History/Changes in Road Racing and MotoGP

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
T

Taper41

Joined
Sep 10, 2013
Messages
14
Hey everyone first I would like to introduce myself into this forum.  My name is Mike.  I decided to join this forum because I have a infatuation with high performance motorcycles, but know very little about the sport itself. 


 


My love for superbikes and more specifically Italian motorcycles leads to why I am starting this thread.  I own an Mv Agusta f4  and read a lot about the history of success pertaining to roadracing/motogp.  As I read about the early years of MV's success,  they stated that in the early 50's three of the major manufacturers left the series, and later on from '68 to '71 MV was effectively the only works team in the series.  I looked on the achives and it seemed as though there were other manufacturers that were present so I am not sure what they mean by the only "works" team.


 


Along with that the main objective of this article is to discuss the differences between motogp/ roadracing , then and now.  Was it easier to win championships back then oppose to now where they might be harder to come by? MV has won 75 Championships. can that be compared to manufacturer success today, such as Aprilia who has 294 victories ( 19 more than MV ) in gp but has less championships. What are the differences?  Does anyone know the major changes through this FIA series though out the years that might altered the difficulty or competitiveness?
 
Try and find a copy of The Grand Prix Motorcycle. All the answers are in there :)


 


MV was the only manufacturer who had a "factory"(ie: factory support/money/upgrades/techs) team for 15ish years in the 500 class until Honda came along, gave them a run for their money for a few years in the late 60's then left when the FIM tightened up the rules on the numbers of cylinders/gears.


 


In my opinion it's always been hard to win a championship.
 
Ok makes sense.  Well I guess everything is based on money.  However it seems like its harder and harder to consistently win.  I mean you can argue that a wins are just as valuable as a championship... in the sense that you actually can win a title without winning a race..  In any event, I would like to debate the success of the European/ Italian constructors, just for fun.  MV was so successful in GP 75 titles and 275 wins are remarkable numbers.  However you cannot ignore that both Ducati and Aprilia have won in not only motogp but other federations of racing (WSBK) which MV has not.  Although Aprilia only has 51 titles currently to their name they have over 350 world level wins (294) in Motogp and 33 in WSBK not to mention they have won world titles in other disciplines such as Supermoto and climbing world championships. I believe that Aprilia is the only manufacture to accomplish such a task. Could you make and argument that Aprilia is the most successful manufacturer from the boot more so than MV or Ducati?
 
In the 50's MV Agusta had its arsed kicked by the likes of Gilera. Even after stealing Gilera's engine deisnger, they won a single world 500cc championship while Gilera was about. Then in '57 all the other Italian factories pulled out. Except for moneybags Count Agusta's company. So they had the honor of flogging decades-old design singles, and wheezy rattley pushrod twins for a while. Then a company who'd never only started racing a few years before turned up and started beating them in the smaller classes and worrying them big time in the 500 class (granted, this company had a certain M.Hailwood as its rider), those were MV's most admirable years. Honda then pulled out of racing, leaving Agostini to win every-bloody-race for a couple of seasons, again against rattley twins, old pommy bikes and shed-built specials, until Yamaha got its .... together with the OW26, the Count carked it and MV found itself completely outclassed by the 2 strokes and pulled out. They made some superbly ugly shaft drive motorcycles for a bit and then stopped bikes completely. And sold the name off in the early 90's. Mr and Mr Castiglioni were making a pretty Cagiva 4 cylinder bike with the help of Tamburrini of Bimota/916 fame. After sitting on the MV Agusta name for nearly a decade, they thought it a good idea to use it for something. Hence, it bacame the F4. It is an indication of the potential of the F4 that it never went racing. Not that they had any money to race it with. The name MV Agusta has been whored around the place, owned by Malaysians, Harley, various "Investment" houses, before being sold back to the Castiglioni, who then decided to die. Their 3 cylinder 500 is a thing of great beauty, though.  


