MotoGP's Big Problem: Not Enough Cheats Making The Rules

When the Grand Prix Commission met at Brno to officially confirm the replacement of the 125cc class - an 81mm 250cc four-stroke single, provisionally being named Moto3 - it was clear that keeping costs down was right at the top of their agenda. Instead of a spec engine as used in Moto2, the proposal included measures to prevent a horsepower war driving spending on the engines out of control, by requiring that any manufacturer wanting to produce engines for the class must sell the engines for a maximum of 10,000 euros and be prepared to supply at least 15 riders with bikes.

The good news in that announcement is that the Grand Prix Commission is thinking seriously about how to prevent the class once again being dominated by a single manufacturer charging monopoly prices to selected teams for the best bikes. That, at least, is progress, as so many of the recent rule changes have been so clearly open to manipulation, and a first step has been taken to prevent that. The bad news is that as they stand, the suggested solutions are so woefully inadequate for their intended aim that they more likely to encourage manipulation rather than reduce it.

The requirement to supply at least 15 riders sounds very plausible, but just a few seconds' thought shows it to be impossible to police. With 125 grids usually between 28 and 36, similar numbers of riders might be expected for Moto3. If there are 3 manufacturers or more involved in the new class, then the willingness to supply 15 riders becomes a simple mathematical impossibility, and the GP Commission is once again left to judge manufacturers on their intent, rather than their actions. There is good reason to believe that there will be many more than three manufacturers wishing to supply engines to the Moto3 grid: I have personally been approached by two separate manufacturers currently working on a Moto3 engine, and I know of at least one other project currently underway. And these are new projects being set up by manufacturers not involved in MotoGP at the moment: As the current crop of Japanese manufacturers all already have experience building 250cc single-cylinder four-stroke motocross engines, there is every reason to believe that at least one, and probably two or three, will also start building a Moto3 engine.

With the requirement now cut to merely the "willingness" to supply 15 riders, the reality being that some manufacturers will only be able to supply a handful of riders at the very most, the regulation becomes completely unenforceable. The only way of ensuring that a manufacturer will supply 15 riders is by forcing the teams to buy the engines, but without turning Moto3 into another spec engine class like Moto2, this is simply impossible.

Then there's the price. The proposals state the following with respect to cost: "Each engine should last for 3 races minimum and cost not more than 10,000 euros (final cost will be announced)." For a start, 10,000 euros is almost certainly far too little for a high-performance engine capable of matching the performance of a 125c two-stroke. Manufacturers examining the project have said that just the cost of a cylinder head, crankshaft assembly and connecting rod would put the price in the region of 8,000 euros, and that's without crankcases, piston, oil and water pumps, cassette gearbox or any of the other bits and pieces that go towards making a four-stroke engine. A more realistic price, manufacturers say, would be closer to 30,000 euros rather than 10,000.

But whatever the price agreed in the rules, there is still a loophole big enough to drive a coach and horses through. Peter Clifford, former team manager of WCM and currently running the Red Bull Rookies Cup, suggested to me that his first step would be to sell the engines in separate kits. One basic engine costing around 10,000 euros, kicking out a respectable but hardly earth-shattering 50hp, to comply with the rules as set out in the proposal. Then, Clifford suggested, he would would sell a performance kit separately, consisting of toughened crank, lighter rod, slipper piston, heavily reworked head with lighter valves etc etc. This kit would be sold for whatever the market would bear, nearer 100,000 than 10,000 euros, and would boost the power involved to something far more likely to beat the 125cc times. The engines would comply with the letter of the rules, but the spirit would be wide open to abuse once again.

Of course, some kind of claiming rule might be put in place, as has been suggested for the new 1000cc regulations due to come into force in 2012. But given the complete lack of progress on producing a set of rules for claiming engines for the CRT teams, the chances of such a rule being agreed upon before the start of the 2012 season for Moto3 seem very remote indeed.

And this, indeed, is the crux of the matter: In the (admittedly short) years I have know Peter Clifford, he has struck me as an entirely honorable man. Yet within a few hours of the rules being announced, that honorable man had already worked out a couple of ways of getting around the rules as they have currently been presented. Indeed, MotoGP's Technical Director Mike Webb explains that at the start of every season, the team managers drop by his office one by one and apologize for what they are about to inflict upon him, deliberately seeking out the boundaries of the rules as they stand. As we have discussed in depth here before, the more rules that are drawn up, the more loopholes there are to slip through. Rules merely produce cheating at an exponential rate.

