Dorna and MSMA Swap Proposals At Jerez For 2013: One Bike Per Rider, Price Cap on Satellite Bikes, Limits

Talks are continuing at Jerez over the future of MotoGP, with the focus on how to reduce costs for a sustainable championship. After the proposals that Dorna presented to the factories at Sepang, with measures including a rev limit and a standard ECU, it was the turn of the factories to come with their counterproposals to make the championship affordable. 

In an interview with the official MotoGP.com website, Dorna CEO Carmelo Ezpeleta set out the proposals discussed. The measures under consideration included the introduction of a single-bike rule, just as there is in the Moto2 and Moto3 championships, as well as in World Superbikes and World Supersport, where each rider would be allowed to have just one bike scrutineered and approved for riding at a time. In addition, a limit on the number of mechanics each team would be allowed to have present could also be introduced, in an effort to cut wage, travel and accommodation costs for the teams. A proposal was also put forward to limit each factory participating to just two factory riders and two satellite riders, meaning that the situation as it is at the moment, with four Hondas, four Yamahas and four Ducatis could continue into the future.

But perhaps the most significant proposal was to implement a price cap on the cost of satellite machinery. The price cap is one measure that Ezpeleta has been keen on since last year, and has been pushing the manufacturers hard on. With satellite bikes costing between 2 and 4 million euros to lease from the manufacturers, the cost of fielding a satellite team has been rising exponentially. The price of a satellite Ducati had pushed the Aspar squad to drop their plans to continue with Ducati and instead choose to become a CRT team - a canny decision, as Randy de Puniet has posted some outstanding times on the Aprilia ART bike at Jerez so far, and is ahead of the satellite bikes of Hector Barbera and Karel Abraham.

Ezpeleta's ideal is the million euro motorcycle: the cost of either leasing a satellite bike or buying a CRT machine should not exceed a million euros for a whole season. As Dorna provides a large subsidy to all of the satellite teams competing in the championship, Ezpeleta feels that the exorbitant lease prices mean that he is subsidizing the factories' racing programs. The Dorna CEO pointed out that talks were still ongoing with the MSMA over exactly what would be included in that one million euro sum. Yamaha at least appear willing to embrace that sum, as Lin Jarvis told MCN last week

The idea of a single bike per rider is aimed at keeping costs down for the poorer teams. It has done little to reduce costs for the big teams in all of the championships it has been introduced in, but it has made a difference to the poorer end of the paddock. In Moto2, for example, Marc Marquez is reported to have had two complete spare rolling chassis for his Suter Moto2 bike in the Monlau Competicion truck last year, which meant that in the case of a trashed bike, Marquez' team had only to remove the standard engine from the bike Marquez had crashed, fit it in one of the spare chassis, and then take it along to technical inspection to have it scrutineered ready for racing. Something similar is true in World Superbikes: the big teams have spare bikes ready to go in the trucks, should anything untoward happen during practice, requiring only the approval of tech inspection to take to the track.

For the poorer teams, however, the number of parts they need to hold has been drastically reduced - not by 50%, but by a significant enough margin to allow them to compete. The downside is that if they do wreck a bike during warmup, then there is no chance of getting ready in time for the race. The question here is whether it is better to have more weak teams in the series, even if it penalizes the rich teams. Both Infront and Dorna are very happy with the results achieved so far in their respective series, but there is no denying there are real downsides to the rule.

The real problem with all of the cost-cutting measures is that it does not address the underlying problem of the series. Speaking to MotoMatters.com, Yamaha boss Lin Jarvis phrased it thus: "The biggest problem this sport has today is money." What was needed, Jarvis said, was to find different revenue streams, different media and different geographical locations to bring a new impulse to the series. Jarvis emphasized that he would like to see MotoGP go to countries such as India, Brazil and Indonesia, as these were key markets for the company. If the series was capable of bringing more money in, then these cost-cutting measures would simply not be necessary.

