Control Tire developed for who?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VHMP01 @ Oct 31 2008, 03:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Rossi hard earned being listen to like no other…

Ok, my turn and got to say I disagree with the notion that because VR has won a number of WC's it entitles him to be listened to any more than a first year rookie developing a product that works for them.

Of course, the case in question is tyres (tires for some ) and according to the 'script' the idea is to go to one make in order to provide equality and fairness for all product users (ie. the entire MotoGP paddock). To provide fairness the manufacturer should not build a tyre/tire to suit the specifications of any one rider, machine or style but should build a 'mid point' tyre/tire that works for all.

I said sometime ago (another thread) that Bridgestone would be unable to do this and instead the tyres/tires would be developed based around the higher placed riders, although I suspect that VR's feedback would (rightly or wrongly) be given pre-eminence due to his standing in the sport. This is of course unfair to others who cannot have input into the tyre/tire development for any number of reasons (ie. not enough clout, lack experience with the product etc). But, I also said that it is entirely expected that the initial tyres/tires should be based on those used in 2008 and there can be little doubt that the 2008 tyres/tires have been developed based on feedback from VR and probably lesser from CS. Thus, the changes should hold little impact for them.

But, the question is should this be allowed to continue and the answer (for those that want fairness) is no. Bridgestone need to be able to either develop tyres/tires for each rider/bike or develop mid-point tyres/tires based upon the cumulative feedback of all riders.

As I did say in another thread, the awarding of the contract to Bridgestone (or as it was at the time Michelin) immediately raises fairness issues for those not using that product the previous season or having less time to develop their machines and styles for that tyre/tire. Thus, I expect that in 2009 we will just have an extension of 2008 whereby the tyres/tires will continue to work for VR, CS and lately DP with the odd exceptional performance from a newcomer to the brand. I still expect Suzuki/Kawasaki to struggle as the tyres/tires will not be developed as readily from their feedback.

Ok, so I got a little ranting but what I really wanted to say was in answer to the quoted piece and that is that just because VR has the championships does not mean that a 'neutral' MotoGP supplier (ie. Bridgestone) should give his feedback any more weight than a class rookie. However, certainly a 'Rossi specific product' (ie. the bike) could be expected to be developed more to his liking than say Lorenzo, Edwards, Toseland etc.

There said it ......... finally





Garry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Oct 31 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ok, my turn and got to say I disagree with the notion that because VR has won a number of WC's it entitles him to be listened to any more than a first year rookie developing a product that works for them.

Yeah that's right Gaz in the real world neophytes are always listened to more than experts. When I get my bike serviced I always look for the most pimply-faced, rookie mechanic two weeks out of school rather than the gnarly old veteran who eats bike parts for dinner. When I pick a doctor I try to find the one least experienced in my particular ailment. And thank god governments and corporations around the world use economists, military analysts, engineers, scientists, etc... with no experience to make critical judgments and decisions, rather than skilled, knowledgeable, experts with maturity and sophistication.

As for the tyre construction we often used to use the tyre choice of our better funded, more successful rivals at a particular track when club racing the adjust our chassis/suspension set-up to the tyre. Its called getting a leg up. Maybe Suzuki and Kawasaki could learn something from Ducati and Yamaha. Honda hasn't seemed to have trouble adapting.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Oct 31 2008, 06:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah that's right Gaz in the real world neophytes are always listened to more than experts. When I get my bike serviced I always look for the most pimply-faced, rookie mechanic two weeks out of school rather than the gnarly old veteran who eats bike parts for dinner. When I pick a doctor I try to find the one least experienced in my particular ailment. And thank god governments and corporations around the world use economists, military analysts, engineers, scientists, etc... with no experience to make critical judgments and decisions, rather than skilled, knowledgeable, experts with maturity and sophistication.

As for the tyre construction we often used to use the tyre choice of our better funded, more successful rivals at a particular track when club racing the adjust our chassis/suspension set-up to the tyre. Its called getting a leg up. Maybe Suzuki and Kawasaki could learn something from Ducati and Yamaha. Honda hasn't seemed to have trouble adapting.