 


Aprilia started racing seriously in the mid-80's with Rotax derived engines and started dominating the 125/250s once they built their own engines. Against full race programs from the giants, Honda and Yamaha. Then they really started killing it when the Japanese factories decided to go 4 stroke and lost interest in 2 strokes. Then Dorna cracked it with them, and changed to Moto2 and finally Moto3. .... Dorna. In MotoGP, Aprilia got Cosworth to build the 3 Cylinder cube engine, burnt Edwards' balls with it and pulled out after a couple of years. After the intro of the CRT rules, Aprilia snuck in again with the ART. Which is capable of filling the top step of the podium...in the CRT cup. Superbikes: In a history repeat, their Rotax engined twin was average and lumbering, but their in-house V4 is rather successful


 


Ducati had very pretty little triple knocker desmo 125s that won races against the likes of MV and Morini, but never snagged a World Championship. They then made a 500 bevel twin that they 'raced' in the early seventies to no success and disappeared back to obscure formulas that they could exploit effectively (superb bikes like the TT2) Superbikes...Don't care. But having a 250cc advantage was a lovely way to dominate. They gained endless cachet by having Hailwood win the 78 Senior on a bike largely prepared in Angleterre, stupid Suzuki forgot to do this for the RG500.  In the opening days of MotoGP they showed a bike off with a swingarm tap-screwed to the fairing. It was rather successful. Not dominant, but anything able to mix it with an M1 or RCV must be OK. Then the GP7 won a championship and from there they've gone downhill.


 


 


  Aprilia > MV Agusta > Ducati
 
JohnnyKnockdown
3608911378866368

Keshav,, any answers for Taper ?You must have been 20 or so in 1950
Click to expand...


Actually - Sept 10th is my birthday and I wasn't yet born in 1950.


I considered a thoughtful or humorous reply but I was too busy


enjoying the well wishes of all my friends to cast yet more pearls


before swine.
 
Oh, and Stealing Speed is also an excelent book. It's about how Suzuki stole 2 stroke tech from Mz in the 60's.
 
Keshav
3609011378904810

Actually - Sept 10th is my birthday and I wasn't yet born in 1950.


I considered a thoughtful <u>or</u> humorous reply but I was too busy


enjoying the well wishes of all my friends to cast yet more pearls


before swine.
Click to expand...


 


Reply dually noted....


 


Not born before 1950?  You had me fooled.   Happy belated birthday.  'old man'.  
 
Dr No
3608941378878423

In the 50's MV Agusta had its arsed kicked by the likes of Gilera. Even after stealing Gilera's engine deisnger, they won a single world 500cc championship while Gilera was about. Then in '57 all the other Italian factories pulled out. Except for moneybags Count Agusta's company. So they had the honor of flogging decades-old design singles, and wheezy rattley pushrod twins for a while. Then a company who'd never only started racing a few years before turned up and started beating them in the smaller classes and worrying them big time in the 500 class (granted, this company had a certain M.Hailwood as its rider), those were MV's most admirable years. Honda then pulled out of racing, leaving Agostini to win every-bloody-race for a couple of seasons, again against rattley twins, old pommy bikes and shed-built specials, until Yamaha got its .... together with the OW26, the Count carked it and MV found itself completely outclassed by the 2 strokes and pulled out. They made some superbly ugly shaft drive motorcycles for a bit and then stopped bikes completely. And sold the name off in the early 90's. Mr and Mr Castiglioni were making a pretty Cagiva 4 cylinder bike with the help of Tamburrini of Bimota/916 fame. After sitting on the MV Agusta name for nearly a decade, they thought it a good idea to use it for something. Hence, it bacame the F4. It is an indication of the potential of the F4 that it never went racing. Not that they had any money to race it with. The name MV Agusta has been whored around the place, owned by Malaysians, Harley, various "Investment" houses, before being sold back to the Castiglioni, who then decided to die. Their 3 cylinder 500 is a thing of great beauty, though.  