Carmelo Ezpeleta also emphasized the need to make the sport an attractive prospect. The talks with the manufacturers, which had taken place in a positive atmosphere, had been about the philosophy of the series, about making it more attractive as a spectable and more sustainable as an enterprise. But there is clearly much more work to be done.

Back to top

Comments

Once again the MSMA is trying to steer.

To bring back the show give the teams 4 more liters of fuel and ban TC via a control ECU. Electronics are what have driven the cost of the bikes up exponentially. Without TC, the tyres would be sliding, smoking, and we'd have much more passing with the rider's right wrist controlling 100% of the throttle action. Instead of firing mechanics, how about you fire the laptop jockeys? I've seen the team offices/tents at a race and there was a whole table full of programmers sitting there typing in their 1's and 0's. How about let's fire them instead and leave the mechanics alone?

Dorna and the MSMA are always on about cutting costs. Ok, where are the price cuts for the fans? Where is my cheaper MotoGP.com video subscription package (it goes up every year), where is my cheaper race ticket (my ticket to the round I attend goes up every year)? Also, when they switched to 45 minutes for practice instead of one hour, at the race or on the teli, the bikes are on the track less. So when I attend a race, I lose 1 hour of practice time of getting to see the bikes punted around the track in anger.

With the 1 bike rule. If X fan saves all his or her money to go see X rider and that rider has an issue or makes a mistake and lowslides , requiring the team to fix the fix the bike and X rider misses the entire practice session, well the fan loses. Again and again with these rules, the fans lose.

The move to 800's, the fans lost exciting racing as it became processional. In 2007 TC became monumental in this series and the entire bike is designed around it now. The exciting, tyre smoking, tyre sliding series of the previous 1000cc era was gone and for good. Now the bikes are on the track less and with 1 bike only, possibly even more. Where do the fans who pay to go to the races and watch the races on the teli or computer, well when do they get their say?

The new 1000cc bikes are already looking like an evolution of the 800's and not the return to the 1000cc racing that so many of us were hoping for. I see more processional racing this year, and with more rule changes on the horizon that don't lend to good racing or the show.

The mfr's, specifically Honda and Yamaha, are on a TC at all costs. They'd rather the series go away than ban TC so it's TC at all costs.

TC and all the electronic rider aids cost too much money. Ban TC via control ECU and the bike prices will come down. The racing will get much more exciting and people will be talking about X move that X racer put on Y racer for a win. When this happens, due to both the better racing, and decrease in bike price, the sponsors will come back to the series because the price of admission won't be as much.

As of now Dorna and the MSMA are content with letting the fans foot the bill for their TC testing. It might be time we show our support by turning the series completely off.

One last thing I'd like to point out to everyone. 2006 was the last race (Portugal) that a Satellite bike won a race. Back then it wasn't as easy to neuter a Satellite bike. They actually had a chance at every race to podium and on the rare occasion, a win. With TC and the evil black boxes, as Crutchlow so daftly pointed out this week in his interview @ Jerez, it's so easy for the mfr's to neuter their satellite machines so that they are never a real threat. How sporting is that, for the last 5 years going on 6 now, Satellite bikes don't even have a chance unless it rains. No chance for a win at all via the ECU and the mfr's laptop jockeys programming a X instead of a 1 or 0. The reality is this is a 4 bike series now, perhaps 6 if Ducati get their cornering problems solved. 4 bikes, and the rest are for show.

MotoGP is in a sad state of affairs and the proposed rule changes are just leading everyone down an ever increasing slippery slope.

Up the fuel, ban TC, chant with me!

"Without TC, the tyres would be sliding, smoking" GRANTED
"...and we'd have much more passing". DISAGREE. You'd still have faster guys get to the front and run away.
TC is here to stay. Get used to it. GP racing is about speed, not show. If you want sliding go watch a supermoto race.

