Moto GP costs
Mon, 14/12/2009 - 19:21
Kevin
In the news today - Moto GP to race 1000cc bikes from 2012.
One of the comments I have read suggests that the cost saving expected from downsizing to 800cc from 990cc has not happened.
They think that moving back to 1000cc will be more cost effective.
Does this mean a super-production series will be the end result, with major manufacturers running the top few bikes and other teams running less modified Fireblades, R 1's, Gsxer1000's etc.
Although - isn't that what happens now but with with prototype bikes, a Repsol Honda or a Gresini Honda.
Do you have any knowledge of what is going on.
?
Tue, 15/12/2009 - 09:36
#2
I certainly hope that Moto GP does not go
I certainly hope that Moto GP does not go down the route of anything production based. As a regular race visitor and long time follower I want to see and hear these one of a kind, prototype bikes. I do think it would be good if they remove some of the electronic aids that are on the bikes today, so the balance of man over machine importance is maintained. Heaven forbid it should go down the route of Formula One in that respect. At the same time though I also like the idea of not too many rules, just let the factories show us what they can do, stick the best riders in the world on them and wring the damn things neck.
Tue, 15/12/2009 - 11:17
#3
Okay, I've posted a news story on the 2012
Okay, I've posted a news story on the 2012 regulations, there's not a great deal that's been released yet, and as they stand I can't see how these would reduce costs to any great extent. We'll be getting greater depth early next year apparently.
www.ashonbikes.com/content/new-motogp-rules
Tue, 15/12/2009 - 15:20
#4
I'm officially confused now! (But then again,
I'm officially confused now! (But then again, I'm no engineer...) MotoGP went down from 1000cc to 800cc, still with prototype chassis of course, and the racing got more boring. That's a MotoGP fact (Copyright J May). Now they're returning to 1000cc, in part, Kev suggests, to try and get the excitement back. Good. All for that.
This year they've binned the 250cc bikes, and are going to 600cc with prototype chassis. Logic says this should be more boring than the 800cc, with slower straight-line speeds and possibly even higher cornering speeds. (It might be interesting because it'll be full of hot-headed young riders, mind you?)
600cc World supersport is still pretty exciting, more so, I would suggest, than the 1000cc/1200cc. Was this just circumstance, riders involved etc, or the lesser involvement of electronics?
Like I said, I'm confused! Even so, I'll still be watching all of it.
Tue, 15/12/2009 - 18:07
#5
Well, the riders were certainly reporting
Well, the riders were certainly reporting that the higher corner speeds of the 800s and later braking were making it more difficult to pass, and thought the bigger engines would make it exciting again, so according to that theory, because the 600 Moto2 bikes will also be faster and heavier than the 250s they should be more exciting too.
I'm not sure it works like that though, at least as a universal rule, I think you've touched on the real reason, the younger riders being mentalists...
It's probably down to numbers too though, the 250cc fields have had loads of bikes so it's no surprise when you get four or five dicing for one spot, but five bikes is practically a third of the field in MotoGP... there just aren't enough bikes on the grid to get loads of them dicing together.
It's a whole load of factors I reckon - you've mentioned others like electronics - and in Supersports the bikes are inevitably very closely matched too, as they're all based on very similar road bikes with strict tuning restrictions.
