Skip to content

Discuss This Aspar not expecting imminent RCV1000R upgrade MotoGP

You are in... Forums > Discuss This > MotoGP > Aspar not expecting imminent RCV1000R upgrade

This is a discussion topic

This discussion topic is linked to an article on this site. You can navigate to the article by clicking on the article name in the first post.

Go to most recent reply

Anonymous

Joined:

Posts:

Matthew Birt  says:

Aspar not expecting imminent RCV1000R upgrade

Nicky Hayden’s Aspar squad has conceded that its underpowererd new production Honda RCV1000R is unlikely to receive a motor upgrade until the fourth race of 2014 at the earliest. A lack of acceleration and top speed was quickly identified as a big weakness of the new RCV1000R, which is Honda’s entry in the new Open category, designed specifically to bolster grid...

Reply to this Topic  
  • Posted 210 days ago (04 April 2014 10:00)

Post a message in MotoGP

Fields marked with an asterisk * are required

   

Please note. You cannot submit more than 4000 characters as a message.

Upload image(s) from your computer (up to 3 images)

  1.  
  2.  
  3.  

Terms of use

Use of our community areas and forums is subject to important terms of use. By joining our community and using the features you agree to be bound by these terms. See terms of use below. 

Cancel
Bultoboy

Joined:

Apr 11

Posts: 3503

Bultoboy says:

Doing it for me?

How sweet

Thing is, I didn't ask for a rambling whine about fuel. Just a simple answer to whether you should be able to charge one team 1m to buy a bike that has the same level of performance as the bike you've been charging another 3m to lease? Your refusal to answer I couldn't care less about, just confirms you pursue your own agenda.  Next ime you're passing your local BMW dealer, pop in and tell them you'd like a 320, but with all the go faster bits from the M3, but for 318 money. I'm sure they'll do you one.

And don't keep quoting me on the spirit of the rules as I've said umpteen times that what Yamaha have done is within the rules.

What they didn't do is a simple statement of fact. Produce and sell a lower spec version of their prototype for 1m which is what Dorna asked for. They've leased a full power version of their prototype, last year's Tech3 lease bike, for an as yet undisclosed sum, a sum I'd bet on being more than the original 800,000 engine deal.

Reply to this Topic
Nostrodamus

Joined:

Mar 09

Posts: 5416

Nostrodamus says:

Yet in the same breath Saturn

you say the status quo will always remain that of best riders on best bikes with biggest budgets? Make up your mind!

That Aleix factory Yamaha with the big tank was only ever supposed to be a Forward with a FTR though wasn't it.

Herve's remained very quiet since Qatar don't you think? He must be having a hell of a job making peace with disgruntled sponsors.

Wosi, it's Nakamoto San that has to justify a racing budget to his bean counters, not you. I'm picking R&D remains a big component in that sales pitch. It's a foolish man that says 'never';  the cars of tomorrow (or Google today) promise to drive themselves in just this manner.

Reply to this Topic
Bultoboy

Joined:

Apr 11

Posts: 3503

Bultoboy says:

Saturn

what was expected from the RCV1000 was what Aleix is doing with the Yam getting it amongst 'em. Shake up the status quo - give the series a bit of oomph!

Come on, you've been here before. That bike was never intended to be. It's happened through circumstance.

Honda did exactly what they were asked, a low spec production bike for 1m. Yamaha took a different approach, not what Dorna wanted but they coaxed them into allowing it. The whole point was to allow a team to own a bike, not lease it and have to give it back leaving them with nothing for their money.

Yamah wouldn't sell their engines as they were providing the latest spec (which they aren't if it doesn't have a seamless gearbox - which it won't if it's last years Tech3 spec) They didn't want their technology copied so they would only lease them to retain control.

So on top of the M1 lease cost of 800,000, there would be other costs for the chassis and other parts. Way over the 1m Honda were asking for the sale of their bike. When they have to give the engine back, they're left with an rolling chassis which is only good for another M1 engine.

The deal Forward ended up with was never for a complete M1, contrary to what you and others seem to think, and it's time you took this into consideration before comparing the performance of the two. Honda provided what Dorna asked, Yamaha didn't, but what they ended up doing is nothing illegal.

I'll leave the last word for Jarvis when talking about the proposed engine lease deal last year, before they'd even announced which team would be leasing them. Does this sound like leasing a full spec M1 was their original plan?

The Yamaha units are far from cheap while offering dependable performance, and increasing the number of M1s is only unnecessary costs and would be the exact opposite of Dorna's efforts to cap the racing expenses.

 

Jarvis said that

Reply to this Topic
saturn392

Joined:

Nov 03

Posts: 2233

saturn392 says:

So in conclusion

The status quo remains - and you're right Nostro I did say nothing would change ... it hasn't ... and it won't.

[This Reply has been modified by the Author]

Reply to this Topic
wosihound

Joined:

Jul 12

Posts: 3249

wosihound says:

AHHA..!!

...a chink of comprehension from The Orange side methinks..power, politics and money

Nostro says..

Wosi, it's Nakamoto San that has to justify a racing budget to his bean counters, not you. I'm picking R&D remains a big component in that sales pitch. It's a foolish man that says 'never';  the cars of tomorrow (or Google today) promise to drive themselves in just this manner.

Thing is Nostro..HRC are staying..with a Dorna spec ECU..controlled electronics..

