HRC Boss Reveals Details of Honda's Production Racer: Conventional Valves, Standard Gearbox, a Million Euros

By David Emmett | Thu, 07/02/2013 - 16:09

The production racer version of Honda's RC213V is another step closer to reality. At Sepang, HRC Vice President Shuhei Nakamoto spoke to reporters and the MotoGP.com website about the new bike, and the progress being made on the machine which will take the place of the CRT machines from 2014 onwards. The bike is delayed, Nakamoto said, but it will be ready in time for the tests at Valencia, after the final race of the season in November.

Nakamoto gave a brief rundown of the specifications of the production RC213V - a bike which, given the amount of publicity it is going to be generating over the next few months, badly needs a new name - though the list contained few surprises. The bike will have conventional valve springs, as opposed to pneumatic valves on the factory machine. It will not have the seamless gearbox used by the prototypes - again, not a surprise, as maintenance on the gearbox is still an HRC-only affair. This was not a matter of cost, Nakamoto said, claiming the seamless gearbox now costs almost the same as a standard unit.

The bike will use the spec Magneti Marelli electronics, and the spec Dorna software, which will mean the bike will be allowed to run 24 liters of fuel, rather than the 20 liters factory prototypes will have at their disposal from 2014. To this end, HRC engineers had spent time in Italy, at the Magneti Marelli plant, learning about the ECU. The engine was already being tested on Honda's dynos, though with an HRC ECU, as the Marelli unit was still having the bugs ironed out, as the CRT machines demonstrated at Sepang.

While progress on the engine side was promising, what was rather surprising was the area which was causing HRC the most problems. The bike will cost a million euros, as requested by Dorna, and producing the bike to this price was difficult. The hardest part, he told MotoGP.com, was producing the chassis at low cost, without compromising performance. "It is not easy building a Grand Prix bike for a price of one million euros," Nakamoto said. Anyone wishing to get their hands on one will be sorely disappointed. Only ten will be built - sufficient to supply five riders - and they will only be available in the MotoGP paddock. 

The problems HRC were having building the bike down to a price were one of the factors causing the delay. Honda had originally planned to have the bikes ready to hand to the teams for testing at Brno in August, but that was now off the cards. The bikes will be ready at Valencia, for the test directly after the last race of the year in November, and not before then. Which teams would get the bike has still not been settled, Nakamoto said. The bike would be sold directly by HRC, but so far, they had not started negotiations with any of the teams.

http://www.gpone.com/index.php/en/201302079337/Nakamoto-Marquez-sta-imi…

http://www.motogp.com/en/news/2013/Nakamoto+sums+up+Repsol+Honda+test+p…

MotoGP
Sepang, Malaysia
Honda

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting MotoMatters.com. You can help by either taking out a subscription, supporting us on Patreon, by making a donation, or contributing via our GoFundMe page. You can find out more about subscribing to MotoMatters.com here.

↑Back to top

Comments

Nakamoto is right! He is a representative of Honda, and his only job is to make sure that Honda wins. Why would he care about anything else? Oh, and what's wrong with that? There are other people who are responsible and who are thinking about the show. Organizers?

If there's no entertainment factor in the series, no one will watch. If no one watches, then there is no income, either from ticket sales, TV rights or advertising. If there is no income, the series will be abandoned, and there will be no more MotoGP. If there is no MotoGP, Nakamoto gets to sit in his office in Japan all day, instead of flying around the world to watch racing motorcycles.

>>If there's no entertainment factor in the series, no one will watch. If no one watches, then there is no income, either from ticket sales, TV rights or advertising.

Funny how racing existed for a long time not being concerned about any of the items you listed and the fans watched anyway. The change that happened was the desire to put big dollars into Dorna's pocket. CE saw how Bernie became a billionaire off of F1 and wants to do the same. Except CE is not BE and MotoGP is not F1.

Nakamoto works for Honda Motor Corporation whose job it is to make and sell motorcycles. He does not care about flying around the world, he cares about beating his competitors on the track. Dorna is the one trying to change MotoGP into a moneymaker for themselves by playing the financial game.

Its only been in the past few years (the same period that Dorna has been funding large debt interest payments with its income) that the whole concept of 'the show' started. Previously winners were lauded as winners, not as people who spoil 'the show' because they won by too much. Motorcycle fans were content to watch either a close race or a runaway race because we like to watch racing and motorcycles. Each type of race has its points to enjoy. The problem happens when you try to make a niche market sport into a mass market sport and are worried about people who don't really care about motorcycling and only want 1hr of TV entertainment. He will end up changing the sport so much that any of its special aspects will just fade away and true fans will be replaced by the ADD generation.