No-one programs in 1s and 0s. You have no idea how programming works, you sound like one of those old fuddy-duddys who hates fuel injection because he can't get his hands dirty with a carburetor.

I DO agree that the satellite bikes/riders should be more competitive. Perhaps satellite bikes should get an extra 1L of fuel?

MotoGP must go forward, not backward!

PS the ever so subtle slides at massive leans are more outrageously awesome than anything ever seen before in motorcycle racing.

I have a degree in MIS so I know full well how programming works. Thanks for the stereotype though. Mentioning binary I thought I'd get my point across.

And no I don't want to return to carb'd bikes, FI is excellent. TC, not so much, and I'll never get used to it. F1 fans didn't either and it's been removed in that series, which is the 4 wheel version of MotoGP, so I don't think it's obnoxious to call for its' ban in GP.

On the 1000's previously there was much more passing and TC wasn't nearly as important as it is today, it just wasn't nearly as advanced and there was more passing. So I'll stick with my statement.

GP racing is about the show, sorry. If it weren't, you wouldn't have 100k people at a circuit to watch the race or millions on the teli. It most certainly is about the show and the show has suffered for 5 years and that suffering is why they've gone back to 1000cc bikes so DORNA disagrees with you as do I.

Doomsday is here. 3 mfr's left from the factory perspective, loads of sponsors gone, teams gone, etc. If it weren't doomsday for the series you wouldn't have CRT bikes on the grid. You wouldn't have a return to 1000cc's. You wouldn't have even more proposed rule changes coming.

Electronics have driven up the costs to the bikes exponentially and that is bad for the series. Watching processional racing with lab bikes, with heaps of electronic rider aids may be your idea of fun but not mine, no matter who wins or loses.

First, when the GPC decreased practice time from 1 hour to 45 minutes, they increased the number of sessions. The 45 minute sessions did not affect total track time. Fans lost an hour when they cut the Friday morning session.

Second, excitement and unpredictability can be increased in many ways. Putting the rulebook in a time machine is probably the least effective way to get anything done, especially since we know that a spec ECU and 24L fuel capacity will almost certainly send the MSMA to the exits. Few fans care about the MSMA anymore (including me), but the MSMA do contribute a great deal to the sport so they will probably not be dismissed by the GPC.

No one can guarantee that a spec ECU or 24L capacity will make the racing significantly better, which means you run the risk of dismissing the MSMA for zero benefit to the fans. Game theory, specifically robust optimization suggests it will never happen, unless the remaining MSMA members depart of their own volition.

Before all these "cost decreasing measures' came into play there was FP1, FP2, FP3, and Qualifying, each one hour, thus four hours of practice time. That is now 3 hours or did I miss something?

The MSMA is running factories, teams, sponsors, and riders out of the series already. Yeah I will guarantee a return to the original 1000cc formula will re-energize the series with sliding and passing. The main variable that has changed between 2006 and today, is that black box with all the code in it.

When Rossi first rode the Honda V5 990 bike back in 2001 ahead of the 2002 series he commented that it felt like cheating because of the electronic TC that it had. The whole 990 era had TC.

The difference between 2006 and now Bricktop is Casey Stoner, Jorge Lorenzo and Dani Pedrosa.

The difference is night and day compared to those days. I watched all rose races and many years of 500's before those. The tires don't smoke like they did nor do they slide like they did.

Every journalist that I've read has written about the differences of tc compared to back then. TC is now much more intrusive and according to many mechanics and chiefs, there was a huge increase in electronics when they switched to the 800's. The previous era TC in the 1000's was minimal in comparison.

If the difference is like you say, these three riders, then please point me to a race like Portugal in 2006 during the 800cc era. A sat bike ridden by Elias would slide the width of the track at the end of the straight. Reason and common sense tells me there is a heap more difference than a couple of riders. Pretty easy to see with the untrained eye that the 800's were one line around the track machines. But hey, maybe Jorge, Casey, and Dani landed on a spaceship and invented a revolutionary way of riding.