They threatened to quit the MotoGP class, without the abilty to develop their own electronics for R&D..lean burn trickle down to save the planet.

Safety was paramount too, electronics helped riders avoid accidents..corner by corner, location based mapping was essential - ahem.

The corporate bean counters would sign off budgets to go racing if there was quantifiable Return On Investment.

A caring green tinge to the orange..a globally responsible outlook..doing the right thing by their customers..

Then how come they still want to go racing, when the reasons they were allowed to have that budget have been removed?

They told anybody and everyone they would leave..WE'LL QUIT! they howled from the roof top.

There must be another reason for wanting lean burn 20 litre racing, 5 engines a year and banning testing then?

Wouldn't be anything to do with brand awareness at the top of the most prestigious race series would it?

Selling bikes and dominating markets the world over?

Squeezing the competition and building bikes that fit into a pecking order?

Rigging?

I'd be interested to hear your views?

Sounds like you accept and resign yourself to corporations trying to impose Big Brother with us all being passengers on/in personal transport?..If true, you should be ashamed of yourself.


Don't worry Bulto..this is a bit out of your depth. I'm not expecting a positive contribution.


Reply to this Topic
Nostrodamus

Joined:

Mar 09

Posts: 5416

Nostrodamus says:

Aaahhh...another spin on the magic roundabout Dougal

Thing is just about all the things you mention have come to bear in the commercial marketplace with technological advancement. For better or worse we have significantly improved MPG bikes with far longer service intervals and a plethora of electronic wizardry on fairly mundane retail motorcycles. MotoGP related? The manufacturuers say so.

That spec DORNA ECU just gained a whole lot more programmability didn't it. So much so that's it's too sophisticated for the teams the damn thing was aimed at to use! Leveling the playing field or adding a few more whoop-de-doos?

 I can assure you Wosi, Nostro is no fan of big brother. In the real world I've often stuck two fingers up in his face. Not always to my benefit mind. Ha, ha!

Reply to this Topic
CBR11X

Joined:

Sep 10

Posts: 836

CBR11X says:

Loopholes is the way of the world I guess. Clearly the Apsar Yamaha is not in the same league as the RCV1000R, but stiff shite. Things will sort themselves out in a few years, and it's not like any of these Open bikes has really got a chance of winning anything other than a pole-position on a set of soft tyres. Having said that if I forked out a million to get a dud I'd be pissedorf.

Reply to this Topic
Firebird3

Joined:

Nov 11

Posts: 821

Firebird3 says:

 It must be a case of going 'green' and nothing to do with costs........a fuel and engine limit just means the R&D has to go all out to extract the most power out of a lean burn engine, while making it as reliable as possible, so where is the cost saving.  There is virtually no limit on the development of the chassis and the rest of the bike, but that has nothing to do with green issues has it.

 

 
I'm all for technology filtering down, but why all the smoke and mirrors act.
 

Reply to this Topic
wosihound

Joined:

Jul 12

Posts: 3249

wosihound says:

Progress..

is the natural order.

You can't lay the improvement of material & component technology on a pedestal at the door of GP and claim racing is the catalyst?

Manufacturers incorporate new commercially available technology into their product as it becomes available.

Honda don't build silicon chips and sensors.

Nobody races lap-tops and mobile phones..but they improve by the month?

The traction control, anti wheelie and other electronic systems on production bikes are in the dark ages compared to the location based, race specific, adaptive applications in MotoGP.

Turn by turn code that learns as it goes in order to make 20 litres and tyres last 20 laps around the same 15 corners of a track, is irrelevant to you and me on the road.

The above rules advantage those that can..with the deepest pockets.

Flat stick flag-to-flag racing has been replaced by an economy trial/durability competition where, riders trust systems and have to use them to go faster, or they won't make the end of the race.

Why don't manufacturers showcase this technology in an environment that is relevant?..like endurance racing? Because it has no prestige and value for their brand. 

So let's change the rules of MotoGP to suit our agenda and create an advantage for ourselves at the same time.


You use switchable TC and a softer engine mapping on your litre sports bike and it chops power, making you slower.

A racer who utilises all this electrickery should be penalised, because it it's filling in the holes his ability shouldn't need to rely on at this level..


25 years ago I was getting 55mpg urban out an old carburetted, two-valve, air-cooled GT550. 

If manufacturers were really serious about lean burn emission reduction, we'd have High Pressure Direct Injection systems like Honda have on their cars..20 year old technology that hasn't made it to bikes yet.

Why not? Too expensive to implement and unnecessary..bikes are pretty green by comparison and regular fuel injection will do.

How can Yamaha, who spend all this money in GP developing computer controlled intake systems, release a bike like the new MT-09 with flat spots and glitches in its power delivery, that threaten to de-rail sales?


If you honestly believe Dorna will allow their SPEC ECU to be used by Factories to continue developing sophisticated, mega expensive code, while at same time allowing more fuel to negate the need for such..you really are living in cloud cuckoo land and seem to be missing the point entirely.

[This Reply has been modified by the Author]

Reply to this Topic
TetsuoSama

Joined:

Sep 11

Posts: 546

TetsuoSama says:

Same old, same old

"bikes are pretty green by comparison"

Talking through your arse as usual, Wosi ;-)

Reply to this Topic

Page

Compare Insurance

Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy

Motorcycles for sale

 

It's only £13.99 to advertise your motorcycle on MCN

Sell your Motorcycle

Motorcycle pricing tool

New! Find used bike prices