Tue, 22/12/2009 - 03:33
#6
I dont know if I fail to understand things
I dont know if I fail to understand things but it appears Dorna fail to appreciate the value of GP racing. Not in the L.s.d. (younger readers can google the term) sense but joy and love it inspires amongst those that watch it. There appears to be a desire to brand "Moto GP" as the great show with the 250s (as was) and 125s as just support. If the 800s have been boring (I would say some weeks less interesting) then they have been saved by the 125s or 250s on those weeks. Either psychotic teenagers on 125s or stupendous displays on the 250s (Had to apologise to the neighbours after the screaming fit that followed Aoyama's excursion into the kitty litter on the last 250 race[Still makes my blood boil Honda with the last 250 season win. Honda's services to 250 2 strokes about on par with Earnst Degner's services to team loyalty]) Anyone seen all 3 races on any week and not seen something they thought was brilliant? I believe its the very diversity of the classes that produces the contrasts that provide such an all round show. So we are now replacing "overly expensive" 250s with 600s. All the same engines but with team designed frames. Now if you use a dumbed down 1000 engine for the main show. All these engines being across the frame 4s. It may well end up that the most variety and competition is in the supporting class. Anything proposed to save money I am extremely sceptical of. How much did reducing practice really save? How much has it disadvantaged riders changing teams or classes? The limited engine rule for next year. How much extra does it cost to produce engines that will last so much longer. Think of how many fantastic displays you have seen where a rider has lost it in the first few laps only to struggle to a points position. Well thats over with the smart money is on parking up and saving the engine. More points to be lost if you need another engine later in the year than can be gained with heroics. Anyone opened a book on how many weeks of next years season that rule will last. I can really follow the logic of. "We Think 800s Are Boring So We Are Going To Introduce 1000s Oh And By The Way On Next Years Boring 800s The Engines Have To Last" Silly me the random placing of riders at the back of the grid will make things so exciting. Just imagine Valentino runs out of engines and has to start at the back. Yes except he cant knock the arse out of that engine to win. The article on rule changes specified the 81mm bore only really penalised Ducati because they used desmo engines. Is that not now negated when other manufacturers have been using pneumatically operated valves? Do we now know where we are with the parallel worlds of top rank 800s competing against limited 1000s? Sounded strange to me couldn't see one sub class turning up to make up numbers.
Wed, 30/12/2009 - 03:21
#7
People keep on going on how "Boring" MotoGP
People keep on going on how "Boring" MotoGP is compared to 500cc 2 Strokes/990cc 4 Strokes. I have watched biking since the 1970s when I was 6-7 yrs old and I just wish to say some of the races over the last 2 seasons have been great. Rossi against Stoner in Laguna Seca where Stoner had extra speed on the straight and Rossi kept on catching him thru the corners. This year Rossi against Lorenzo in Catalunya when the race was won on the very last corner after both riders taking the lead from each other. The problem seems to be that most of the bikes are NOT in the same league as each other.
We get Yamaha Factory riders and Stoner (Because He's Amazing) pulling a gap on everyone else. Pedrosa riding on his own most races, then come the rest of the field.
I hope people Don't think its just me with this view as on the Crash site they had this write up for the 2008 Laguna Seca race;
Valentino Rossi has scored one of his greatest MotoGP victories after a stunning bar-to-bar battle with Casey Stoner during Sunday's US Grand Prix, which ended in favour of the Italian when Stoner dropped his Ducati with eight laps to go.
I DO Hope that both the MotoGP 1000cc and the MotoGP2 with the 600cc gets even better this year as I'm a biking Nut Thru and Thru.
Fri, 01/01/2010 - 12:09
#8
There have definitely been some classic
There have definitely been some classic races, like the ones you mention, but there have still been too many where the leading four or five have been strung out and circulating more or less on their own. We're told the 990s were better because they have lower cornering speeds and therefore longer braking distances, providing more opportunities for overtaking, but I don't see how this will make any difference if the bikes are already strung out. It's not as if overtaking has ever been a problem in MotoGP when the bikes are together and dicing, the issue has been the gaps between them when they get separated. The only way to narrow these gaps is to have evenly matched bikes and evenly matched riders, but that would mean imposing too many restrictions and taking away the essence of the sport. Giving everyone the same tyres stopped the Michelin runners being walked over when Michelin got it completely wrong but it didn't close the gaps between the top runners as often as people were expecting. I think we just have to accept that sometimes it will be that way, sometimes we will get close races and lots of dicing.
It'll be interesting to see how Moto2 works, we were all very wary of the change from Grand Prix 500s to MotoGP and that was a great success, so hopefully it'll be the same with this class too.
Wed, 13/01/2010 - 03:13
#9
Even though I defended the exciting races I
Even though I defended the exciting races I have watched recently, I totally understand your views.
