Joined
·
4,232 Posts
Michael Czysz: How to save MotoGP
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
it's hard to argue with all of that. I think I may agree with him 90% or so.
Joined
·
217 Posts
Can't say that I agree with everything in this one. Unlimited spending on any aspect of bikes gives an advantage to companies that have deeper pockets. That's the reason most of the manufacturers left, it was getting too expensive to keep up with Honda's endless pockets. So that part of his theory seems to have been tried and failed so far.
The multiplier idea is logical, but I can't see it as being a feeder for manufacturers. Starting from scratch and moving up when they already have production models that have the tech they would be redeveloping seems counter productive, and once again it seems kinda expensive.
I can appreciate the want for a deliniation between experimental racing and production racing, but again I don't think this method is financially feasible in implementation nor does it level the playing field to the point where little manufacturers with small wallets can compete.
Plus where is his consideration of the GP series' income. Where does DORNA make the money to keep the races going in this theory? I like opening the tire manufacturer field back up, and I'm on the fence about backup bikes (forces riders to try not to crash as much), and I can appreciate the parallel between this theory and how GP worked in its hayday, but the fact is we are in a bad economy.
Lastly I think this is a big over reaction to CRT. I don't think CRT will be around forever, I think it's more of an experiment to see what the little guys need in order to compete with the factories. Think about it, CRT aren't as ruled by rules at the moment, but things are being reigned in on the factory side of things. The most successful CRTs are probably going to be those that have factory support on the side, because at best that situation will end when the MSMA votes against their CRT status forcing the factory to either join GP as a factory effort or pull out. No point in Aprilia doing what their doing if they don't plan to come back full factory. In the end it boils down to competition.
Michael Czysz is a smart dude, knows more about the manufacturer side of racing than I do, but I can't say that he's really considering the financial side.
The multiplier idea is logical, but I can't see it as being a feeder for manufacturers. Starting from scratch and moving up when they already have production models that have the tech they would be redeveloping seems counter productive, and once again it seems kinda expensive.
I can appreciate the want for a deliniation between experimental racing and production racing, but again I don't think this method is financially feasible in implementation nor does it level the playing field to the point where little manufacturers with small wallets can compete.
Plus where is his consideration of the GP series' income. Where does DORNA make the money to keep the races going in this theory? I like opening the tire manufacturer field back up, and I'm on the fence about backup bikes (forces riders to try not to crash as much), and I can appreciate the parallel between this theory and how GP worked in its hayday, but the fact is we are in a bad economy.
Lastly I think this is a big over reaction to CRT. I don't think CRT will be around forever, I think it's more of an experiment to see what the little guys need in order to compete with the factories. Think about it, CRT aren't as ruled by rules at the moment, but things are being reigned in on the factory side of things. The most successful CRTs are probably going to be those that have factory support on the side, because at best that situation will end when the MSMA votes against their CRT status forcing the factory to either join GP as a factory effort or pull out. No point in Aprilia doing what their doing if they don't plan to come back full factory. In the end it boils down to competition.
Michael Czysz is a smart dude, knows more about the manufacturer side of racing than I do, but I can't say that he's really considering the financial side.
Joined
·
9,103 Posts
It is an interesting article but I also don't really think the premise he proposes applies in the real world.
Two flawed assumptions of the modular aspect is that a manufacturer would choose to particpate in all three classes, and that the "best" cylinder design for a 250 single is the same for a 750 triple. With that said I actually like the idea of a 250cc single Moto3, and 500cc twin Moto2. Too bad Honda effectively owns the Moto2 class with their spec engine, and this will keep any other manufacturers out until the rules are radically revised. As it sits now no manufacturer makes a 500 twin that would work as a production base (maybe Aprilia), we will have 600 fours in that class for many years IMO.
Another big thing Czysz is missing is that politics will continue to dictate that MotoGP bikes must be faster than Superbikes. Doubtful a 750 triple would be faster than last year's 800 fours, and Superbikes run nearly the same lap time today. There is no way politically that production-based bikes would be allowed to hold track records (with "lesser" riders) where both series race. Aprilia ART is already showing what a superbike with additional tweaks beyond the rules of WSBK can do against the prototypes. RdP will finish ahead of a few customer prototypes this year on occasion.
Unlimited electronics for the premier classes also sounds nice and manufacturers say they want them, but in reality it is just an arms race designed to provide an expensive barrier to entry to keep others out. Put a claiming cap of, say $30,000 on the electronics and data acquisition of any bike in MotoGP and WSBK. Manufacturers will either scale back on the sophistication and expense, or find a way to make them much more economical.
Something few mention, but would change the show in MotoGP dramatically is the elimination of carbon brakes. Steel discs mean longer braking zones which promotes more passing, and are cheaper to run throughout the year as well.
Two flawed assumptions of the modular aspect is that a manufacturer would choose to particpate in all three classes, and that the "best" cylinder design for a 250 single is the same for a 750 triple. With that said I actually like the idea of a 250cc single Moto3, and 500cc twin Moto2. Too bad Honda effectively owns the Moto2 class with their spec engine, and this will keep any other manufacturers out until the rules are radically revised. As it sits now no manufacturer makes a 500 twin that would work as a production base (maybe Aprilia), we will have 600 fours in that class for many years IMO.
