern small capacity two strokes, small turbos etc.

Some people seem to think that MotoGP should be like world speedway, which is almost purely about the riders, and caters to a fairly narrow audience. Others, like me, think that MotoGP is about both riders and their prototype machines, and should be a showcase for world motorcycling. This means the MotoGP organizers need to be forwarding thinking, and embrace a certain level of technological advance, a balance between machine and rider.

[Kropotkin]

From an engineering perspective, 600cc bikes would be completely cool and really fascinating. From a sporting/marketing/cost perspective, they would kill MotoGP stone dead, and break many, many riders bones.

As Trev said above, they would put an emphasis on horsepower, which would mean horrible power delivery, which would in turn mean ever more sophisticated electronics, which would mean that only Honda could compete. The CRT concept would be killed off at a stroke, as a production 600 might just be capable of producing 155hp, but would need a rebuild every race, while Honda's prototypes would be in the region of 180/190. No contest, and no way of getting close.

600cc bikes would be the 800s, squared. Exponentially more money, more corner speed, less ability to correct for error. Running the race would be irrelevant, basically the results of the race would be determined by the starting grid, minus a correction factor for random events at the start. No one would watch, except the purists, but they can't fund the sport.

Burgess is thinking like an engineer. 600s would give him some really shiny toys to play with, and by the time the sport collapsed from a lack of cash, he would have retired anyway.

The real problem with MotoGP is money, and the ways of generating it. If sponsors are lining up to pay tens of millions to sponsor teams, we wouldn't be concerned about the costs.

One good point you make, motogpmd: The exclusion of two-strokes and turbos is arbitrary and pointless. I can see 600cc turbos being very popular, but with car companies, as small capacity turbos are powering ever more vehicles. If, say, Hyundai or Mercedes felt they could learn from building such engines - or HRC and Yamaha were prepared to share their R&D on those engines, something they have historically never been willing to do - then 600 turbos might well be a way of getting more money into the sport.

However, Burgess' suggestion of normally-aspirated 600cc four-strokes is madness.

[Kropotkin]

One more thing: Burgess praises the World Superbike series for being relevant, then slams the idea of Dorna making the rules. He forgets that in WSBK, it is Infront making the rules. We now have almost identical situations in both series.

[Rossifumi]

Where to start - I disagree with pretty much everything you've said. F1 has learnt the lesson of trying to be a 'technological showcase' for manufacturers; it's too expensive - Honda, Toyota, BMW and Renault all quit - and it produces poor entertainment and falling audiences both at the circuits (France, Austria, Holland, Portugal, Nurburgring amongst others couldn't make it financially viable even China is struggling and was rumoured to be pulling out) and TV audiences were falling too. F1 saw the light and has taken the 'lazy, non-technological way' - engine development freeze and equalisation, rev limits, spec ecu, banned electronic aids, banned active suspension etc etc there is more technology banned from F1 than used! and is now well ahead of MotoGP in terms of the spectacle.

It's a about finding a balance. F1 is still relatively high tech compared to most other motorsport series. The reason that Toyota, Honda and BMW got out was that they simply couldn't match the F1 chassis and aerodynamics skills of the independent teams like Mclaren, Red Bull etc.

As for 'the whole world is moving to smaller engines' - what market do you think motoGP is aimed at? do you think that seeing Honda in motoGP will sell Honda cubs in Asia? I just don't see that having any relevance to motoGP and as I said earlier it didn't work for the car manufacturers.

Honda Cubs?? I am talking about smaller, high performance engines, which is what the entire motor industry is developing. And already we are seeing electric motors in motor racing.

Again I disagree - to rule out Rossi and Pedrosa is pretty short-sighted and to have 4 genuine title contenders at any one time is, historically, a very good situation.

We shall soon see. Sure Pedrosa will be in the mix, maybe Rossi, Spies and a couple of others, but it is still most likely that Stoner and Lorenzo will dominate the season.

Again, what do you think motoGP is all about? the 4 races in Spain are 4 of the best attended races on the calendar. And where is the interest in Asia for motoGP? Qatar is pretty much empty and I was at the last Shanghai motoGP for which again, there was little interest - getting hold of a ticket was a nightmare as no one in the city seemed to know it was even taking place, even in the tourist information office in the centre of the city. MotoGP is about racing and there is little interest in motorcycle racing in Asia and so Dorna should concentrate on it's core business and core market and that is producing close, exciting racing at a sustainable cost in countries where there is an interest in motorcycle racing.

International sponsors couldn't care less about the local crowds in Spain or Qatar. What they care about is international television coverage. MotoGP is supposed to be a world championship. It needs a worldwide TV audience to attract the big sponsors. Who wants to sponsor something that is mostly seen in the relatively small market of Spain? As for Asia, in a region where hundreds of millions of people ride motorcycles everyday, ask yourself why it is that MotoGP is so poorly known and promoted. That's a problem with the organizers and promoters of MotoGP, not with Asia itself.