You may have missed my point or you may not, not sure.

You are correct, I prefer dealing with experienced people when it comes to the particular problem or issue for which I am seeking advice. But, does that mean that the advice they give is correct?

Additionally, the advice I seek for my issue (much the same as you for your issue) is entirely to benefit ourselves and for that we are somewhat self absorbed. But, our bikes (or whatever it may be) are not meant to be involved in a 'level playing field' scenario such as the tyres/tires in MotoGP.

So, let me ask you.

If a very experienced mechanic, say the same one you have been dealing with for years recommends to you to use an R6 component in an R1 just because 'someone he knows' does it successfully. Would you?

That whilst far fetched is similar to what the 'non consulted' riders will be expected to do with their tyres/tires and yes, it is ultimately up to them to get the best from their bike and themselves to make it work, but is it fair (given teh idea of a single supplier is safety and fairness)?



EDIT: Had to look up Neophyte, can you please use simpler words as it is to late in the week for my brain to work.



Garry

Sorry been editing this week and probably swallowed my thesaurus, anyway I'm probably still missing your point so lets flesh it out...

"You are correct, I prefer dealing with experienced people when it comes to the particular problem or issue for which I am seeking advice. But, does that mean that the advice they give is correct?"

Of course not, everything must get filtered through your own experience/judgement BUT it sure helps to suss out the best source of information first.

"If a very experienced mechanic, say the same one you have been dealing with for years recommends to you to use an R6 component in an R1 just because 'someone he knows' does it successfully. Would you?"

I've never been afraid of outside the box thinking and if it was a trusted source (as per your example) and they provided a logical technical rationale for the change I would surely consider it.

Now how does this relate to MGP control tyre? You seem to be focused on a fair and level playing field in the introduction of the "new" control tyre. Do you suggest that the tyre should have been designed to the "lowest common denominator"? How does that fit with anyones philosophy of racing? Racing is competition, it is meant to separate the cream, to rank performance and to humble the losers and newbies. It is the crucible where the talented achieve and the lesser mortals are chewed up and disposed of. Of course those swinging the bigger dicks will exert more gravity in MGP, they have EARNED their positions of grace through performance and, as in any other field of endeavor, they can use their Jupiter-like pull to affect change. Is it "right", is it "fair", I don't know, but i do know it is the way of the world (except for that weird experiment known as communism) and your utopian idea of a "mid" technology for the control tyre is just an idealists pipe dream.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Oct 31 2008, 05:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ok, my turn and got to say I disagree with the notion that because VR has won a number of WC's it entitles him to be listened to any more than a first year rookie developing a product that works for them.

Of course, the case in question is tyres (tires for some ) and according to the 'script' the idea is to go to one make in order to provide equality and fairness for all product users (ie. the entire MotoGP paddock). To provide fairness the manufacturer should not build a tyre/tire to suit the specifications of any one rider, machine or style but should build a 'mid point' tyre/tire that works for all.

I said sometime ago (another thread) that Bridgestone would be unable to do this and instead the tyres/tires would be developed based around the higher placed riders, although I suspect that VR's feedback would (rightly or wrongly) be given pre-eminence due to his standing in the sport. This is of course unfair to others who cannot have input into the tyre/tire development for any number of reasons (ie. not enough clout, lack experience with the product etc). But, I also said that it is entirely expected that the initial tyres/tires should be based on those used in 2008 and there can be little doubt that the 2008 tyres/tires have been developed based on feedback from VR and probably lesser from CS. Thus, the changes should hold little impact for them.

But, the question is should this be allowed to continue and the answer (for those that want fairness) is no. Bridgestone need to be able to either develop tyres/tires for each rider/bike or develop mid-point tyres/tires based upon the cumulative feedback of all riders.

