<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy Roo @ Jul 16 2008, 06:24 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The TC is an interesting argument. It did come back up when Casey started winning again, not helped by his unfortunate praise of the bikes electronics. Other riders are more versed in the greasy dissimulation of "diplospeak " and don’t mention things like traction control (whilst they use it…. I digress)
In another thread there is an interview with Carmen Ezpeleta (dorna) in which he urges calm. Another change to the formula is going to add more development costs and will force more manufacturers out; the talk is (and I wont cite the article extensively) is that a control ECU would be the consideration if the manufacturers agreed to it.
Given at least 10 bikes on the grid (Yam, Duc, Kawa) are currently using the Magnetti Marelli it is likely that this will be the unit and Casey's position may not really change in any case.
The 990's are finished and the lap times are a lot better now. The problem with returning to a 990 or a control ECU or none at all is that of the relevance of the series.
At Philip Island Troy Corser recorded a lap in superpole (using a control tyre) on a R1 of 1’31.493
In testing Casey recorded a time of 1.28.777 but taking the second gp rider (Nicki) on a qualifying Michelin could only run 1’29.734.
This is only 1.7 seconds difference. Marco (I'm not bagging him) and Loris on the Suzuki pulled less than SBK times.
Bayliss and Corser on their relatively cheap production based bikes would have finished top 10 in the race on control tyres.
The official 2005 circuit record on a 990 is 1’30.332 held coincidentally by Marco Melandri (he can ride – just not a Ducati) but only 1.1 seconds difference.
I understand and I wont quote figures (until I find them, I'm currently sorting through a pile of magazines because I know I have it somewhere…) that a SBK costs about 10 times less than a motogp bike.
If there is only a second or so difference why would a sponsor or manufacturer pay for one when there is no prestige in creating a bike that a production-based bike can beat or equal. If we slow the bikes down or reduce the speed to increase the spectacle we may ruin the sport overall by making it irrelevant. This is the high cost prototype series and it has to be faster or it is nothing.
Without blasting riders and manufacturers I believe that the solution is for the other manufacturers and riders to stop whinging about Casey and the Ducati and catch up, which they will never do sitting on their hands complaining.
You slow the bikes down and we end up with a superbike at 10 times the cost and the industry will desert the class in droves. I simply urge you to be careful for what you wish, drop 1 second from the time and we may have a big bucket of nothing and sponsors looking at Superbikes pulling the same times and taking the money there. That is the risk. Let the riders catch up, don't slow the fast one down.
I understand and agree with what your saying but dont underestimate just how far 1.7 seconds a lap is.That much time costs millions of dollars to make up on a race track.It might not sound like much but its a 45 second difference in a whole race and im sure you know that.As an old race fan that deals in 100ths and 10ths.1.7 seconds sound like an eternity to me.