Another big thing Czysz is missing is that politics will continue to dictate that MotoGP bikes must be faster than Superbikes. Doubtful a 750 triple would be faster than last year's 800 fours, and Superbikes run nearly the same lap time today. There is no way politically that production-based bikes would be allowed to hold track records (with "lesser" riders) where both series race. Aprilia ART is already showing what a superbike with additional tweaks beyond the rules of WSBK can do against the prototypes. RdP will finish ahead of a few customer prototypes this year on occasion.
Unlimited electronics for the premier classes also sounds nice and manufacturers say they want them, but in reality it is just an arms race designed to provide an expensive barrier to entry to keep others out. Put a claiming cap of, say $30,000 on the electronics and data acquisition of any bike in MotoGP and WSBK. Manufacturers will either scale back on the sophistication and expense, or find a way to make them much more economical.
Something few mention, but would change the show in MotoGP dramatically is the elimination of carbon brakes. Steel discs mean longer braking zones which promotes more passing, and are cheaper to run throughout the year as well.
Joined
·
516 Posts
Whatever...
-1.... Jerk!who would take advice from him? He couldn't even save his own project?
Joined
·
12,576 Posts
Whatever? Taking advice from MotoCheese is like having a fat trainer telling you how to lose weight and look good.
Joined
·
2,974 Posts
or listening to your input... omg it's like an infinite loop~
Joined
·
12,576 Posts
So we have another crackpot willing to have MotoCyst fix MotoGP when it's as strong as ever? Good crowds and viewership but it needs to be fixed by a guy who failed miserably at his own racing venture.or listening to your input... omg it's like an infinite loop~
This place is funny. Don't change people. The World needs someone to laugh at. You and MotoCheese will do just fine.He didn't really fail his "own racing venture". MotoGP changed displacement the year his machine was set to debut. Not to say it couldn't have been the worst bike on the grid, but those were circumstances out of his control, not a machine of his own demise. Some thought (at the time) that the rule change was specifically to keep him out of the races, that the *big* manufacturers were afraid that they would look bad to a garage-hobby-project.So we have another crackpot willing to have MotoCyst fix MotoGP when it's as strong as ever? Good crowds and viewership but it needs to be fixed by a guy who failed miserably at his own racing venture.
Feel free to discuss/argue.
Joined
·
12,576 Posts
Have you watched the comedy piece they did on him? His bikes made it 2 laps.
NO ONE was afraid of him. Britten he is NOT!
Joined
·
6,827 Posts
Joined
·
4,178 Posts
I agree.Who would take advice from him? He couldn't even save his own project?
It is a bit rich hearing about how to save a successful enterprise from someone who never got their own project despite significant investments of time and money off the ground. Sort of like Trump telling Buffet how to be frugal, giving and humble.
Does he have valid points, yes, but hardly anything earth shattering that hasn't been said before.
Joined
·
9,103 Posts
This is the first I have ever read that Ducati and Japan Inc. might have been the least bit concerned that the C1 would have shown them up in MotoGP.
For a variety of sound reasons the project simply would never be competitive as a racing machine at the highest level. But it would certainly be a unique motorcycle, and could possibly have been a neat streetbike had Czysz been realitstic on his production costs and timetable.
Czysz has posted here before, you might like this thread
http://www.speedzilla.com/forums/street-track/45623-into-fire.html
Joined
·
4,178 Posts
The Foggy Petronas and Yamaha R7 were deemed failures having won exactly zero world titles in the WSC. I don't know how the C1 could be deemed anything less in MGP having not even gridded up.
Seriously, given the KR project, its backing, and its lack of relative success compared to the manufacturers, what made you (and yes I'm pretty sure you are alone on this one) think the C1 was making Honda etal quake in their respective booties?
+1I agree.
It is a bit rich hearing about how to save a successful enterprise from someone who never got their own project despite significant investments of time and money off the ground. Sort of like Trump telling Buffet how to be frugal, giving and humble.
Does he have valid points, yes, but hardly anything earth shattering that hasn't been said before.
Gonna agree here with sqd8r and Jami on this one.
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
he forgot to mention they should restructure with assurances that no matter what they go with, they keep it for at least 5 years. and even if you dont like his plan, its better than the fat box of nothing that is racing now.
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
While his machines havent exactly set the racing world on fire, Czysz has produced 2 complete, clean-sheet design, functional racebikes using uncommon technology, with a fraction of the resources of a major manufacturer. You have to give the man credit for trying, at least someone is stepping up and trying something different.
Meanwhile you discredit his (admittedly well-informed) ideas on how to improve MotoGP racing based solely on the fact that his 1st bike never raced there. So who here has designed and built a racebike that has competed in MotoGP? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Didnt think so. By your own logic, none of your opinions on MotoGP are valid.
Meanwhile you discredit his (admittedly well-informed) ideas on how to improve MotoGP racing based solely on the fact that his 1st bike never raced there. So who here has designed and built a racebike that has competed in MotoGP? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Didnt think so. By your own logic, none of your opinions on MotoGP are valid.
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Join the discussion