What I DON'T understand is how the Tech3 team riders of 2009 C Edwards and J Toseland had such similar careers and yet Toseland couldn't get anywhere near the front and Edwards did. The problem is NOT just the bikes, Stoner can be leading the race and Haydyn can be racing near the back. HOW can this be??? One of the biggest problems of MotoGP Bikes (I Believe), is that they are such highly tuned beasts and tiny differences make huge advances on the track. Look at Stoner and the Ducati, he is a Hero on his machine and everyone else finds it VERY difficult to ride the Ducati Desmo competitively. VERY Strange.
We have seen in qualifying, Lorenzo or Stoner P1 by half a second until Rossi gets his settings just right, then Rossi P1 by XX tenths of a second. I have a new idea that just came to mind, everyone must race half the race on the race bike, then do a pit stop and change over to a totally standard bike for the second half of the race. Well if MotoGP/Dorna can keep experimenting with daft ideas (Like slower 800s should be better), so can I.
As you state the Only way to bring the field together is to enforce rules so tightly that the racing would be false. To restrict Rossi would be a crime. I don't have a clue what they can do to make more of the riders competitive.
I think that was why they brought in the traction control electronics, they thought it would make the teams/riders closer. Then they reduce the amount of fuel, effectively restricting the maximum power of the engines. None of the changes have worked and some have done quite the opposite.
Moto2 should be an interesting series, as I've always loved the 250s and 125s and to see the younger riders on bigger machinery, this should be great racing for all.
Whatever happens, its been a few months since the end of the racing season and I am starting to get withdrawal symptoms. Bring on 2010.
Wed, 21/04/2010 - 19:42
#10
Re: Moto GP costs
I would like to see a class with very few restrictions other than those that are relevent to todays thinking.
Specification for the bikes would be - anything goes but there would be a fixed amount of fuel for the race,as now. Limits on polution and noise and the same tyre rules.
It would be interesting what sort of bike are raced and how the development gets onto production machinery.
Wed, 21/04/2010 - 20:14
#11
Re: Moto GP costs
I would like to see a class with very few restrictions other than those that are relevent to todays thinking.
The French ran an anything goes series last season, though I didn't follow how it went, and it was at a far lower budget level than MotoGP. But yes, I'd love to see something like that too, and I think it would really help with the development of bikes generally too.
Meanwhile, race one this season was pretty good, shame about poor ol' Nicky H missing out on the podium, he's one of the nicest blokes in MotoGP, and what was Casey doing??!! No Japan until October now - if anyone's missed the news, that's been postponed because of Ash causing flight chaos, apologies for that, I couldn't help myself - though personally if I can go to Marseille in a minibus to ride a Yamaha, then I don't see why Rossi and Lorenzo can't go to Japan that way.
Thu, 22/04/2010 - 09:11
#12
Re: Moto GP costs
Purely coincidentally, I was thinking about the Moto GP costs thing whilst in the shower this morning and specifically the one about where the number of engines are limited to keep costs down. This was done, so they say, in part as a reaction to the financial crisis. Does this mean that when things get to being all rosey again that they shall drop this stipulation? OK so it is also to allow smaller teams to compete but I am not convinced on that point, as it still takes millions, I am sure, to get on to the grid anyway.
I personally am not in favour of these restrictions in Moto GP, it should still be the prototype class where as much as possible anything goes, as mentioned above. I think that this should also include tyres and they should do all that they can to get other manufacturers (Michelin, Dunlop, Metzler etc etc) back into the class if they want too. The only thing that I would restrict, is an over abundance of rider aids, so that it truly remains the best riders on the best bikes as well as great riders being able to make a difference to maybe not quite so great bikes. I am not against more regulated racing, we have that in Superbike and so on and hooray for that, it is also great. Moto GP however is something different and should be given a free rein.
Moto2, is also too restricted for my liking. World Supersport at least has different engines and by forcing the teams to use an engine from the same manufacturer detracts from what should also be a showcase of technology and supreme riders. The 250 class was exciting and was genuinely different to everything else. OK so it bares little relevance to what the manufacturers are selling, being two strokes, so change that but change it only to be up to six hundred cc four stroke and the rest as close as possible as it was under the 250 regime.
Thu, 22/04/2010 - 14:34
#13
Re: Moto GP costs
Lowering costs. Fine idea etc etc.
