Good thing, bad thing... is it inevitable that WSB and Moto(GP/1)
increasingly overlap? If they do - should they have a bake-off at the
end of the season? (Bayliss won the last one :-D)

The Spanish press (yes I follow it once a week, just like the German
press) is full of speculation about what Ippolito really meant when he
basically declared the 800cc decision a failure, and hypothesized
about engine based on production engines....

pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> Sat, 5 Dec 2009 16:09:26
>Good thing, bad thing... is it inevitable that WSB and Moto(GP/1)
>increasingly overlap? If they do - should they have a bake-off at the
>end of the season? (Bayliss won the last one :-D)
>
>The Spanish press (yes I follow it once a week, just like the German
>press) is full of speculation about what Ippolito really meant when he
>basically declared the 800cc decision a failure, and hypothesized
>about engine based on production engines....

Francis Batta has been talking about this as well and suggesting a
merger between WSB and MotoGP. Given the people involved this seems very
unlikely.

I think we might see a dumbing down of WSB in the style of BSB's 2010
privateer Evo championship. Keep the chassis rules more or less the
same, but limit the engines to WSS level tune and with a spec ECU.

There's so much speculation about MotoGP, it's impossible to know what
to think. And every possible route seems to be full of problems.

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009..._not_define_wh
at_a_produ.html
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009...p_proposal_as_
it_stands.html
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009...peats_support_
for_1000cc.html

I've seen at least one suggestion that Honda is behind the current shake
up to 1000cc, just as they were behind the drop to 800cc. And the
justification is that if they can't win under the current rules, change
them, and then try to outspend the other factories on the change. But
what happens is that Yamaha and Ducati do it better for less and Suzuki
go to the wall. Honda still doesn't win. And the catch is one that they
simply can't accept. That Rossi, Lorenzo and Stoner are simply better at
riding and developing a bike than Pedrosa.

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Cut here

The motogp bike with souped-up street motor would have a true racing
chassis and thus handle totally differently.
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at
(E-Mail Removed)
Thanks, robots.

Mark N <(E-Mail Removed)> Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:55:38
>Really the only serious problem seems to be the contracts signed by
>Dorna, FGSport and the FIM regarding the rather nebulous notions of
>"production" and "prototype". Allowing the use of production-based
>motors in MotoGP is pretty much a no-brainer otherwise, as is the
>return to 1000cc in general. The 800s suck, they make for shitty
>racing, and they give 125/250-bred riders too much of a leg up.

- I don't think the 800s directly that have resulted in shitty racing. I
think it's the advance of technology, and that 800s have accelerated
that.

- I don't know if a mix of production-based and prototype motors
improves things much if at all. Imagine it adds 10 bikes to the field
all riding round at the back. We've just got 3 groups of bikes instead
of two and the same 4 or 5 way out at the front. Right now everyone is
throwing their hands up and saying "leave it to the manufacturers to
decide what's prototype". So, what? Honda race a V4 but also supply the
guts of a fireblade motor and say "this is not a fireblade motor".
Aprilia race an RSV4 and say "this is not an RSV4" while simultaneously
racing an RSV4 in WSB. How the hell does all that work? And with the
exception of the Aprilia are any of the current superbike motors
suitable for MotoGP racing? They're all too big in all the major
dimensions, especially width, given how MotoGP designs have shrunk in
the last few years.

>But it would make entry easier and cheaper for more competitors

On the surface a good thing. Except that they'd all be running at the
back with the slowest getting lapped.

>>That Rossi, Lorenzo and Stoner are simply better at riding and
>>developing a bike than Pedrosa.

>And to say Honda has been losing in 800 because of the development
>skills of opposing riders as opposed to their own is just stupid,
>especially when you include in that the contribution of guys like
>Lorenzo (who has been in MotoGP only two years and never as a lead
>rider) and Stoner (who can't seem to develop a bike capable of being
>raced by another rider). You want to blame Honda's problems on the
>mistaken midget strategy and building their 800 future around Pedrosa,
>or being the last one on board with pneumatic valves and Bridgestone
>tires, be my guest. But blame it on their riders' development
>abilities? Please.

I don't think Pedrosa is the equal of the other 3 aliens and it's not
just the bike. He can be extremely fast, occasionally, but in all the
years we've watched him, he still can't race. Honda have been going all
over the place technically for the last couple of years and Pedrosa-Puig
have to take some of the blame for that. The Ducati may only work for
Stoner, but it certainly does work for him. Who knows how much input
Lorenzo gets to make into the basic design, if any. But there's no
denying that he can ride it and that him and his team can set it up. And
then Rossi-Burgess is Rossi-Burgess. In each case the total package is
just plain better at what they do than Honda-Puig-Pedrosa. And now
Pedrosa has got it in his head that it's not his fault, it's Honda's.
And Honda are saying in public "sorry guys, we didn't do our job". Isn't
there a possibility that actually it should be Honda-Puig-Pedrosa saying
that?

