Moto1 Rumors...

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.

 

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

Thanks, robots.

 

- 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.

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

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?

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.

 

Mark N responds to Julian,

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

 

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 questions:

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

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.

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.

I don't much care to have more backmarkers.

You didn't say

Give them all lances.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

 

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?

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

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.

Lances? Surely a mace would be better.

 

Julian Bond says:

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.

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

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 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.

There you go.

Don't call me Shirley.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

 

And my name's not Lance.

 

Isn't it? Look at the numbers - in the 07-09 800 era Rossi has won 36%
of the races; in the 02-06 990 era he won 55% of the races. In his
last two championship years in 800 he's won 43% of the races; in his
previous 5 championship seasons he won 64% of the races. There's no
question that there has been a drop in his success/dominance in 800
compared to what it was previous to that. And every other rider who
has won a race in 800 is notably smaller than Rossi, other than
Vermeulen's one wet win in '07. But the other guys winning in 500/990
weren't even close to being so uniformly smaller than him, some were
even larger. I don't think you can be nearly so dismissive of the size
issue, it pretty clearly plays some role, how much is the only serious
question.

Oh, bullshit. The so-called aliens win all of the races for a number
of reasons - they all come from 125/250 (who was the last rider not
from 125/250 to win a dry race? Bayliss, in the last 990 race) which
breeds the riding style that works on the 800s (in part because 800s
have been developed by and for riders from 125/250), with the
exception of Rossi (the GOAT, let's recall) they are all very small
(probably smaller than any truly successful premier class rider
previously), and of course they have the factory seats at the top
factories. Even if you put all these guys in the seats they have now
on the last 990 machines from 3 years ago they still win pretty much
all the races, the differences would be that Rossi wins more often,
and parts of the rest of the field are much closer. But you put them
on those machines in 2003 and maybe it's not quite like that, because
contemporary electronics and tires are a big part of the reason these
little weaklings can run at the front, there were material changes
from '03 to '06.

The big issue with the aliens is that they are running at such a big
margin over everyone else, they are running at a second a lap faster
than anyone else or close to that. Based on everything I've seen over
the years I simply don't think at that level a group of guys have the
superior talent to do that, especially on spec tires, the differences
in ability simply aren't that great. So that brings it back to
equipment (including the team's ability to set it up optimally) or
size or a very particular set of riding skills, there basically has to
be something beyond skill that makes them this dominant.

It definitely is a tire issue, but the capabilities of the machines
factor in as well. If the grip is sufficent and the electronic rider
aids advanced enough that they can run through corners in a classic
manner at sufficently high speed and without crashing, that's one
thing. But if that's the only option because the braking zone is so
compressed and the acceleration out of the corner is so limited and
easy to optimize, then there is another issue involved, and that's
coming from the machine. That's what the riders were saying as soon as
they got on these things and continue to say today, the machines
basically only give you one choice, ride it like a 250, maximize
corner speed, and good luck with passing anyone.

Increasing the fuel allotment counters the impact and cost of
electronics used to manage fuel use, and the rev cap counters the cost
of developing and maintaining high-rev motors, as well as possibly
limiting top speed some. For the most part these are cost-cutting
measures, but also might make the racing more interesting and closer
as well.

I think the only effective way to limit the electronics is spec/
control electronics, starting a cat-and-mouse game over legalities is
not the way to go. Given that the factories seem reluctant to accept
that, I think they have to try to improve things without getting into
this, but doing what they do in a manner that might allow the
imposition of a control ECU more readily down the road. For instance,
requiring four cylinder machines with a particulat stroke limitation
might help.

And I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking racing at this
level is in accordance with Burgess' famous "80% rider, 20% bike"
statement. That requires you (and others) to credit the aliens too
much, you have no choice in the matter. Just as a few years ago you
were claiming the optimal size for a MotoGP rider was about 160
pounds, sort of a historical norm, because you wouldn't acknowledge
that small size had become an advantage. And yet the average weight of
the grid has gotten to something close to 25 pounds lighter than that.
So now we have the aliens applying superior racing intellegence,
"figuring it out", and one wonders what corner that will paint you
into eventually...