For when drawing up the rules, the four bodies concerned - Dorna, the commercial rights holder; the FIM, as the international federation and sanctioning body; IRTA, representing the teams; and the MSMA, as the body representing the manufacturers - assume that the entrants to the class will all act in good faith. The history of racing (or of any professional sport) suggests the polar opposite, with teams, manufacturers, riders all being willing to cheat for as long as they feel they can get away with it. As soon as a rule is announced, the teams are already studying it to see where its weak points are, and how they can exploit that ambiguity to their advantage. While the Grand Prix Commission continues its (admirably) high-minded task of drawing up rules it believes are fair, the actual participants in the sport are already busy trying to cheat.

This, indeed, is the crux of the problem: The rules are drawn up by a group of men - and they are all men - who assume good faith on the part of the participants. The participants, on the other hand, immediately take those rules, and start picking them apart looking for a way of gaining an (unfair or not) advantage over their opponents. MotoGP's rules are drawn up by engineers, managers and politicians, and that leaves the door wide open to the connivers, the finaglers and the card sharps.

If the Grand Prix Commission is committed to cutting costs, the first thing it needs to do is to learn to think like the teams. It needs to hire forensic accountants, tax lawyers, insurance legal briefs, computer hackers and others who are used to picking apart sets of rules and finding the exceptions. It needs to take advice from people whose main aim in life is taking sets of rules apart and finding a way through without being noticed and without getting caught. It needs its own Black Hat panel, a group of poachers-turned-gamekeepers who can help keep the cheating in check. In short, it needs more cheats, to prevent the cheating from getting completely out of hand.

Alternately, the GP Commission needs to stop meeting every couple of races to introduce yet more rules. Once upon a time, rules changed once a decade or so, rather than several times a year, and the rulebook was infinitely slimmer than in its current incarnation. Going back to an open class consisting of a very small number of limitations, instead of a closed class consisting of a very large number of limitations, is simply impossible in the current political climate inside MotoGP. But if the Grand Prix Commission wants to keep introducing more rules, then they desperately need some help in drawing them up. Right now the Road Racing Technical Regulations keep on colliding with the law of unintended consequences. And the unintended consequences keep on winning.

Tweet Button: 

Back to top


Peter Clifford might be an honourable man, but he certainly doesn't have much of a track record in circumventing rules.

Eh? He got turfed out of MotoGP after one of his clever rule dodges. When has that ever happened to Honda, Yamaha, etc?

Clifford did not get turfed out of MotoGP because of a "clever rule dodge." He was turfed out as a result of political pressure applied on the FIM by the Flammini brothers. The WCM effort was finally rejected because the rulebook said that the bikes had to be "prototypes". But if the FIM had applied that rule across the board, then most of the bikes would have been taken off the grid. A "prototype" is almost impossible to define, but at its core lies a sense of uniqueness, a work in progress, a one-off. All those RC212Vs - especially the satellite bikes - are production racers, not prototypes. It's just that they weren't based on pre-existing engines.

Even the WCM's engine wasn't really based on a production R1. The only thing that the WCM used from the R1 it was based on were the engine mounting points, in other words, the holes that the mounting bolts went through. Everything else was designed and manufactured by Clifford and his engineers. But FGSport (as was) was worried that the WCM would set a precedent, and had the project killed, something they could only achieve because they had the then FIM president Francesco Zerbi on their side.

I understand you are trying to make a point about the rules in general- too many, not clear enough, easily maneuvered around and so on so I won't comment on that because I agree the simpler the better.

But with this Moto3 engine rule as an example, there just needs to be a few words added that say, the engine run on a race weekend needs to be available from said manufacturer for no more than XXXXX (whatever figure they come up with).

Not the engine purchased, the engine run during a race weekend.

IMHO, without seeing the actual rules in their attorney reviewed legalese it is tough to say whether there are gaps that will allow for cheating surreptitiously.

Anyway, this was a good article and I enjoyed reading it.

Why not just allow 250 Motocross production engines with approved modifications to enhance performance and reliability? Surely this would limit costs? If factories wish to market Moto3 kits they can do so at a price acceptable to the FIM and available in sufficient numbers for national championships. Teams could be free to modify only certain components, limiting expenditure.