As I did say in another thread, the awarding of the contract to Bridgestone (or as it was at the time Michelin) immediately raises fairness issues for those not using that product the previous season or having less time to develop their machines and styles for that tyre/tire. Thus, I expect that in 2009 we will just have an extension of 2008 whereby the tyres/tires will continue to work for VR, CS and lately DP with the odd exceptional performance from a newcomer to the brand. I still expect Suzuki/Kawasaki to struggle as the tyres/tires will not be developed as readily from their feedback.

Ok, so I got a little ranting but what I really wanted to say was in answer to the quoted piece and that is that just because VR has the championships does not mean that a 'neutral' MotoGP supplier (ie. Bridgestone) should give his feedback any more weight than a class rookie. However, certainly a 'Rossi specific product' (ie. the bike) could be expected to be developed more to his liking than say Lorenzo, Edwards, Toseland etc.

There said it ......... finally

Garry

You sure are a little raniting . The first paragrapgh has all ready been adressed by Mick D in the only possible way and it sure was funny.

Secondly there is no such things as a new tire with input from one or two riders only. What this season ended up with are still more than anything influenced by Ducati. This things develops in an evelutionary way, slowly and step by step. Rossi might have had his say in direction this year but it's plenty left of the "old" tire from one year ago.

Also as Mick D says, information are filtered and evaluated, also based on other riders input. The final result are tested with several riders. And of course all this are held up against tons of telemetric data and tire measurements that often tells as much as the rider does.

Finally, the absolute dethstab are your own words: the tyres/tires will continue to work for VR, CS and lately DP. This is three totally different riders, with different bikes, riding style and weight.
DP was superfast up to pace on the Stones and that proves that Bridgestone has done some thinking here. Besides. they could hardly ask for a better proof that "anyone" can ride their tires fast.
The drawback are that a quantum leap in tire development will be less likely, but then again that is exactly what the rule is set out to stop. It's there to slow development, not to facillitate avery rider with their special requests.

Ok, so let me try again and ask it another way.

Does anyone believe that Bridgestone will listen to feedback from any of the 'lesser' teams when developing their tyres/tires?

I suspect not, nor do I blame them and never have (read my posts in other threads).

The tyre/tire that is in use today has been developed primarily on the feedback of the better riders (this is natural) but that does not mean that it will work for all machines, so where does that leave those other teams?

Some say that those teams must 'step up' and develop their bikes to suit the tyres/tires that are on offer (a natural progress) and one that must occur if the tyre development is led by the likes of VR, CS, DP etc. But, my question is are Bridgestone right and fair to follow the existing path, of should they be listening to all teams and develop a product that goes as close as possible to suiting all teams.

The argument about poorer or lesser teams needing to 'step up' could just as easily be turned around into the scenario that these teams may have the best mechanical and technical equipment, but lack the tyres/tires so why can't or shouldn't tyres/tires be developed for the?

It is an argument or question that can go on for a lengthy time (and there is no right or wrong), and I don't have the answer as my personal preference was to remain with multiple tyre/tire suppliers or go to a supplier not in MotoGP in 2008.

So, I ask you, who do you expect Bridgestone will listen to with regards to tyre/tire feedback and why?






Garry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Oct 31 2008, 09:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ok, so let me try again and ask it another way.

Does anyone believe that Bridgestone will listen to feedback from any of the 'lesser' teams when developing their tyres/tires?
Absolutly, the right question would be, "how much do they change tires based on feedback from the lesser teams, when that feedback is unique and pull in the oposite direction from the top teams."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I suspect not, nor do I blame them and never have (read my posts in other threads).
The lesser teams mor often than not confirm the faster teams, that's the way they listen to those as well. It's all weighed against each other and the faster team are heavier.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The tyre/tire that is in use today has been developed primarily on the feedback of the better riders (this is natural) but that does not mean that it will work for all machines, so where does that leave those other teams?
With some engineering and setup work.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Some say that those teams must 'step up' and develop their bikes to suit the tyres/tires that are on offer (a natural progress) and one that must occur if the tyre development is led by the likes of VR, CS, DP etc. But, my question is are Bridgestone right and fair to follow the existing path, of should they be listening to all teams and develop a product that goes as close as possible to suiting all teams.