All well and good in theory Bricktop but in reality your scenario forgets that motorbike racing is about the rider. In the 990 era the grid had a bunch of guys that were all about the same skill level and then one guy who was head and shoulders above the them. That one guy created a show by riding at 8/10's until 3 or 4 laps to go and then he would ride at 10/10's and win. Exciting for those who didn't understand that that is what was happening but contrived for those that did understand it.

In this current era there are 3 or 4 guys who are in a completely different skill level class to the rest. These guys need to push 10/10's all race to beat each other and the rest of the field gets left way way behind. This has almost NOTHING to do with the bikes and the same thing would happen if you sent the field out on stock CBR1000's.

I say MotoGP is about the fast bikes going full pace for an entire race. That is why it is the pinnacle. There are other series that are about parity and big groups of riders of similar skill level banging fairings. Why there is a need to make MotoGP just another of these is beyond me. I don't want to watch a MotoGP that is dumbed down so lesser riders can be competitive.

Lin Jarvis has the right idea and it is one of have talked about over and over again and that is increasing revenues by broadening the countries raced in and the nationality of riders. Once MotoGP returns to earned seats rather than bought seats than maybe we will have a field of riders that can ride their way to the front instead of be carried to the front on the back of the promoter who should be concentrating on building the series rather than ruining it.

Is hardly the man to be giving advice on increasing revenue.
Fiat and Petronas have both left Yamaha under his watch..a combined $22 million a year vanished into thin air. Their factory WSB effort ditched to compensate.

Unfortunately, MotoGP is NOT about fast bikes going FULL pace for an ENTIRE race.
21 litres of fuel and computers DUMBING down rider input has put paid to that.

Selling sand to the Arabs would be easier than selling MotoGP to a hard-up global audience with the product controlled by the MSMAs vision for the sport..and I use the word 'sport' in it's loosest possible term.

They lost Petronas, but they gained ENEOS. I am led to believe that they did not lose any money on that deal. And Fiat only came because they saw an opportunity to leverage Valentino Rossi to sell Fiat 500s, so it was inevitable that Fiat would leave once Rossi went. Can't pin that one on Jarvis, would have happened to whatever team Rossi left. Rossi is still the paddock's most marketable product.

with the point re: FIAT..and given Yamahas reluctance to 'de-value' or reconsider the cost of title sponsorship in the face of the WFC , it could be that your sources are correct in stating the ENEOS deal is of similar value to Petronas but, call me a cynic, I'm buggered if I can find any detail, anywhere.

I think if the deal was on a comparative level, Jarvis would have been amongst the first to release that detail to deflect criticism and thereby gain a PR feather in the wake of Rossi's departure illustrating that Yamaha had moved on.

The fact still remains they are still without a title sponsor, therefore $14m a year lighter, and the factory WSB effort has been canned.
The buck has to stop somewhere?

I never understood how restricting the number of bikes a manufacturer can field is going to help fill the grid. Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't it be better if the manufactures would field more bikes, not less?
The same goes for the new testing regulations. Allocating the number of tires for testing per manufacturer, instead of for rider, punishes manufacturers that field more bikes.
I always thought the ultimate goal was to raise grid numbers, not make it harder for manufacturers to field more bikes.

My suggestions for raising the audience and the attractiveness of the series to sponsors (and thus revenue):
Make streaming free for all, and make viewers only pay for HD streaming and the archive (maybe also the archive of the current season for free). I for one would still pay, but I don't think the 100€ are making much of a difference to Dorna anyways.
But free streaming and allowing MotoGP footage on Youtube would help to raise the fanbase, and would make the sport much more attractive to sponsors.
TV stations probably wouldn't like free streaming, but I'm sure it would be possible to sort that out somehow.