 


Aprilia started racing seriously in the mid-80's with Rotax derived engines and started dominating the 125/250s once they built their own engines. Against full race programs from the giants, Honda and Yamaha. Then they really started killing it when the Japanese factories decided to go 4 stroke and lost interest in 2 strokes. Then Dorna cracked it with them, and changed to Moto2 and finally Moto3. .... Dorna. In MotoGP, Aprilia got Cosworth to build the 3 Cylinder cube engine, burnt Edwards' balls with it and pulled out after a couple of years. After the intro of the CRT rules, Aprilia snuck in again with the ART. Which is capable of filling the top step of the podium...in the CRT cup. Superbikes: In a history repeat, their Rotax engined twin was average and lumbering, but their in-house V4 is rather successful


 


Ducati had very pretty little triple knocker desmo 125s that won races against the likes of MV and Morini, but never snagged a World Championship. They then made a 500 bevel twin that they 'raced' in the early seventies to no success and disappeared back to obscure formulas that they could exploit effectively (superb bikes like the TT2) Superbikes...Don't care. But having a 250cc advantage was a lovely way to dominate. They gained endless cachet by having Hailwood win the 78 Senior on a bike largely prepared in Angleterre, stupid Suzuki forgot to do this for the RG500.  In the opening days of MotoGP they showed a bike off with a swingarm tap-screwed to the fairing. It was rather successful. Not dominant, but anything able to mix it with an M1 or RCV must be OK. Then the GP7 won a championship and from there they've gone downhill.


 


 


  Aprilia > MV Agusta > Ducati
Click to expand...


I am aware of the CRT's but do they actually have a separate title? I am just going off of what you called the CRT Cup. I would be nice if it was set up similar to Le mans/ Grand Prix racing with prototypes and production versions.
 
CRT do indeed have their own classification:


http://resources.motogp.com/files/results/2013/GBR/MotoGP/rookieirtacup.pdf?v1_f3ed5cb8


 


The whole "production v prototype" issue exists due to the terrible set of rules that have evolved and the politics that existed between SBK and MotoGP at the inception of the 4-strokes. There is no real need to differentiate. Just have a single set of rules and bikes that conform can compete.
 
Keshav
3609011378904810

Actually - Sept 10th is my birthday and I wasn't yet born in 1950.

I considered a thoughtful or humorous reply but I was too busy

enjoying the well wishes of all my friends to cast yet more pearls

before swine.
Click to expand...


Happy Birthday Kesh!!
 
1968 was an important year b/c the 4-cylinder rule came into effect. Prior to 1968, four-stroke engines were the way to go, but keeping the engines reliable while increasing the revs required lots of small reciprocating internals. The Honda RC166, for instance, was a 250cc inline-6 engine. After the 4-cylinder rule, the manufacturers began to explore two-stroke engines, which eventually prevailed over the 4-strokes. In 2002, MotoGP abolished the 4-cylinder rule and imposed a defacto switch back to 4-strokes (the two strokes were officially banned in 2007). The 4-cylinder rule was reinstated in 2012, along with the 81mm bore limit.


 


After the 4-cylinder rules, the Japanese withdrew from GP racing. MV were the only "works" team for several years, I guess, which basically means the only team with factory funding and true "clean sheet" prototype manufacturing. The factory/works and customer/privateer lines are more blurred in this day and age. "Works" or "Factory" is often just a marketing concept meaning official company-sponsored team. This distinction is made for the purpose of splitting TV revenues amongst the teams. The works teams are worth more to the media and advertising people so they get paid more to race.


 


I'm assuming you're interested in the difference between GP (prototype racing) and SBK (production racing)? Roadracing is actually its own discipline for competition like Isle of Man TT or Northwest 200, which are held on public roads. Just to make everything nice and confusing, the FIM also refer to closed-circuit racing (GP/SBK/Endurance) as roadracing. Fun no?


 


Anyway, back to the original question, the difference between prototype racing and production racing is philosophical and difficult to answer. In general, prototype equipment is bespoke proprietary equipment. The technical regulations for prototype competition should support competition based upon technological development, in theory. Production racing, on the other hand, is supposed to be based on road-legal production motorcycles using parts available for sale. For all intents and purposes, production racing is a marketing platform that supports the notion of parity. Modern production racing also tends to focus on creating direct revenues from the sale of racing equipment. It's no longer race on sunday, sell on monday. It's sell race cars on thursday, and race on sunday. If production sales happen on Monday due to racing, the manufacturers won't complain.


 


GP has styed true to prototyping, perhaps to a fault. The sport is pointless fuel-efficiency technology development. SBK is stuck in the 1960s and 1970s. A time when "production" racing didn't really need to be production. SBK does focus on parity, but the bikes are heavily modified and covered in bespoke racing equipment, which is only available via lease, if it is available at all.


