What's the latest: if it's to be a single engine supplier, what are
the bets on a 2,3, or 4-banger piece?

Memories of local pals on evil Gold Stars, echoing across the green
valleys of my rural English childhood --- bring up this site -- and it
can be a 600cc, too!

http://www.absaf.nl/complete_engines.htm

Its bound to be a 4 cyl.

On Apr 9, 9:38*am, vo...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Its bound to be a 4 cyl.

In my humble opinion, it should be a 2 cyl, ideally a 500cc. For
several reasons:

- it's "half" the original 1000cc from a cyclinder point of view at
least, upkeeping some resemblance of tradition.

- it is simpler tech

- the marketplace would benefit from an influx of genuinely
lightweight middle class machines, purpose built 500cc. I would get
one. i still get misty eyed thinking about Laverda Montjuics, Morini
500s... bikes like that are fun. The KTM Duke 600 i a reminder...

- it would be original, different and fun

- it would please *me* :-)

pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:24:08
>On Apr 9, 9:38*am, vo...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> Its bound to be a 4 cyl.
>
>In my humble opinion, it should be a 2 cyl, ideally a 500cc. For
>several reasons:
>
>- it's "half" the original 1000cc from a cyclinder point of view at
>least, upkeeping some resemblance of tradition.
>
>- it is simpler tech
>
>- the marketplace would benefit from an influx of genuinely
>lightweight middle class machines, purpose built 500cc. I would get
>one. i still get misty eyed thinking about Laverda Montjuics, Morini
>500s... bikes like that are fun. The KTM Duke 600 i a reminder...
>
>- it would be original, different and fun

We seem to go round and round this. And I guess Dorna and the MSMA (And
Flammini) are doing the same.

There's a certain logic to a 400-500 twin and a 200-250 single. Just as
there used to be in 125-1, 250-2, 500-4 two strokes. At least to start
with there's at least some technology crossover between all the classes.
But right now if 800-4s are too expensive, you can be sure true
prototype 250 singles and 500 twins would be as well. And there's really
not any current engines that are suitable as the MX technology doesn't
really hack it as the basis for World Championship road racing.

If you go down the 600-4 (675-3, 750-2) route, you bang up against
Flammini. If you force them to be prototypes you have to find suppliers
and we're into the same expensive arms race as with the 800s. If you try
and limit the technology you'll quickly find that road bikes and WSS are
more advanced. And you still haven't dealt with replacing 125s.

I would love to see 250-1, 500-2 road racers with road replicas
available. But outside Japan there's no real market for race replica
4-500s. And outside a few places in Europe there's no real market for
road race style 125, 250s. And these things tend to be limited by law to
12hp, 33hp, 55hp. Which is all a damn shame because like you I'd like to
see people buying an Aprilia RSV-5, a Ducati Pantah, or a Ducati 250
MkIV, Or a Cagiva SuperMito. Let's not leave the Japanese out either.
Let's have a ZX-5R and a GSXR250RR and so on. And because these are
outside WSB/WSS regs there shouldn't be any real problem with whether
they're prototype or not. If all this was actually available, these
would make a great basis for national and club championships as well.
But like I said, people would have to buy the road versions to fund it.
And I'm not sure there's a market any more.

That's all wishful thinking. I think GP is going to get quite a bit
worse before it gets better and we'll have quite a bit more screwing
around. I just have to hope that WSB-WSS ups it's game and takes a
another jump in professionalism so we've got some valid, relevant world
championships, at all, at all.

--
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
Where's My Food In Pill Form?