 

Like a pair of boils, surely both of you should be lanced...

 

Mark N wanders off into the weeds:

We could just agree with you since you know better than Burgess.
That would make it better.

Yea, right.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

 

This isn't club racing. It's simply impossible to do a year for under
$1m no matter what you use. And that's not chickenfeed.

Does this all go back to the GP Thundersports series? If GP hadn't run
that, would WSB object so hard now?

No. But if you keep changing the rules, the big guys spend the money to
deal with it, the small guys suffer. The gaps get bigger and the grids
get smaller. With a bit of stability everyone works out the problems and
everyone reaches a level.

Suzuki couldn't manage the large number of motors in a small number of
races this year. How do you think they're going to cope with the much
tighter restrictions next year. Any more embarrassment like that and
they'll simply follow Kawasaki out the door. Anyway, we still don't know
what the engine numbers will be for next year and probably won't until
the first race and there's a good chance it will change through the
year. Ultimately the numbers will be whatever the MSMA decide. We've
already seen periods in practice where almost nobody is out riding.

As they are now the rules don't stop mid season development. An engine
only becomes used when it passes the end of pit lane in an official
session. You don't have to nominate all 6 (or whatever) engines on the
first day of race 1.

Mostly true. But nobody knows what to do or can agree to it. And
everything that gets suggested has some down side and unintended
consequences. Sometimes a big down side.

 

Yeah, well, it's all going to be ok, because Ezpeleta has found the
silver bullet that magics away all the problems, solves the financial
crisis and probably feeds the world and brings an end to war as well.
http://www.motomatters.com/news/2009/12/08/ezpeleta_the_bike_makes_a_prot
otype_not_.html

And we'll find out what it is on Friday. It's apparently a single
technical parameter.

Given all this talk about engines that might be built from (whisper it)
production parts, this interview with WCM's Peter Clifford is
interesting
http://www.motomatters.com/interview/2009/11/12/peter_clifford_interview_
wcm_blata_and_p.html

The most interesting part in that is that for the months when they tried
to use Yamaha cases, it was the FIM, not Dorna, the MSMA or anyone in
the MotoGP paddock who complained and ultimately got it banned. This
area of the rules and the Flammini's public comments haven't changed
since then. So it's going to be interesting to see exactly how
Ezpeleta's silver bullet is going to get round it.

And exactly how Moto2 pans out. When the Honda Moto2 engines finally
appear, I'm looking forward to the competing press releases where Honda
says "these castings do not come from a CBR600" and the FIM-InFront say
"yes, they do".

 

If the WCM engine was way, way ineligible for WSB, how could it have
been illegal in MotoGP? Apart from anything else it was a 4-valve when
the current road Yamahas were 5 valve. But the FIM and courts ruled it
was sufficiently non-prototype to be illegal in MotoGP because that
particular version had heavily modified R1 cases.

It appears to be all wrapped together. And anyway, we'll know tomorrow.
Probably.

 

The issue with the WCM motor was the use of the production cases,
which I assume is that they were visibly identafiable as coming from
an R1 streetbike (or they openly stated that they were). My read of
that whole episode is that FGSport leaned on the FIM about that, the
FIM pushed it with Dorna, Dorna didn't give a damn (they and MotoGP
were flying high at that time) and they whacked WCM, who had no
factory association to support them.

The fundamentals of the situation have changed since then, of course.
The MSMA became disenchanted with FGSport and formally withdrew from
WSB. WSB, having been in a position of challenging GP for supremacy,
retreated to a decidedly secondary championship. The FIM, in a
stronger position with WSB than GP after their expulsion in 91-92,
appears to want to play a bigger role in GP and racing in general
under Ippolito. And now GP has serious problems that they need to fix,
and the FIM and the MSMA recognize that. So the alignment is on the
side of GP today, and these parties are considerably less likely to
allow the desires of a somewhat alienated secondary championship to
impact GP's future.