The argument about poorer or lesser teams needing to 'step up' could just as easily be turned around into the scenario that these teams may have the best mechanical and technical equipment, but lack the tyres/tires so why can't or shouldn't tyres/tires be developed for the?
To develop the bike to suit the tires is not a complete redisign, and it does not give a "Control bike". Look at ducati's CF frame as a good example and also the different engines and solutions. Having a control tires are generally considered and advantage for the better designers. They do the few modifications to make the tire fit and then concentrate on all of the rest to make a better bike than the others.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>It is an argument or question that can go on for a lengthy time (and there is no right or wrong), and I don't have the answer as my personal preference was to remain with multiple tyre/tire suppliers or go to a supplier not in MotoGP in 2008.
That has allways been my preference too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>So, I ask you, who do you expect Bridgestone will listen to with regards to tyre/tire feedback and why?
Wrong question again as there are no black and white, it's weighed. The lesser teams has less influence and that is in my opnion exactly how it should be and it's axactly the way it allways has been. Control tire doesn't change that, but it does slow development enabling the lesser teams to adapt and adjust better. All in all, an advantge for them.

What were they supposed to do? Produce a random tyre based on no race data? Or base the tyre on the backmarkers equipment to throw out the development that the top teams have been making? I seems pretty logical to base the control tyre on the best and most widely used equipment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Oct 31 2008, 09:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Wrong question again as there are no black and white, it's weighed. The lesser teams has less influence and that is in my opnion exactly how it should be and it's axactly the way it allways has been. Control tire doesn't change that, but it does slow development enabling the lesser teams to adapt and adjust better. All in all, an advantge for them.


Fully aware of the 'weighting' side of it, and frankly if the supplier did not listen to the 'major' teams (lets talk results as major) than (IMO) they are likely well behind in theor product development and I would suggest following the wrong path.

Given that we have a single supplier/control tyre situation now upon us (whether we like it or not), it is an interesting time as theoretically with each rider on the same tyres/tires one variable has been removed (supposedly). Theory therefore dictates (and this has been discussed) that the field should condense into smaller time gaps. This of course will not happen from day one, but (IMO) by mid season we should have a good indication of whether the lesser teams can catch up (lets talk dry weather only) with their development to suit the tyres.

Personally, I strongly suspect that the lesser teams will continue to struggle and the cream will remain on top with a few additions given that some Michelin 'talent' is now on the 'stones (JL, Dovi).

I do hope (and this is my major concern) that the tyre/tire does not stifle the development or ability of the lesser teams and we instead end up with further processional racing covered by the same if not larger gaps.






Garry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Oct 31 2008, 10:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What were they supposed to do? Produce a random tyre based on no race data? Or base the tyre on the backmarkers equipment to throw out the development that the top teams have been making? I seems pretty logical to base the control tyre on the best and most widely used equipment.


Tom, it is not about the tyres/tires they have developed or used in the testing just completed but instead the direction taken from here.

Will they listen to all feedback, only some, or ignore totally and base their future developments on their own observations, data and what not?

I have no idea but it is this that 'concerns' me as the path chosen could improve the situation or leave us with the current often complained about status.

Time will tell.





Garry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Oct 31 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tom, it is not about the tyres/tires they have developed or used in the testing just completed but instead the direction taken from here.

Will they listen to all feedback, only some, or ignore totally and base their future developments on their own observations, data and what not?

I have no idea but it is this that 'concerns' me as the path chosen could improve the situation or leave us with the current often complained about status.

Time will tell.





Garry

Time indeed will tell. The idea of the control tyre being a safetey thing would suggest that development should be very gradual anyway, and there should be a certain amount of stability whole the teams, riders and bikes adapt to the new equipment. Does anyone know hoe WSBK tyres are developed? Do they listen to Troy and Ducati a bit more than the others?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Oct 31 2008, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Does anyone know hoe WSBK tyres are developed? Do they listen to Troy and Ducati a bit more than the others?Great question.

