MotoGP » Poll: Does MotoGP need rule changes?


Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

Conger - Unregistered

August 04, 2009 1:56 PM

Yes.

It is far too expensive and holds little relivence to the real world.

He with the biggest budget, gets the best bike and the best rider bascially, although this has not been true of Honda this last few years.

marcsterchief - Unregistered

August 04, 2009 2:23 PM

The rookies rule is wrong, the governing body should have no say at all in who goes to what team. under this rule Lorenzo and Pedrosa wouldn't have been allowed to sign for their respective teams, can you imagine Carmelo Ezpeleta having to explain that to the Spanish press attack dogs? As for engine rules, simple, return to 990s, up the fuel capacity and cut down electronics. Prototype motorcycling in one nail in the coffin away from dead, even as a concept.

David Birch

August 04, 2009 2:38 PM

One way to cut the costs would be to have the 'fly-away' races bunched together, ie: Japan, Malasia, Australia, etc.
Cut down the amount of times you have to transport all the bikes, spares, people, etc. and surely you would cut a great chunk out of the budget?

jamie46 - Unregistered

August 04, 2009 2:53 PM

The calander needs looking at , next year they go from laguna to Bruno then back to Indy , how much more will this cost the teams instead of having to US GP's back to back ?? Dont agree with the rookie rule , teams should have the pick on watever riders they want , incidentally does anyone now if Leon Haslam would be classed as a rookie coz he did a season back in 2000 ???
I think the key to cost is the electronics and Dorna should speak to all the teams and come up with a solution to suit all parties before the grid gets depleted anymore

terry - Unregistered

August 04, 2009 3:13 PM

Like others I think the rookie rule is stupid. I'm against the engine rule also because the results should be decided by the action on track and not by a technicallity. I'm sick of people complaining about the costs, because gee racing costs money. But cost could be cut in other ways, by banning certain materials, setting rev limits and getting rid of the rider aids. If I can afford a new engine or two every week I should be allowed to do so. But the rules should encourage smarter more efficient technology not just the fastest. How about a green initiative?

terry - Unregistered

August 04, 2009 3:18 PM

also I hate the spec tire rule. It's stupid. the same thing could be accomplished by have tire makers homalegate the tires they intend to use. and out law qualifiers and special-rider-made tires. that way people can use the tire of their preference and everyone would still be choosing from the same selection of tires.

Tires still decide the outcome of the races because if someone picks the wrong tire they are just as screwed as if they weren't getting the "good stuff"

Stevo - Unregistered

August 04, 2009 3:49 PM

990's, standard electronics, no fuel limit, one tire make, all manufacturers must be able to supply engines to four teams, engine price limit set, engines sealed (like moto2) and distributed via Dorna so the factories don't get the best ones.

Adrian Whitehurst - Unregistered

August 04, 2009 4:01 PM

Ban launch control, anti wheelie and traction control and give them back the 990 engines, if they want to slow them down may I suggest tyre size/profile restrictions and heavier bikes would give a better spectator sport. Also to address the cost issue you could bring in elements that are stock parts for two or three seasons effectively freezing development without compromise to the prototype ethic. I think if you aren't careful there is nothing development wise for the teams to be in it for as it has no relevance so stock engines would be a no no.

Jon - Unregistered

August 04, 2009 4:05 PM

How about this for a rule change. All teams get the same equipment. Meaning, all the Hondas, for example have the same bike with the rider and personal setup being the only advantage. I think it would be interesting. Kinda of like the Moto2 concept.
For those of you who do not agree please tell me why you think this would be bad.

Page 1 of 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  »

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 - 2014 Crash Media Group

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