Trying to make things over complicated just gets silly in my opinion.

I was just reading an article on regarding the reportedly slimy guy Apple have in charge of keeping porn and other unwanted applications out of the App Store. They suggest that it could be similar to the success of US President Franklin Roosevelt appointing a noted Wall Street scoundrel as the first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The question is, who is the cheat for the job and are they ready to take a steady paycheck in exchange for not taking bribes? By the sounds of it, any former crew chief would be well positioned to take on the roll. Or maybe just go with a professional firm and find Rossi and Capirossi's accountants.

For a "starter" class like this there should simply be a few high level rules.

1) Max 250cc's
2) Minimum weight = ???
3) Max horsepower = ???
4) Max torque = ???
5) Max RPM's = ???
6) Max age of rider = ??
7) Max number of cylinders = ?

At the conclusion of each race, the above can be verified on a dyno for the bike, and with a birth certificate for the podium finishers. Any attempt by a team (including all team members) to cheat on these rules will be given a two year exclusion from Moto3 racing.

The desired target costs of the motorcycle will directly be related to the ??? inserted above.

"Oh, it's my special rulebook hat," Muzzy countered, and he turned around and pulled it off a shelf behind his desk. He put it on and spun around in his desk chair so that he was facing me.

His grin while wearing the hat seemed as big as the moon.

The hat was actually a pair of plastic Mickey-Mouse ears that Muzzy had sourced from DisneyLand. To complete his "Rulebook Hat" he had placed an AMA decal over the Disney logo.

He refused to let me take a picture of him wearing it.

Power output from an engine can easily vary up to 10% due to ambient air temperature, humidity, elevation above sea level and many other factors.

Dyno'g every engine or even the top 10 after every race is not realistic.

You don't think it's realistic to dyno the podium finishers?

As opposed to the convoluted rules that now exist I think it's pretty simple.

Not kidding at all, don't think it's realistic. What other racing series on the planet do podium finishers engines get dyno'd after every race? None that I know of... and there are lots of good technical reasons this doesn't happen.

Have you ever run a dyno? Two pulls of the same engine on the same dyno, one pull right after the other won't give you the same exact results. It's a procedure that's fraught with problems when trying to compare results with such a fine line of pass or fail.

Plus the whole idea is akin to weighing a fighter AFTER the fight, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Wouldn't it be better to know beforehand it's a fair fight?

When watching the TV coverage for the Isle of Man recently, they did a short segment where they spoke about dynoing Superstock bikes. I think they dyno'd them all, but I could be wrong. They specifically mentioned that they wereb looking out for cheating.

The Canadian national series dynos every bike that finishes on the podium after the race. If the bike is over the prescribed limit, they get docked positions.

They've been doing this for several years now. Colin Fraser is the head guy of the Canadian series, formerly the fall guy for the AMA series during its transitional period the last 2 years...

4-stroke MX engines will simply not last on road race tracks. The sustained revs will have them blowing up left and right.

They should apply the same "engine supply" rule to Aprilia and that would solve the cost issue for the 125 class.

They could do pretty much what they did when they went from 125 twins to 125 singles.
- 250cc
- Single
- 81mm bore
- 6 speed gearbox
The End.

They'll have at least 5 years of multiple manufacturers before one of them dominates and we're back where we are now with Aprilia.

Regarding complicated rules, I wonder if their vision is being clouded by WSB. The WSB/WSS rule book is extremely complex but WSB has managed to maintain good racing and big grids by constantly tweaking it. At least until this year's WSS.

Dont you think that 10,000 is way over priced for a 250 single.. after they make the castings.. and have a cnc mill to make the crank and port the heads they should make a huge profit at 10,000 euro..
even a 20,000 Euro eninge should last all bloody year. with just ring and pistion and valve changes

But without a way to limit how the engine is built, there's no limit to the cost.

This job seems like much more the field for a Dorna liason with manufacturing experience.

It's just a shame that DI two-strokes won't get a chance.

What are the costs of the current 125 class David? And why is there such a rush or need to change? The 125 class is still well subscribed and the current class leaders still make and sell (lots) of small capacity 2 strokes in their main markets.