Chris
http://moto2-usa.blogspot.com/

The sport did exist before the show. But then, the riders were racing cheap, mildly tuned production racers, often barely modified street bikes. Rider safety was non-existent - well, they had hay bales - and conditions for riders were pretty dismal. Most riders drove their vans themselves to the races, worked on their own bikes, and often slept in their vans at night. Factory riders were paid well - some could even afford sports cars, though at least one world champion was quickly reduced to penury after stopping racing. The events pulled in large crowds because spectator entrance was cheap.

The shift to entertainment had little to do with Dorna, but was part of a wider shift in all of sports, which came in the 1970s and 80s. With the growth of TV came the need for more entertainment, and sports were an easy target. Every sport - football (on both sides of the Atlantic), baseball, cycling, racing of every variety, even the 'noble' sport of athletics - became more and more professional, with athletes, team bosses, even the media themselves demanding higher and higher rewards for their roles in the sport, which had by then become pure entertainment.

Dorna jumped on the bandwagon, but they didn't start the bandwagon moving. It was already well underway. Welcome to the society of the spectacle.

>>But then, the riders were racing cheap, mildly tuned production racers, often barely modified street bikes.

Maybe the grid fillers were but the front guys were not. And the 90s were chock full of factory moolah and the 990s were all about money yet were years of great racing with many fewer rules than there currently are. Instead of planing ahead in years of plenty asses were sat on and now we reap the results.

>>Dorna jumped on the bandwagon, but they didn't start the bandwagon moving.

Like my mom always asked: if everyone went and jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

>>Welcome to the society of the spectacle.

Its not the society of the spectacle, its the society of mediocrity. If anyone is too good they need to be handicapped so that the others can compete. Its a sad direction to go.

Chris
http://moto2-usa.blogspot.com/

I agree with much of what you are saying, but I think you are misattributing the problems of the series. The series was not chock full of factory moolah, it was chock full of tobacco moolah. The tobacco moolah started after TV advertising was banned, and racing was the only place where tobacco products could be promoted. It was an end run around tobacco advertising legislation, and it was inevitable this route would be cut off.

The tobacco companies were of course only interested because the racing provided fantastic entertainment, and the entertainment was making for strong TV audiences. Good coverage of racing meant exposure for their products.

The entertainment was provided, as you say, by years of racing with far fewer regulations than we have now. There were fewer regulations because the racing was much cheaper (and heavily subsidized by tobacco sponsorship), because electronics had not started to play such a dominant role. The rot started when one manufacturer moved to have the two-strokes killed off, because they were 'not relevant to road bikes' - that's what WSBK is for, but never mind - and we started with four strokes. With four strokes came fuel injection, with fuel injection came digital control over power delivery, with digital control over power delivery came exponentially increasing costs.

I say we go back to racing two strokes. It would both cut costs and increase the entertainment value at a stroke.

It is also a fallacy to believe that this is the first time rules have been introduced to cut costs. It first happened in the '60s, restricting numbers of cylinders and gears as spending threatened to spiral out of control. Then again in the 70's, and it went completely barking once the four strokes were introduced. What is striking is that the most astonishing and admired racing motorcycles are all products of the era just prior to cost cuts: the Moto Guzzi V8, Honda's RC166 6 cylinder, Suzuki's 4-cylinder 250, Suzuki's 50cc racer with 14 gears, the Honda RC211V V5. Fantastic bikes all.

>>I agree with much of what you are saying, but I think you are misattributing the problems of the series.

I think the problem with the series is that it is not being managed to its size and potential. All of the growth proposals for the sport should come from the top and the lack of them is due to a lack of planning from the top. Don't we want to enter new expanding markets with large numbers of potential viewers? And where was Dorna looking at for a new track 2 years from now? Wales. Please. Have we heard of any initiatives for growth? No. We have an exciting sport with high technology some colorful some boring riders, worldwide venues, etc, yet can't make a plan that attracts sponsorship. All the focus is on cutting costs and slowing down the fast guys, why would any sponsor enter a sport where the winners are vilified? Whose failure is the failure of selling the sport? In my opinion not the teams or riders.

>>The series was not chock full of factory moolah, it was chock full of tobacco moolah.

