Qatar test.

2015 Sepang and tires again??
You people have no life.
Let's talk about Cals new bike

JKant said:

Exactly. Yamaha doesn't have #1 rider so they take the median path. Marquez, Lorenzo & Iannone get their way, while Pedrosa, Dovizioso & Rins have to like it or lump it. Same for Aprilia, KTM & the satellites.

You can be sure Rossi has it in his contract that he gets preferential treatment regarding development of bikes and where applicable - tire
design.

This is how the existing model, prior to the introduction of spec tires, was expected to function. Didn't work that way in practice.

For one, the series would quickly reduce to two suppliers. Dunlop or Pirelli may spend a season or two supplying a smaller team that couldn't afford something better but eventually they'd get forced out.

No way to know that for certain.

The two that remain will compete primarily for the bragging rights & publicity associated with race wins and podiums. Which is fine if you're Honda or Yamaha - not so much if you're KTM or Aprilia.

The argument about the expense of the adapting a bike to a tyre to find those extra tenths also gets turned on its head. The teams with the largest budgets, consistently vying for race wins get to determine the direction of tyre development. The teams with the smallest budgets are forced to adapt their bikes to the available tyres. Its like a regressive taxation system.

And even that works only as long as the two tyre suppliers are competitive. When one of them fails to be competitive as the Michelin fronts were in the latter half of 2008, they can potentially cripple the rider. And then you have Lorenzo finishing in 10th place after qualifying 17th on the grid at Brno (with Pedrosa 15th), 40 seconds behind Rossi's Bridgestone-shod M1 that took first place. Sounds familiar.


Not necessarily. I'd argue a very rapid development thrust is actually a bigger impediment to a stable production process (compared to scaling up production).

I may not be able to produce a notarized memo from Michelin to certify my statement - but logic and experience informs us that things not mass produced are virtually always of better quality - for more reasons than I can type in an hour. In the event - the rapidity of the development is not what I was referring to. Simply that creating cutting edge racing equipage in mass quantities necessarily limits a makers capacity to monitor quality.


Also, while Michelin had a couple of ignominious failures this year, we have seen them happen in the non-spec era as well. Mugello 2004, for example, where Tamada's Bridgestones chunked out while Nakano's exploded at 200 mph.

Click to expand...

Not implying B-Stones are faultless; merely saying that all makers would benefit from decreased pressure of creating optimal quality tires - if they didn't have to produce them in such high numbers.

#22 said:

A valid point, but a preferred tyre would give more advantages than a modified ECU power map/curve. What you also have to remember is the ECU map is mainly limited by the fuel capacity. Even if they were able to put out more power or improved TC than another rider's ECU, the limiting factor is the tyre.

Click to expand...

True to an extent, but that is where subtle difference in ECUs is even more important. It’s not so much about more power, anymore, but it is about useable/controllable power.

Let's look at Pedrosa's change in style prior to Magneti Marelli, for example. Watch the last year of Pedrosa with the Honda ECU compared to early years. Unlike in earlier years, he put the power on much harder and the bike is moving like crazy on corner exit. It is obvious that he could trust the TC to control the power and move him forward instead of outward/upward. It appears that Honda has suffered the most with the spec ECU. Ducati was using Magneti Marelli before the rule change, so they had a head-start.

I doubt there will ever be tire “wars” again, even if the rules changed. I believe the return on investment is not high enough, anymore. Of course, Michelin’s exclusive year hasn’t exactly inspired me to buy their tires, either. ;-P

Keshav said:

You can be sure Rossi has it in his contract that he gets preferential treatment regarding development of bikes and where applicable - tire
design.

Click to expand...

If offered without evidence, that's basically akin to a conspiracy theory. Meanwhile we have Lorenzo on record saying that Yamaha favoured Rossi but in all technical matters gave Lorenzo equal treatment. And this from way back in 2009 when he was given equivalent status to Rossi, prompting the latter to leave in a huff and spend two ignominious seasons at Ducati.

No way to know that for certain.

Click to expand...

Of course we know that. Tech 3 may have only dumped Dunlop in 2007 but it was a two horse race long before the spec tyre was introduced.

Today with the field separated by just few tenths, nobody can afford to go experimenting with Dunlops, nor can they afford to invest in the R&D required to compete with Michelin & Bridgestone, with a limited customer base (assuming they can even find a team willing to run with their tyres).

