Cycle News is a weekly magazine that covers all aspects of motorcycling including Supercross, Motocross and MotoGP as well as new motorcycles
Issue link: https://magazine.cyclenews.com/i/441908
VOL. 52 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 6, 2015 P99 vation at their very core. This would kick in as they arrived at the first corner. And since they would all arrive at more or less the same time, you can anticipate what would hap- pen. They would slot into line politely. And hold their positions until the end of the race. Much like MotoGP, you might think, at least before Marquez arrived with his own sense of self-preservation programmed differently from the others. But there are more possibili- ties here. Riders could still be involved, sitting lined up on benches in pit lane as if for a group photo- graph, watching the screens, and using their smart-phones to issue commands that would over-rule the on-board pilot. The more electronically savvy might find a way to hack in to the other guys' phones, and swerve them off into the gravel. Even if not, we would see some pretty adventurous stuff, with no risk of injury from crash- ing. In fact, you'd need a coun- terbalance here: any rider who does crash his remote bike could be given a suitable con- trolled injury, predetermined by special rules, by Dr. Costa's medical staff. Who would then immediately start working to fix it again. That would make them a bit more careful. Or perhaps the bikes could have passengers, with no ac- cess to the controls, positions to be auctioned off to adventur- ous fans, proceeds to Riders for Health. In truth, though, no riders or passengers would be required. Just the machines. It would sure put the "motor" back into motorsport. Which begs another ques- tion. If you don't need riders, do you need spectators? This brings us to the very nub of the matter. Do we need mo- torcycle racing? The factories currently in- volved have already answered this. In spite of admitting that pure racing developments have little or nothing to do with pro- duction engineering, they do it for other reasons: to develop creative engineers, to publicize their products, and (though they won't admit it in the boardroom) for fun. Dorna also has a vested inter- est in a positive answer to this question. Their approach is the opposite from the driverless brigade; the thrust to diminish the "motor" side of the equation and emphasize the "sport." Standardization of electronics specifically prevents clever engi- neers attaining any advantage. Standardization of pretty much everything else that can be standardized: number of cyl- inders, gears, tires, number of engines, and so on. (Sadly for Suzuki reliability can't be stan- dardized. Otherwise it would give their engineers one less problem to solve, after yet more blow-ups at recent tests as they jacked up the performance to try and close the gap in lap times.) Making everything the same leaves it up to the rider to make the difference. It enhances the sport at the expense of the en- gineering. Until now, I have been sternly disapproving of this approach. I believe that technicalities should be an intrinsic part of the whole grand prix ideal, while electronics have become the most rapid area of development ever seen in motorcycle racing. Dumbing down the engineering diminishes Grand Prix racing... just look at the over-regulation that has turned Moto2 into a down-market graveyard of tal- ent and inspiration, for both en- gineers and riders. For the factory race depart- ments also, operating under ever-tightening fetters, the ex- ercise has become increasingly pointless. My dream made me wonder, however. It's a delicate business, but if the balance is right, in the end we're better off with the riders remaining in control. CN