Julian Bond wrote:
> pablo
> >In my humble opinion, it should be a 2 cyl, ideally a 500cc. For
> >several reasons:
>
> >- it's "half" the original 1000cc from a cyclinder point of view at
> >least, upkeeping some resemblance of tradition.
>
> >- it is simpler tech
>
> >- the marketplace would benefit from an influx of genuinely
> >lightweight middle class machines, purpose built 500cc. I would get
> >one. i still get misty eyed thinking about Laverda Montjuics, Morini
> >500s... bikes like that are fun. The KTM Duke 600 i a reminder...
>
> >- it would be original, different and fun
>
> We seem to go round and round this. And I guess Dorna and the MSMA (And
> Flammini) are doing the same.
>
> There's a certain logic to a 400-500 twin and a 200-250 single. Just as
> there used to be in 125-1, 250-2, 500-4 two strokes. At least to start
> with there's at least some technology crossover between all the classes.
> But right now if 800-4s are too expensive, you can be sure true
> prototype 250 singles and 500 twins would be as well. And there's really
> not any current engines that are suitable as the MX technology doesn't
> really hack it as the basis for World Championship road racing.
>
> If you go down the 600-4 (675-3, 750-2) route, you bang up against
> Flammini. If you force them to be prototypes you have to find suppliers
> and we're into the same expensive arms race as with the 800s. If you try
> and limit the technology you'll quickly find that road bikes and WSS are
> more advanced. And you still haven't dealt with replacing 125s.
>
> I would love to see 250-1, 500-2 road racers with road replicas
> available. But outside Japan there's no real market for race replica
> 4-500s. And outside a few places in Europe there's no real market for
> road race style 125, 250s. And these things tend to be limited by law to
> 12hp, 33hp, 55hp. Which is all a damn shame because like you I'd like to
> see people buying an Aprilia RSV-5, a Ducati Pantah, or a Ducati 250
> MkIV, Or a Cagiva SuperMito. Let's not leave the Japanese out either.
> Let's have a ZX-5R and a GSXR250RR and so on. And because these are
> outside WSB/WSS regs there shouldn't be any real problem with whether
> they're prototype or not. If all this was actually available, these
> would make a great basis for national and club championships as well.
> But like I said, people would have to buy the road versions to fund it.
> And I'm not sure there's a market any more.

To me the tradition and logic argument for 400/500 twins and 200/250
singles doesn't go very far. To start with, the 125/250/500 thing only
goes back about 20 years, as 125 twins were allowed thru 1987, I
think, and if you go back to when four strokes ran in all classes you
didn't have any of this notion of cutting up a premier class motor to
use in the lower classes. And since Dorna decided the support classes
would be used to develop riders for the premier class, starting about
15 years ago, we have seen unintended and negative consequences of
those machines, leading us to where we are today - 800cc Super "250s"
ridden by midgets and providing the least interesting premier class
racing in memory.

On the other hand, what is the logic behind the SB world approach?
600s are slower and cheaper than SBs, even if they don't have the same
sort of cross-breeding of technology, and that they aren't physically
smaller may actually be a benefit, if you look at what 125/250 has
done to the rider pool in MotoGP. So the logic there is to have slower
and cheaper machines in the support classes, but that are physically
and tempermentally related to the premier class, justifying it's use
as a rider development class. Which is exactly what GP needs, and is
pretty much exactly what 600s offer. The dance today is between Dorna
and Flammini with the FIM in the middle, and the cost is that what
makes the most sense, production-based motors, can't just be done with
no legal problems. And this also blocks what might be a longer-term
solution to the grid shrinkage problem in MotoGP, that being to allow
production-based 1000cc motors.

I wish I knew the details of this agreement, which I assume arose from
the Thunderbike experiment by GP a number of years ago. WSB got their
exclusivity regarding production-based machines, but I really don't
know what GP got out of this. Since that was the late '90s and GP was
retreating and WSB advancing, maybe there was something that protected
GP's position, I don't know. But now making that deal looks pretty
stupid, in retrospect.

> That's all wishful thinking. I think GP is going to get quite a bit
> worse before it gets better and we'll have quite a bit more screwing
> around. I just have to hope that WSB-WSS ups it's game and takes a
> another jump in professionalism so we've got some valid, relevant world
> championships, at all, at all.

Yeah, it's hard to be all that positive about what Dorna is doing,
given some of the "solutions" they've come up with in the last couple
years. At the top of my personal list is the new prohibition on
factory teams hiring MotoGP rookies, which I think is totally asinine.
The notion of anyone new to the series having to be signed by a lease
team is really scary, given their hiring decisions and how they tend
to be driven by sponsorship concerns, and that they're all run by
EuroMeds having come up from 250. The factories will drive who they
hire more than before, but it just further cements the notion that
basically all the riders will come from the support classes and not
outside.