If you want to take such a narrow view of MotoGP you are guaranteeing that it will not get the sponsorship it needs to be a genuine world series.

NOT!! as I said before, the 'technological showcase' model didn't work for cars and it definitely won't work for bikes. F1 realised this eventually and is now itself 'a dumbed down series' and is all the better for it. MotoGP should be about the riders and producing racing that people want to watch not a science fair.

F1 is still perceived as high tech. Designer still have a fair degree in freedom in certain areas. The engine freeze was partly a cost control measure and partly a temporary measure while F1 decided its future direction, which is to be 1.6L V6 turbos. And world championship motor racing is NEVER just about the riders or drivers. It is always the combination of humans and machines. If it just about the riders then MotoGP should be a one make series, and no-one will bother to watch it. Just imagine: no technical discussions about the various makes...All we could ever do is debate the relative merits of the riders, the kind of debates that already causes complaints from some people in this forum.

I guess it comes down to whether you think motoGP should exist for the benefit of major international sponsors - I don't. MotoGP will never be a true World championship - do you ever envisage teams from Bhutan, Nepal or Ethiopia? it's just not relevant to most of the world. You might as well argue that sumo wrestling should be branching out of Japan and in to Europe.
Yes, millions of Asians ride motorcycles everyday, but very few of them have any interest whatsoever in motorcycle racing - they ride their motorcycles to get around and do their daily business, not as a leisure activity. You only have to look at the attendances at events to see where the interest lies and doesn't lie.
Yes, F1 is still perceived as 'high-tech' when most technologies are banned, this is clever marketing that maybe motoGP could learn from.
The problems arising from the debates on the relative merits of different riders are due to them being on different motorcycles, so maybe a one-make series would help reduce that?...

[Japhrodisiac]

The move to 1000's is smart in the context of the CRT movement. If you want cheaper racing and more involvement from teams outside the few manufacturers left, you need available engines and bikes as a starting point. This means either 1000's or 600's. To hold MotoGp as the premier class world wide, basing the engines on 600 production based units makes no sense as moto2, 600ss etc use those powerplants already and WSBK would be faster. Some of JB's comments are a little 'out there' for me on this one.

The part that nullifies most of these positives and makes it into a two-tier series is the fuel limit, and resulting electronics.

[9fingers]

Burgess is thinking like an engineer. 600s would give him some really shiny toys to play with, and by the time the sport collapsed from a lack of cash, he would have retired anyway...

...However, Burgess' suggestion of normally-aspirated 600cc four-strokes is madness.

I remember Burgess' comments as biased, more often then not. In this light, his 600cc idea would make perfect sense for Ducati. Desmodromic valves are more of an advantage the higher the revs get, right?
Maybe even Preziosi's preference for V2 might become viable?

Just the way I interpret the motivation behind his unusual proposal.

[9fingers]

One more thing: Burgess praises the World Superbike series for being relevant, then slams the idea of Dorna making the rules. He forgets that in WSBK, it is Infront making the rules. We now have almost identical situations in both series.

I think you are being unfair about this. He can praise the relevance of WSBK without agreeing with the source of rule making.
I mean, you can consider and appreciate a fair decision from a biased judge. But you can and should be against it as a practice.

I was glad to see Burgess attack the way rules are being made in MotoGP (or any other motorsport). Sporting and technical rules should be kept, as much as possible, outside the influence of manufacturers or organizers. Right now, the most neutral part involved (FIM) is a mere spectator on the permanently changing negotiations between Ezpeleta and MSMA. First one is looking for profit and the second one for biased rules or creating an exclusive club.

I don't think that passionate supporters have much to gain if the audiences vastly increase. Or if the final result of such a compromise is "freezing" the design in a form of nascarization of the series?
And instead of the fastest track bikes in the world, we'll get to see overpriced advertising panels basically identical under the covers...

[phoenix1]

The irony is that 1000cc very likely will not produce the closer racing that was supposedly its justification

Close racing was never the justification for 1000cc motorcycles, and no one has uttered it in any official capacity, to my knowledge. The 1000cc formula was created to reduce the rev ceiling (costs) and make SBK-powered CRTs a possibility (costs).

