By definition, racing is seeing who can get to the finish line quickest. The never-ending search for speed has meant that it has ever been thus. But, speed costs money and it has been the balancing act of allowing increased speed while trying to control spiralling costs that is behind the current moves by DORNA to rein in the factories and save the sport.
Given the opportunity, factories would spend whatever it takes to get to the finish line first. And there are those who say that MotoGp should be what it has always been expected to be, the prototype, anything goes, never mind the quality, look at the width-type formula. “Let the factories do what they want to,” is the mantra of the laissez-faire brigade.
In the opposite corner we have the “protectionists” if I can continue with the economics analogy. They say that it is the SHOW that is all-important and that the formula should be even MORE controlled than what it presently is. “Rein in the spending and concentrate on delivering big grids and close racing,” they say, “That’s what the spectators, the TV audiences and the advertisers want.”
And they do have a point. After all, the “Win on Sunday – sell on Monday” idea is still valid. So, does it matter how MUCH you win by? Does it matter how much FASTER you are when you do win? Or does it just matter that you WIN?
Somewhere in here is a sweet spot, a position that SHOULD satisfy both camps, but finding it is the problem. If we look at the technological advances that have filtered down to normal usage from racing then we have to say that it performs a valuable function and that continuing to allow the engineers to explore the technological outer limits does have validity. On the other hand, with the increasing power of computer modelling, increasing amounts of R&D can be done without once setting a wheel on the track (indeed, it may not even be necessary to HAVE a wheel).
And, while this dilemma (which is nothing new, I hasten to add) is being grappled with by those most closely involved, the humble spectator can be sometimes forgiven for wondering what the fuss is about. Let me explain.
At Motegi yesterday, the MotoGp race started with its usual two-part field. A small number of multi-million dollar prototypes accompanied by a smaller number of CRT bikes about which most spectators know little and care even less. After a few fisticuffs between the two aliens, the race settled into its usual pattern, enlivened only by a few “offs” and a desperate battle for 3rd which was only resolved when one of the combatants ran out of fuel on the final lap. The CRT bikes? Don’t know, don’t care. Hardly gripping stuff. If this is what prototype racing delivers, and, trust me, it is, then maybe the formula IS wrong.
Now in the “minor” classes, well, that was a different story. For a multitude of reasons, Moto3 and Moto2 continue to deliver full grids and close, exciting racing. “Oh, but they’re so SLOW,” I hear the purists say, “The Moto3 bikes are nowhere near as fast as the 125cc bikes they replaced and they sound awful.” True on both counts. And the Moto2 bikes aren’t as fast as the old 250’s and, at some tracks are not much faster than superspot 600’s from the WSS category.
BUT, does that really matter?
If what we are seeing is close, exciting racing with the skills of the riders being at a premium rather than the brute horsepower of a bike that none of us could afford to buy, is that a bad thing?
“But they are control formulas,” is the criticism, “No technological whizz-bangery.” Again, that is true. And again I ask, does that matter?
The fact is that there is no real practical application for electronics that helps you to avoid a highside from a bike that develops 250 horsepower. Given the open road speed limit and the increasingly crowded nature of our roads, the average sports bike that develops close to 200bhp these days will NEVER, EVER get used to a fraction of its potential. The only benefit that that degree of engineering has is bragging rights at the bar. Traction control, ABS, anti-wheelie and all the other benefits that have come to use, mostly from racing, have been refined about as far as they can be for normal, practical road use. Incremental and marginal improvements in tyre technology likewise indicates that we are now tinkering with the edges. Unless I miss my guess, there is no new BIG THING that is going to emerge from racing that is going to revolutionise road bikes any time soon.
And, given that World Superbikes, where the bikes more closely resemble “our” bikes and exist in a world far closer to ours, is the proving ground where much of this ‘real-world” development can take place and does, do we NEED a money-no-object prototype GP formula at ALL?
The answer, of course, is yes, we do. Eh? Doesn’t that fly in the face of everything that I just said? Yes, it does, but let me explain. We need the “engineers” formula because it is here that the brains are stretched and that somebody, one day might just stumble upon that next Big Thing that I was mentioning. We need a cutting edge, especially in these days of blandness and conformity. In the same way a Formula One, boring though it is, is the pinnacle and bears no relation to real-world motoring at all, we need a formula where the boundaries can still be pushed.
BUT, we also need better racing and, as yesterday proved again for the umpteenth time this year, it is the “control” formulae that deliver the goods when it comes to the spectacle. Yes, they may be slower, but if the Moto3 and Moto2 races from Motegi yesterday didn’t keep you on the edge of your seat for 20-odd laps each then you’d better check your pacemaker to see if you’re still alive. Purist racing it might not be. Slower than what the boffins would like it may be, but exciting it certainly is, and I think I’d prefer the close, tight racing to the wide open spaces of what has become the norm in MotoGp.
If Caramello Koala gets his way, the bikes WILL be slower from 2014 onwards (MotoGp bikes that is). Unfortunately, they won’t be any cheaper. In fact, history has proven over and over again that adding restrictions ADDS expense as engineers spend more money trying to circumvent them. Will the grids be fuller? No, I can’t see that, either. It will still cost the same to get in and cost more and more to STAY in.
God forbid that we end up with NASBIKE where the bikes are identical under the skin and only distinguished from each other by the paint job and the badge on the tank. But, unless we have a radical re-think on the prototype situation, that is the direction in which we are heading.
Somewhere, somehow, we have to find the balance between the competing needs of technology and the cost of taking part and I don’t think anyone has the answer to that one just yet.
One thing is certain, however, in terms of the spectacle at least, slower CAN be better.
jeffb says
Well said, Phil. Some great points in the post – I certainly don’t know what the answer is but, like you, prefer to watch the Moto2 and 3 (and WSB for that matter!) for it’s closeness and tension etc. Jeff
Phil Hall says
Yep, it’s a tough one, isn’t it?