I may not be able to produce a notarized memo from Michelin to certify my statement - but logic and experience informs us that things not mass produced are virtually always of better quality - for more reasons than I can type in an hour. In the event - the rapidity of the development is not what I was referring to. Simply that creating cutting edge racing equipage in mass quantities necessarily limits a makers capacity to monitor quality.

Not implying B-Stones are faultless; merely saying that all makers would benefit from decreased pressure of creating optimal quality tires - if they didn't have to produce them in such high numbers.

Click to expand...

With the tyre design in a constant state of flux, the pressure at the production end will likely remain high even while servicing smaller volumes. Alternatively, they could invest more in quality control but those are costs that will be passed on to the customer.

Bridgestone spent 7 seasons as sole tyre supplier to the series, barring the odd rough patch, without any serious quality control issues.

Michelin had some troubles, 2016 being their first year back but with the data built up and production stabilized there's nothing to suggest that their performance over the long term will be any different.

JKant said:

This is the crux of the argument. This model, which is very different from the more conventional model advocated by Keshav, wouldn't just increase costs it would send them through the roof.

Click to expand...

It is an expensive sport for prototypes so yes, costs would increase but again these cost would actually plateau and drop as trends developed along the lines of which tyres are more 'in demand' etc.

JKant said:

The top 2 or 3 factory riders might get their preferred tyre (and I emphasize 'might', since there are only two tyre suppliers for all practical purposes) but the smaller teams, both factory & non-factory, would be very badly hit.

Click to expand...

I suspect that there would be at least three tyre companies that would appear over time (Michelin, Bridgestone and Dunlop) with possibility of others who may show limited interest based on contractual obligations (ie. Pirelli may decide to contract to Aspar and only Aspar)

JKant said:

Once you mandate that Bridgestone must match that for every rider, that's twice as many tyres being shipped to each round, twice as much in costs but without the advertising to pay for it all.

Which means the teams pay for the tyres - which is fine for HRC, not so much for Aspar.

Click to expand...

Not quite ............ contracts.

The tyre company should be expected to make their tyres available for only their contracted teams or riders so again, numbers drop and after trends then it becomes cheaper (relative of course)



Apologies for shortness of answers, at work so keeping it simple rather than my usual ramble style

JKant said:

Competitive? Question is, who's paying for this? Please take a look at any of Herve Poncharal's interviews and you'll see why running a team with his budget is not just a challenge but constant source of frustration.


Which has nothing to do with the tyre, per se. When Tech 3s take in the ex-YRT M1s, they will run them on the same tyres they were designed for. And even if they find that another supplier is offering better tyres, the factory teams will quicker to switch leaving the performance gap essentially unchanged.

As far as the record is concerned, once Stoner, Pedrosa & Lorenzo joined Rossi in the premier class, race victories quite predictably dried up for rest of the field.

In 2007, only two other riders won a race, both on factory bikes (GSV-R & GP7).

In 2008, before the spec tyre era, the satellites accounted for only two podiums and that's it. Next year on the spec Bridgestones, again two podiums.

Click to expand...

You make some valid points, although some are also red herrings in this debate. No doubt it is hard for satellite teams to get funding, and I said myself that decreasing tyre costs for satellite teams (and particularly for Dorna who were reputedly subsidising them) was very likely among reasons for going to the control tyre. However I am not aware of anything being said by Poncharal or anyone from other satellite teams either for or against the control tyre, while as I said three manufacturers have directly stated that being unable to source suitable tyres severely affected them, one leaving permanently, a second temporarily and the third, a team which has been the major provider of satellite bikes in many recent seasons as it happens, citing tyres as the major reason for their decreasing competitiveness.

You also ignore in your argument about costs to the tyre companies that both Michelin and Bridgestone specifically said their preference was for a continued tyre war, and that Bridgestone got jack of being the control tyre supplier and are gone from the sport along with Dunlop who were funding a satellite team. Perhaps the adage that all publicity is good publicity holds, but as someone else has alluded to I am not sure what advertising benefit a company gets from being a provider of substandard tyres, although Michelin will hopefully do much better this year.