And is that e10,000 for the engine that lasts 3 races or is it for the season? Otherwise that's 60,000 jut in engines for one rider for one team, let alone chassis costs. I know the 125's aren't cheap, but how do they compare?

pay for performance has been the standard game plan since the guy that built the 2nd motor vehicle. otherwise there is no incentive for any manufacturer, large or small, to go through all this testing and effort to make things better than the next guy.

from cell phone contracts to consumer electronics to your street car or bike and the place you live in, you pay more, you get more. why all of a sudden this effort to make racing different? unless dorna has done a detailed analysis on costs for designing, testing, manufacturing, and profit for a running company, which i highly doubt, how can they just throw a number like $10k and 3 races?

how will they police the 15 team minimum capability? what about a team that wants to make a complete bike, engine and chassis? do they have to become a manufacturer and are not allowed to be a R&D effort making one-off bits? in essence they are almost outlawing a WCM-type effort. i'm sure PC would agree that it was hard enough to keep a single race team running, let having to show the capability to supply 8-15 other riders!

the dorna/msma/fim triumvirate has been able to muddy the rules enough with merely technical changes. if they also go for cost control without well researched positions then behind-the-scene dealings with factories will be the norm because 10K for a low production race engine is not much money at all and all these small mfgrs just will not be able to compete. especially if the big 4 will use their new found 81mm knowledge to build gp-level prototype engines.


Regarding the problem with manufacturers being able or willing to supply 15 riders here's my solution...

A manufacturer wishing to enter the series must supply Dorna with the requisite amount of engines for 15 riders for the whole season. This would mean that the manufacturers would have to supply all the engines in order to honour their contract for series entry regardless of if any or all of them were used during the year.

For 18 races with the engine needing to do at least 3 races that is six engines per rider for the season so they must supply 90 engines.

The engines are then scrutineered and sealed by the FIM.

The teams then purchase their choice of engine from Dorna for 10,000 euros per engine, or whatever figure is finally agreed.

900000 euro for the season is a rather small cost for a manufacturer to invest, as is 60,000 for a team to buy its engines for the entire year.

I suppose there could also be clauses in the rules regarding engine upgrades because of reliability issues or maybe teams changing their choice of engine, so the 90 engines could be supplied in batches of 30 throughout the year.

Anyway, good article and an enjoyable read.

Sounds like a good concept to me. You could even take the claiming or cost control rules to the next level by requiring the manufacturers to provide blueprints and schematics for Moto3 engines. This basically assures, that widely known production technology is about the only thing that goes into the engines. Plus it would give the techies something to look at and discuss. Anytime the manufacturers sell an engine to the public, they are releasing the blueprints into the public domain so requiring them to release Moto3 blueprints is basically forcing the manufacturers to use production relevant technology or widely known race modifications.

If the info is in the public domain it might entice the manufacturers to act as vendors at the races as well. Not necessarily selling things, but setting up vendor booths and having engine build and tear down demonstrations and such.

Imagine if Apple showed everyone a new Ipod and then they refused to tell anyone how it worked, or what apps it had, or what the technology looked like on the inside. This is basically the way racing works. It's inaccessible to everyone which is a horrid way to attract enthusiasts or inspire young people. Opening things up demystifies the sport a little bit, but it also causes the manufacturers to engage the fans like vendors rather than shutting them out and refusing to let them walk the paddock and so on. How many people would gather around an HRC truck to watch the guys from Aalst tear down and rebuild engines as a public demo. Imo, they'd have to install stadium seating! :-)

Probably not appropriate for MotoGP, but I think it would be awesome for the lower classes. It would control development costs as well, imo. Who wants to pay tens of millions to do the donkey work if everyone is going to get access to your stuff? The lower classes would theoretically evolve at roughly the same rate as the production market. The technology be higher b/c of the price point, but the obsession space-age unobtanium and fast-paced (read: unsustainable) race-only developments would theoretically be brought to a halt.

Exactly you have hit the nail right on the head.

What is to stop a manufacturer like Honda, KTM or Aprillia producing a moto3 engine and selling it for 10000 euros when in actual fact it could be worth something like ten times that in terms of materials, development, manhours etc etc..

Therein lies the problem of the cost capping rules. The reason manufacturers go racing is because they want to advertise that their products, engineering skill, and technical expertise is greater than their rivals because this translates into marketing and sales.