Your second point is right on IMHO. The problem with MotoGP is that no one (present company excepted) values it; it's still a relatively unappreciated sport anywhere other than Spain or Italy and rarely reaches the mainstream. And I lay most of that blame on Dorna's greed (or business model, depending on your POV) by restricting access to the soap opera that goes on in the background.
No matter how much of a die hard you are, if you don't know the players in any given sporting event, you're reduced to watching a bunch of highly paid sportsmen doing their thing, and in motor sport that's just a bunch of vehicles going round and round. Sure, if the racing is close it's a bit more adrenaline filled, but nevertheless in order to build a fan base, people must become fans. IE: They need someone to like and root for; and someone to dislike. We like villains and heroes; dominators and underdogs and we want to see how it plays out. We need to see the build-up, see the back story--interviews with crew chiefs and mechanics, wives, girlfriends, etc etc. I subscribe to Dorna's feed and I'm constantly frustrated I can't share it with my buddies who don't subscribe. Look at the analysis of any F1 race, any NFL match or any Nascar event and you'll wonder why MotoGP doesn't do the same. We have the personalities, it's just the world doesn't know about it and so they don't care.
Dorna needs to take a leaf out of Facebook... build a huge audience, make the mainstream care--even just a bit--and then mainstream sponsors will come to the sport. If you restrict the media access to the hardcore fans, you will just end up spending all your fan subscription revenue on subsidizing the show. Sounds like a zero sum game to me!
Thanks for letting me rant.

I've also long believed that MotoGP is suffering because they refuse to react to the changing market segment. Look at what just the implementation of twitter among some of the riders has done.

My proposition:

offer free streaming of everything. You have to grow that market before you can rape and pillage on subscription costs. You want to expand to countries like india, the far east and south america? You really think your going to get that many more subscriptions? Those countries are emerging markets not because the middle to lower class is gaining wealth. But, those countries are probably going to have internet.

exploit free version with sponsorship logos. They can be at fixed positions in the screen, perhaps just a bar across the bottom. But they are always there. The viewers won't care because its free viewing.

develop the 3 second commercial. Youtube is thriving with this. No one wants to watch the speed channel go to a 3 min commercial during a 40 min race. It boggles my mind why they do this. However if brief enough, its really not that bad, and barely even noticeable, but its huge exposure.

paid subscribers get ads free or whatever. However I firmly believe that there should not be extra content that isn't available to the free-streaming public. That extra content is exactly what gets that 99% population to watch this stuff in the first place. You really want non-motorcyclists to watch this? Their should be a webcam in Rossi's trailer.

put something on the screen that shows what everyone who works in motogp is twittering. #caseystoner27 @everyoneelse when you become as fast as me, which you never will, you will find tire 21 is instable. RT...

The grand finale. Let me subscribe to an individual rider. Can I pay to just watch the entire race from nicky's gyro cam and only the cameras that are on 69? Can this include footage before the race with interviews and post race interviews of Nicky, regardless of where he finishes?

the kicker. Splash the free version with just Nicky's sponsors on the screen, now I'm getting direct exposure to the exact sponsors for a particular rider that I want to follow. Hows that for brand awareness.

maybe you can dual screen it and watch the main feed that is following the more interesting parts of the race, minus the audio, so that I can switch back and forth.

the technology is there. Its really not that complicated, just takes a little initiative and an idea.

Funny thing about sponsorship here in Indonesia. MotoGP is free to watch on tv because Yamaha is a major sponsor. You'll see their ads during every commercial break. And at every race they hold small get together events in different cities to watch the race live on big screens with quizzes and prices before and after the race.

Sad that they would cut people to preserve the inefficiency of the current formula. Speaks volumes about the manufacturers and the commercial rights companies. When they damage their brand and the sport that promotes their brand, they don't appear to be interested in selling motorcycles.

The GPC are making it clear that the fans (customers) are not even an afterthought. The GPC care about running a con operation on cash-laden governments and media outlets. If governments and media outlets are not trying to find MotoGP, the sport has very little to offer. Quit blaming the sales people and fix your product, imo.

