MotoGP » ECU compromise for MotoGP 2014, Moto2 combined weight

Standard ECU compulsory from 2014 - manufacturers to keep their own electronics software, but face four-litre fuel penalty...

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

stevekiwiinuk - Unregistered

November 11, 2012 11:06 PM I don't think adding weight to Marquez's bike would have made any difference to the end result but that's not the point. The racing would have been closer and not quite so predictable, which has got to be good for the fans and the sport. You only have to look at todays race to see how many riders he passed off the start. Not all from skill or bravery.
Simoncelli was quick because he had to take more chances which was why he got bad press. Fast or not, he didn't win and was never going to while lightweights Pedrosa, Dovi and Stoner were rubber side down. Why do you think Simoncelli and Rossi tried to get the rules changed? In MotoGP electronics have effectively negated the need to do much muscleing of the bike, the fastest way being the smoothest. Lorenzo has only beaten Pedrosa to the title because of super consistency and because Stoner was taking points away from Pedrosa before his Indie crash wrecked his chances.


November 12, 2012 1:55 PM

Part of the reason that this is coming in is that riders are resorting to silly diets to lose kilos. Now whilst that has probably been leaked to the press to bolster the case for the combined weight regulations, it is a valid issue.
Personally, I do feel that Scott Redding for one was severely disadvantaged this year. An there's a definite link between weights and costs. The overall weight mentioned seems generous for sure. There can be less money spent of some components which will make things a bit cheaper, especially for the lighter guys.
The weight certainly seemed to impact checa this year. Oh, and can anyone else foresee these midget jockeys unable to pick their bikes up after a spill? And will the marshalls need to beef up a bit? Manual handling regulations, anyone?


November 12, 2012 2:39 PM

WHAT .... A .... JOKE...

So, Dorna want more budget teams, but they get minimal support and no development, and can't ACTUALLY afford to be in MotoGP in THE FIRST PLACE!!!

NO PROBLEM, we will handicap the factories (WHO THE SERIES IS ACTUALLY ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE) MORE than they currently are handicapped to make these budget cutters more competitive... How are some private teams, with MAJORITY pay riders, MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FACTORIES?!?!?! Where will the CRTs EVER benefit the real world??? Casey, you left at the right time mate... Rename: JokeGP


November 12, 2012 4:22 PM
Last Edited 1267 days ago

"In MotoGP electronics have effectively negated the need to do much muscleing of the bike"

Do you really believe that the electronics can move a 165kg bike from 30deg left to 30deg right in 100 yards? Do you really believe that electronics can pick a bike up thats losing its front end?
Dani has far more disadvantages than he has advatages.
When did Rossi and Sic try to get the rules changed?

As for the new rules in Motogp, the only people that seem to think they are bad is on the internet, because the reports from the track they seem to think they are fair.

M1M - Unregistered

November 12, 2012 8:40 PM

People keep talking about 'prototypes' as opposed to some 'restricted' formula such as CRT as if 'prototypes' were endangered wild horses they are afraid will be broken and tamed. But the 'prototypes' are ALREADY restricted to a maximum of 4 cylinders & 6 gears, minimum weight, no dustbin fairings, GPS or automatic gearbox, with limits on injectors, bore, wheel sizes, spec tyres etc. Similarly, people with vested interests talk about the 'free market' when they mean a market with regulations which suit them, such as free transfer of capital across borders while restricting movement of ordinary people so they can't follow the money/jobs. If all the bikes were CRTs, they'd be a couple of seconds slower, but the racing would be much cheaper and closer like Moto3. The fact that WSBKs are almost as quick shows that the restriction of having 2 wheels already makes for much closer racing than 4 as it costs millions to shave fractions of a second of a lap.

stevekiwiinuk - Unregistered

November 12, 2012 9:38 PM

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this...the fact is that people within MotoGP have agreed weight makes a difference and have implimented a combined minimum weight in line with average rider weight (not totally balanced but at least it's a step in the right direction especially in a so called control class like Moto2).
Unfortunately the big class is unlikely to follow suit as there's too many vested interests, although I think it's a useful bargaining tool for Espeletta's fight to push through changes.....
April 2011 Rossi and Simoncelli put forward an (informal) proposal for a combined bike/rider minimum weight limit to the Safety Commission.

gpfan - Unregistered

November 13, 2012 11:37 AM


Whats with continuing that size in relation to ball sports? Apples and oranges, mate. Motorsports are meant to test the driver's skill and vehicles performance, not measure ones athletic ability. You really can't be serious about your weak ball sport argument, can you?

"If you are a heavier rider you have an advantage in GP as you have the power to muscle it around but lose a little in acceloration,"

But guess what, trends have shown us riders/teams would prefer to be lighter, the time on track gained obviously favors the lighter rider. We'd see small riders bulking up, but we DON'T.

"These bikes have more than enough power to shoot them round,"

If a bike carries more weight, it goes slower, and requires more fuel to go the same distance at an equal power output? So smaller riders get more power, even though they have the speed advantage. All unnecessary and unfair.

"everybody at the track today believes the new rules are correct balance in Motogp."

Absolutely n

gpfan - Unregistered

November 13, 2012 12:18 PM


"everybody at the track today believes the new rules are correct balance in Motogp."

Absolutely not true, larger riders have continually brought it up since going to 800s.

and I didn't mean to place the ?mark on my last paragraph.

Here is the thing. They need to either put in a combined weight limit, or give larger riders a calculated fuel allowance. Technology has greatly changed motorcycle racing, it is greatly more so 1-lined due to near perfect consistency, straightaway passing is the greatest asset because of it. Lighter riders have greater accel/speed, and more fuel to burn. Larger riders are forced to gain time lost with pure skill and no free speed/power.

What is your deal, RSMick? Why fight this? Adding several pounds of ballast or giving a calculated bit of extra fuel, to equal the potential power output of bikes, really a bad thing?

There is a reason why smaller riders don't bulk up, the engineers have pointed out the scientific proof that they

gpfan - Unregistered

November 13, 2012 12:32 PM

ugggg continued

There is a reason why smaller riders don't bulk up, the engineers have pointed out the scientific proof that they can complete a race quicker being lighter. The time gained at full throttle acceleration is more beneficial, compared to slower speed cornering and braking gains.

I couldn't care less about your rugby comparisons. I watch motorsports to see skill and vehicle performance, advantages gained elsewhere just taints the results.

Racing would be better with either a bike/rider weight limit, or no fuel restrictions. And throw out traction/launch/wheelie control out while we're at it.

Page 7 of 7
« 3 4 5 6 7 

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 - 2016 Crash Media Group

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