>Anyway, it seems pretty clear from the development of Moto2 and now
>MotoGP that the series is finally moving forward, dealing with problems
>that they inevitably would be facing - moving beyond two strokes,
>dealing with the cost issue and resulting small grids, making the
>racing more compelling, setting a path forward for the long-term
>future. The only fly in the ointment remains IMS, and the only thing
>they seem capable of doing is trying to handicap GP, instead of working
>on solving their own problems. Another big raspberry for the Phlegminis...

Shame about the very last word; MarkN does it again. Another way of
looking at the MotoGP circus of organisations is that they're thrashing
around trying to find something, anything that will solve the problems
and that everyone can sign up to. But actually all they're doing is
confusing the picture and all the changes they're bringing in have
unintended consequences that actually make things worse. I have this
nasty feeling that next year we'll be watching the smallest grid ever,
one satellite team go to the wall, most of the grid sitting out most of
what remains of free practice. And at least one high-profile engine
blow-up by a championship contender. Oh, and either Capirossi starting
from the back of the grid or running an engine that's so tired that a
GSXR600 could beat it.

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Final Beta

Mark N responds to Julian,

> > - I don't think the 800s directly that have resulted in shitty racing. I
> > think it's the advance of technology, and that 800s have accelerated that.
>
> That's partially true, but the general consensus now is that 800s are
> more dependent on the electronic rider aids than what 1000s would be,
> and that cuts down on the options riders have in terms of how they go
> about the racing.

The electronics are certainly a huge part of the machine side of the
problem.


> Again, here are the
> average margins from 1st to 5th over the last four seasons:
>
> 2006 - 13.16 seconds
> 2007 - 21.22 seconds
> 2008 - 23.17 seconds
> 2009 - 25.75 seconds
>
> That's pretty compelling evidence that there is an 800 problem in
> MotoGP. Maybe the problem is rider weight,

The biggest guy (Rossi) won a large percentage of those races.
That ain't it.


> maybe it's bikes that demand
> to be ridden in a very particular way,

And a bunch of the riders haven't figured that out yet. Only
the aliens.


> It's only a problem if bikes have to be ridden leaned waaaay over, in
> the manner of a 250 or an 800.

That's as much a tire capability "problem" as anything to do with
the bike motor size. Racers will use all of the tire that they can,
no matter what the bike. Going from 990 to 800 didn't increase
the lean angle, it may have increased the time spent at max
lean.


> So what is your solution?

> I'd start with increasing the fuel allotment and imposing a rev cap, for
> instance.

Increasing the fuel allotment??? That goes counter to imposing a rev
cap as one allows more power, the other doesn't. The engine limit
rule
will have the same sort of effect but with teams allowed to decide
how to extend life (by extension lower power). Perhaps by limiting
revs, more likely by developing new parts in the longer term.


> Again, what is your solution?

A possibility is to remove the sensors. Wheel speed sensors
are easy to detect. Ditto tire temp. GPS could be jammed
with a little box the size of a butt cam. Lean angle might be
tough, you can hide that in the potted electronics.

There are probably tricks to figure out loss of traction from
rpm and such but at least everybody would be starting from
scratch.

In any case, I'd bet on the result being the same four
guys/teams figuring it out first and driving off into the distance.
Maybe Spies will be the fifth guy.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

Mark N <(E-Mail Removed)> Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:00:45
>That's partially true, but the general consensus now is that 800s are
>more dependent on the electronic rider aids than what 1000s would be,
>and that cuts down on the options riders have in terms of how they go
>about the racing. Switching to 1000s would at least test that theory,
>and if they do it correctly it would leave further options to deal with
>the problem if the racing remains uncompelling.

Except it won't because the new electronic tech won't go away. A 2011
1000cc will be a 2010 800cc just with a bigger bore and stroke. Tyres,
electronics, suspension, brakes all stay the same and they've all come a
long way since 2006. It's not obvious to me that things like mid corner
speed will change at all. Even WSB with slightly lower electronics are
way ahead of where they were in 2005 and ridden much more like MotoGP
bikes now than they were then.

>Anything you add to the grid is basically destined for the back, right?
>Someone's got to be back there, and if you add something that's
>instantly at the front, then everyone quickly switches over to that and
>you're back where you started.

Exactly, and that's the catch. It's still going to be extremely
expensive to compete, the money has to come from somewhere. And how do
you get a rich sponsor if the best you can manage is 16th?

>So what do you think about what Infront threatens / is expected to do
>here? I can understand that they'd want to defend their turf, but is it
>for the good of racing overall, for race fans? Pull the front end off a
>superike and look for production parts - wheels, brakes, fork, all
>"protoype" by any definition. So what are the Flamminis contributing
>here? They are not elevating their series, they're just trying to
>cripple the other one.

It's called business. And I can't see that the Flamminis are doing a bad
job of it. They're protecting their turf. What do you expect them to do?

>So what is your solution?

I'm not going to offer one because I think it may be impossible. I'm
happy to argue about why all the proposals won't work. But that makes me
even more hesitant to say what should be done.