The basic production notion in WSB is that the machines have to be
based on a homologated production motorcycle, they have to retain
certain parts of those motorcycles, and some of those parts are not
allowed to be altered at all, or very limited alterations are allowed.
They also have to retain certain production bike specifications even
if parts can be heavily altered or replaced. So that's the basic
notion of a production racing bike, the side of the sport ceded by the
FIM to WSB.

The notion that seems to be operating in MotoGP now is that they won't
be mandating anything that is production-based and therefore there is
no homologation requirements on any motorcycle, any part used in the
motor can be sourced from whereever any one wants to source it and can
be altered with no limitations, and any limitations imposed on the
machines are a basic specification that applies to everything,
including pure prototypes.

Where I think this gets a little contrived is if they specify that a
production frame cannot be used but a production set of cases can. The
logic starts to get strained at that point, and my assumption is that
they will be doing this in some manner. That manner will likely be
that they disallow the use of production-based motorcycles and that
this includes a production-sourced frame, but the rules will simply be
silent on the motor.

How Moto2 differs is that the series IS mandating a specific motor,
something that has by definition been homologated by the series. So
that motor really can't be a production piece, I don't think. But the
notion of production vs. prototype really comes down to the factory,
and there is a very fine line that separates the two. If Honda
produces a motor that contains no production part numbers, who's to
say it's production? A batch of cases could be produced in the exact
shape of the production part, using the production manufacturing line,
but they are made from an altered alloy - are those production cases?
What I was saying here is that if the so-called production parts in
the Moto2 motor do not pass muster for use in WSS, then I can't see
how IMS can claim GP is using production parts. And I'm not talking
about illegal alterations on production parts, I'm talking about the
parts themselves. I think the factory can manufacture a motor that is
very CBR-like but that is also entirely a race-only prototype, and I
think that fine line is what MotoGP is very intentionally walking,
with the support of Honda, the MSMA, and the FIM.

In the end all this comes down to the specific language in the FIM
contracts (and to some degree what the intentions of the parties
were), and we don't know exactly how that reads. What I think WSB
might end up paying for here is Flamminis' Folly, screwing the
Japanese factories when they were flying high, alienating the MSMA,
and apparently accepting their role as a secondary championship. They
can fight the battle of the contracts in the courts, but they likely
will be fighting the interests of parties they rely on, and that might
be a big mistake.

 

What is the big deal with "production cases" from an engineering
point of view? Jeez everybody that ever tricked up a 2 stroke as a
teenager knows, and more than ever these days, that the whole hype
about production cases is utter bogus to convince someone somewhere
they can buy "just what we are racing". BS. You can do so much around
those production cases, and it may cost actually more to trick them up
to true prototype potential rather than less.

The thing about this is that -as Julian said- 800 vs 1000 will not
make a darn difference given advances in overall technology (be it
electronics or tires or chassis).

One of the clear problems is that we have 2 top motorcycle racing
divisions. WSB and MGP. It should have arguably never happened. Car
racing doesn't have it. it is a clear F1 sweep with all its issues (I
havent been able to watch that in many years). But motorcycles, even
though MGP is supposed to be the top class, heck, the fan base is kind
of split. And that is all it takes. Who is the top dog in 09, Rossi or
Spies? Arguments can be made on either side that can not easily be
dismissed. The same situation would not arise in car racing in the
mind of the vast worldwide majority of fans. So motorcycle racing has
an issue in true top class perception. It is like boxing with too many
weight classes.

I think this boils down to just as much of a business and political
issue as a clear technology delineation line. And the latter seems the
least significant parameter in the equation.

And I could not care less about the size or nationality of the top
riders. If a background in racing dromedars in Mongolia turns out to
be the key competitive background to race next gen top class
motorcycles, heck, let that be it. All I ultimately long for is a
universally accepeted top motorcycle racing class we can all look and
relate to. As motorcycle fans it requires us to support the business
with our passion and Paypal accounts, and demand our shops and
suppliers do so too.

 

So the magic bullet is a max bore size of 81mm. I bet we can all think
of some unintended consequences of that.

My prediction? Costs will go up. And not just because everyone will have
to design, build and test a new engine.