|
Posted by Mark N on July 10, 2008, 1:39 am
Been reading Mike Scott's last two columns in Cycle News, and once you
weed through the increasingly typical crotchety "back in my day" old
fart stuff, there are some notions there that lead me to thinking about
where the world championships could or should be heading.
The first is about the 600-4 replacement for the 250 class, and Scott
whines on about the advancement of time, if this was 30-35 years ago
he'd be mourning the passing of four strokes. This week he's on the
13-rider race that was Assen MotoGP after the first lap. His point is
that there's little hope for expanding that grid, because the existing
factories are unlikely to increase their entries, Roberts has proven you
can't go it alone, and hoped-for suspects Aprilia, BMW and KTM, all
wanting to be in MotoGP, have instead moved on to WSB, because of cost
considerations.
Scott says something that got me thinking: "Back in 1990 there were 15
or 16 starters at several races, and only nine finished in Yugoslavia.
The FIM proposed a switch to a simpler formula that is almost identical
to that proposed now to replace 250cc two-strokes; 600cc
production-based engines in prototype chassis; but rescue came from
Yamaha, which produced a run of replica factory bikes for the
privateers. They were 500cc two-strokes. The far more complex MotoGP
four-stroke engines don't lend themselves to this sort of treatment."
He then says "there is no obvious solution", and it strikes me that he's
all but suggested the solution - do what they're doing in GP2, put
1000cc production fours in racing chassis and let them fill out the
grid. The state of tune would depend on what it takes to make them
reasonably competitive with 800cc prototypes, but not overly so. A bike
like this could be built for a very reasonable cost I would think,
perhaps barely into six figures. Nearly a decade ago I thought something
similar should have been done in the AMA, switch Suzuki-only 750SS to
1000SS and allow those bikes into then-750-4 SB, to provide a cheap and
reasonably competitive alternative.
In the longer run, this type of machine might expand to be the entire
grid. The real cost of MGP machine development is the motor and its
control mechanisms, so this could be the cost governor for everyone in
that paddock. WSB and the other SB series are clearly headed toward
increasingly stock machines, BSB now having gone to WSS-spec motors
already. So why not let GP be where they still hotrod those motors?
I would think heavily modifying a production motor would allow for at
least as much R&D value as running prototypes that bear little
resemblance to the production stuff (like the Honda, Suzuki and Ducati
V4s). It also means factories like Aprilia and BMW probably could afford
to do GP, and not even give up WSB in the process. Ultimately GP
could/would expand the motors to 1100cc triples and 1200cc twins, just
as they could add 675cc triples and 750cc twins to GP2.
Prototypes wouldn't quite be that anymore, but then SB aren't really SBs
anymore either, are they? Kawasaki's Bruce Stjernstrom said this week
about the DMG situation and Kawasaki's reaction to proposed literbike
rules, “I think it depends on what they’re limiting. If they’re talking
about restricting the engines, that’s one thing. The chassis is really
where the majority of the development takes place. And the electronics
are closely related to the chassis”. So maybe that's true at the
prototype level as well, it's the chassis R&D that really pays the big
dividends. And production-based motors would slow the advancement of GP
motors and horsepower, and they wouldn't be forced to head off into
things like pneumatic valves which don't have street applications just
to stay competitive.
The agreements the FIM has made with WSB and GP regarding production and
prototypes are hardly a hindrance regarding a major change like this,
the momentum of such a change would overwhelm such trivialities.
Anyway, food for thought.
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap