2014 MotoGP Rules Announced: Spec ECU Introduced, Spec Software Creates Two Classes Of Entry

After an almost interminable period of discussions and debate, agreement has at last been reached over the technical regulations to be applied in MotoGP for the 2014 onwards. The agreement has been a compromise, with both sides of the argument being given something to satisfy them.

The new rules see the introduction of a compulsory spec ECU and datalogger, and the ECU now acts as a divide between the two classes of teams in the paddock. MSMA members will be allowed to use their own software for the spec ECU, but the punishment for doing so will be a reduction in the fuel limit from 21 to 20 liters for a race. Teams electing to use the spec software supplied by Dorna will be allowed 24 liters. The MSMA members will also be limited to 5 engines a season, while the rest will be allowed 12 engines. The reduction in fuel and engines was made at the request of the factories, to give themselves an engineering challenge to conquer.

An engine development freeze was also announced, preventing engine development during each season, and in addition, the bore and stroke of the MotoGP machines will be fixed for three seasons, from 2013 to 2015. 

The technical regulations are not final, however. The rules will only be made final if the MSMA members agree to supply teams with engines or complete bikes for the 2014 season onwards. This basically commits Honda to building their production RC213V and Yamaha to supplying engines to teams, subject to the penalty of a completely new set of rules for 2014 if they fail to do so.

A major change in Moto2 was also announced, but that too had been expected. A combined rider/weight limit of 215 kg was announced, a solid balance between the lighter and heavier riders. Given that the minimum weight for the Moto2 machines is 140kg, then theoretically, the average rider weight complete with gear is taken as 75kg. Take away leathers, boots, helmet and gloves and that puts the average weight of a rider in the region of 65kg. Still a little on the light side, but better than the unregulated system that exists at the moment.

Below is the FIM press release announcing the new regulations:

FIM Road Racing World Championship Grand Prix

Decision of the Grand Prix Commission

The Grand Prix Commission, composed of Messrs. Carmelo Ezpeleta (Dorna, Chairman), Ignacio Verneda (FIM Executive Director, Sport), Herve Poncharal (IRTA) and Takanao Tsubouchi (MSMA) in the presence of Javier Alonso (Dorna) and Mike Trimby (IRTA, Secretary of the meeting), in a meeting held on 10 November 2012 in Valencia, decided on the following:

Sporting Regulations

Effective immediately:

Teams and their contracted or nominated riders become subject to all regulations with effect from the start of the “season”. The season is defined as starting on the day after the last race of the preceding season. The effect of this change is that all contracted teams and riders are subject to the same test restrictions.

In the case of an interrupted race then a penalty of starting from pit lane which had been imposed on a rider for the first part of the race will be replaced by a penalty of starting from the rear of the grid whenever the first part of the race has completed more than 50% of the original race distance.

The dispensation to allow MotoGP class “Rookie” riders to participate in one three day test during November/December is cancelled.

The penalty for speeding in pit lane has been increased from €70.00 to €150.00. However, subsequent penalties in the same event will also be €150.00 rather than the previous penalty of €370.00

Further detail sporting regulation changes were approved but publication of these will be postponed until after the next Grand Prix Commission meeting on 13 December.

Technical Regulations

Effective 01 January 2014:

MotoGP Class

The use of the ECU and datalogger provided by the Championship organisers is compulsory.

MSMA manufacturers, supplying machines for a maximum of four entries per manufacturer, will use their own electronics software but in this case are subject to a maximum fuel capacity of 20 litres.

All other machines must use the ECU, datalogger and software provided by the Championship organisers and these machines may have a maximum fuel capacity of 24 litres.

The maximum number of engines that may be used in a season is limited to:

  • MSMA manufacturers machines (Maximum four per manufacturer) 5 engines
  • MSMA manufacturers in their first season of participation 9 engines
  • All other entries 12 engines

Engines are frozen for all races of the same season.

In addition to the changes effective 2014, bore and stroke dimensions are frozen for the three year period 2013 to 2015.

Important Note: The above regulation changes are subject to the satisfactory conclusion of ongoing negotiations between FIM, Dorna and the Manufacturers concerning the supply of additional machines and engines for use by other teams from 2014. Contracts for the supply of these machines, engines, parts and technical support must be concluded between Dorna and the Manufacturers prior to the first event of 2013. Only then will the technical regulation changes be finally adopted.

Moto2 Class

Effective Immediately:

The minimum weight for this class will now be 215 kg being the combined weight of the machine and rider, including the rider’s protective equipment, on bike, camera, etc. Ballast may be added to achieve the minimum weight.

Further detail technical regulation changes were approved but publication of these will be postponed until after the next Grand Prix Commission meeting on 13 December.

Best Grand Prix

IRTA had agreed that the Best Grand Prix, previously decided exclusively by IRTA members should instead be nominated by the Grand Prix Commission representing all parties involved in the Championship. The Commission decided to confirm the Malaysian GP at Sepang as the best Grand Prix of 2012.

A regularly updated version of the FIM Grand Prix Regulations which contains the detailed text of the changes may be viewed on:


Back to top


Imposing a spec hardware while leaving the factories free to develop their own software was an obvious way to find a compromise. As already commented by David, allowing software development for standard ECU is not going to limit costs though. Maybe this is not necessarily a problem. For me, cutting costs is less a priority than getting interesting races back. Now, I am not really sure whether 20 litres, 5 engines and spec ECU will be enough to limit processional races and foster more trilling fights.

Increased stability for the rules should help getting more factories back to the circus, or at least I really hope so. Fingers crossed.

I thought Honda specifically was against this as they said the cost of writing new code to work with new hardware was too expensive. I think locking the rules and limiting engine development during the season might be a step in the right direction, however, I can't see dropping fuel even further is going to do anything to encourage better racing. In fact it might give an advantage to lighter riders like Pedrosa while handicapping those who are heavier.

Interesting... considering how the Yamaha has a history of being right on the edge of fuel on thirsty tracks like Motegi with the existing rules, should be interesting to see how that plays out. Honda & Ducati prolly won't have to cut back on power quite as much with a 1L loss of fuel.

Also, so now have to seal all 5/9/12 engines at the beginning of the year? At least I can't think of any other way to enforce it otherwise. That's just going to cause everyone to spend more money all at once IMHO. Means you have to get it right the first time or your season is completely lost. That's going to make it much more likely that we have run-away championships.

Seems like once again Honda is pulling the strings here, which if I had arguably the best bike right now I'd be doing too. But it's not good for MotoGP. Kinda interesting that the rules seem to indicate that MSMA members can't choose to run the spec ECU software/12 engine allocation. Even with 9 engines I don't see how that brings Suzuki back on the grid if they're stuck with 20L of fuel. Is BMW part of the MSMA?

Between that and Stoner retiring, maybe I'll start watching AMA racing here in the States.... I hear that the last couple of years it's been some great racing. Oh well at least with the minimum weights in Moto2 that will become an even more interesting class to watch.

5 engines and 20 litres will make for some problems, given that a blow up at an inopportune time will leave one with 4 engines for the season. Cal ran out of fuel with an extra litre available, it will be sad to see races decided by economy rather than riding skill. I fail to see how this reduces costs and/or improves the show.

And increasing the divide between factories and CRTs aint fixing it.

Not to mention that it's this unstable and ever evolving formula that is probably keeping other manufacturers away.

The reduction in fuel and engines was made at the request of [Honda], to give themselves an [opportunity to continue to exploit their advantage in these areas].

I always liked the underlying philosophy of prototype racing: no matter where you get the parts to build your bike, if it does not perform well this race you can change whatever you want for the next race. Slowly (?) but surely this underlying philosophy is being completely undermined.

I am not in favor of a spec ECU but the MM4 ECU used by Yamaha and Ducati are just generic processing boxes with a lot available of inputs and outputs. Forcing anyone to use that particular box is not very constraining to their development as they can still program it as they like and then adapt the knowledge gained to a production style ECU for their production bikes. But why force the ART bikes to use the spec ECU _and_ software when they seem to be doing OK with the in-house Aprilia equipment?

However, a frozen engine is going to freeze a lot of compay's development processes and may well lock Ducati in the midfield and then shortly afterwards out of GPs. Spec ECU, spec tire, frozen engine, what R&D is possible? And even less fuel? That will require even more electronic intervention to help ration the now more limited fuel, which is what people seem to hate, so they make those regulations even stronger?

Yet through all of this the primary reason for the lack of passing and processional races, the tires, remain unchanged. A simple change to the tires would have the bikes sliding, tires wearing out, and positions being swapped, especially at the end of the race. The reintroduciton of Q tires would also shake the grid up which would make for more passing in the beginning stages of the race. However this simple, cheap, and easy to impliment change seems to make too much sense to be even considered by the powers that be. Instead of changing the tires with relatively predictable consequences they would rather introduce wide ranging changes to many regulations that will have all manner of unintended and unforseen consequences. Cue chaos. Or more boring racing.



"But why force the ART bikes to use the spec ECU _and_ software when they seem to be doing OK with the in-house Aprilia equipment?"

This has been one of the unintended consequences in BSB. Mid-field and slower teams have been forced to trade in their less-expensive kit boxes or modified stock stuff for the more expensive spec ECU - and the additional expenditure hasn't gotten them anywhere nearer to the front.

Changing the tires might not be such a mayor change if there are millions of dollars of software keeping them in line. Worse tires, bigger need for electronics. Nothing cheap about that.

With F1. They implimented a spec ECU and DRS systems while already having engine performance equalization and the passing did not significantly improve until the tires were redesigned to degrade. Right now as long as the tires are perfect all race long than any mistake will be punished with an increasing gap to those who do not make any. If the tires degrade than other skills besides running a millimeter perfect line every lap will be rewarded. Electronics are not a fix-all answer to all aspects of bike performance. They work great now because the bike acts consistently from the first lap to the last. If you change tire behavior during the race it will be a couple of years at least until the electronics can catch up to the organic computer each rider carries around. Then start the cycle again. And I can't believe I'm advocating changing tire designs to keep screwing up the engineer's efforts. But that would at least lead to some possibilities for development.

And having Qs again would mix the grid up so there would be at least some juggling of positions during the race as riders who do well on Qs (Hayden is one) get passed by those with a better race setup. All you need to do is give each rider 2 sets of Qs. That's 48 extra sets of tires per weekend and maybe only half that as you could remove one set of race config tires as they would not be used during the qualifying session. That has got to be less expensive than the development needed to impliment all of these technical changes.

And what about all of the factory and satellite bikes being done as a deal with payment guarantees through Dorna? That seems weird to me, just a grab for more control of the series. I guess my main problem is that having a marketing company in charge of Grand Prix racing may not be the smartest decision for the long term health of either one.


In F1 they changed the electronics 1st and the tires 2nd so there's no way of knowing what effect "bad" tires would have made if there were computers managing their wear. If electronics work great because bikes are consistent then making them inconsistent will make electronics development harder and therefor more expensive.
Also if you do watch F1 you'll know that there's some great overtaking in the first 3 laps were there's no DRS or tire wear.

I feel your pain and I agree with a lot of what you write but the comparison with F1 ends where DRS and KERS start. DRS, and to some extent KERS, are the main reasons for today's F1 overtaking and the major contribution to the better show we enjoy. Tyre degradation plays a big role in tyre change and management strategies but the real deal has been to find a way to make aerodynamics count less in some specific situations during the race.

This analogy does not work when applied to MotoGP. We do not have wings, batteries or tyre changes. So, while I agree that tyre degradation could be an element to bring back some excitement to MotoGP, I think it is just part of an overall solution. What are the other changes that should be introduced I am not sure but F1 had to undergo a painfully long trial and error process to find out an interesting and sustainable mix. Both engineers and rule makes had also to include some very original new stuff in the mix. Two examples: rules change during the race depending on some specific conditions and they introduced new skills for the pilots that have to juggle 20+ settings every lap. I am not saying that the same should happen on MotoGP but that Dorna (!) might have to think out of the box to fix the current issues.

This is all stupid. There should be two rules:

1. Race what you brung.
2. Here's how much gas you get for the whole weekend.

Let the teams do what they gots to do. They will figure out how much money to spend or not spend.

There will be only four bikes on the grid... 2 Hondas, and 2 Yamaha's

Nobody else will be able to afford to compete against them. Unfortunate reality these days. The sponsors aren't there, and the bikes are exponentially more expensive than they were years ago when the 'race what you brung' days were in their glory

2 hondas and 2 yamahas... isn't that what we effectively have today??

If you want "prototype racing" then have prototype rules, i.e. no rules. What MotoGP has now are "formula rules." It's these formula constraints that drive up costs.

Think of it this way, if the CRT bikes are going to be 4 seconds off the pace, they might as well be a superbike off the showroom floor with DOT tires and be 4 seconds off the pace. Instead, they're spending money to develop to this CRT formula and still be slow.

It's counter intuitive, but open rules would drive cost down. Racing isn't about being the fastest, per se, as most people think of it. It's just being faster than the 2nd place guy. If the second place guy is spending 1/10th of the first place guy, what's the motivation for the first place guy to keep spending 10x as much?

Someone earlier mentioned tires. Think of it this way. If Yamaha could work with another tire supplier that could improve its performance over the HRC/Bridgestone combination without spending all the effort and money on developing electronics to squeeze out the last bit of performance, why wouldn't Yamaha go with a different tire?

Remove the constraints (i.e. rules), and you'll see the costs come down. You'll see more bikes and more different bikes on the grid.

The different classes should be differentiated by the amount of fuel (or even type of fuel) that can be used, not by engine size spec.

You are maybe technically right ... the point is that a series with two Honda and two Yamaha only competing and the winner predicted most of the times before the race start where set-up is the most crucial thing (proof was the good performance of Ducati when others had not setup time) .... it's a series which is truly called prototype but boring for the majority of spectators and unappealing to sponsors.
That's the problem.
The idea is to get more sponsors, more viewers, more manufacturers, more bikes, more winners, and so on. I cannot judge if those actions will obtain the desired results ... but I understand the objective. And keeping the status quo has brought MotoGP where is today.
My personal opinion is that also tyre should change. Those one reward precision and sticking to the line while degrading one could bring more tactics, overtakes and give riders more freedom and creativity.

I agree with most of your assessment. This is not a good solution for fans who want blue-skies or entertainment racing. However, I disagree with the engine freeze. The rules are frozen. The engines, it appears, are frozen for one season, but that is probably the result of homologation procedures changes. I think the wording of that section doesn't tell the entire story.

Notwithstanding the incompetence of the GPC and their spectacular ability to waste everyone's time and achieve basically nothing, the rules themselves are something of a mixed bag. The 20L limit worsens the fuel-limited paradigms that caused the cost explosions and the control tires. It will be increasingly difficult to deregulate. However, if the manufacturers make good on their promise to lease engines and satellite bikes, the actual spectacle could improve. It's not the kind of competition worthy of the GP-moniker, imo, b/c the MSMA appear to be suppressing the inclusion of new manufacturers, but the spectacle may improve.

A spec ECU with no spec software isn't a spec ECU at all.

As long as Honda, Yamaha and Ducati agree to put more bikes on the grid, good enough.

A reasonable compromise, IMHO.

p.s. Except that Chris is right, w/o changes to the tire rule, expect more processional races.

This is not the death of prototype racing, but this rules system is the global exhibition of the GPC's incompetence. The MSMA look particularly bad b/c they claim to be the smartest people in the room, yet they cannot engineer a unified set of rules to satisfy Dorna.

What are Dorna asking for? Profit. So the racing executives of the world's biggest companies are not expert enough to grow profits in their industry. The MSMA need to do us a favor and fall on their own sword. The supposed champions of innovation and technology can't even achieve the most basic commercial objectives for MotoGP w/o having their own separate sport.

This is like discovering that NASA engineers cannot do arithmetic. Maybe someone has a teenage daughter who'd be willing to tutor Mr. Nakamoto for a reasonable price?

If the MSMA step up to the plate, I will retract my statement, but for the time being it only appears that they are devising new rules to keep manufacturers away.

The MSMA are in it to make better motorcycles, not to put advertising dollars in Dorna's pocket. You should say that this shows the incompetence of a media marketing company not being able to successfully market the sport. They had years of plenty that they squadered and did not plan for the future. And from previous articles here it looks like they are sagging under a huge debt/interest payment load from trying to achieve growth through a financial shell game. Whose fault is that?

>>The MSMA look particularly bad b/c they claim to be the smartest people in the room

Where did you get that from?

In the recent interview of Mr. Nakamoto he makes it clear that his propority is to make technoloy improvements and his quote on selling the sport: 'I don't know. Sorry, I am not interested in this.' Straightforward, unambiguous and as it should be. He works for Honda, not Dorna. He wants his riders to win, as the leader of any race group should.

The GPC is the MSMA, Dorna, the FIM, and the IRTA. From this group you point a finger at Nakamoto?


'I don't know. Sorry, I am not interested in this.'

I remember reading that comment and thinking, thank God, somewhere in this sordid mix of marketers and venture capitalists is an actual, honest-to-God racer. How do you not love that guy?

Dorna and the MSMA have differing objectives, and since Dorna actually owns the commercial rights, they have the right of way. That's why Dorna were able to kick the MSMA out of the rules-making process. Furthermore, MotoGP does not need blue-skies technology to earn profits, an unfortunate reality in the era of NASCAR.

If the MSMA want to retain control of the rulebook, they need to create a unified rules system that meets the objectives of the MSMA, IRTA, Dorna, and the FIM. The two-tiered rulebook is merely an indication that both parties gave up on compromise and rules innovation; instead, they split the sport down the middle. The sport is already split so the new rules are just a continuation of past incompetence. The MSMA are still incapable of marrying technology, sport, and entertainment. Is anyone surprised? The MSMA's ring-leader, a manager of engineers, declares that he won't even contemplate the challenge.

The MSMA are stuck on stupid. They claim to love innovation and engineering challenges, but when the biggest engineering challenge of their lifetime comes along (protecting the technological sanctity of prototype racing in an entertainment driven marketplace) they pretend the challenge doesn't exist. They buy the allegiance of the other parties with charity, like engine leases, which is not something they can guarantee in perpetuity.

The MSMA lack the intelligence to preserve their own existence, and their death wish doesn't bode well for MotoGP in the long run.

I am not against the MSMA. I am against incompetence. At the moment, the MSMA is an orgy of incompetence.

Just as HRC is not interested in providing more entertainment, why should Dorna be interested in making better motorcycles? They are a sports marketing company selling TV rights. The product they sell is entertainment (all professional sports are just soap operas for men), they have no stake, nor interest in, the motorcycle market. That is not (nor should it be) their purview.

This is a knife which cuts both ways. The MSMA have no interest in entertainment, Dorna have no interest in production motorcycle R&D. Dorna, however, hold the rights to organize the series, so they call the shots.

And though I agree that an engine freeze is generally a bad thing, it won't impact overly much on engine R&D. So much of engine R&D is in the electronics that designing new engine internals has become largely irrelevant.

David, I have a slightly different take on this. While Dorna's main objective doesn't involve making motorcycles better, there's no doubt that fans tune in partly to see the "best" motorcycles on earth compete. Dumb the series down and they're sure to lose revenue. The same lack of clarity is effecting Honda. They don't seem to realize that without the fans, they might as well just use their test facilities and abandon racing altogether. There's plenty of great racing in other series....and there's a series that races bikes that are the pinnacle of two wheel technology. The task should be to find a cost effective set of rules that merges both those goals. It seems as if both parties fail to realize they need each other to exist.


Nailed it on both of these:

- The product they sell is entertainment (all professional sports are just soap operas for men).

- So much of engine R&D is in the electronics that designing new engine internals has become largely irrelevant.

I'll add that suspension and then chassis design are the next to fall to software engineering. Suspension is just around the corner ...

"This is like discovering that NASA engineers cannot do arithmetic."

As a reliability engineer working at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, I take offense at that comment! ;-)

If this is the fix for MotoGp. I can't wait to see how they screw up WSBK!

Correct, and theres still someone than have blind faith with dorna, what dorna must change its inside first, but that will not happen soon and these new rules for 2014 didnt clear the total abolition of a CRT, if Yamaha and Honda sells their products in a price than a private team cant afford, then again continue in the last part of the parade.

and looks like than Dorna and his CEO will transfer his expertise in ruining sports to SBK in 2014, so SBK Fans must watch SBK in 2013, because for that year will be ruined too.

Fast-forward to, say, 2017 and I predict we will all be sitting here having the same arguments.

David I just wish you and other writers would get your head around or at least discuss as a possibility the idea that the MotoGP bikes have simply become too physical big, too powerful and too fast for what people are expecting in terms of 'close racing'.

MotoGP will never produce racing that's as close as Moto2 or Moto3, which seems to be what people are expecting. The MotoGP bikes are bigger, more powerful, faster and heavier, therefore just can't be flicked around in the same way as the smaller classes (a bike going faster can't change direction as quickly - that's just physics, gyroscopic forces, inertia and all that).

And because of the speed and weight involved, and the potential consequences of rash conduct, the riders just don't dice at such close quarters with the same frequency as they do in the smaller classes. Yes we might be thrilled at the overtaking in Moto3 or Moto2 but it's all occurring at lower speeds on lighter bikes. You just won't get that in MotoGP with 1,000cc bikes and their attendant weight and speed.

I don't think spec ECUs etc will make any difference - the best factories with the best riders will continue to dominate, and the odd podium that might result for a CRT rider will just be seen as artificial because of the leg-up they get on fuel and engine allocations.

WSBK seems to have pretty close racing with heavier bikes; maybe not a powerful as the GP bikes, but I'm sure heavier. I'm not so sure you can draw that parallel.

All in all a pretty disappointing rules package. I don't see anything changing from what we have currently. The CRT/customer/whatever bikes might get a little close to the factory bikes, but that's about it. The MSMA still controls who gets to be fast, and who doesn't. Really it's a 3 tier class now: Factory Honda/Yamahas (4), Satellite Honda/Yamaha and all 4 Ducs, then the rest. Honda will make damn sure the customer bikes won't challenge the satellite bikes, Yamaha is providing the weakest part of their package for purchase, and no one will want anything Ducati can provide anyway.

It seems like Ezpeleta folded pretty hard on forcing anything through. I don't see any better racing or a better product to sell for Dorna.

i only see one oversight to all of this:

MSMA manufacturers in their first season of participation 9 engines

Engines are frozen for all races of the same season.

manufacturers in there first season should not be restricted to not developing the engines for that season.

So we get even less fuel, fewer engines, and we've frozen engine development.

So if, say, Ducati starts the season in the same boat they were in last year, they won't be permitted to do a damned thing about it? David's own analysis was that it was the L-angle of Ducati's engine that was holding them back. Just rotating the engine back in the chassis required new mounting points and therefore new cases, so what would closing the V require? Waiting until next year?

On the bright side, I'll only have to watch the race at Qatar to have a pretty good idea of the finishing order for the rest of the season. What a time saver!

And what's the point of a stock ECU with custom software? In fact, since it's the system Yamaha and Ducati already use, it changes absolutely nothing for a full third of the grid.

Lastly, two questions:
1.) This requirement for factories to provide bikes or engines: is that for sale or lease? And we keep hearing of Honda's spec racer and Yamaha's engines, but what about Ducati? Will they have to provide engines or bikes as well? And what's stopping any of these three from providing kit that isn't total crap? "Okay Dorna, we've got a dozen 180bhp RC213S spec racers sitting right here in the warehouse waiting for customers, but nobody's buying!" Will there be any language in the rule requiring their customer kit to be competitive? And do the existing satellite lease bikes satisfy this requirement?

2.) What constitutes a "factory"? If BMW or KTM or Aprilia want to join MotoGP, they're going to have to do so with 21L and five engines? And they'll have to be willing to provide customer bikes or engines as well? In short, why would these rules be anything but a deterrent to new factories entering MotoGP?

In my opinion, this is exactly the opposite of what they need to do to encourage growth in participation. The series is going to be healthiest when the factories are participating, so the goal should be to encourage the factories to enter (see WSBK and the bevy of brands represented). Rule number ONE of the new rule set should have been that these new rules would remain largely in effect for a decade as opposed to a measly three years. Meaning displacement, cylinder count, etc. should remain the same for ten years. Beyond that, I think making the rules too narrow and specific will push away factories that want to try to do it "their way." Things like fuel limits, spec tires, crazy tight engine limits, bore/stroke limits, cylinder count limits (to some extent) all pigeonhole manufacturers out of their areas of expertise and turn it into a contest of who can spend the most money refining a machine to one specific specification.

My dream series would be largely open with fluid tradeoffs with performance penalties. So, say, cylinder count could be balanced with displacement tradeoffs, or RPM limits could be balanced with machine weight limits (I particularly like that last one, as it would mean a poorer factory that doesn't want to invest in revving to the moon and the electronics this necessitates could build a lower revving machine that's super light and agile). I think that ability to problem solve and think outside of the box would be a big draw to engineering departments, and the ability to differentiate your machine on the world stage and find a way to win with "your" solution would be a big draw to marketing departments.

600cc sixes
750cc V5s
900cc 4-cylinders
1050cc triples
1200cc twins

Minimum machine weight (full tank) in KG = Max RPM/100.

Performance penalties for bikes that win too many races a la WSBK.

Ten year stable rulebook.

Open tires.

Q tires.

Why do the maufacturers deem it neccessary to build their engineering challenges into the rules? I have no problem with the manufacturers using MotoGP as a proving ground, but they could do this of their own volition - i.e. if Honda wanted to test their electronics and see what they can do to reduce fule consumption, so be it, but do so on your own and don't write it into the rules. If you want to test your engine's longevity by running only 5 for the season, so be it, but again, no need for that to be in the rules. All I see this doing is raising the bar for entry into the MotoGP class - BMW no longer has to build the fastest BMW they can, they have to build a BMW to Honda's specs (or whoever). All it does is insure that any new (BMW, Aprilia, Suzuki) entry or underdeveloped entry (Ducati) can't be competitive at the pinnacle of motorcylce racing because Honda and Yamaha are that much further ahead.

With a few days to ponder this decision, I think:

- I was right in speculating how it would go down - MSMA gets to keep its prototypes in exchange for agreeing to put more machines on the grid.

- Carmelo basically caved on the ECU thing because - well, to be blunt, he already won the race that mattered. Anyone care to speculate what his cut of the sale to the Canadian pension fund was worth?

- I cannot wait to see next season.