And where does this leave Suzuki, and Kawasaki if they come back?
Without lease teams you're stuck with your existing guys and the guys
who are riding for the other teams. So what happens if Capirossi
decides to retire adfter this year? Assume Stoner, Hayden, Rossi,
Lorenzo, Pedrosa, Dovizioso stay where they are (or won't go to Suzuki
in any case) and Edwards and Gibernau retire, then they're left with a
choice between de Puniet, de Angelis, Takahashi, Elias, Toseland,
Kallio, Canepa, Melandri, assuming those guys would all move. Beyond
that, they'd have to go after Checa or Biaggi or some other aging has-
been. And if they hired Melandri that would mean Kawi (or whatever) is
in the same boat. Or is that technically a lease team? Just stupid.

Anyway, not sure if this rule surpasses the WSB twins/fours balancing
rule as the worst rule in the sport today, and the most Euro-biased.
But it probably tops the "passing under yellow" Rossi rule that
allowed blatant violations as long as they happen in the last five
laps of a race...

Mark N perfuses:

> we have seen unintended and negative consequences of
> those machines, leading us to where we are today - 800cc Super "250s"
> ridden by midgets and providing the least interesting premier class
> racing in memory.

Less interesting than the Doohan years? And that midget Rossi
insists on winning all the time, dang.


> Yeah, it's hard to be all that positive about what Dorna is doing,
> given some of the "solutions" they've come up with in the last couple
> years. At the top of my personal list is the new prohibition on
> factory teams hiring MotoGP rookies, which I think is totally asinine.

Agreed.

I don't even understand the motivation behind it. Rookies have to
come up thru the ranks or they won't have time to learn to be any
good?
Only vets can bring in the money needed to run a team? What?
The factories can probably figure out who to hire all by their
lonesome,
good decision or not, without a stupid rule like this.

In comparison to DMG and the AMA (and don't get me started about
vintage motocross in the US), they are still doing a relatively good
job
for a bunch of guys with no clue.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

sturd wrote:
> Mark N perfuses:
>
> > we have seen unintended and negative consequences of
> > those machines, leading us to where we are today - 800cc "Super250s"
> > ridden by midgets and providing the least interesting premier class
> > racing in memory.
>
> Less interesting than the Doohan years? And that midget Rossi
> insists on winning all the time, dang.

The Doohan years were what they were for essentially the same reason -
Dorna, et al wanting to populate the rider pool with Euro riders, and
those guys simply weren't up to the task. But was the racing itself
less appealing than the last couple years? Debatable. These bikes are
just boring to watch. And now we get the Vale-Casey show, it seems,
which may prove that a control tire can actually make the racing less
competitive. If the tire is spec'ed for the guys they want to win,
that is...

As for Rossi winning today, the GOAT actually beating a swarm of
midgets (sometimes) is your proof that nothing at all is going on
there? Well, okay...

> > Yeah, it's hard to be all that positive about what Dorna is doing,
> > given some of the "solutions" they've come up with in the last couple
> > years. At the top of my personal list is the new prohibition on
> > factory teams hiring MotoGP rookies, which I think is totally asinine.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I don't even understand the motivation behind it. Rookies have to
> come up thru the ranks or they won't have time to learn to be any
> good?
> Only vets can bring in the money needed to run a team? What?

What they claim is that name rookies will help bring sponsorship and
competitiveness to the lease teams. Very questionable.

> In comparison to DMG and the AMA, they are still doing a relatively good
> job
> for a bunch of guys with no clue.

The AMA is on another planet entirely, but Dorna seems to have shown
more poor judgment the last couple years than I might have guessed.
And the worst things get, the more erratic they get...