You are correct of course that having a number of elite riders leaves less wins available for satellite teams, as does having even one highly elite rider if that rider is dominant as with many of Doohan's and Rossi's championships, both Stoner's and MM's 2014 championship; the problem for me (and I believe for Casey Stoner himself) is that such dominance appears only to be problematic for Dorna if the rider has non-preferred status.

MV often conveniently makes the call of conspiracy theory when bereft of arguments, but I am in agreement with Keshav in his earlier post, Dorna have done most of the tyre changes quite openly, and as I said usually imo with multiple motives and sometimes with good intentions even in my view. I strongly doubt it is possible to make a tyre which simultaneously helps Rossi but hinders his rivals in any case. Particular tyres can and have been removed however.

I doubt they will ever go away from a control tyre now, and my wish currently is for a greater variety of tyres to suit different riding styles and to some extent bike designs, although imo designs which differ significantly from the conventional Honda or Yamaha approach are pretty much excluded now and for the foreseeable future.

JKant said:

Of course we know that. Tech 3 may have only dumped Dunlop in 2007 but it was a two horse race long before the spec tyre was introduced.

Today with the field separated by just few tenths, nobody can afford to go experimenting with Dunlops, nor can they afford to invest in the R&D required to compete with Michelin & Bridgestone, with a limited customer base (assuming they can even find a team willing to run with their tyres).

Click to expand...

For years Michelin were the dominant force in motogp. Nobody could afford to go experimenting in Bridgestones, let alone Dunlop.

In 2005 13 out 17 races went to Michelin shod bikes. Experts questioned why Ducati had switched to Bridgestone.

Just 2 short years later, motogp was flipped on its head. Nobody, at least that wanted to be the champ, could afford to go experimenting with Michelin.

You seam clued up on business theory, its also well established in business competition is good for consumers. Choice is good for consumers. Monopolies, while at times are anavoidable, more often than not are bad for cunsumers. I fail to comprehend how a sport based on competition of manufacturers at its core is helped by having a monopoly tire supplier?

Statistically its simple, having more than one tire suppliers creates greater viariability, less predictability.

Gambling on an unknown supplier such as Dunlop is always going to be more attractive to the smaller teams ala Ducati, Suzuki, Aprilia, KTM. They will take the gamble and history indicates that gamble tends to pay off about once decade. Doesn't sound like much, but a 10% chance is better than what I could predict they have at present, maybe 1%.

Also on the topic of the so called dominant alien riders, Vinales is the prefect example. Not one of the established 'aliens'. Was never going to become an alien, until Lorenzo vacated his seat. Now we will see, but theres no doubt in my mind Vinales would not be leading any test times on the Suzuki with spec tires. But with prototype tires, who knows, it might have been that once a decade opportunity, to both him and Suzuki. Not to short-cut and get a cheap championship, but to go outside the square of the constant refiners and do something original with a new upcoming rider. 2007 all over again.

Its seams obvious to me it was the powerhouse players of Honda and Yamaha that wanted a spec tire because they would benefit the most by that.

birdman said:

For years Michelin were the dominant force in motogp. Nobody could afford to go experimenting in Bridgestones, let alone Dunlop.

In 2005 13 out 17 races went to Michelin shod bikes. Experts questioned why Ducati had switched to Bridgestone.

Just 2 short years later, motogp was flipped on its head. Nobody, at least that wanted to be the champ, could afford to go experimenting with Michelin.

You seam clued up on business theory, its also well established in business competition is good for consumers. Choice is good for consumers. Monopolies, while at times are anavoidable, more often than not are bad for cunsumers. I fail to comprehend how a sport based on competition of manufacturers at its core is helped by having a monopoly tire supplier?

Statistically its simple, having more than one tire suppliers creates greater viariability, less predictability.

Gambling on an unknown supplier such as Dunlop is always going to be more attractive to the smaller teams ala Ducati, Suzuki, Aprilia, KTM. They will take the gamble and history indicates that gamble tends to pay off about once decade. Doesn't sound like much, but a 10% chance is better than what I could predict they have at present, maybe 1%.

Also on the topic of the so called dominant alien riders, Vinales is the prefect example. Not one of the established 'aliens'. Was never going to become an alien, until Lorenzo vacated his seat. Now we will see, but theres no doubt in my mind Vinales would not be leading any test times on the Suzuki with spec tires. But with prototype tires, who knows, it might have been that once a decade opportunity, to both him and Suzuki. Not to short-cut and get a cheap championship, but to go outside the square of the constant refiners and do something original with a new upcoming rider. 2007 all over again.