However, PYAK1234 makes an interesting and relevent point which I've thought about myself. Every race weekend in MotoGP is a race against time to get the setup right.
If you don't get that setup - you're toast. However, this naturally disadvantages certain riders and ensures we often don't see the best out of certain riders cause they simply haven't had the practice time to make the best of their bike. Now, we could just say 'tough', but I think we will see a lot more spectacle in the races if all the riders are propely tuned into their bikes i.e. more practice time.
It doesn't cut costs but it doesn't cut corners either.
Thu, 22/04/2010 - 17:30
#14
Re: Moto GP costs
There are certain riders out there that will just ride the bike to it strengths and there are others who try to alter the bike to their stregths. Toseland is in the latter category. Spies is in the former. I think you will find all the great riders could ride around problems better than the others. So when they get it right there is no stopping them riding to the limit. Plus I bet they communicate well with the pit crew about what is needed to get the best out of the bike.
Thu, 22/04/2010 - 18:42
#15
Re: Moto GP costs
I'm gutted about the Japan GP being postponed, that volcano has caused so much trouble they should pour a few hundred tons of concrete down the opening. (Joking in case anyone corrects me about internal magma pressures etc). I was amazed at Stoner' lack of concentration to bin his bike when he was leading so easily. But trying to put a lap time 1 second faster than any other racer was obviously foolhardy when he had no need. I do like Casey though and truly believe he will be the best when things work out for him/Ducati or Rossi retires.
I too think they (Dorna/FIA) are imposing too many regulations on what should be a race of the highest technology and the absolute pinnacle of what can be achieved. Only then will we see the type of breakthroughs that motor racing has given us over the years.
The restriction on testing is not a good idea in my opinion. They pay riders $Millions, pay huge sums to develop, transport and support the racing team, what can a few extra laps cost. The restriction on numbers of engines is even more ridiculous, if a team crashes and causes damage to an engine you then get penalised at the end of the season as the numbers of engines available are reduced.
I know lets give each team £3,000 of Marks and Spencer vouchers and tell them to run a team with that. It should make for even more exciting racing (NOT). Or have Rossi, Stoner, Haydyn etc racing on 50cc Scooters with 3 engines available to the teams, and NO testing of any sort.
I know my comments sound silly, but Dorna and the powers that be seem to be pulling ideas out of hats. Though one thing remains stable the number of races in Spain keeps increasing. Who knows 10 yrs from now we may have the whole MotoGP season raced on Spanish tracks/roads.
Thu, 22/04/2010 - 20:30
#16
Re: Moto GP costs
I was amazed at Stoner' lack of concentration to bin his bike when he was leading so easily. But trying to put a lap time 1 second faster than any other racer was obviously foolhardy when he had no need.
The team's datalogging showed he hadn't lost concentration, it was rather ironically because he'd backed off that he lost the front. At his super hot pace, the front was only gripping on corner entry because he was braking so hard and loading it up. When he saw he was pulling out such a big lead, he eased off the braking, the front was carrying less weight into the corner as it turned and it slid from under him.
Oh to be able to ride so close to the edge that it's only your braking as you turn that's keeping the front tyre stuck to road!
Stoner meanwhile has said next time he's not going to back off...
Thu, 22/04/2010 - 22:05
#17
Re: Moto GP costs
They used to have an extra free practice on the Thursday didn't they? And the Friday free practice used to be 1hr30 not 45 mins.
The costs in MotoGP are massive, but if the bikes aren't setup perfectly, big gaps appear, such is the margin between being on it or off the back. Look at Stoner's crash, he backs off slightly, and down he goes - now that's exactly the kind of crash that could have been predicted by extra track time, as it was it happened in the race and it's 25 points lost.
By reducing track time Dorna may be saving single digit percentages in costs for the teams, but they are increasing the uncertainty with riders (Rossi was fettling on Saturday night and was very much applying a 'look/see' approach to the Sunday race in Qatar) with consequent increases in risk. Riders will always push to the limit - but with less track time they cannot be as assured as to where those limits lie.