The sponsorship money from the sponsoring companies still paled to what the factories were spending to keep the effort going, just like today. And tobacco ads were banned years ago yet we're still here suffering withdrawal. You'd think someone would make a plan to move past it in the early 2000s.

>>with digital control over power delivery came exponentially increasing costs.

This is not true. As several team owners in both the WSB and BSB paddock have recently said the electronics are not the main expense, it is the travel costs and hospitality trucks. The tuners and engine rebuilders of yesteryear are now laptop jockies but the head count is the same. 4 strokes are expensive because they are 4 strokes with a lot of parts spinning at very high rpms, not because they have electonic control units. In fact the electronic control units likely make engine development cheaper. You can significantly change the character of an engine with only a map switch. However developing and manufacturing an 18000rpm engine with pneumatic valves that has to last 2000km between services is extremely expensive and technically difficult . Just ask Suzuki. The special surface finishes and coatings alone inside a GP engine likely cost as much as an entire WSB bike. And that is not a problem because they will be inside our street engines 5 years form now.

>>I say we go back to racing two strokes. It would both cut costs and increase the entertainment value at a stroke.

Why specify an engine type? Give an energy limit and let them go at it. A turbo 800cc V2 could cheaply (comparatively) produce the power of a 1000cc v4 with less weight and greater efficiency. Or a rotary. Or a diesel. If you allow innovation then sponsors will come. With nearly a spec bike sponsors don't see any reason to attach their identity to a team. With teams bringing something new to the table that situation changes. I don't want to cut costs, I want to increase sponsorship. Yes, difficult but even harder to do when you are trimming back your offering.

>>What is striking is that the most astonishing and admired racing motorcycles are all products of the era just prior to cost cuts: the Moto Guzzi V8, Honda's RC166 6 cylinder, Suzuki's 4-cylinder 250, Suzuki's 50cc racer with 14 gears, the Honda RC211V V5. Fantastic bikes all.

Machines like that create long term fans. Machines like CRTs that are being assembled in the pits on race day don't. Yet last year the CRT was the future of MotoGP. Now it is looking to die an early death in 2014. What sponsor could take this seriously?

Chris
http://moto2-usa.blogspot.com/

Fascinating, both sides. I have but a couple of thoughts to add to this:

- MotoGP and WSBK are no longer just about making money for Esperanto and Dorna. It's about delivering a return on investment for massive stakeholders, the Canadian pension plan being an example. What they demand, essentially, is a hyper-focus on entertainment, every second that the races are on TV. More "excitement" = more viewers = more television revenue = more ROI for investors. So whatever makes the races more "exciting" is no longer just desirable, but financially mandatory. Dumb down bikes, impose minimum bike/rider weights, spec tires, etc. - it helps to see these not as sporting decisions as much as they are economic ones.

No one objects to a close race. But motorcycle fans, especially, I feel, object to manufactured and stage-managed competition, which is what the economics of investor-driven sports entertainment programming dictate.

And again, you risk losing the core audience by watering down the sport into something that the core doesn't recognize - and the mainstream still doesn't care about. Rossi, Sheene, those are/were cults of personality. They aren't about motorcycle racing, and it was/is a mistake to confuse their personal fame with public acceptance of the sport. Soccer in the U.S. learned this with the Beckham debacle. I think Dorna's investors might be in the same boat as those who thought bringing Beckham to the U.S. would make soccer as popular here as it is elsewhere. They're buying, in real estate terms, at the height of the Rossi bubble, ignoring the relative underlying weakness of the sport - which serves merely as platform for the personalities.

- Just for the sake of argument, if we were to go back to two-strokes, what makes anyone think the racing would be better? Wouldn't Honda simply make a couple of uber-bitchin' bikes and keep them for the Repsol squad, just like they do now? Haven't well-heeled factories with big sponsors always limited access to the A-list stuff, and paid the best riders in the world to put as much space as possible between them and the rest of the pack? And when it comes to a 200-hp 500cc two-stroke, wouldn't electronics be even MORE important?

I'll leave it at this. I was watching a review of the 1984 500cc GP season a couple nights ago. They showed Lawson winning race after race, and they showed the scene where he crosses the line and takes the checkered flag. For four races in a row, second place is nowhere in sight when Lawson crosses the line.

Close racing is anathema to racers and racing teams. You can try to up the entertainment value, but when you are the gladiator in the arena, you are - by the nature of the activity - trying to make the contest as dull as possible by clearing off into the distance!