Its seams obvious to me it was the powerhouse players of Honda and Yamaha that wanted a spec tire because they would benefit the most by that.

Click to expand...

I don't follow English football much, but surely Leicester City winning a title was glorious even though Manchester United have and invest much more money and have many more supporters particularly worldwide and them winning is I am sure in general much better for business.

The whole thing is gone now, the justification for the investment required for a tyre war by the tyre companies was development which no longer applies, and it is pretty much all for advertising purposes now as JKant says. As you have said the traditional prototype/development aspect of the sport is problematic now anyway as they can't continue to make the bikes faster indefinitely whatever the means.

michaelm said:

I don't follow English football much, but surely Leicester City winning a title was glorious even though Manchester United have and invest much more money and have many more supporters particularly worldwide and them winning is I am sure in general much better for business.

The whole thing is gone now, the justification for the investment required for a tyre war by the tyre companies was development which no longer applies, and it is pretty much all for advertising purposes now as JKant says. As you have said the traditional prototype/development aspect of the sport is problematic now anyway as they can't continue to make the bikes faster indefinitely whatever the means.

Click to expand...

Well you could see the direction the tire war was heading. Not simply high corner speed but tires which were getting harder to use, hard to heat up and frought with danger for the one or two riders willing to take the inherent risk and run the pace neccessary to make the tires work. Stoner was that guy, Marquez looks to be that guy. Fast forward 2007 to 2017 and we could have a situation where there was one spec of tire Marquez and Marquez alone could use to devastating affect, obliterating lap records and race times. There's a part of me that would love to see that, but overall I think the risk would be too high, not only to all the other riders trying to emulate but also to the likes of Marquez himself, who appears willing to risk death in pursuit of what he loves. Then again the way they loose the Mishitelin front with no warning maybe it makes no difference.

But one dominant rider bad for racing 'entertainment' certainly yes. Especially if that one happens to be the wrong rider. IMO jkant had this primary motivator confused with some sort of sudden concern for satellite team owners. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ezzy has never stated he was 'calm' that Erve was happy and competitive.

I think Leisteter wining the league might be beyond 1 in 10 or even one in 100. We could be talking the cataclismal glactical 1 in 1000 the comet will strike earth odds there.

birdman said:

I think Leisteter wining the league might be beyond 1 in 10 or even one in 100. We could be talking the cataclismal glactical 1 in 1000 the comet will strike earth odds there.

Click to expand...

Steady, you do appreciate that we're through to the final eight of the Champions League? - winning the English Premier League was simply a necessary prerequisite.

Now this would be an apocalyptic event in Spain.

https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/ducati-not-ready-to-fight-for-the-motogp-title-882529/

Ducati technical chief Gigi Dall’Igna has admitted that the Italian manufacturer is “not ready” to fight for this year’s MotoGP title after the conclusion of pre-season testing.

Having signed three-time champion Jorge Lorenzo from Yamaha, Ducati entered 2017 expecting to able to build on a 2016 campaign that yielded two race victories and fight for its first championship since 2007.

However, Lorenzo’s transition has proven trickier than first expected, and while teammate Andrea Dovizioso did top one day of testing in Qatar, it’s Yamaha’s Maverick Vinales who has ended all three pre-season tests fastest.

Speaking to Spanish TV network Movistar, Dall’Igna admitted that Ducati may be set to fall short of its target of beating rivals Honda and Yamaha, but praised his riders for what they achieved in testing.

“Our goal after signing Jorge is to fight for the world championship,” Dall’Igna said. “It’s clear that at the moment we are not ready to do it, but we do have solutions to reduce the problems we have.

“We are satisfied with Dovizioso’s development work this pre-season. I think that especially at Sepang and here at Qatar the first day he gave us precious feedback to develop the bike.

“In the case of Jorge, there is still a lot of work to do, but I’m happy with what we have done together.”
Lorenzo difficulties “normal”

Dall’Igna previously worked with Lorenzo during his 125cc and 250cc days at Derbi and Aprilia, and was a key factor in convincing the Spaniard to jump ship to Ducati last season.

The Italian engineer defended Lorenzo’s performances during the winter, highlighting the challenging nature of having to switch manufacturers after nine successive seasons at Yamaha.