Mark N <(E-Mail Removed)> Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:01:53
>To me the tradition and logic argument for 400/500 twins and 200/250
>singles doesn't go very far. To start with, the 125/250/500 thing only
>goes back about 20 years, as 125 twins were allowed thru 1987, I
>think, and if you go back to when four strokes ran in all classes you
>didn't have any of this notion of cutting up a premier class motor to
>use in the lower classes.

Coincidentally, this was also a time when GP racing nearly died, almost
all the factories pulled out and there were cost cutting measures. In
the late 60s we had Honda 350-4s, 250-6, 125-5. Yamaha had a 250V4
two-stroke, Suzuki had a 50-2 two stroke with 12 gears. By 1970 Honda
had gone, we were left with MV and Yamaha, and 250-350 were Yamaha tuned
road engines in racing chassis. The FIM had settled on rules of 500-4,
125/250/350 twins, 80 singles and all of them with 6 gears max.

> And since Dorna decided the support classes
>would be used to develop riders for the premier class, starting about
>15 years ago, we have seen unintended and negative consequences of
>those machines, leading us to where we are today - 800cc Super "250s"
>ridden by midgets and providing the least interesting premier class
>racing in memory.

Surely a progression up though the formulae goes back way farther than
that. If you want to point at a Dorna inspired rule to encourage that
then it's the age limits in 125. Which I'm pretty sure were since 2000

--
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
Viewer Discretion Advised

Julian Bond wrote:
> Coincidentally, this was also a time when GP racing nearly died, almost
> all the factories pulled out and there were cost cutting measures. In
> the late 60s we had Honda 350-4s, 250-6, 125-5. Yamaha had a 250V4
> two-stroke, Suzuki had a 50-2 two stroke with 12 gears. By 1970 Honda
> had gone, we were left with MV and Yamaha, and 250-350 were Yamaha tuned
> road engines in racing chassis. The FIM had settled on rules of 500-4,
> 125/250/350 twins, 80 singles and all of them with 6 gears max.

The implication there is that cost was what drove those changes,
although I don't know that this was really what led to the Japanese
withdrawal. So what is cheaper to run in the support classes today,
prototype small twins and singles, or production-based fours? I think
that's pretty clear.

As for a 125 replacement, maybe the answer isn't necessarily a similar
bike with less displacement. I think you have to go back to a blank
sheet and decide what a 3rd class is really for, and then come up with
a machine for that purpose. So what is it for?

> Surely a progression up though the formulae goes back way farther than
> that. If you want to point at a Dorna inspired rule to encourage that
> then it's the age limits in 125. Which I'm pretty sure were since 2000

I think they established a limit on the years a rider could race in
125 way back in 94-95, and stated the class' intent was for rider
development. There was virtually no successful progression from the
smaller classes into the premier class until maybe Cadalora, with rare
exceptions like Read, as far as I can tell. Today it's a superhighway,
with 5 of the 6 guys in the first-tier seats in MotoGP having raced in
125 and 250, and as teenagers. Surely you agree there has been a
fundamental change under Dorna in this regard?

Mark N <(E-Mail Removed)> Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:47:58
>> Surely a progression up though the formulae goes back way farther than
>> that. If you want to point at a Dorna inspired rule to encourage that
>> then it's the age limits in 125. Which I'm pretty sure were since 2000
>
>I think they established a limit on the years a rider could race in
>125 way back in 94-95, and stated the class' intent was for rider
>development.

I have a memory that it was when Nobby Ueda retired. And it seems to me
that was this century.

>There was virtually no successful progression from the
>smaller classes into the premier class until maybe Cadalora, with rare
>exceptions like Read, as far as I can tell. Today it's a superhighway,
>with 5 of the 6 guys in the first-tier seats in MotoGP having raced in
>125 and 250, and as teenagers. Surely you agree there has been a
>fundamental change under Dorna in this regard?

I don't completely disagree, but as usual I just think you're making too
much of it. Certainly, up till the late 90s there were small bike
specialists who stayed in those formulae until Dorna made that illegal.
But I look back through the results at least till '70, and you can see
people making a name for themselves in 125/250 who were later reasonably
successful in 500s. Like say, Barry Sheene for instance.

--
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
There Ain't No Such Thing As Government Interference