DORNA’s rush to embrace the proposed 1000cc production-based engibe formula is all based on the premise that the punter wants to see more than 17 bikes on the grid. And they do have a point. MotoGp is finely balanced aty the moment. Honda supplies 6 bikes, Yamaha 4, Ducati 5 and Suzuki 2. Should even Suzuki decide, for whatever reason, to pull out of the sport, the validity of the MotoGp grid would be seriously called into question. If Honda were to decide to do so, and, let’s face it, they’ve done it before, the sport would be fatally crippled. So DORNA has to plan for the future.
But, is simply increasing the numbers on the grid the answer? Do spectators, sponsors, TV bosses, etc, want quantity if it compromises quality? If the tail-end bikes are going to be lapped within the first half of the race (an entirely likely scenario) does that make MotoGp better or worse?
Now some will point to the outstanding success of Moto2 with grids of 41 bikes with ferocious racing right down through the field. But, Moto2 is a “control” formula, a control freak’s dream come true, in fact. Do we want MotoGp to be a control formula too? The overwhelming vote seems to be “No” and many go further and say that the formula is ALREADY too controlled. MotoGp must remain a “prototype” forumla where new technologies are tried out and proven first in the heat of battle, goes the argument and I’d have to say that I agree.
The answer ISN’T to be found in just adding more teams. The answer lies somewhere else, though quite where I can’t say. It sure is an interesting argument, though.
gearsau says
Phil
Some good points there. I think MOTOGP has become too controlled. Controlled tyres, no testing etc.
Look at the problems that some bikes are having eg.Stoner on the DUCATI. If they could test more, I am certain that they could overcome the problems, rather than have to be tesing and qualifying over three sessions on Friday and Saturday.
They cut out Friday AM testing so save money, yet, the teams are there, and basically doing nothing except checking the bikes over. They have already been at the circuit since the Wednesday or so, and all of that costs $$. Even if they arrived on a Thursday, how much would that save? Maybe a little in Europe, but, as for the “fly away races” such as Australia, Malaysia, Japan, USA, the costs are huge and a reduction in track time of one hour,would not save that much.
It also makes the spectators want to come to the track on the Friday. If I was paying, no way would I be paying just to see MOTOGP bike for one hour on a Friday.
I agree that MOTOGP must remain a “Prototype Formula”. Actually, looking at World SuperBikes, I thnk that they are becoming more and more a prototype formula. Look at the excotic stuff they put on those bikes.. No way is that inexpensive.
Phil Hall says
I agree, wholeheartedly. Cutting costs and maintaining a prototype formula are two goals that are mutually exclusive. You make a very valid point about Superbikes as well. There has been a lot of complaining about the legality (is it within the letter and the spirit of the regulations?) of the Aprilia particularly.