One option that I haven't seen suggested is something like the WSB
transition period. 800cc free prototype engines, 1000cc engines (from
any source, including production) with no air valves or desmo. Take that
Ducati! The aim being to force down rev limits via bore, stroke, piston
speed and valve speed. In other words use an artificial restriction to
get some equivalence between 800 and 1000; between pure prototypes and
some lower spec that can be supported long term.

On the whole production thing, somebody is going to have to formally
recognise that what WCM did should have been allowed. And it should have
been allowed even if they kept production cases and heads. I don't think
anyone should be forced to do this. But I don't think it should be
illegal either.

>You don't seem to think they should get rid of the 800s that got us to
>this point, and you don't seem to think they should allow in
>production-based motors.

I haven't fallen one way or the other so don't put words in my mouth.
Like I said before it's extremely hard to keep everyone happy. But
restricting practice and testing and restricting numbers of engines
looks like a potential disaster. And changing the rules every couple of
years just forces everyone into pointless expense.

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Continues After News

sturd <(E-Mail Removed)> Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:37:36
>A possibility is to remove the sensors. Wheel speed sensors
>are easy to detect. Ditto tire temp. GPS could be jammed
>with a little box the size of a butt cam. Lean angle might be
>tough, you can hide that in the potted electronics.
>
>There are probably tricks to figure out loss of traction from
>rpm and such but at least everybody would be starting from
>scratch.

I don't see how the electronics can be partially limited without a spec
ECU. It just encourages creative workarounds. Anyway, electonics are the
future (see the BMW 4) so why limit them?

What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
- Overall cost of a season's racing
- Grid size
Next?

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Continues After News

Julian Bond questions:

> I don't see how the electronics can be partially limited without a spec
> ECU.

That's what I was getting at - eliminating the sensors limits
the electronics without a spec ECU which seems
unworkable to me.


>It just encourages creative workarounds.

Indeed. Racers will still be racers.

Limiting the electronics, while a temporary thing as the teams
figure out the workarounds, will make the racing more
exciting, maybe, by getting away from the procession
where each rider gets to his time and rides there the whole
race. Maybe.

Maybe.


> What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
> - Overall cost of a season's racing

Motor life rule will help that, not sure why you think it will
be a disaster. Sure it might hurt some teams but the best
teams will figure it out and go racing. Same as most any
other rule.

A big cost is the cost of team travel. Maybe you could
somehow limit the number of people per team, their hotel
and restaurant bills. Don't ask me how.


> - Grid size

I don't much care to have more backmarkers.

You didn't say
> - Dull, processional racing

Give them all lances.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

sturd <(E-Mail Removed)> Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:14:03
>> What's the problem that we're trying to find solutions for anyway?
>> - Overall cost of a season's racing
>
>Motor life rule will help that, not sure why you think it will
>be a disaster. Sure it might hurt some teams but the best
>teams will figure it out and go racing. Same as most any
>other rule.

We've already seen Capirossi start from the back of the grid. And then
both Suzukis go backwards as their last engines were so "tired". People
will start sitting out the free practice sessions to avoid putting miles
on the engines. One of the aliens (or near aliens) is going to have a
high profile engine blow up. Remember Hayden in Philip Island? What
happens when Rossi's engine blows up? What happens when one of the
rookies has 3 engine used up and 3 lunched by going through the gravel
trap?

>A big cost is the cost of team travel. Maybe you could
>somehow limit the number of people per team, their hotel
>and restaurant bills. Don't ask me how.

Well you could certainly organise the schedule to be more sensible and
stop switching continents on successive weekends.

>> - Grid size
>
>I don't much care to have more backmarkers.

Tricky that. Hidden away in the argument is not 25 on the grid, but
rather 10 within 15 seconds of the leader. Or perhaps a privateers cup
so there's a reason to try and follow the fight for 11th.

>You didn't say
>> - Dull, processional racing
>
>Give them all lances.

Lances? Surely a mace would be better.

--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Continues After News

Julian Bond says:

> We've already seen Capirossi start from the back of the grid. And then
> both Suzukis go backwards as their last engines were so "tired".

Both added some entertainment value. What if Rossi has to start
from the back with a new motor? I bet that would make for some
pyrotechnics.


>People
> will start sitting out the free practice sessions to avoid putting miles
> on the engines.

Yes, I suppose that will happen and I won't like it either.


>One of the aliens (or near aliens) is going to have a
> high profile engine blow up.

More good stuff. This is a technology game too. If the
team can't figure out how to keep that from happening, they
are going to blow up, yep. Or have a dog slow used up motor.
Betcha they're running durability tests as we type.


>What
> happens when Rossi's engine blows up? What happens when one of the
> rookies has 3 engine used up and 3 lunched by going through the gravel
> trap?

What if they require air filters with a specific pressure drop?
Easy to check, keeps the kitty litter out, and lowers max
HP all at once.


> Well you could certainly organise the schedule to be more sensible and
> stop switching continents on successive weekends.

There you go.


> >Give them all lances.
>
> Lances? Surely a mace would be better.

Don't call me Shirley.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.