Its only been in the past few years (the same period that Dorna has been funding large debt interest payments with its income) that the whole concept of 'the show' started.

Bridgepoint purchased 75% of MotoGP in 2006. When they bought MotoGP, it was a sport; therefore, it was naturally entertaining. After the MSMA reduced displacement by 20% and reduced fuel capacity from 22L to 21L, the show begin to fade away, and the fans were not nearly as interested or intrigued. The sport began to die as well b/c the riders were less and less influential in the results, as the engineers seized more control of the bikes.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the fuel regulations are directly to blame for the implosion of the tire war. Braking turns stored energy into heat. In an energy limited formula, anything the teams can do to reduce time on the brakes is gold. This performance paradigm was an about face from the 24L-990 era and 500cc era when the riders tried to spend as little time on the side of the tire as possible. A series of rule changes and meetings during the 2006 and 2007 failed to produce a workable solution to the disruptive new fuel capacity limits. The tire manufacturers failed to make the sport work, and Dorna imposed a control tire.

Furthermore, 4-stroke racing has a simple age-old problem. High displacement makes horsepower affordable, but top speed is generally out of control. Small displacement controls horsepower quite well, but the engine speeds are cost prohibitive. The MSMA did not successfully address the 4-stroke problem in 2007, and they still haven't addressed the problem today. We are stuck with Dorna's 1000cc-81mm-4cylinder engines b/c the MSMA can't ratify a counter-proposal that doesn't kill the competition or bankrupt the participants.

Dorna have enforced overly-simplistic solutions to these complex racing problems b/c the MSMA, tire companies, and component manufacturers have desecrated the sport. We're all waiting for them to extract their heads from their asses before the corporate board members realize what they've done. They had one of the most spectacular motorsports ever invented. They threw it out with the garbage b/c they were bored, and they wanted to use a young man's tragic passing as a political vehicle to push for technical changes.

The manufacturers (bikes, tires, components) cannot be trusted, and anyone who grabs a pitchfork and joins their mob is no friend of MotoGP. They need to stop crying about the realities of life, like TV deals and sports-entertainment, and they need to fix their shit.

>>Bridgepoint purchased 75% of MotoGP in 2006.

The same thing as purchasing a house at the peak of a housing bubble.

>>riders were less and less influential in the results, as the engineers seized more control of the bikes.

This is completely wrong. The 4 riders dominated because they were and still are the best 4 riders by a large margin. Dovi, Hayden, Edwards and Spies all had access to the factory equipment but didn't have any consistently better results than when they had satellite spec equipment.

>Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the fuel regulations are directly to blame for the implosion of the tire war.

So Michelin's inability to adapt their process from making narrow performance window tires at the last minute to making wide performance window tires well in advance had nothing to do with all of their big name riders defecting to BS leading to Michelin's subsequent refusal to supply only non-factory teams or bid for a spec tire contract?

>>The manufacturers (bikes, tires, components) cannot be trusted, and anyone who grabs a pitchfork and joins their mob is no friend of MotoGP. They need to stop crying about the realities of life, like TV deals and sports-entertainment.

It's Honda, its the MSMA, its the tire manufacturers, its Brembo, its Ohlins, it's everybody's fault except those in charge. Not a very compelling argument. Reality check: those people are not the ones complaining about the TV deals and sports-entertainment, that would be Dorna.

>>and they need to fix their shit.

Their business is to sell a product be it a motorcycle or brake caliper. To do this they develop technology that makes the bikes we purchase better. To me their shit is together. On the other hand, it is the job of Dorna to sell the series. That does not seem to be going too well.

Chris
http://moto2-usa.blogspot.com/

It's Honda, its the MSMA, its the tire manufacturers, its Brembo, its Ohlins, it's everybody's fault except those in charge.

You've been telling everyone under the sun that the entire series runs through the manufacturers. You're right. The MSMA had control of the rulebook for 10 years (2002-2011). By and large, the manufacturers still have a good deal of control over the rulebook and the sport. They can certainly make counter-proposals to Dorna's demands.

You've watched the MSMA unintentionally run MotoGP into the ground, by switching MotoGP from displacement-limited racing to fuel-capacity-limited racing. You've watched the new sanctioning method destabilize everything from tire supply to suspension components. Yet, after all of the problems caused by the MSMA's decisions, you've concluded that Dorna is responsible for it all.