So after less than 2 days on the new tires; everyone is already conceding the championship? Surely part of being a "great rider" is the ability to adapt? Not to throw in the towel before a race has been run? As much as I dislike thumbelina; he has seemed to be able to get the tires to work for him - so why shouldn't everyone else? The Ducati and Yamaha are poles apart as bikes; yet the two best riders in the championship seem to be able to get the tires to work for them. At the end of the day; it's the rider's job to make their package as competitive as possible - not do Sete's favorite trick of looking at the back (or front) tire and shaking their head after they have been beaten fair and square.

This year, there were only 4 riders who realistically had a chance of winning the title - did anyone really believe that by changing the tires that suddenly Hopper (or the rest) would be contenders next year? The Kwak is less competitive than a one legged man at an arse kicking competition; it will take more than Bridgestone building him his own tires to change that!

If the tires are not to be built around Rossi and Stoner - consistently the fastest riders in the field; then who should they be built by? Ezy, Puig?

The best/most successful riders will always have things there own way; it is one of the rewards for being the best; this is the same in all sports. They also get paid the most money - should we introduce a salary cap into the sport to stop that as well? How about a "Control wage" for 2010?

5403:gaythread.jpg]

There are no "lesser" teams just less committed teams. There isn't a single manufacturer in this series that can't afford to successfully develop a chassis for the Bridgestone front before the start of the '09 season. The day of counting on a special tire construction to overcome shoddy engineering design work is over. Gentlemen, start your brains.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Oct 30 2008, 10:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ok, my turn and got to say I disagree with the notion that because VR has won a number of WC's it entitles him to be listened to any more than a first year rookie developing a product that works for them.

Of course, the case in question is tyres (tires for some ) and according to the 'script' the idea is to go to one make in order to provide equality and fairness for all product users (ie. the entire MotoGP paddock). To provide fairness the manufacturer should not build a tyre/tire to suit the specifications of any one rider, machine or style but should build a 'mid point' tyre/tire that works for all.

I said sometime ago (another thread) that Bridgestone would be unable to do this and instead the tyres/tires would be developed based around the higher placed riders, although I suspect that VR's feedback would (rightly or wrongly) be given pre-eminence due to his standing in the sport. This is of course unfair to others who cannot have input into the tyre/tire development for any number of reasons (ie. not enough clout, lack experience with the product etc). But, I also said that it is entirely expected that the initial tyres/tires should be based on those used in 2008 and there can be little doubt that the 2008 tyres/tires have been developed based on feedback from VR and probably lesser from CS. Thus, the changes should hold little impact for them.

But, the question is should this be allowed to continue and the answer (for those that want fairness) is no. Bridgestone need to be able to either develop tyres/tires for each rider/bike or develop mid-point tyres/tires based upon the cumulative feedback of all riders.

As I did say in another thread, the awarding of the contract to Bridgestone (or as it was at the time Michelin) immediately raises fairness issues for those not using that product the previous season or having less time to develop their machines and styles for that tyre/tire. Thus, I expect that in 2009 we will just have an extension of 2008 whereby the tyres/tires will continue to work for VR, CS and lately DP with the odd exceptional performance from a newcomer to the brand. I still expect Suzuki/Kawasaki to struggle as the tyres/tires will not be developed as readily from their feedback.

Ok, so I got a little ranting but what I really wanted to say was in answer to the quoted piece and that is that just because VR has the championships does not mean that a 'neutral' MotoGP supplier (ie. Bridgestone) should give his feedback any more weight than a class rookie. However, certainly a 'Rossi specific product' (ie. the bike) could be expected to be developed more to his liking than say Lorenzo, Edwards, Toseland etc.