“Lorenzo is doing a difficult job,” continued Dall’Igna. “Changing bikes is always complicated, especially if you have always been with the same people. It’s normal that we have encountered some difficulties.

“I’ve known Jorge since he was a child and it’s clear that he has matured. He knows what he wants and what he can get, but his character at heart is the same – and I am glad it has remained like it was then.”

The second coming of Madonna is eating his beard? Could this be a CYA or a sandbag ruse? (I hope). Un-fvking-be-liv-able. At least he let the other teams know to pay no attention to them in advance. That was nice. Doh!

Gaz said:

It is an expensive sport for prototypes so yes, costs would increase but again these cost would actually plateau and drop as trends developed along the lines of which tyres are more 'in demand' etc.

Click to expand...

Sure costs would plateau eventually but it would still be at a level which is not affordable for the majority of the field.

Tyres in demand would perhaps be manufactured in larger volumes and be cheaper but that also means that more exotic builds would be more expensive putting riders & teams that prefer it at a disadvantage.

I suspect that there would be at least three tyre companies that would appear over time (Michelin, Bridgestone and Dunlop) with possibility of others who may show limited interest based on contractual obligations (ie. Pirelli may decide to contract to Aspar and only Aspar)

Click to expand...

Thing is, we've been here in past. Pramac dumped its Dunlops in 2006. Tech 3 used them for a year but by 2007, they'd realized that they didn't have a future together with its riders placing last and third last in the rider standings.

Maybe that was because of a lack of will on Dunlop's part to invest in remaining competitive, maybe it was something else. In either case, sponsoring the tailenders wasn't exactly great advertising for its product and its exit from the class was more or less inevitable.

But to come back today, sponsor a team willing to run its tyres and also make those tyres available to rest of the field, its just not doable.

Aspar, for example, is running a GP15 & a GP16 this year. They're effective competing with the Reale Esponsorama team with the same bikes (aside from the other satellites). Bautista has already shown excellent pace and could quite realistically vie for the top non-factory honours (even though Miller, Petrucci & Crutchlow are on factory spec bikes). Abraham has been strong in practice and could also potentially finish the season in the top 15.

Given its fairly decent prospects, would Aspar be willing to risk it all by switching to Pirellis? Would they do so next year when they receive a new batch of bikes that have been specifically designed to work with whatever tyre factory Ducatis are using?

Not quite ............ contracts.

The tyre company should be expected to make their tyres available for only their contracted teams or riders so again, numbers drop and after trends then it becomes cheaper (relative of course)

Click to expand...

This takes us back to square one where every rider is forced to use the tyre that his team is contracted for.

Rossi, Lorenzo, Marquez get their say in how the tyre evolves (since the supplier is interested in getting those wins & podiums) while Folger, Redding & Miller are forced to use what they're given (since the supplier is less interested in top 10 finishes).

Apologies for shortness of answers, at work so keeping it simple rather than my usual ramble style

Click to expand...

Not at all. Short or long, its always interesting.

JKant said:

Sure costs would plateau eventually but it would still be at a level which is not affordable for the majority of the field.

Tyres in demand would perhaps be manufactured in larger volumes and be cheaper but that also means that more exotic builds would be more expensive putting riders & teams that prefer it at a disadvantage.


Thing is, we've been here in past. Pramac dumped its Dunlops in 2006. Tech 3 used them for a year but by 2007, they'd realized that they didn't have a future together with its riders placing last and third last in the rider standings.

Maybe that was because of a lack of will on Dunlop's part to invest in remaining competitive, maybe it was something else. In either case, sponsoring the tailenders wasn't exactly great advertising for its product and its exit from the class was more or less inevitable.

But to come back today, sponsor a team willing to run its tyres and also make those tyres available to rest of the field, its just not doable.

Aspar, for example, is running a GP15 & a GP16 this year. They're effective competing with the Reale Esponsorama team with the same bikes (aside from the other satellites). Bautista has already shown excellent pace and could quite realistically vie for the top non-factory honours (even though Miller, Petrucci & Crutchlow are on factory spec bikes). Abraham has been strong in practice and could also potentially finish the season in the top 15.

Given its fairly decent prospects, would Aspar be willing to risk it all by switching to Pirellis? Would they do so next year when they receive a new batch of bikes that have been specifically designed to work with whatever tyre factory Ducatis are using?