The concept is called a loss leader. By dominating with a vastly superior and costly engine the marketing kudos would far outweigh the material loss of selling them for 10,000 euros in the first instance, so we could quite easily end up with another Aprillia, Ducati or Honda cup

It's why F1 abandoned its cost cap because it would require rigorous financial audit of ALL of a companies assets and operations to determine a true unit cost for the engine they were saying cost 10,000 euro. Totally unfeasible.

The only sure way of cost capping is to use a contracted spec engine like in moto2. And I don't like that idea in a world championship series, the rules should remain free and open in a world championship with the best riders in the world on the best bikes in the world.

I don't think that F1 have abandoned their cost cap, it's still a work in progress.

Neither Dorna or the FIM care about what it costs to build and supply and engine. They are concerned about a teams ability to fund their racing for a year. They have determined that in their new system the engines will have a cost cap and they are enforcing this maximum purchase price. If it costs the manufacturer 30,000 they don't care.

The FIA and FOM wanted to introduce costs caps into F1 to remove the manufacturers dominance over the success or otherwise of a series. In Moto2, Yamaha left and Honda downgraded their effort, leaving Aprilia the dominant player. It meant that Dorna were hostage to one company for the success (or otherwise) of an entire race series. Not a good position to be in.

It is the same with Motogp. Everyone knows that if Suzuki were to pull out next year, the current depleted grid would look even worse. And if either Ducati, Yamaha or Honda decided to change their own plans, the entire series could become defunct. The easiest way to reduce or remove the manufacturers from this level of control is to change the rules to open the series up to more private (even if well funded) teams who are not dependant on a particular engine supplier. Just as they have done in F1 with the new Cosworth lump and in Moto2 with the current Honda engine (which could be changed to any make).

And with the MSMA largely in the thrall of Honda and both the 125 and 250 classes dominated by Aprilia and Derbi, the reasoning for the rule changes become quite transparent (at least to my eyes).

I wish the FIM would learn a thing or two from the FIA. As much as I dislike the organization, they have created rules that work.

Examine Super 2000 for instance. It's 2.0L engines that are rev limited to 8500rpm. Furthermore, the rulebook is full of materials restrictions for material and piston material etc etc etc. They even limit things like compression to regulate the power output.

Everything is homologated so the governing body has tons of lead time to pick apart the new engines to see if everything is kosher. They catalog every part. The examine the major performance criteria like compression piston design, valve design, and the friction fighting stuff like bearings, cylinder coatings, and piston rings. Once it's been homologated, that's it. No changes. If they tear down a car after a race and it doesn't pass the tech inspection, the driver is DSQ.

Furthermore, homologation allows them months/years of lead time. If a competitor discovers an "aluminum" compound that skirts the rules, the FIA issue technical bulletins to everyone concerned that aluminum alloy [insert name] cannot be outlawed according to the current rulebook. What did the "rulebreakers" gain? Nothing. Everyone will have it ready and shortly thereafter it will be explicitly banned.

Homologation is a very labor/tech intensive process, but it is the only way to do modern scrutineering. If they are going to write lots of rules, they have to be enforced in new ways. Homologation is the next step. Every legitimate car series wort it's salt (even F1) uses homologation to control the equipment while regulating crash safety.

The FIM need to join the 21st century. If you let teams build a space shuttle, they will build a space shuttle. No one can afford a space race so they need to let go of the quaint notion that a rulebook can sufficiently police modern motorsports. Homologation is a must, imo.

If they homologate engines they can be proactive by seeing how people cheat before they cheat and they can more accurately control costs and performance by regulating revs, compression, and materials. The current rulebook paradigm is what has caused this 81mm single cylinder nonsense. If they homologate, they can allow many different engine configs like it' the 1960s. Anyone want to see an RC161? Guess what? Honda already have a 4-cylinder 250 in their engine line up.

I think this further illustrates the need for the FIM to ask themselves why they go racing and why they have two leagues that allow extreme development modifications.

If homologation were a path that Moto3 wanted to go down, off-the-shelf 250 4 stroke production engines that are sealed and completely unmodified would be the easiest way to go. 10,000 Euro? Hell try maybe 3,000 Euro? They may pump out less than 50 HP after purpose-built exhausts and electrical tweaks, but being a bit down on the lap times hasn't hurt the competition in Moto2. If it turns into a one engine make league then it may put pressure on some companies to make better engines but even if they didn't it's a cost effective solution that allows for stability in the league and maybe consistency with leagues around the world. Engines could be recycled and core charges discounted. Factories get all the post-mortem RnD samples they could handle and probably make a few shekels while they're at it.

