Printable View
CRT - Claiming Rules Teams, peoples opinion about the new rules for next season? good or bad for MotoGP? IMO good, when you only have 3 fully manufactures in the sport. only 12 prototypes bikes on the grid, but when you hear riders like Casey Stoner doesn't like the rules. is it just making the drive-trains for the Prototype engines cheaper rather than using a BMW 1000cc road engine.
If they get the shockingly low grid numbers up, they must be a good idea.
End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.
I have no idea whatsoever what Jonny is talking about. I am not mechanically minded. But I think it is good if it just for the 800cc Independent teams. It is some means by which they can be competitive surely. They can afford to be less economical because they have more fuel and having more engines they can run them at a higher rate surely than the 100cc works teams.
Indeed. Without CRT-s we would have 12 (!) bikes on the grid in 2012. It was about ultimate time of changing something about Moto GP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew
I have already read rumours that besides 6 factory team bikes the rest may well already be CRT-s in 2013. I think CRT-bikes may be the way to go and will start playing a bigger role in the future, because prototypes are simply too expensive for private teams to afford.
Seems like the CRT concept is a more complex one than I had anticipated.
As far as I know an MSMA manufacturer (Yamaha, Honda & Ducati) can purchase an engine from a CRT for 20k Euro's with the gearbox & transmission or for 15k Euro's without gearbox & transmission but not more than 4 times from the same CRT in a single season.
Other than that I am in the dark. Apart from the fact CRT's will have more engines and more fuel.Quote:
The FIM rules state:
“MSMA manufacturers have the right to purchase the engine of a motorcycle entered by a CRT immediately after a race, for a fixed price of:
“20,000€ (twenty thousands Euros) including gearbox/transmission, or
“15,000€ (fifteen thousands Euros) without gearbox/transmission.
“A maximum of four engine claims can be made against one CRT in any one racing season. An MSMA manufacturer may not claim more than one engine per year from the same CRT (i.e. a different claimant for every claimed engine of the same CRT).”
I don't like the concept from the point of view of there being two sets of rules in MotoGP. However, I'll try and think about it more and explain my position better than in my current drowsy stage at 12.45am. :s nore:
Nutshell summary of “CRT” claiming rule as I see it:
* A “CRT” bike must have a prototype chassis and may use engines from any source (including production machines)
* Only MSMA (Motorcycle Sports Manufacturers' Association) member can lodged claims against “CRT” teams.
(20,000€ for engine with gearbox/transmission, or 15,000€ without).
* MSMA manufacturers can only claim one engine per year from any one “CRT” team and must specify the particular engine on race-day.
* No more than a combined total of 4 claims per season can be made against any one “CRT” team.
* “CRT” teams forced to sell engines under this rule are able to purchase replacement engines.
The intention of the claiming rule is to reduce the likelihood of the more affluent “CRT” teams developing technologies that others cannot or are unable to compete with.
If they did develop those technologies then they run the risk of having manufacturers buy their engines incorporating the technology for a mere 15,000€
However, one of the stumbling blocks that so far appears unresolved is that some “CRT” teams may be leasing engines which could not legally be sold by the “CRT” team.
All that being said, it would be rather embarrassing for a motorcycle manufacturer to “claim” an engine so whether or not any claims are actually lodged, remains to be seen..
I don’t really care as long as the sport survives, the racing is good, the televised coverage is reasonable and I still have my eyesight, a TV and enough money to pay the electricity and Foxtel (cable TV) bills.
As the Chinese say.........Correct me if I'm Wong.
What i'm trying to say, why not try put a Honda drive-train put into a Suter Chassis for example, something similar what KR team did in 2006 with the Honda engines, also why not Ducati, Honda and Yamaha make their 1000cc drive-trains much cheaper to put into a Suter chassis for example, so it wouldn't be a CRT bike in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by EavesFan09
So when we talk about MSMA manufacturers are we talking about Ducati, Yamaha and Honda? Because I would have thought a level playing field would be better attained if the CRT teams could buy engines from Honda or Ducati or Yamaha. The CRT rule seems to benefit the MSMA manufacturers because it isn't the CRT teams who buy engines. It is the MSMA manufacturers who buy from the CRT teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Richardson
Post by EavesFan
"So when we talk about MSMA manufacturers are we talking about Ducati, Yamaha and Honda? Because I would have thought a level playing field would be better attained if the CRT teams could buy engines from Honda or Ducati or Yamaha. The CRT rule seems to benefit the MSMA manufacturers because it isn't the CRT teams who buy engines. It is the MSMA manufacturers who buy from the CRT teams."
You've just about got it.
It appears to me that any bike manufacturer who is a member of MSMA, regardless of whether they are involved in racing, could claim an engine and transmission from a "CRT" team.
BUT I get back to the common belief that the rule was designed in an effort to keep the playing field level between "CRT" team bikes (not to make them competitive with Moto GP1 machines) and to discourage the more wealthy "CRT" teams from funding the development of technology that is beyond the means or ability of others.
However, it is the possibility of the claiming rule being used that is intended to limit the development and cost of running a "CRT" bike.
The majority of Moto GP bikes would leave a "CRT" bike for dead on a dry track so there is no logical reason I could identify for an MSMA member manufacturer already involved in Moto GP to even bother using the claiming rule.
Don't expect "CRT" bikes to be competitive with Moto GP 1 bikes. It will work out similar in practices to British Superbikes and the Evo class machines. Might pay to call them Moto GP 1 A and 1B.
Yes, the MSMA is the manufacturers association which is the factories. My take on the actual 'claiming' only being done by the factories is to protect a CRT from having another CRT pinching all their secrets for cheap whereas a factory will really have nothing to gain, either on a technical front or particularly from a PR point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by EavesFan09
The thing I don't like is having two sets of technical rules within one class of racing, purely to nobble the factories. Aprilia are currently testing with Alex Hoffman and Randy DePuniet to get data to build a CRT bike and one of the biggest problems that will be inevitably faced under the current rules is defining a MSMA bike. If Aprilia (or another manufacturer) are found to be offering too much assistance then they can be re-classified a MSMA bike and not a CRT bike and the regulations for them change. But what constitutes too much assistance? For me, just create a single set of basic engine rules with the same amount of fuel for everyone - preferably 24 litres - with the allowance of being able to use production based equipment paired to a prototype frame. That way, there is no ambiguity. If a manufacturer (Suzuki, Aprilia, Kawasaki, BMW, etc) wish to enter MotoGP by supplying and supporting a private team with a super-trick motor based on one of their production bikes then why not? Then the manufacturer can offer a frame package if they choose or there are the FTR, Suter, etc options as well. Also, the bikes should be available to be bought and not just leased so a team can either further develop them into a second year or on-sell them to another team the following season.
very long winded, but the answers are her.
CRT FAQ: Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Claiming Rule Teams, But Were Afraid To Ask | MotoMatters.com | Kropotkin Thinks
So basically "factory prototypes" (formerly satellite bikes) cover works bikes and satellite bikes? :confused:Quote:
They will run alongside the normal factory and satellite MotoGP bikes (now officially classified as "factory prototypes" regardless of whether they are being run in a factory team or a satellite team), and be subject to slightly different rules.
But would the works teams (Ducati, Repsol Honda and Yamaha) not be buying an engine that isn't fully-factory backed because it won't have come from a factory team?Quote:
The rule has been put in place merely as an ultimate threat, to deter other factories from fielding fully factory-backed engines under the guise of a CRT entry.