We can infer from your posts that you've not been paying attention for 5-6 years, and you only realized the problems when Dorna pointed them out, at which point you killed the messenger.

Sink some money into these companies. You'll learn how unacceptable it is when they change format, lose control of the rulebook, and chase off many of the fans. The people who actually invest in these companies and media properties, don't have the luxury of blaming someone else, and that's precisely why Dorna seized control of the sport. Short of bankrupting MotoGP, the MSMA could not have done a worse job.

normgshamarone
10 years 1 month ago
Permalink

re: "The problem happens when you try to make a niche market sport into a mass market sport"

yup, like fitting a square peg into a round hole, it just won't go. the borg collective would declare any attempts as futile inside .00001 of a second. quick thinkers those borg.

"If there's no entertainment factor in the series, no one will watch. If no one watches, then there is no income, either from ticket sales, TV rights or advertising. If there is no income, the series will be abandoned, and there will be no more MotoGP. If there is no MotoGP, Nakamoto gets to sit in his office in Japan all day, instead of flying around the world to watch racing motorcycles."

David, with all due respect, I think you're wrong! I don't think that the factory should worry about the show, that's not their job, everybody knows what their job is, and everybody know what is the job of the series organizer!

Yes, I agree with you. I don't think that Dorna is doing a good job but that's totally different subject. This whole debate started because Nakamoto said that he is not interested in the show, and I do not see a problem with that. Honda's job is to win and sell, just like any other factory, organizers should worry about entertainment and other things.

The MSMA are partners in this, they have a say over the rules. Every time Dorna proposes a rule to help improve the entertainment aspect, the MSMA reject it. Now, clearly, Dorna are falling short in promoting the sport. But the MSMA have to realize that if they want to retain a say in the sport, they need to consider the entertainment aspect.

Nakamoto is right. HRC isn't here for the show, they are here for the bikes ..... and the show comes along for the ride.

Casey Stoner said it well in his disenfranchisement from the sport when he said,

since when did racing motorbikes be reduced to riders weeing in Portaloos?

Becareful what show is being promoted. It is clear the Rossi show isn't sustainable and went into exile for two years. Dorna is a one trick pony.

Given the choice between a CRT machine and a Honda production racer (or Yamaha leased engine in a self-built chassis), the teams will go for the Honda or Yamaha every time. There may be just a couple of CRT bikes (probably Aprilias) left on the grid from 2014 onwards.

As long as Dorna still allows them on the track, that is. There will always be teams interested in developing their own machine. Where teams like Aspar and Gresini might forgo the CRT option, I doubt many CRT teams have a Million Euros just to spend on one motorcycle.

The real question is how much Yamaha are going to want for their engine and electronics package. That could be the real way forward for MotoGP, prototype engines. Every manufacture should have to sell a basic copy of whatever engine they are currently using to any team on the grid for a fixed cost across the board. I know it'll be a nightmare to get this all organized, but if you could get the manufactures to play ball, then game on.

That's the way it should be. Prototype engines in all sorts of different chassis configurations. Way more manufactures would jump onboard if all they had to provide was an engine package. This would also open the door for companies like FTR, and Suter to flourish, along with the chance of seeing a lot more bikes on the grid.

A patent, in most regimes, is an exchange between the public and the private. The private entity gives up (in theory) all the information required to understand how their idea works and can be implemented to the public. In return, the public (through the state or crown or whatever) grant the private entity a guaranteed, limited monopoly over the use of the idea.

So there's no risk of losing patented technology.

Secret technology, that hasn't been patented, on the other hand, sure...

normgshamarone
10 years 1 month ago
Permalink

re: "will take the place of the CRT machines from 2014 onwards??"

can't polish a turd. our fathers and grandfathers were right. can't speak for anybody else, but i was listening to mine.

Ruined by extremely tight engine rebuild rules.

I actually have no idea why any team would buy a second rate 'Production racer' Honda for 1 Million Euro. It will still be incapable of getting anywhere near the podium. I think long term the CRT bikes offer a better hope of being competitive if you were to spend a million Euro building the bike with a few more years development.

Yep, MotoGP is more about sponsorship and brands than most people think. So if you're mission is to parade a set of sparkly decals around the track, and you're never going to win anyway, why spend a million bucks doing it?

Another million Euro will not see Yamaha/Honda pneumatic valve train filter down to the public. Desmo valve gear on the other hand....? HRC's quasi prototype. Some kind of Stranger this RC213VRR. Somewhere between prototype and CRT . Not quite ART, not quite anything. Grappa. VRR = Very Race Replica. Looks like it,but won't do it.