A. This takes us back to square one where every rider is forced to use the tyre that his team is contracted for.

Rossi, Lorenzo, Marquez get their say in how the tyre evolves (since the supplier is interested in getting those wins & podiums) while Folger, Redding & Miller are forced to use what they're given (since the supplier is less interested in top 10 finishes).


B. Not at all. Short or long, its always interesting.

Click to expand...

A. Common sense tells us that with three riders with very distinct requirements - the manufacturer can only follow the lead of one. Whether it's Rossi or Marquez - everybody else - will have to suck it up.

B. That's what she said.

birdman said:

Actually for me 2007 was like the holy grail of racing seasons. Not only because it was Stoner, it was also Ducati and Bridgestone. It was David vs Goliath in the form of Rossi Yamaha Michelin the absolute powerhouse of MotoGP and David won. I think it was some of the best races I've seen in both 06, 07 thanks mostly to having a genuine tyre war with Bridgestone becoming competitive.

A little known fact, in 07 the championship went 1. Ducati/Bridgestone, 2. Honda/Michelin, 3. Yamaha/Michelin, 4. Suzuki/BS. A truly competitive season. Why would anyone want to mess with that?

Click to expand...

Nobody with messed with that.

They went into 2008 and it was business as usual with the Yamaha with a Bridgestone front back on top.

The tyre wars only ended with the introduction of the spec tyre in 2009. And even if that hadn't happened, the 2009 season would have been no different (with Pedrosa already on Bridgestones and Lorenzo probably switching to it).

Restarting the tyre wars will not enable one to relive the 2007 season, enjoyable as it was.

birdman said:

For years Michelin were the dominant force in motogp. Nobody could afford to go experimenting in Bridgestones, let alone Dunlop.

In 2005 13 out 17 races went to Michelin shod bikes. Experts questioned why Ducati had switched to Bridgestone.

Just 2 short years later, motogp was flipped on its head. Nobody, at least that wanted to be the champ, could afford to go experimenting with Michelin.

Click to expand...

Sure. Ducati got one victorious season out of their Bridgestone collaboration and that too wouldn't have been possible without Stoner in their corner. Next year, Rossi & Pedrosa switched to Bridgestones and playing field was leveled for Honda & Yamaha.

Hardly a sustainable model. And even those one-offs then become about tyres rather than the better rider-bike combo winning.

You seam clued up on business theory, its also well established in business competition is good for consumers. Choice is good for consumers. Monopolies, while at times are anavoidable, more often than not are bad for cunsumers. I fail to comprehend how a sport based on competition of manufacturers at its core is helped by having a monopoly tire supplier?

Click to expand...

MotoGP is NOT a business/market-place. Its a spectator sport. If MotoGP functioned on the market model, there'd only be something like six bikes on the track - non-competitive bikes would simply get weeded out. And there'd be none of this free tyre nonsense - every team would be required to pay market price for their goods.

Encouraging competition in MotoGP means enabling the smaller factories & satellites to run with their better funded peers. Reducing participation costs - spec tyres & spec electronics - are a crucial part of that.

Gambling on an unknown supplier such as Dunlop is always going to be more attractive to the smaller teams ala Ducati, Suzuki, Aprilia, KTM. They will take the gamble and history indicates that gamble tends to pay off about once decade. Doesn't sound like much, but a 10% chance is better than what I could predict they have at present, maybe 1%.

Click to expand...

As great as it could be when it pays off, there's also a price to be paid when the gamble fails.

Ducati last year scored two wins with a brace of podiums. Suzuki took one win and three podiums. Those wins generated both confidence and publicity - hugely increasing their value to advertisers and prospective young talent looking to move up to the premier class.

Would they give that up for a 1% chance to receive a super-tyre that they could take championship with? Hell no.

And its no different with the satellite teams. Take Tech 3 & Aspar, for example. Based on their results from last season, which team would the Moto2 riders want to move to? Which team would the advertisers prefer to contract with?

Also on the topic of the so called dominant alien riders, Vinales is the prefect example. Not one of the established 'aliens'. Was never going to become an alien, until Lorenzo vacated his seat. Now we will see, but theres no doubt in my mind Vinales would not be leading any test times on the Suzuki with spec tires. But with prototype tires, who knows, it might have been that once a decade opportunity, to both him and Suzuki. Not to short-cut and get a cheap championship, but to go outside the square of the constant refiners and do something original with a new upcoming rider. 2007 all over again.