I haven't raced a 250 single 4-stroke, but I've seen info from what the 450 MX engine based folks have done.

Lots of work on the engines to make 'em last.

The 250 MX motors are mostly about 76mm bore.
And MX has the throttle closed a lot more.

It isn't long since a Honda 125 cost much less than 10,000 Euros for the complete bike!
Are we being dragged into the world of spiraling costs in an effort to give the series credence and status and to limit entrants who are not deemed worthy by the ruling elite?
Get this class right and it may be something that can be rolled out to the larger capacity classes, the answers are all staring everyone in the face, it's just a case of having the will to go with it!

what is wrong with doing the typical, old-fashioned 'tender' system here & getting all intended engine manufacturers to build & submit their 'pinnacle' product & then have a 'massive' dyno testing of all products submitted & pick the winner for the 'contract' (kinda like moto2, minus the instant awarding to honda part) for the season - with maybe a mid-year reassessment/testing to decide whether original winner's equipment is still the best for the application & if not, re-awarding the 'contract' for the remainder of the season?!

this encourages development within reason & should keep costs from totally spiraling out of control & only affects those interested in competing in the engine-building stakes; further, make a 'dumbed-down' engine available to club-racers everywhere & use political influence to create & support club-level series reflecting the new paradigm of 250cc 4-strokes, thereby encouraging new racers potentially available to the series & hence increasing its competitiveness & relevance for many, many pollution-reduced years to come & hence, lowering the costs by diluting them over the long term?! :)

yes, i like the sound of my own thoughts! hahaha :)

david - i see you as a team manager one day!

paul :)

I can see what you mean by this but apart from the close racing, Moto2 has quashed my interest in the actual class, it's participants, it's teams etc purely because there is no technical variety or interest! The promised chassis innovations petered out once the grid realised they had to follow a prescribed pattern and not risk being different.

If Moto3 goes this way I can see my interest waning again still further, that is not to say that I don't appreciate the skill and competitive aspect of the whole thing but racing at the top level is the sum of many aspects of interest, take a couple of those aspects away and you are left with a shell of an event in my opinion. Sometimes it takes domination of a class for a while to rev up the other participants, just make it cost effective to do so!

A MX 250 of any manufacturer quotes the service life of the engine in mx trim as around 20 hours.They go 'bang' in the hands of weekend trail riders with nonotonous regularity, why are these things going to be any different?
Time to face the reality of expensive 4T racing 15 bikes on the grid unless you want to dumb it down to a fast road tune with a spec one make engine.

That would be about 6 race weekends on the GP circuit. Shooting for half sounds perfect.

Off the shelf, homologated, sealed and well under 3K/lump!

TSI, what part(s) typically go bang on them?

These are going to sound boring as hell too. :(

Aprillia (Derbi) have basicaly closed out GP125 racing at world level, they only lease the bikes (anything from 125 -250k Euros per season and you give the bike back at the end of the year, all parts have to be bought from Aprillia so say 400k at the top end) and pretty much dictate who gets what equipment, to mitigate this and also have a going green apprearance it has been decided to create MOTO3.

From what I understand the claiming (or cost) rule will only apply to recognised manufacturers therefore leaving the gate open to us garden shed type people.

Top teams running in the MX2 world championship are getting 38-40BHP out of the 250 singles with 76MM bore, these have to run severley restricted due to the noise regulations (93Db) these engines last two GP weekends. The engines are not designed to run at high sustained revs and will go pop if asked to do so. with the restrictions removed and the long rev problem removed (it can be done) the engines will make 45BHP for 20hrs - then go pop! say 3 Gp's use.

A correctly designed MOTO3 engine (81MM) bore will make in the region of 50BHP, I know of three such engines being developed now, dont know about longevity.

Current 125's make itro 52BHP for an RSA - RSW probably ITRO 48BHP, a really well set up Honda RS125 = 46BHP.

he 4T kills two strokes on the draw out of corners because of the way it produces the power (ie very flat)

The real killer is the weight of the 250 single lump which will hamper the 4t's.

I know I am working on one!!

I think the new idea is a breath of fresh air for the sport, and I have been a two stroke man since 1970!