Carmelo wants a spec ECU but Honda and Yamaha are up in arms about this and have already threatened to leave if this rule passes. I say don't let the door hit you on the way out.

So we'd have one factory entering protoypes that can't get their design to work and the CRTs. Welcome to the Aprilia Cup. I'm not sure why that would be any more attractive than the current state of MotoGP.

Yes they may obstruct some improvements in the formula; no, MotoGP can not yet survive the loss of the Japanese factories.

Harkening back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" does not offer a solution to the current state of affairs. No matter how much we want it no one can un-invent computer programming and its infinite abilities to refine more so than any mechanical change can. I also want to state that Ducati also, not just Yamaha and Honda, doesn't want a rev limit or spec ECU. So if all three factories left what would we be left with?

Like it or not apart from the few hardcore the MotoGp audience is very very limited 90% of the North American population would not know who 9 time WC Valentino Rossi is BUT most of them would have at least in passing heard of Michael Schumacher. Part of the solution (what ever it may be) must include increasing the number of revenue streams the sport generates. For far too long the sport depended on cigarette money, then rode the coat tails of past glory when the economy was good but did nothing to engage burgening markets (getting riders, teams and races in india, Asia, Latin America). The Reason Yamaha can't get a main sponsor is because no one can see the massive investment being worth it when the sports main market are countries on the verge of bankruptcy with stagnant economies (Italy, Spain)

Motorcycle racing is a pissant little sport on the global / national stages. It hasn't always been that way, but as consumer tastes have changed over time, so have we lost out.

Ultimately blame rising living standards and consumerism everywhere. There was a time when families couldn't afford a car so they brought a motorcycle. A link to the sport was automatically established. When I was a teen in the early mid eighties there were rows and rows of small motorcycles & mopeds parked outside my secondary school. Now there's but a couple of dozen tops, whilst cars are parked everywhere for blocks around. More wealth equals less motorcycles. Fact. Now motorcycles have largely been reduced to toy status for those that can afford such luxuries. Since 2008 not so many of us have been able to do so. The 4x4 SUV taking priority with the family and dog for the trip to the shops. And all the while western governments continually endeavour to undermine our exsistence - think the likes of Martin Bangemann. The economic and social development cards are stacked against us in the western world.

For some reason many of us want to demonise the MSMA in this sorry saga of MotoGP decline. "Oh they brought in the expensive 4 strokes, then the knee jerk 800 capacity reduction, TC, electronic wizardry, (and some MM contributors bete noire) 21 litres" Bleating little dears.....They brought 4 strokes back to the series because this is where their production line up was, due to increasingly stringent government emmissions legislation and because their research guys, after talking to us, said we prefered our road bikes as 4 strokes. The capacity reduction may have been knee jerk on the back of Katoh's death, but it didn't really change anything. TC developed for safety purposes and is now filtering down to production machines. Fuel efficiency is the engine designers raison d'etre in the face of electric vehicles and there are still huge gains to be made here. The tyres and technology advance, this is the natural order of things and why the litre machines will not be like the 990's. All these 'evil' MSMA changes equate to perfectly valid commercial logic. Racing is a R&D test bed for the MSMA as they constantly have to reminder their bean counters. I find many of the comments above rather Luddite in their nature - back to Lancaster Pennsylvania if you please. Do you want a 1982 BMW 100RS or a 2012 SS1000R?

That said I find it commenable that Ezpeleta wants the bring lease costs down to EUR1m per machine. If each manaufacturer is only supplying two satellite riders I can't see that such a financial constriction is such a big deal concerning their balance sheets.
But please don't stop the technology, don't push the manufacturers away. I want RCV's not CBR's.

Yes the show has to shift to markets that do still embrace two wheels, for many of the reasons I listed above. This is good, reflects our global nature better and with time will hopefully open up new sponsorship avenues.

The show will go on.