This isn't production racing - it's the cutting edge. But I can see why BMW, Aprilia, Kawasaki etc want nothing to do with MotoGP - you spend shedloads of money on something where the elements of risk and uncertainty are much higher. What's the point of spennding £40m on the project, with restricted engine numbers, few practice etc when you could spend £55m and have free reign.
It pains me to say it, but F1 this season is pretty good (for once) and budgets aren't exactly tight there.
Thu, 22/04/2010 - 23:17
#18
Re: Moto GP costs
Hi Markyboyzx6r, some good comments by you, but Stoner had actually speeded up and was running 1 second faster than the next fastest rider when he crashed. But this is exactly the sort of thing that extra practise can sort out. You know the limits better and can push harder too. to lose 25 points is a big loss especially at this circuit which he has won 3 yrs on the trot.
The cost savings for maybe 35-50 extra laps can't be that much compared to the overall budget can it? I personally think Certain riders need extra time on the circuit to get the best out of their machines. Though riders like Nicky Haydyn seemed to run better than he has for ages, maybe the bike is better or he is more of a naturally talented rider who can find the limits quicker than others. Well he did race on dirt tracks with no brakes for a living, so he must have plenty of feel for grip etc.
Is that right that MotoGP teams are spending £40 Million for a team. Thats astonishing, Formula 1 teams have been capped to a £40 Million budget not including drivers wages. I thought MotoGP would spend much less than F1. Crazy numbers to spend racing a motorbike isn't it?
I too think the F1 racing this season is good so far. Bernie Ecclecakes got it right this time, hope he can introduce a boost button that gives an extra 1,000rpm/6 seconds, 10-20 times during the race to help increase overtaking opportunities. this is something that wouldn't cost anything yet could add a lot of extra excitement to the racing.
Sun, 25/04/2010 - 02:26
#19
Re: Moto GP costs
Don't forget, MotoGP teams don't need to spend nearly as much time & money on aerodynamics as F1 teams, where any improvement can make a deciding difference in performance - Red Bull cars seems to have the advantage because of their superior aerodynamics this season.
Therefore, where is all this money going? There must be an easy way to save boat loads of cash in MotoGP.
Sun, 25/04/2010 - 10:44
#20
Re: Moto GP costs
I don't know about the £40m figure - I was just using that number as an example.
Eddy Merckx used to fettle relentlessly with his bike, measuring everything to the millimetre - and he stated he used to be jealous of the guys who could jump on any old bicycle and ride fast. He stated that scientific pursuit of perfection was what gave him confidence in the fast mountain descents on the Grand Tours.
That notion applies with even more sharpness in GP racing.
Nicky Hayden, Marco Melandri, Max Biaggi (back in the day), even the much-maligned JT are all the sort of riders who, and I don't mean this as an insult, are not 'natural' riders in the same way that guys like Rossi is in GP or Bruce Ainsley is in TT. They need everything to be perfect, and that takes track-time.
However, I don't see that as a bad thing. Natural talent's a lovely gift, but many sportsmen reach the top through steer graft - honing and refining their setup and technique over time - with the result that they end up as quick as the 'naturals'.
These are the guys who are not being given the opportunity to maximise their potential in Moto GP, which is a shame.
Sun, 25/04/2010 - 11:24
#21
Re: Moto GP costs
Stoner had actually speeded up and was running 1 second faster than the next fastest rider when he crashed.
Funny how different stories come out of these things. My own info was that he had just begun to back off and Ducati's telemetry showed he was brakiing less severely and the front wasn't as loaded this time around as it had been the previous lap. That was from Ducati's press release with quotes from Stoner to this effect, but there are still plenty of other versions floating around, and I'm not saying they're wrong.
Ducati told me when they first started in MotoGP in 2003 that the first year's cost was around £28 million, so that does fit in well with £40 million today. Ducati could do it (as well as the WSB effort) only because Marlboro and Shell were picking up most of the bills. Or the tab, in Marlboro's case...
Mon, 10/05/2010 - 01:27
#22
Re: Moto GP costs
Kev, regarding the so called fact that Stoner was riding at 1 second a lap faster at the point he binned the Ducati, I am only taking the commentators (Steve Parish') words on that. On your evidence I would probably believe the Ducati logs more than Mr Parish.