 


Maybe you've heard, maybe you haven't, but rumors indicate MV Agusta may join SBK in 2014 when the new regulations take effect. Fingers crossed.
 
Dr No
3609491378950987

CRT do indeed have their own classification:


http://resources.motogp.com/files/results/2013/GBR/MotoGP/rookieirtacup.pdf?v1_f3ed5cb8


 


The whole "production v prototype" issue exists due to the terrible set of rules that have evolved and the politics that existed between SBK and MotoGP at the inception of the 4-strokes. There is no real need to differentiate. Just have a single set of rules and bikes that conform can compete.
Click to expand...


 


Dunno. The sanctioning bodies have created distinct properties for prototype racing and production racing. SBK does not adhere to the modern interpretation of production racing, but integration doesn't strike me as the best solution. Shareholders are pushing companies to make their racing departments self-funding. SBK should be generating revenue with equipment sales. GP should be using the revenue for development. Right now, SBK is burning through cash, and GP is burning through even more cash.
 
Dr No
3609491378950987

CRT do indeed have their own classification:


http://resources.motogp.com/files/results/2013/GBR/MotoGP/rookieirtacup.pdf?v1_f3ed5cb8


 


The whole "production v prototype" issue exists due to the terrible set of rules that have evolved and the politics that existed between SBK and MotoGP at the inception of the 4-strokes. There is no real need to differentiate. Just have a single set of rules and bikes that conform can compete.
Click to expand...


Well that's good new!  So there is CRT World Championship ? Aprilia will have another world title to add to the collection .
 
mylexicon
3609521378951617

1968 was an important year b/c the 4-cylinder rule came into effect. Prior to 1968, four-stroke engines were the way to go, but keeping the engines reliable while increasing the revs required lots of small reciprocating internals. The Honda RC166, for instance, was a 250cc inline-6 engine. After the 4-cylinder rule, the manufacturers began to explore two-stroke engines, which eventually prevailed over the 4-strokes. In 2002, MotoGP abolished the 4-cylinder rule and imposed a defacto switch back to 4-strokes (the two strokes were officially banned in 2007). The 4-cylinder rule was reinstated in 2012, along with the 81mm bore limit.


 


After the 4-cylinder rules, the Japanese withdrew from GP racing. MV were the only "works" team for several years, I guess, which basically means the only team with factory funding and true "clean sheet" prototype manufacturing. The factory/works and customer/privateer lines are more blurred in this day and age. "Works" or "Factory" is often just a marketing concept meaning official company-sponsored team. This distinction is made for the purpose of splitting TV revenues amongst the teams. The works teams are worth more to the media and advertising people so they get paid more to race.


 


I'm assuming you're interested in the difference between GP (prototype racing) and SBK (production racing)? Roadracing is actually its own discipline for competition like Isle of Man TT or Northwest 200, which are held on public roads. Just to make everything nice and confusing, the FIM also refer to closed-circuit racing (GP/SBK/Endurance) as roadracing. Fun no?


 


Anyway, back to the original question, the difference between prototype racing and production racing is philosophical and difficult to answer. In general, prototype equipment is bespoke proprietary equipment. The technical regulations for prototype competition should support competition based upon technological development, in theory. Production racing, on the other hand, is supposed to be based on road-legal production motorcycles using parts available for sale. For all intents and purposes, production racing is a marketing platform that supports the notion of parity. Modern production racing also tends to focus on creating direct revenues from the sale of racing equipment. It's no longer race on sunday, sell on monday. It's sell race cars on thursday, and race on sunday. If production sales happen on Monday due to racing, the manufacturers won't complain.


 


GP has styed true to prototyping, perhaps to a fault. The sport is pointless fuel-efficiency technology development. SBK is stuck in the 1960s and 1970s. A time when "production" racing didn't really need to be production. SBK does focus on parity, but the bikes are heavily modified and covered in bespoke racing equipment, which is only available via lease, if it is available at all.


 


Maybe you've heard, maybe you haven't, but rumors indicate MV Agusta may join SBK in 2014 when the new regulations take effect. Fingers crossed.
Click to expand...


