If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by pablo on December 5, 2009, 7:09 pm
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....
|
|
Posted by Julian Bond on December 6, 2009, 3:28 am
>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/2009/12/05/ezpeleta_we_will_not_define_wh
at_a_produ.html
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/03/the_1000cc_motogp_proposal_as_
it_stands.html
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/02/fim_president_repeats_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
|
|
Posted by Mark N on December 7, 2009, 1:55 am
Julian Bond wrote:
> pablo
>> Good thing, bad thing... is it inevitable that WSB and Moto(GP/1)
>> increasingly overlap?
>> 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.
There will be no merger as long as both parties can make a profit, and
to this point there's no indication that either Dorna or Infront have
ever really lost money. And they shouldn't merge in any case, there is
plenty to go around.
> 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.
I don't see any reason to believe they'd introduce spec ECUs, there
seems to be no call for it, no rationale for it at this point. And I
don't know that they could do it in any case.
> 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.
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.
Allowing production-based motors would hardly be making MotoGP
"superbike-like", as long as the rules don't dictate retention of stock
specifications or parts and they run in racing chassis. But it would
make entry easier and cheaper for more competitors, so a good thing. SB
rules continue to evolve more and more toward stock, which broadens the
gap between GP and SB. Putting production-based motors in GP machines
won't make the racing like SB, certainly no more than moving back to
1000cc and maybe eventually limiting electronics in some manner might.
> 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.
That sounds like a very soft pile of conjecture to me. The move from
800cc to 1000cc must be driven by Dorna and the commercial interests in
GP, as well as the fans and riders. Again, 800s suck, and everyone knows
it. To try to play it off as part of some hidden Honda agenda is just
silly. 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.
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...
|
|
Posted by Julian Bond on December 8, 2009, 2:53 am
>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
|
|
Posted by Mark N on December 8, 2009, 11:00 am
Julian Bond wrote:
> Mark N
>> 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.
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.
> - 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.
Your assumption there is that the bikes don't have anything to do with
why there are four guys out front in every race, or maybe that they do
but that won't change. I think the bikes do have a lot to do with that,
and that moving back to 1000s will make more riders more competitive -
as long as the 800s haven't squeezed everyone who didn't come up through
125 and 250 out of the series by then, that is. 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, maybe it's bikes that demand
to be ridden in a very particular way, the high corner speed 125/250
manner, who knows, but the problem is there. No, adding a handful of
bikes with production-based motors at the back of the pack won't do
anything about that problem, but it may well start GP down the road to
something that does, that changes the nature of the machines in a
positive way.
> 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.
It's only a problem if bikes have to be ridden leaned waaaay over, in
the manner of a 250 or an 800. But it's less of a problem if they don't
have to be, and more displacement at least provides an option. And the
rules can be ridden without any comment at all about "prototype" and
"production-based" regarding motors, they can just describe a spec, a
series of limitations on number of cylinders, length of stroke, etc.
What anyone uses to get there is up to them. Ultimately MotoGP may end
up actually requiring production-based motors, like the old F1/endurance
rules, and I don't know that there is anything wrong with that.
>> 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.
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.
>> 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?
I think they're all to blame, yes. I've been saying from the beginning
that the midget strategy as Honda was executing it was a mistake, it's
good in theory (given that GP would NEVER balance package weight) but
the execution is flawed, probably starting with the guy they selected to
lead them. But I don't know that they've ever gotten to the point with
their bike to fully determine that, I don't think anyone was going to
win championships on those bikes - the initial 800 was fatally flawed in
terms of design, it didn't make enough revs so not enough power, they
were behind on their inhouse electronics, it had the wrong tires for two
years, etc. So the first year one could blame Pedrosa for anything was
this year, and I don't know if that would be legitimate or not. What is
true is that Dani is the least successful HRC lead rider to last this
long in that position, and that suggests something - HRC sees the
problem as in their court, the politics have prohibited the usual
disposing of the failed rider, there are no good alternatives, there is
a leadership gap at HRC, something.
>> 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.
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.
> 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.
And all because they are imposing limited changes right away, other than
those already imposed related to the need to limit costs. Are those
great ones? No, but some, like increasing the life of the motors, are
probably necessary ones. Bigger changes simply have to wait.
So what is your solution? 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. They have to increase grid
size, they have to limit costs in some manner, and they have to keep the
factories happy enough to keep spending millions and millions on racing,
at least in the shorter run. 2007 showed you can't change too much too
quickly without unintended negative consequences, so you probably have
to move slowly toward long-range solutions if there are very serious
problems present today. I think they're actually doing a pretty good job
dealing with there issues, even though I don't agree with all of it -
I'd start with increasing the fuel allotment and imposing a rev cap, for
instance. But there's no absolute dictator, no one can simply impose
changes, so they have to come to some sort of consensus, and democracy
is a dirty business.
Again, what is your solution?
|
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > last >>
Related Posts - Moto1
- December 23, 2009, 5:16 am
Latest Posts
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>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....