Click to expand...

Vinales' on a Dunlop-shod GSX-RR might also have been mucking around in 15th place. But because he was on a Michelin-shod Suzuki he finished the season an impressive 4th.

Any talented rider would prefer to show what he's got on competitive machinery (even if its not an M1) rather than gamble on getting a super-tyre with his career at stake.

Its seams obvious to me it was the powerhouse players of Honda and Yamaha that wanted a spec tire because they would benefit the most by that.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, when tyre wars restart the odds will be stacked in Honda & Yamaha's favour. They are the ones that'll determine the direction of development to ideally suit their bike (and perhaps even get the best builds), leaving KTM & Aprilia out in the cold, forced to adapt their bike to what's available (or take wild gambles with experimental tyres).

JKant said:

On the contrary, when tyre wars restart the odds will be stacked in Honda & Yamaha's favour. They are the ones that'll determine the direction of development to ideally suit their bike (and perhaps even get the best builds), leaving KTM & Aprilia out in the cold, forced to adapt their bike to what's available (or take wild gambles with experimental tyres).

Click to expand...

That the big two will always be most influential - is a given; but if they were both on Bridgestones - they would in turn have no influence on other manufacturers who would then be able to design tires more suited to the lesser teams.

JKant said:

Nobody with messed with that.

They went into 2008 and it was business as usual with the Yamaha with a Bridgestone front back on top.

The tyre wars only ended with the introduction of the spec tyre in 2009. And even if that hadn't happened, the 2009 season would have been no different (with Pedrosa already on Bridgestones and Lorenzo probably switching to it).

Restarting the tyre wars will not enable one to relive the 2007 season, enjoyable as it was.


Sure. Ducati got one victorious season out of their Bridgestone collaboration and that too wouldn't have been possible without Stoner in their corner. Next year, Rossi & Pedrosa switched to Bridgestones and playing field was leveled for Honda & Yamaha.

Hardly a sustainable model. And even those one-offs then become about tyres rather than the better rider-bike combo winning.


MotoGP is NOT a business/market-place. Its a spectator sport. If MotoGP functioned on the market model, there'd only be something like six bikes on the track - non-competitive bikes would simply get weeded out. And there'd be none of this free tyre nonsense - every team would be required to pay market price for their goods.

Encouraging competition in MotoGP means enabling the smaller factories & satellites to run with their better funded peers. Reducing participation costs - spec tyres & spec electronics - are a crucial part of that.


As great as it could be when it pays off, there's also a price to be paid when the gamble fails.

Ducati last year scored two wins with a brace of podiums. Suzuki took one win and three podiums. Those wins generated both confidence and publicity - hugely increasing their value to advertisers and prospective young talent looking to move up to the premier class.

Would they give that up for a 1% chance to receive a super-tyre that they could take championship with? Hell no.

And its no different with the satellite teams. Take Tech 3 & Aspar, for example. Based on their results from last season, which team would the Moto2 riders want to move to? Which team would the advertisers prefer to contract with?


Vinales' on a Dunlop-shod GSX-RR might also have been mucking around in 15th place. But because he was on a Michelin-shod Suzuki he finished the season an impressive 4th.

Any talented rider would prefer to show what he's got on competitive machinery (even if its not an M1) rather than gamble on getting a super-tyre with his career at stake.


On the contrary, when tyre wars restart the odds will be stacked in Honda & Yamaha's favour. They are the ones that'll determine the direction of development to ideally suit their bike (and perhaps even get the best builds), leaving KTM & Aprilia out in the cold, forced to adapt their bike to what's available (or take wild gambles with experimental tyres).

Click to expand...

Again, you can employ as much sophistry as you like, but the actual historical fact is that a tiny if well funded artisanal concern like Ducati Corse managed in co-operation with Bridgestone in a couple of years to produce a bike/tyre combination which was capable in the right hands of dominating a championship, and Ducati were prepared to start again from scratch with Michelin rather than have a control tyre. ((EDIT The only other non-Honda or Yamaha title winner for the last 3 decades in Suzuki also chose the Bridgestone route rather than going with the long term dominant tyre providore, and in fact withdrew temporarily from the sport to re-design their bike, a necessity they attributed to having no suitable tyre available. Pretty much the leading satellite team (whatever Gresini were called then) went for Bridgestone as well.))