600cc is probably a viable formula for MotoGP. Unlike the 800s, which are just tightly wound 990s with no torque and no fuel, 600cc motorcycles would be completely different than the current 230hp machines. Transitioning to a 600cc base might increase participation, but it doesn't give the manufacturers many options. In sportbike marketing, bigger displacement has always been better. The manufacturers charge more for high displacement and horsepower (though they have no marginal cost), and they stratify their products based upon displacement and power. 600cc four-stroke MotoGP would require the manufacturers to reorganize the entire production bike industry, and they'd have to find new ways to market MotoGP as the premier class. Furthermore, if they want MotoGP to have a sales motive, it's a bit difficult to convince someone to buy a $40,000 600cc GP replica. Ducati might be able to make it happen b/c they still put titanium and magnesium parts on their bikes. Plus, desmo would actually allow the thing to rev. The manufacturers would have a much easier time selling low volume 1000cc MotoGP replicas at a price premium.

The problem with the motorcycling world is not 1000cc MotoGP b/c GP is basically an irrelevant branding/engineering contest. The motorcycle world is suffering b/c SBK Commission failed to reach a viable solution for SBK. The manufacturers must attempt to sell SBKs and SSs in large quantities.

[Kropotkin]

The problem with the motorcycling world is not 1000cc MotoGP b/c GP is basically an irrelevant branding/engineering contest. The motorcycle world is suffering b/c SBK Commission failed to reach a viable solution for SBK. The manufacturers must attempt to sell SBKs and SSs in large quantities.

And that's not going to happen. The sportsbike market is collapsing, as speed restrictions and an aging motorcycling population see riders turning to naked bikes and adventure bikes for their riding pleasure. Yamaha pulled out of WSBK because they were never going to sell the number of sportsbikes in Europe needed to cover the cost of racing in WSBK and WSS. This is the biggest threat to WSBK that I can see, and also the reason why capacity is irrelevant to the motorcycle market. Reducing MotoGP to 600cc won't sell lots of 600cc sportsbikes because nobody is buying sportsbikes, regardless of capacity.

[phoenix1]

The era of virtually unfettered technology is over.

The era of virtually unfettered technology is just beginning. You need only examine the production market to see the exponential growth of new technologies. The rules have ended the era of unfettered technology in motorsport, but the end of technology is the result of a deep seeded flaw in the governance model. The people in charge are outdated technology. That is the problem.

I don't think that CRT is the way to go in this regard however, as I feel the series should be restricted to pure prototypes only. I would prefer to see the fuel limit increased to 24L, a spec ECU with minimal TC and a 16K rpm limit, and more tire manufacturers.

I agree that rev-limited prototype bikes with 24L would be highly entertaining; however, if cost cutting in the short run is really a concern, 24L is probably out of the question. The bikes would have to be completely re-engineered back to 2005 standards, but with the new Bridgestone control tire in mind. If 2005 paradigms are the fastest way around a track, inline engines might be the way to go. Several teams would have to redesign everything, and Ducati might leave the sport completely.

[Zaphod]

Ok...........I'll stand up with a bullseye painted on me.....again.......

500 to 990, then back to 800.........now onto 1000's, whilst at the same time debating that maybe it needs to move back to 600's.

Rather than fix what was wrong in the first instance (500's), they reinvented the wheel/threw the baby out with the bath water and have been slowly going down hill ever since.

It used to be so-o-o simple.

WSBK was the racing for the bikes you could buy. (basically)

MotoGP was for watching the best try to ride the worst (as in very difficult) bikes, with the added engineering challenge of trying to squeeze better performance out of a simple, cheap design.

Now Moto and WSBK are getting very close to being completely blurred as to where the dividing line is, with one of them to become completely redundant, whilst the other will die a slow death due to falling sportsbike sales, speed restrictions, ageing market etc etc etc......

There are some strong comparisons to F1 being drawn in this debate, so can somebody please tell me ...........

What relevance F1 has to car sales ?..........and this being the case, what has/is DORNA trying to achieve ? Now the series that was predominantly the prime driver for sportbike sales has been moved into almost irrelevance by having MotoGP come along and try to grab it's market by playing the same game.....especially now that CRT's are here to stay.


The really smart thing for DORNA to do would be to have all the old GP stars come out of retirement and race 1400cc naked bikes. Secure the TV demagraphic apropriate for the highest selling catagory of bikes............now that's where the real money is !!!

[Squidpuppet]

if cost cutting in the short run is really a concern, 24L is probably out of the question.

Why? I dont understand.

The bikes would have to be completely re-engineered back to 2005 standards,

Why? I dont understand.

[phoenix1]

And that's not going to happen. The sportsbike market is collapsing, as speed restrictions and an aging motorcycling population see riders turning to naked bikes and adventure bikes for their riding pleasure. Yamaha pulled out of WSBK because they were never going to sell the number of sportsbikes in Europe needed to cover the cost of racing in WSBK and WSS. This is the biggest threat to WSBK that I can see, and also the reason why capacity is irrelevant to the motorcycle market. Reducing MotoGP to 600cc won't sell lots of 600cc sportsbikes because nobody is buying sportsbikes, regardless of capacity.