I agree with your comment about R&D.

I cannot comment about the impact electronics have at the MotoGP level, as their systems are far more complex than even the best of the consumer equivalent, but we are still the potential beneficiaries of these technologies. I own a 2011 RSV4-R APRC. It's my 12th bike over the last 20 years and it's an amazing machine.

TC doesn't equate to autopilot the way that many seem to think - it won't save a rider who over-rides the grip of the tire but it does impact how power is applied under acceleration. The same can be said for fuel mapping, Ride-by-wire throttle translation tables, etc. You might also argue that carburetion tuning was the analog equivalent back in the day.

Cost-issues aside, what electronics have done is to shift where the top-tier riders' skill refinement needs to be - CS and JL have a remarkable ability to utilize what they are given. Take TC away and they will still be fast.

Nostro, please point me to where I can buy a Honda V4 sport bike or any mfr producing a bike with pneumatic valves, carbon discs, etc. these GP bikes are a world away from street machines.

Barking Luddite is a bit long in the tooth when TC was all that was mentioned. So I guess Formula 1 is a Luddite sport now? I hardly think so, certainly helped that series out. The drivers actually having more control over the vehicle requiring more skill from the pilot. Sounds like a marvelous way to put more of the human element back into the bike.

Wheelie control, traction control, launch control, anti spin, etc. Why not make the bikes remote control then they can really get some R&D'ing done.

Even the riders say, with all this electronic sophistication, that they'll still high side you to the moon. TC equals a drop in lap times. It's not the safety measure folks make it out to be.

Banning TC certainly didn't hurt Formula 1, it helped it. And the cars are just as sophisticated as they've ever been. They aren't racing with carbs are they, or drum brakes? They removed one thing from the car that brought some much needed vigor back into the sport. Some Luddites that lot are?

If you want TC and all the rider aids so bad then you are half way towards ruining the series, its demise. As evidence notice that they had to introduce CRT machines to fill up the grid because nobody else can afford it. Without them there would have been 12 bikes only on the grid lining up at Qatar. What would have been next? 6 bikes? 2 from the remaining 3 factories? Stoner is king right now. How about a series with just 2 Hondas turning laps for an exercise in R&D.

At the end of the day they are going to have to ask themselves if R&D is more important than the sport itself. Sure glad Bernie and his lot returned control of the car back over to the drivers and took away control from the computer. Those guys are the best in the world so their skill, or lack of it should be on full display.

Let Supers handle the TC duty as those are production based bikes. Make the teams run their production TC offered on their bikes in the dealers if need be. TC on production machines is just upping their MSRP's as well. And TC's real value is on corner exit, not the rest of the turn. It's not a replacement for throttle control and never will be. Sure cost this sport a whole a whole bunch of money. Seems like that money would have been better spent on more advanced inflatable suits, and protective gear if it's supposed to be for safety. All it really is, is a competitive advantage for a factory in this sport, one that costs so much that a very limited few can afford it.

Dont applause F1 too much, banning TC is one thing, lets not also introduce ridiculous KERS and the Flappy wing techniques as well. Artificial drafting advantage is a joke IMHO.

It's got all the relevance to MotoGP as track cycling. Twice the wheels and half the pilot skill level of MotoGP. People watch F1 because they have a god damn car parked in the driveway - it's their connection.

The underlying argument of those so dead against electronic technology boils ultimately down to their perception that this advancement has somehow moved the defining factor in being fast away from the rider and towards the machine. That if only TC was banned their fallen Sun God would return Lazarus like to the front of the field. Utter tosh. Fast is as fast does regardless (within reason) of the machine.

"Fast is as fast does regardless (within reason) of the machine" On 2010 Lorenzo dominated Casey, on 2011 Casey dominated Jorge. Is that massive difference "within reason"?
You can keep screaming that Rossi is a lye all you want but he certainly has not been the only one impaired by the bike.

