What's the difference between MotoGP, Moto2 and Moto3?

>>13823405
the sexy suits

File: stoppie uleh.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>13823405
Motogp: 1000cc 4 cylinder, prototype engines, high state of tune. Highest weight.

Moto2: 600cc 4 cylinder, control engines made by honda, medium/average state of tune. Similar weight to motoGP.

Moto3: 250cc 1 cylinder, prototype engines, high state of tune, ridiculously light weight, tiny tyres.

Moto3 is 250cc, NA single-cylinder bikes, making around 50hp

Moto2 is 600cc, NA inline-four bikes (engines all identical, produced by honda), making approximately 140hp

MotoGP is 1000cc, NA four-cylinder bikes, making approximately 240-260hp. These bikes must be complete prototypes, which is why MotoGP is often compared to F1 in terms of status. For reference, MotoGP bikes are the fastest accelerating land-based race machines anywhere in the world outside of dedicated drag weapons. However, due to the natural disadvantages of two-wheels compared to four, many car-racing series of lesser status outclass MotoGP for overall lap times.

File: Simeon_Crash.webm (3MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 853x480px

>>13823479
Here's moto2

>>13823502
Why don't they just use 4 wheels then?

>>13823895
I don't know. Why don't formula one have closed wheels for better aero?

>>13823895
That's enough from you

>>13823502
I think the only natural disadvantage of two wheels is the inability to use downforce.
>tfw hoping for wings automatically deploying on the wheels when leaned over

File: 8f1924e786b36e7c57603e57a4f6e5fa.jpg (67KB, 381x298px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 381x298px

>>13823895
requires less skill

File: 2009-04-11-MotoGP-01-Qatar-1125.jpg (97KB, 700x438px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 700x438px

>>13823943
Not sure if it's also a result of lack of downforce, but braking is also shithouse compared to four-wheelers.

>>13824150

Because somersault.