But to be sure I just checked the lap times for the race (MotoGP Site)and here are the figures for the lap before Stoner crashed he was actually over 2 seconds faster than Rossi (2nd Fastest) at that point.
27 1'55.537 Stoner Lap Time Lap 5
46 1'56.697 1.16 Secs behind. Rossi' Time Lap 5
I did think that Steve Parish said something similar to what I stated previously.
P Yak
Mon, 10/05/2010 - 19:56
#23
Re: Moto GP costs
I think the explanation is that he was lapping faster but backed off either at that corner or the one before, and fell off immediately, that way his lap time up to then would have bee quicker, and he´d only just started to back off.
Tue, 11/05/2010 - 05:07
#24
Re: Moto GP costs
I find it strange that many times I have noticed that when riders/racing drivers back off they make mistakes. Racers say they lose their high level of concentration when they back off.
Possibly this is what happened to Casey at Qatar. Very unusual for him to make a mistake like this though. I find him to be one of the most steady riders in MotoGP. But no one, including Rossi is immune from making mistakes. This is what makes is so exciting for me.
Mon, 21/02/2011 - 12:10
#25
Re: Moto GP costs
What does it say about the health of the sport when the dominant manufacturer of the past few years can't find a main sponsor for 2011? Yamaha PR talk is that they wanted the "opportunity" to run in factory colours for their 50th anniversary (in racing) -- which sounds suspiciously like whistling nervously to keep one's spirits up...
Anyway, the bikes look great in blue, black and white (would be even better with a couple fewer lateral white stripes). Not many obvious external changes, though the hugger looks to be more of an aerodynamic fairing and the exhaust is different.
Super high-res photo here for those tuning in on monster-sized monitors:
http://www.yamaha-racing.com/Racing/includes/pressimages.jsp?img=http://...
Couldn't spot any missing cable ties.
Mon, 21/02/2011 - 12:32
#26
Re: Moto GP costs
What does it say about the health of the sport when the dominant manufacturer of the past few years can't find a main sponsor for 2011?
It's dire isn't it? I've run the news item here and mentioned that too:
Yamaha MotoGP 2011 Livery Unveiled
Mon, 21/02/2011 - 13:30
#27
Re: Moto GP costs
It is indeed dire but what I think is even more interesting is the fact that Ducati have been running Marlboro sponsorship for a number of years but yet got a whole lot less exposure for their buck compared to the non tobacco backed teams. They obviously saw a value in what they got, even if their name was not beamed into TV sets world wide every race weekend. Now they have the same manufacturer and something so much more associated with it.
It is irrelevant if you like the guy or not but right now the most marketable element of Moto GP is Valentino Rossi. The world champion team and rider in Yamaha and Lorenzo just don't cut the same interest as the Valentino package does. It may well be that the Ducati brand also invokes a level of passion that the bigger Japanese factories do not enjoy but that is debatable. The pull of Rossi, however, is not. Take a look at any race track in the world and you shall see massive banks of yellow clad supporters. No matter how hard Jorge may now try, he is never going to achieve that on a global stage. Valentino started to capture the publics imagination a long time ago when he was in 125 and then 250. Jorge just seemed kind of arrogant until not all that long ago. Ben Spies is a great rider, there is no doubt and I am absolutely sure that he is a top bloke but he comes across as having the public persona of a haddock.
Moto GP is damn expensive, there is no question and to plow money into a team, sponsors need to know that they are going to get the optimum return for their dollar/Euro/Renminbee or whatever. In Rossi they get not only the greatest racer, since Mike Hailwood and Giacomo Agostini they also get a personality who can relate to huge swathes of the public. That is why the money follows him.
Tue, 16/08/2011 - 09:56
#28
Re: Moto GP costs
Coming back to this thread. The limited testing that was imposed on the series was done so as a cost cutting measure that did not allow the well funded teams to test to oblivion, whilst the minnows could not.
Next years arrival of these new claim rule engines is a mixed blessing in my opinion but we shall see. That too was meant to be a way of keeping costs down.
