MotoCz𓂃ysz founder Michael Czysz, whose E1PC electric motorcycles took first and second places i💎n the 2011 Isle of Man TT Zero race, has offered the following vision for future technical rules in MotoGP and WSBK competition.

Czysz has given mahbx.com permission for his ideas, posted on MotoCzysz.com eaܫrlier th𝔉is week, to be reproduced in full below.

Negotiations are ongoing between Dorna and the MotoGP manufacturers for ౠthe post-2012 rule changes, with the end of May targeted as thไe deadline for an agreement...

Is MotoGP lost: 500 > 990 > 800 > 1000 > CRT > ?

Companies race for only a few reasons: R&D, Sales & Marketing and hopefully passion. Fans watch for even fewer; to witness the greatest competition known to man.

In an era where it is more important then ever for companies to innovate and differentiate themselves from the competition, the race track for a motorc💛ycle company should be as central to their operation as the boardroom.

If co꧂mpanies no longer deem racing essential, it is because the formula is n𝄹o longer relevant.

Worse, if racing classifications are not clear then fans fail to connect and eventually even care. Ask even a loyal fan 𒊎to explain the difference between DSB and SuperSport or WSBK and a CRT.

Racing directs development and to make it relevant in the 21 century, efficiency should trump top speed. Everyᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ𒀱ᩚᩚᩚ company (and individual) should be f𒆙ocused on doing more with less and fans should easily understand the structure and goals of each class. What is needed is new architecture, a solid, stable foundation that can scale from Moto3 thru MotoGP and WSBK while maintaining each classes unique individuality.

Go to the heart...

Motorcycles go faste꧅r because every aspect improves but at the centre𒁏 of this improvement is the cylinder, the heart of the machine. Cylinders have evolved to a diametric science of laminar flow and turbulence. The heart has moved far beyond simple porting and polishing of cast heads.

The de🐼sign and development of the cylinder (airbox to exhaust) is a serious, expensive endeavor and with every seemingly random displacement or bore/stroke change the entire expensive cycle starts over.

More than anything else, global rule changes preclude smaller companies f𒁏rom becoming competitive and even plays a part in why existing manufacturers drop out. The result? A MotoGP gri💛d with 3 manufacturers.

The first step; lock down the lowest common denominator, the single cylin🍰der. The obvious choice is a 250cc 4 stroke. The only limitation should be no pneum💫atic valves.

Ultimately the investors in race technology want to commercialise their technology and pneumatic valves are not easily commercialised. Limiting RPM or bore/stroke ratios are mജisguided, the goal should be to leave the rules as open as possible.

Once a team has successfully designed a single cylinder, a single-cylinder engine is a relatively small next step. Once a team has built a single-cylinder engine, a multi-cylinder engine is well within reach. All the technolog🌠y and costs spent on any engine could be applied and shared with any other engine yet every engine and class stays and sounds unique.

The 250 multiplier

We have been nearly here; the greatest era of GP racing from a cost development and fan appreciation perspective had to be the 125, 250 and 500cc era and the distinction between superbikes and GP were at their greatest; 2 stroke vs. 4 stroke. Even though 4 stroke eng🉐ines🎶 have migrated into MotoGP there is still a solution- it utilises what I call the 250 multiplier:

Moto3 = 250cc (250cc x 1 cylinder).
Moto2 = 500cc (250cc x 2 cylinders).
MotoGP = 750cc (250cc x 3 cylinders).
WSBK/Superbi💖ke racღing = 1,000 (250cc x 4 cylinders).

This allows the clearest path forward for even the smallest company from China or the larಌgest company from India to enter and create a long term plan to race. Nearly all the investment made in Moto3 would be directly applicable to Moto2 and ☂so on.

Of course, fewer or more cylinders should be allowed with displacement considerations.

MotoGP vs WSBK

MotoGP = 250cc, 500cc and 750cc prototype engines and chassis.
WSBK/Superbike = 600𒁃cc and 1,000cc production engines and ൩chassis.

Under the 250X format Moto🔯GP will continue to race technology-leading prototype chassis and engines. With a common cylinder across the classes, MotoGP will not only have built-in feeder classes for riders but for manufacturers too.

Superbikes will continue to be the most directly connected series to consumers as the motorcycles raced are available in showrooms. However Superbikꦫe needs to be moreꦿ disciplined, a minimum number of motorcycles must be manufactured and delivered before allowed to participate.

The trust is lost when a series♌ homologates bikes or equipment arbitrarily that do not even meet the basic definition of "production based" (i🐽.e. AMA/DMG)

Electronics, tyres, back-up bikes, etc.

I generally feel fewer rules are better than more and that fewe𝔉r restrictions will create more interesting 🐻racing and over the long run will cost less. Change costs money, the greater the change the greater the cost.

Electronics are a reality and will continue to play an even bi🌳gger roll in racing. Electronics can bring outside industry support and money to racing so it needs be managed, not 🀅limited.

Moto3 = controlled electronics (single supplier system).
Moto2 = homoligated electronics (open system from any supplier, available to all teams).
MotoGP = unlimited electronics.

WSS 600cc = homoligated electronics (open system from any supplier, available to all teams).
WSBK 1000cc = unlimited electronics.

Tyres = open.
Back-up (spare) bike = allowed.
CRTs = cancelled.

Historically, whenever a restriction is implemented to save money it often costs more. Currently WSBK does not allow a back-up bike in an effort to save money. In response every team now has a back-up bike that is apart, packed in crates instead of already bꦓuilt and ready.

There is little difference in 😼outright cost but all teams encounter much more work and cost in 🍨the event there is a problem with the 'one' bike. By definition Superbike is to be production racing, which means highly available.

Most importantly; vertical growth over lateral change

There are hundreds of motorcycle manufacturers and supplie🌃rs in the world that are candidates to participate in racing but do not. The greatest limitation is not money but time.

Unles🔯s a company is already experienced in racing it takes time to work into the system. Money is still a requirement but many companies have more than 'enough' to participate at some level and enough of ꦺthem could significantly contribute to the overall health and wealth of the sport.

What I believe keeps many companies on the sidelines is the lack 🧜of transparency and reason behind wholesale rule changes reinforcing a general fear that the sport is too big and they (we) are too small.

However if it was clear that a com🦋pany ꩵwould have years to move up and grow into the sport this fear would be reduced if not completely eliminated.

If a company could be certain that every hour and every dollar it i🌠nvested in racing would remain relevant and applicable as they executed a measured, vertical growth plan then the ROI and value proposition of racing dramatically changes.

If motorcycle racing became the best organise🍸d, most transparent race series with the clearest, communicated long-term vision I belie🎉ve it could be the most successful motorsport in the world.

There is nothing as beautiful and courageous.

Michael Czysz

Ends.