Nostro, your condescending attitude come through in every one of your posts.
Every time you disagree you resort to name calling and condescending comments. So be it, that ivory tower must be quite high.

The reality is F1 is very comparable to MotoGp. Prototypes, pinnacle series, best drivers in the world, etc. You don't want F1 in the discussion because it goes against your argument. They banned traction control, and it worked. F1 drivers have half the skill of a MotoGp rider, how did you come up with that? How do you quantify that? Insulting to say the least. Can you not discuss something without insults?

This has nothing to do with any rider. Ive been calling for same thing every single year since the 800's began. Once the one line around the track processional racing began many have been calling for it. There are journalists that have written about it every year since 2007. If banning TC or going to a spec ecu meant that the Sun God never won another race I'd be all for it. If it meant Stoner or Lorenzo never won another race I'd be all for it. I want to see full throttle control back in the hands of the riders and I think the costs would go down, for the bikes, and the racing would be better. If that means Honda and Yamaha or Ducati leaving, so be it. Let them go. They've led us down a slippery slope where we've lost mfr's and sponsorships are so high that companies don't want to play.

If the current rules were so great you wouldn't have to resort to CRT machines to fill the grid. And the greatest race I've watched in MotoGP and a reference point for all of this is Portugal 2006. A race where the Sun God got beat. It's been 6 years now since a satellite bike has won a race, 6 years. It's hard for sat teams to get sponsors because they have no chance of winning, not a prayer. That spec ECU comes in and the sat teams will have much more of a chance at winning.

"Prototypes, pinnacle series, best drivers in the world, etc."

What do these attributes have to do with the specifics of the technical regulations, specifically the spec ECU you are hawking? "Prototypes, pinnacle series, best pilots" could describe air racing.

They didn't ban TC in F1. They banned a certain type of traction control strategy that made ugly noises. The electronics still allow for many forms of traction control strategies including cylinder deactivation. Furthermore, spec ECU doesn't guarantee equal treatment to the satellite teams b/c the manufacturers can still supply detuned electronics programming and parts. The engine life rules should have made the satellite bikes more competitive as well, but nothing changed.

It does appear that you imagine the spec-ECU to be a panacea.

Spec-ECU basically means nothing. The MSMA could push for a system that is even more sophisticated than what they use now. Spec-ECU simply turns the electronics into a known quantity for the regulatory officials, and it allows the governing body to control the cost of the components, and the cost of programming to a lesser degree.

I think two things would go quite a way towards reintroducing the spectacle.

Firstly, the carbon brakes are superb at bringing the bikes down from speed, but will never be relevant to road bikes because they don't work unless they're hot. Scrap them in favour of disks that are a minimum of say 95% iron. Instantly you reduce the speeds down the straights because you need longer to brake, plus you don't need separate disks for riding in the wet, it's easy to enforce and they're cheaper. This will also bring the field closer together because there will be less scope to run away down the straights.

Secondly, reduce the tyre grip and life. Easiest way to do that is reduce the width of the rear tyre. Less contact patch gives less grip, and less rubber on the tyre makes the rubber work harder and the tyre wear faster.

TC is here to stay because it is relevant to production bikes. Carbon disks are not, and tyre development can continue within the constraints of narrower widths. This way everyone gets the development opportunities that gives them a reason to be in the sport, and the racing becomes a bit closer and more of a spectacle.

The other change that would make a real difference is everything in FlyinLow27's post about actually using current technologies to market the sport instead of fighting them. I've only been on Twitter a short time, but it added a huge amount to the racing last year to have the updates from David and the thoughts of the riders and mechanics. This is the way forward. Use it, don't ignore it and hope it goes away. Make the footage free or ad-supported, bring in the untapped Asian audiences, encourage all the racers to use Twitter and let the fan base build.

motoGP lends itself very well for a "reality show", that would for sure raise the audience.It would be quite funny how the Stoner-Rossi drama plays out on TV, won't it?