I heard last week however that Honda, allegedly, are going to double the cost of leasing a bike from 1.5 to 3 million Euros per year. I guess the idea of helping to fill the grids and keep costs down for the smaller guys has not dawned on them.
Tue, 16/08/2011 - 11:43
#29
Re: Moto GP costs
I think next season is going to be a disaster.
As I understand it there could be 800's, 1000's with factory support and 1000 prod based engines on the grid, with some kind of fudge factor / handicapping to keep them all on a par.
I can't see it working.
What Dorna should have done is made the manufacturers supply a certain number of engines, identical to the works units, at a pre-determined price that could be leased by smaller teams to put in their own chassis.
That way small teams could stand a chance of competing. You would have an easier development path for new riders onto the grid and you might even get the odd shock result.
Tue, 16/08/2011 - 14:31
#30
Re: Moto GP costs
Herb, the thing I really am not happy about is the production based engine bikes. If they are only loosely based. To me Grand Prix racing should be letting the factories have a free hand to show off their talents and wares. I also don't agree with a single tyre supplier. OK so in the past it had a big effect but it is all part of the deal and it pushed the suppliers to innovate.
Sure the grid size needs to increase and as far as I am concerned big kudos to Ducati for having so many machines out there, even if they are not the best right now.
Even making complete bikes available to lease at reasonable rates would be a good thing. I know everyone has to make money but 3 million Euros per bike means that the sponsorship package has to be vast just to get a bike on to the grid.
Search This Site
NEWS...
* 2012 GSX-R1000 UK PRICE
...and it comes in at less than £11,000...(more)
* NEW BMW DESIGN CHIEF As expected, David Robb's replacement comes from the company's design team...(more)
.
.
* UPDATES FOR 2012 SM-T KTM adds panniers and remote adjuster to its punchy all-rounder...(more)
* YAMAHA SECURES SPONSOR! Factory MotoGP squad gets Japanese oil backing for Lorenzo and Spies...(more)
* DAVID ROBB OUT SHOCK! BMW's design chief leaves in a cloud of mystery!...(more)
* APRILIA SRV850 PRICE Sporty Aprilia V-twin scooter goes head to head with BMW on price...(more)
* GEORGE WHITE GOES BUST Britain's biggest bike dealer chain calls in the administrators as it falls victim to the recession...(more)
* THE CHINESE ARE COMING! Keeway is the first Chinese manufacturer to offer a four-cylinder, big capacity motorcycle, the RK600... and it won't be the last!...(more)
* DAELIM 250 The South Koreans are offering a 250 of their own which promises a budget price to undercut Honda's CBR250R...(more)
* SYM WOLF 250 Taiwanese company Sym joins the fast growing 250cc sector with a 250cc version of the Wolf 125...(more)
* RIDE MUGELLO WITH BAYLISS! ...and do it on an 1199. New Ducati Experience courses include the ultimate track experience...(more)
I've seen some of the news items and while the move to 1000cc is definitely happening, most of the rest I've read is speculation as to how the rules will be constructed. I'll see if I can find out more that's solid, but the first thing to bear in mind is, the reason given for the move to 800cc from 990cc was not cost saving but safety, as the 990s were getting so fast. The cost of making an 800 is no different to making a 990 in fact. The problem this caused was that because of lower speeds on the straights and higher corner speeds, there was less overtaking and less excitement, which is pretty much how it's been. It wouldn't surprise me (and this is speculation too...) if the given cost reasons aren't at least to some degree covering up what amounts to a U-turn to get back to more exciting racing after the 800cc experiment failed.
The difficulty if there's any sort of production-based formula will be a clash with WSB, and also how to keep a company like Ducati involved, as there is no production bike on which Ducati can base its race bikes - Ducati certainly wouldn't be interested in using an inline four as a base. But through its sponsors Ducati has brought a lot of money to MotoGP and added a lot of glamour and excitement too, so there will be a lot of pressure to find a solution which keeps Ducati in MotoGP, and a straightforward production-based one probably wouldn't do that.
But it's only a move to some sort of production-based formula which will lead to significant cost savings, so it's going to be interesting to see how this develops.
Sorry I can't be more informative!