True, which I interpret to be a function of cost. The Japanese have managed to create irrelevant sportbikes that are too common for the upscale repli-racer buyers, but too expensive for the under 30 crowd. The Japanese can either go upscale into Ducati, BMW, MV territory and attempt somehow to make that microsegment work with a half dozen competitors or they can make their bikes cheaper. Currency exchange isn't helping the Japanese, but I still think they can reduce the manufacturing costs of the sportbikes rather easily. They can also reduce the development costs as the products cycle through various generations.

SBK needs to be inline screamers and V-twins. Kick the RSV4 and Yamaha R1 into the MotoGP replica segment (CRT), maybe the Bimmer, also, due to its bore measurement (above 1.5:1 bore/stroke). Scale the entire lineup to maximize interchangeable engine parts, which is appropriate for production bikes but not GP racing. Most importantly, sell homologation specials based on the stock bikes (not the prototype one-offs from the 750cc era). Homologation specials allow the manufacturers to capture revenue from the national series' rather than subsidizing the nationals. As I have opined before, selling 500 homologation specials to pros and club racers around the world can generate tens of millions in revenues. If Ducati sold 500 R variants each year, they'd raise $20M. That's how they fund Corse--sponsorship and selling Corse machines like the 1198R and D16RR and even some Corse Monsters.

If production sportsbikes die, justifying a prototype series is next to impossible. Most manufacturers don't mess with F1, and they only showed up during the 1990s and 2000s b/c Bernie promised them 8-digit-sums of money. It didn't last.

I agree that capacity is irrelevant in fact, but it isn't irrelevant for the pricing models the manufacturers have created. I don't know if they can re-engineer their entire business. I doubt it. They'd rather pretend nothing is changing.

[phoenix1]

Why? I dont understand.

It goes back to the Rossi vs. Honda battle during the 990cc era--mass centralization vs. Rossi's 4-stroke point-and-shoot.

Rossi wanted to ride a sort of modern 4-stroke point and shoot. Honda wanted flickable cornerspeed racers. You can actually see the engineering battle on camera if you watch Welkom 2004. Rossi gains an edge in the braking zones and corner exits. Biaggi reels him back in mid corner, especially the fast corners. Rossi/Burgess/Furusawa won the battle by moving weight over the front which helped keep the front end down during acceleration, but when the MSMA started chopping fuel capacity, the mass-centralized, flickable, cornerspeed bikes became a reality. You remember in 2006 when Rossi accused Michelin of changing the tires to make Honda happy? Just a part of the engineering discord between Rossi's way and Honda's way. That's why it was so important for him to ditch traitor Michelin, and why it was so important for him to win titles in the 21L era (his financial woes motivated him as well).

The Bridgestone control tire is the x-factor, but there is some reason to believe that 24L and 1000cc could return MotoGP to the days of 2005. Front end weight bias was critical, and an inline 4 is compact from front to back. I believe Nakamoto has already said they don't wan to re-engineer the bikes for more fuel. I wish they would, but then we'd have to drop the notion of short-term cost cutting.

[TwoStroke Institute]

Careful making comparisions with F1 and MotoGP. As Nakamoto-san explained F1 is not about the engine it's all about aero. There is no freeze on aero development.

[Sideswipe]

I for one, welcome our 1000cc overlords...

The fact is motoGP is the TOP CLASS of motorcycle racing period. It's rules allow bikes to be designed from the ground up for 1 thing only: Going fast around a racetrack. These bikes are prototypes. They ARE R&D projects, the purpose of their very existence is to find ways of going faster. But why are companies investing in R&D? reason 1 is the marketing factor of having the BEST motorcycle. Reason 1 Relies very heavily on reason 2. Reason 2 is that the breakthroughs made from the R&D effort filter through to customer bikes. 1000cc is the best way to keep relevance with the sportbike market based on 1000cc.

Why is 1000cc relevant? On the road. Its not. My KTM RC8R has way too much power, and the suspension definitely does not suit the Australian roads. BUT I do trackdays every now and then. AND WOW. Its fast, its exhilarating. Whoever tells you they don't want more horsepower is lying. They may be refining technique on a less powerful bike, but thats just so that they can go EVEN faster on a more powerful one.

Maybe manufacturers could sell track only bikes cheaper (like KTM) to the public, and let people buy separate sensible road bikes. Then there would be none of this talk about relevance...

[CLX]

The move to 1000s is to save MotoGP from itself, not from the world or anything else, and then to allow CRTs to eventually become a less expensive (it's not cheap no mater how you put it) and fast alternative to get racing with the big guns. MotoGP is MotoGP and not green, small and hippie peaceful racing. For that you have Moto2, Moto3 and can also create other very specific categries, IMO.

The big mistakes were going to 800 and allowing the tyre war to grow out of controle. Who would have known?