David, I would guess that the production racer and the V4 for WSB were built during the same development period! Any news on the V4? specs? price? When will the public see that machine deemed the 'game-changer' for World Superbikes in 2014? With all the HRC involvement for 2013 WSB, how will that data transfer over to the new machine? I know J.Rea can't wait to get his hands on a new platform after all these years of waiting! Honda is finally coming good it seems...

no pneumatics, no kwik-box, no hrc software......given the rubbish obsolete machinery honda has always & deliberately given most (most i said) satellite riders over the years, these proddy racers will be slow slow SLOW. i agree that a developed crt would be preferable.

I would have to say it is. Everything on the bike that matters (frame, motor, electronics) are Aprilia. I would even go further and say the Aspar team are a thinly veiled Aprilia factory Moto GP effort. How else can you explain the nearly 2 second (2012 numbers) per lap advantage the two Aspar riders enjoyed over rival CRT's nearly every outing? I predict one of the ART's gets claimed this year by Ducati. They're just too good and will get even better this year.

They are gonna have to significantly update their engine if they want to play next year! One thing they have going for them is the fact that they are already doing Chassis R&D with their CRT teams! Just make a powerful motor and slip it into what is a pretty nimble chassis according to Aleix Espargaro and RDP, and it will be a potent combination to challenge the Honda proddie racer.

The last number i heard quoted was 800,000 euros for leased Yamaha engines. At that price i think for all potential customers the production Honda would be the first priority, because at the end of the year you get a chassis AND an engine that can be updated next year with pneumatic valves system for 500,000 euros.

With 800,000 euros for the lease, the Yamaha engines better be good! Even with a home built chassis the Yamaha ought to be expensive than the Honda.

On a side note, I really would like to see Kalex build a chasis for the Yamaha engines! They have carefully not got themselves involved in the CRT business knowing that its a losing proposition both money and reputation wise.

Now with a more potent engine i suppose they can build a very good bike given their track record in moto2.

I am appreciative of the great love we all share for MotoGP, racing, and motorbikes. So many dynamics ebbing and flowing. The glory of the 990's, Rossi's beautiful art of racecraft and joyful presence in the moment. An economy flush w dough. Tobacco money.
Rossi domination and runaway wins. Electronic rider aids. Watching electronics eat Suzuki riders and spit them down the road. Michelin/bridgestone/dunlop shodding over determining race outcomes. Assen reconfiguration. F1 style new tracks.
Yamaha's transformation with Rossi, Stoner/Ducati/Bridgestone birthing a miracle. A ton of detailed rule changes. 800cc motors and a global economic recession of huge proportions. LOTS of electronics and rider aids, processional parade races w few overtakes or visual interest for the masses.
Lean angles, elbows, Stoner at 1000 frames per second. Gyroscoping micro cameras with amazing onboard footage. MotoGp.com providing mediocre user friendliness and accessibility. Losing Marco. Rossi and Ducati floundering. Lorenzo precision consistency as beauty to behold, like the sustained resonance of a lone string instrument. Stoner brings presence with the Honda and a clear title favorite. Stoner's footing crumbles away revealing a young man tired and discouraged.
What a wonderful and dramatic play of man, machine, terrain, and flawed organization. Just when it seems it is breaking my heart...CRT, goodbye Stoner, # of engine limits et al...along comes Circuit Of The Americas, glorious promise of Marquez, returning joy in riding with Rossi, and on and on it goes.
My point? Just like life itself, beautiful and disappointing, wax and wane. To love it is to be wonderfully enriched and heavy hearted both. In the spirit of non-duality there is still simple common ground we find ourselves upon. Costs must come down. The economy will arise. CRT's suck. 3 more manufacturers in the game is preferable. I may NEVER appreciate fuel limits and # of engines per year restrictions. I LOVE cornering my 2007 CBR600rr and feel its heart ablaze w MotoGP technology. Round and round the sport goes, and my love for it flourishes.

I find it funny how the CRT concept of unique racing bikes (except the ART) with engines based on production models is loathed by those who say they understand "true" prototype racing and yet, those very same people love the idea of mass-produce racing machines each one exactly the same as the next.

side note: is the phrase "those very same people", right? is it okay to use "those" (plural) and people?