I did here this rumor.  However, even though MV might go along with this how much money will they have to keep R&D funding they are still a private company.  I know that plan on amping production of to 15,000 bikes a year but that is still miniscule compared to any other manufacturer.  I mean, Ducati is making somewhere near 40,000 units per year and I have no idea where Aprilia's production units are. Anyone know? 
 
mylexicon
3609531378952300

Dunno. The sanctioning bodies have created distinct properties for prototype racing and production racing. SBK does not adhere to the modern interpretation of production racing, but integration doesn't strike me as the best solution. Shareholders are pushing companies to make their racing departments self-funding. SBK should be generating revenue with equipment sales. GP should be using the revenue for development. Right now, SBK is burning through cash, and GP is burning through even more cash.
Click to expand...


 


I was more talking about the rules within MotoGP than between MotoGP and SBK. This whole 'prototype' concept in GPs only popped up when WCM had that R1 based 990 and SBK/the Flaminis got all lawyered up. Back when the concept of 'capacity classes' was dominant, nothing stopped you entering an XT500 into a GP race (as long as the handlebars weren't too wide). Now, you could make the same fool of yourself, as the XT has a tiny 9l tank, but you'd have to machine the whole engine from billet...and work out how to plumb in a Magnetti Marelli ECU.
 
Taper41
3609561378953982

I did here this rumor.  However, even though MV might go along with this how much money will they have to keep R&D funding they are still a private company.  I know that plan on amping production of to 15,000 bikes a year but that is still miniscule compared to any other manufacturer.  I mean, Ducati is making somewhere near 40,000 units per year and I have no idea where Aprilia's production units are. Anyone know? 
Click to expand...


 


It doesn't really matter. Ducati revenues are in the hundreds of millions. Honda's revenues are in the hundreds of billions. Honda's net profit is 10x bigger than Ducati's annual revenues. SBK does not necessarily require deep pockets, and the 2014 regulations will apparently be a bit more friendly to smaller companies.
 
Dr No
3609571378955293

I was more talking about the rules within MotoGP than between MotoGP and SBK. This whole 'prototype' concept in GPs only popped up when WCM had that R1 based 990 and SBK/the Flaminis got all lawyered up. Back when the concept of 'capacity classes' was dominant, nothing stopped you entering an XT500 into a GP race (as long as the handlebars weren't too wide). Now, you could make the same fool of yourself, as the XT has a tiny 9l tank, but you'd have to machine the whole engine from billet...and work out how to plumb in a Magnetti Marelli ECU.
Click to expand...


 


I understand what you are saying, now. However, will Superbikes be allowed to race in MotoGP next season? The claiming rule has been dropped, but what about the prototype frame provision? Unclear. Many reasons why you'd prefer a production GP bike to an SBK, but is a WSBK-spec machine legal now? It should be legal, imo, regardless of what the rules say.
 
Wasn't there a time in the 250 and 125 GP classes where Aprilia was the only Factory backed racing team similar to how Mv was in the 50's and 60's MV has such a significant number of more Championships as Either Aprilia or Ducati..
 
Taper41
3615161379606305

Wasn't there a time in the 250 and 125 GP classes where Aprilia was the only Factory backed racing team similar to how Mv was in the 50's and 60's MV has such a significant number of more Championships as Either Aprilia or Ducati..
Click to expand...


 


MV was competitive during an era when Grand Prix racing had 5 or 6 classes. MV scored 12 world constructor's championships in just 3 seasons between 1958 and 1960. Aprilia gained power after the Japanese abandoned the lower classes for the new 4-stroke MotoGP premier class, but GP racing only had 3 classes.


 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Prix_motorcycle_racing_World_Constructors_champions
 

Similar threads

M
Is KTM on the Brink of Withdrawal from MotoGP?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
surendhar
S
M
MotoGP to Enact Stricter Concessions for 2024
Replies
18
Views
1K
mylexicon
M
MichaelBolton
RIP Phil Read aka "The Prince of Speed"
Replies
2
Views
642
Keshav
Keshav
M
Motorcycle Racing Industry: Reading the Tea Leaves
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Hollywood
Hollywood
#22
David Emmet: A peek into the soul of Marc Marquez
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
#22
#22

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top