Produce anything from anyone involved with a satellite team in regard to the control tyre being to their benefit and there is a chance I might believe your focus on this is other than a red herring. Ezy needs the satellite teams to be there of course, I think there might even be minimum grid number requirements in the TV contracts, or were at one stage, and as I have said control tyres bring "free" is very likely cost-saving for him. Even then, I doubt you will convince Birdman or me that Valentino being "happy" is other than rather integral to Ezy's personal "happiness".

JKant said:

On the contrary, when tyre wars restart the odds will be stacked in Honda & Yamaha's favour. They are the ones that'll determine the direction of development to ideally suit their bike (and perhaps even get the best builds), leaving KTM & Aprilia out in the cold, forced to adapt their bike to what's available (or take wild gambles with experimental tyres).

Click to expand...

You seem to be holding onto a fantasy that the rest of the factory teams have any real chance over the course of 18 races to beat either Yamaha or Honda to the constructor's championship with spec tires. Winning a race here and there while nice for those teams, is not the same as putting together a cohesive campaign that results in one of their riders winning the title, or the team taking the constructor's championship at the end of the year.

10 years since neither of those factories won the title.

Prior to the Ducati 2007 constructor's championship, the last time neither Honda nor Yamaha won that title was in 1982 when Suzuki took the constructor's championship.

So, in the succeeding 35 seasons, only once has another marque won the constructor's title.

Don't kid yourself into thinking the odds aren't already stacked in favor of Honda and Yamaha. Spec tires and spec ECU's don't change this. All those two things changed in year 1 of the spec ECU is that you have a possibility of other teams winning a race, which is not the same thing as winning a rider's championship or constructor's championship.

My guess is you will not see last year's 9 different winners scenario replay this season. Yamaha and Honda have had a year plus the off-season to really come to grips with all of the data they have generated. You forget, the amount of data those two teams can generate from their sensors along with the ability to successfully analyze it dwarfs any other factory team, and forget the satellites.

And if given the option, Ducati would be running a tire that neither of the major marques are running. So they can influence whoever they team up with all they want. Even if the two split between Bridgestone and Michelin, I suspect you would see Ducati contacting Pirelli to see if they would be interested in supplying. A pity they couldn't just go with the spec ECU, and let the teams decide what tire manufacturer they want to run on their bikes. Rossi is the reason the tire war was ended.

JKant said:

MotoGP is NOT a business/market-place. Its a spectator sport. If MotoGP functioned on the market model, there'd only be something like six bikes on the track - non-competitive bikes would simply get weeded out. And there'd be none of this free tyre nonsense - every team would be required to pay market price for their goods.

Encouraging competition in MotoGP means enabling the smaller factories & satellites to run with their better funded peers. Reducing participation costs - spec tyres & spec electronics - are a crucial part of that.

Click to expand...

Interesting ascertion. From what I've read the manufacturers don't regard motogp as simply 'sport'. The racing divisions are basically run as a stand alone entity as far as I can tell. They have employees, budgets, targets, marketing, success and failure. So even though its a sport the racing division functions as a business because in fact that's what they are and that's what they do. Riders are lightbulbs.

Also the prediction they would end up with 6 bikes on track doesn't bear out when you consider the likes of Suzuki, Ducati, KTM etc actually survive where its most important to survive. In the marketplace against much bigger mightier competition in the form of Honda and Yamaha. If what you were saying was true they would have all gone by the wayside as there would be absolutely no reason to buy a Suzuki when Honda is suposedly superior in all ways.

Alas Honda is not necessarily superior in all ways. Consider everytime there is a rule change. For instance, 2016 spec ecu. Then its basically a reset, they start from scratch, or at least much closer to each other. And Suzuki wins their first race in years. Honda flex there financial muscles and rapidly refine but in fact when it comes to an initial competition of pure design talent they are not the be all and end all.

2007, another rule change, Ducati. Tyre wars, more opportunity for re-set or to put it another way introduce a ripple of anarchy into the motogp market and quess what, the big budget refiners often get caught with their pants down as the titanics of the sport take much longer to point in a new direction than do the smaller ships. I like a touch of anarchy, I haven't seen it since 2007.