There said it ......... finally

Garry

Your are totally right my friend , two points:

1.- I did mention “Rossi hard earned being LISTEN to like no other”, but it does not mean other should not be LISTENED to, or the fact that Brigestone should use Data from all riders to develop new spec tyres for each coming race or a coming season. I did not mean “What Rossi Says is Written on Stone”…

2.- Once they got a specs tyre for a given race, All Riders should choose randomly from a pile of tyres (all times flipping a coin if they most). So Brigestones should ‘Listen’ to Riders like Rossi, Stoner and Pedrosa, because they are the Top 3. And to Riders like Lorenzo and Dovizioso because they are the next in the Top 5, plus a bit of newer input so that things don’t just stay behind like the old Riders like.

As per usual, the whole idea of a control tyre/manufacturer SUX! There is more chance of bias, and, of less competition, which will do nothing to improve the the series in the next few years. Less competition in motoGP is definately not good for the sport.
In the end, WSBK or a version of it, will make it harder and harder for motoGP to be the premier motorcycling road race competition in the world. There's too few teams operating on ever expanding budgets, dominated by a few small countries, to keep the series alive.
Once the 125's and 250's leave the grand prix circuit, you will have 2 races - some sort of 600cc prototype and whatever version they have decided for the premier class. Compare that to 2 superbike races and 1 supersport race on motorcycles that the general public can relate to,with closer racing, which are not that far off the times of prototype race bikes, (which cost millions more to develop), and where do you think the general public will vote for with their voices/money?
The demise of motoGP in it's current form is not far off.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Oct 31 2008, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Some say that those teams must 'step up' and develop their bikes to suit the tyres/tires that are on offer (a natural progress) and one that must occur if the tyre development is led by the likes of VR, CS, DP etc. But, my question is are Bridgestone right and fair to follow the existing path, of should they be listening to all teams and develop a product that goes as close as possible to suiting all teams.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Oct 31 2008, 08:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>To develop the bike to suit the tires is not a complete redisign, and it does not give a "Control bike". Look at ducati's CF frame as a good example and also the different engines and solutions.
Agree with Babel here - look at the Yamahas of Rossi and Lorenzo at the start of last season and the chassis changes that were quickly made to Rossi's bike in order to suit the Bridgestones without having to redesign the chassis in such a way that either two frames were required or that Lorenzo was compromised on the Michelins.

If the chassis is good to start with then adapting it to suit tyres is not too hard. The problem, as I see it, for Kawasaki (and to a lesser extent Suzuki) is that the chassis is not good to start with.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Oct 31 2008, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There are no "lesser" teams just less committed teams. There isn't a single manufacturer in this series that can't afford to successfully develop a chassis for the Bridgestone front before the start of the '09 season. The day of counting on a special tire construction to overcome shoddy engineering design work is over. Gentlemen, start your brains.
Well said that man.

[quote name='yamaka46' date='Oct 31 2008, 10:40 PM' post='164332']
Agree with Babel here - look at the Yamahas of Rossi and Lorenzo at the start of last season and the chassis changes that were quickly made to Rossi's bike in order to suit the Bridgestones without having to redesign the chassis in such a way that either two frames were required or that Lorenzo was compromised on the Michelins.

If the chassis is good to start with then adapting it to suit tyres is not too hard. The problem, as I see it, for Kawasaki (and to a lesser extent Suzuki) is that the chassis is not good to start with.

Yamaka hit the nail right on the freakin' head. Development is part of the racing deal and if you cannot do it (hello Suzi & Kawi) then git the frack out and let someone else (KTM, Aprilla, BMW, Triumph, Gillara, etc... etc... etc...) git on with it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Oct 31 2008, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yamaka hit the nail right on the freakin' head. Development is part of the racing deal and if you cannot do it (hello Suzi & Kawi) then git the frack out and let someone else (KTM, Aprilla, BMW, Triumph, Gillara, etc... etc... etc...) git on with it.
What if KTM, Aprilia, BMW, Triumph, Gilera, Derbi, etc. etc. don't want to do it or don't have the means to do it? Because that's the case at the moment. As .... as Suzuki and Kawasaki are, at least they're there. Aprilia gave it a shot and couldn't do it competitively for less than it would cost for them to put someone on the moon. KTM built a motor that amounted to be rather underpowered. BMW has no excuse for not being there.