Let's face it, the rules of MotoGP (including CRT) are just plain stupid.

All this cost of a seamless gearbox, because a dual clutch is banned.
Well, just allow a dual clutch. 2x clutches is hardly costly or ONLY allow conventional gearboxes - once everyone his the same, there is no advantage.

All this cost for exotic electronics because of finicky tyres.
Well, just supply less finicky tyres.

All this cost for Pneumatic valves for high revs and reliability.
Well, just reduce the max rev limit and allow the valves to be serviceable item - there is no need for Pneumatic valves for road use, so no R&D value.

All this cost for Carbon brake discs.
Well, just use iron or just specify a minimum mass for components.

Fact is, Moto2 times are not that far away from MotoGP; it certainly doesn't effect the show; and Moto2 has great racing with a 140hp(ish) production motor and limited (affordable) technology.

While I agree completely with your post, when Ezpeleta threatened to impose a spec ECU and a rev limit, the factories threatened to leave the series. Rev limits were unacceptable to Ducati, and Honda were very unhappy with them, only willing to accept a rev limit so high as to make it an irrelevance. Factories want the durability rules - in fact, the factories asked for the engine allocation to be reduced from 6 to 5 engines this season.

High costs are there for a reason. They are there to form a barrier to entry for any new factories considering entering the series.

Maybe Prototypes have to die....With a grid of just 12x Prototypes bikes, it is effectively dead. Really, there are only 5x competitive bikes (HRC & Eneos Yamaha) on the grid.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology as the next crusty beard, however I can clearly see the success of Moto2, Moto3 and WSS.

HRC and Yamaha don't even extend the courtesy to Dorna, the championship or the fans of providing competitive satellite bikes. How hard can that be? We're only talking 4x more bikes.

So the logical extension of the Dorna takeover has to be;
1. kill off the (irrelevant) prototypes in MotoGP
2a. promote +WSBK to MotoGP
2b. ..OR.. promote a +WSS/Moto2 hybrid to MotoGP
3. promote Superstock to WSBK

Of the available options/series, it is the MotoGP Prototypes that are the odd one out.

OK, so we could lose HRC, but we could gain much more.

normgshamarone
10 years 1 month ago
Permalink

re: "Maybe Prototypes have to die"

not if motorcycling works together rather than competing. and certainly not with one person (with ulterior motives) is allowed to control it all.

re: "I can clearly see the success of Moto2"

can you...? success for who...? suzuki...? triumph...? aprilia and their once durable, but now lost revenue stream...?

re: "OK, so we could lose HRC, but we could gain much more."

well there goes your moto2 success. what niavely makes you think honda will continue to supply engines to the "honda cup" if HRC is blocked from doing their thing...?

Very interesting comments from all. Here's what I would like to see, though I have no proof that it would work ie-make piles o' euros for the investors/owners of DORNA.
1. Change WSBK to rules like Superstock with a serious number of machines at a set price available to homologate your machine to be raced. The factories could make anything they wanted (traction control, electronic rider aids of all types) as long as they made enough of 'em at a set cost. How much benefit to the consumer would THAT be? Must be sold in dealerships with serial numbers and be totally road legal in most countries. A true battle of manufacturers should be the result.
2. Change MOTOGP to allow pretty much anything, including gazillion euro prototypes - BUT with spec ECU's. NO traction controls or other electronic rider aids. All the manufacturers will bring a set number of engines beyond what their teams use. Lottery-type numbers will be given to teams using chassis with mounting points suitable for these engines, which will be drawn by lot before practice begins, INCLUDING those installed in the factory-supported team bikes. Engines will be yanked out and returned to the factory after each event with new lottery numbers drawn for each outing. Same rules apply for test days. Steel brakes required, no carbon, etc.
The manufactures might hate MOTOGP, as too much would be in the hands of the RIDERS...but so what? MOTOGP competitors could take those easily available bikes from the WSBK series and change 'em to MOTOGP spec and it would still be the best rider winning. Would a guy like Lorenzo lap faster or slower on a bike produced for WSBK but modified to MOTPGP spec vs a pretty decent guy on a true WSBK machine? How 'bout the prototype vs the WSBK? I like to think this idea would provide the manufacturer's a series (WSBK) to showcase their technology while offering a true RIDER's class at the other level (MOTOGP) and who cares if the factories don't want to play in MOTOGP...or even WSBK? What they have now is a mess that is likely unsatisfactory to the investors as well as MSMA...try something different!