MotoGP » MotoGP rule changes an 'exciting opportunity'.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

reaper46 - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 7:51 AM

I agree with cutting somethings back. I always wondered why they had GPS on their bikes. I think they should keep the back-up bike. Remember what happened to Toseland at the last recent test. His bike was demolished. last year when Pedrosa crashed his engine was the only thing that could be savaged and that to was in practice. What if that happens to several riders in practice or qualifying? Oh Yeah, I guess they would also have to change back to red flagging races due to rain so the riders could come in and change tires. I just hope they cross their T's with any changes they make

Lukq - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 8:30 AM

Gps is helping traction control to know at what corner they are and to exit smoothly
How can they talk about entertaiment if they switched to bbc? sorry for this topic reopened,,
just move back to 1000cc, put some revlimits not to fly above 340kmh and ofcourse take out some traction control :p

Stevo - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 10:18 AM

The bikes need to be 990's or 1000's, rider aids need to be banned, a common minimum weight so all riders are equal and they should require all manufacturers to supply a minimum of, say, 4 engines/bikes to privateer teams.
Currently it all suits the Japanese and as they are keen to sell their bikes it makes sense for them to price everyone else out.
Maybe a Moto2 style format with factory engines is a good cheap option.

zydon - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 10:37 AM

I'm in agreement of banning GPS assistant in motogp racing. This will eliminate top rider's small mistakes and removing the other rider chances to make up the ground. The result will be distant gap between riders as the race progressing.

Any remote assistant provide via wireless/satellite help should not be allowed in motogp racing. All advancement should only be made within moving rider and bike without receiving any kind of data from remote location. They can use any kind of TC, but no GPS/remote assistant except pitboard informations.

Jon M - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 10:55 AM

I'm going to scream if one more person says "uh, durrr, I think they should bring back 990's..."

WHY???? Is a 220bhp 800cc race bike not fast enough?

These bikes haver smililar power to WSBK but are lighter with far advanced chassis'.

125 and 250 racing is the closest there is, with 60 and 110bhp respectively.

Keep the 800's- factories can't afford to go backwards, and like everyone else says, drop GPS, 'adaptive traction control', carbon brakes and limit the number of engines used in a season.

Herve Poncharal knows his beans- let's hope he can help sabve our sport.

blizzard - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 1:04 PM

What they need to do is increase the minimum weight and restrict the revs. That should help keep the costs down a bit without destroying the principles of the sport

guitarstrommer - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 5:00 PM

Eliminate GPS/Traction control all together, leave everything else the same, including the single tyre rule. There's no point in going to a different engine size if you're trying to make things cheaper.

steve - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 10:02 PM

i you want to make the engines last longer and be cheaper then the only way to keep them fast will be to increase the cc
the current 800 will lose alot of power as reliability increases
and those 990 engines are developed it wont cost much to get the tooling back out of the cupboard and start producing them again

waz - Unregistered

February 16, 2009 11:59 PM

I say no to limiting the number of engines/bikes per rider, session or season! This is not supposed to be endurance racing, it is 20-odd laps of madness where we see what man and machine can achieve when pushed to the limit and perhaps beyond it. I don't want to see people backing off in practice or qualifying because they fear being out of the race if they bin their bikes. Keep the 800cc engine size - engine development today HAS to be about higher output from small capacities using less fuel, it can't go in any other direction.

Get rid of peripheral technologies such as GPS, carbon brakes and maybe traction control.

Page 1 of 3
1 2 3  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2015 Crash Media Group | Built by Accelerate Agency

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.