Why its time to combine MotoGP and WSBK

Tom said:

That is a bit of a myth, world superbikes has become more high tech and incorporates most of the technology that is seen on GP bikes a few years earlier. Many riders claim that they cannot win in motogp due the dependancy on equipment and move to world superbike, but i think the reality is actually that in WSBK they are good enough to get hold the top machinary while in GP they are not. This is only not true in the cases where the different (but not necessarily inferior) skill sets suit them more to a superbike over a GP machine.







At most 4. Checa has, Biaggi has (Camier doesn't get quite the same level of machinary), and you could argue the Yamaha is up to it if the riders are.



In motogp, you have 4 factory Hondas and 2 Yamahas that all could arguably be worth of the title.

Click to expand...

Indeed, I believe the Aprilia RSV4 was originally developed as a MotoGp bike that was then made into a superkbike/road bike. I've heard that Camier doesnt get the same spec bike as Biaggi also.

mylexicon said:

GP (particularly since the re-introduction of 4-strokes) puts a great deal of emphasis on the machine. Extraordinary people like Rossi or Stoner can overcome the limitations of the machine which lends credence to 80/20, but a vast majority of the riders cannot overcome the performance limitations of their machine.



When the rules are fair for Ducati, WSBK is almost entirely about the skill of the rider and his ability to nail the setup.



WSBK and GP are very different sports by design, and I am quite interested to see what happens when longtime GP riders move into WSBK. I only wish that the factories took WSBK more seriously, and they paid a decent wage for MotoGP's deadwood to move into WSBK more quickly. Too many GP riders screw around on satellite bikes or uncompetitive factory equipment when they should be getting a fat paycheck to sell bikes and win titles in WSBK. Instead, the manufacturers spend a majority of their budget hotting up production bikes so they can save .5 per lap. Who is at fault is debatable. MSMA purposely killed homologation specials which has sent the SBK racing industry into a tail spin. IMS forced manufacturers to equip production motorcycles with MotoGP-caliber parts that add very little performance, though they cannot be omitted.

Click to expand...

So you think that Checa. at the age of what,38, has just come into his own as a rider and figured out how to set up a bike. Im not sure WSBK ever gets the rules to where one engine configuration doesnt have an advantage over the other. Its a constant juggling act and the reason for moving target known as WSBK tech regs.

bigbang said:

ok, let me ask you this way, how many riders have the bike to potentially win the championship this year?

Click to expand...

"When the rules are fair for Ducati"--that part is kind of important. "When the rules are fair" is perhaps more accurate b/c lots of teams have been complaining about special allowances for Aprilia and BMW since 2009 as well.



Ducati, Aprilia, Yamaha, and Honda have all won races in the dry this season. Last season Aprilia, Yamaha, Suzuki, Ducati, and Honda all won races in the dry. In MotoGP, Honda have all of the dry wins in MotoGP, and Lorenzo has stolen just one win for Yamaha in the wet. In 2010, 3 manufacturers won in the dry.



During the tire war, when RC45s with gear cams and twin fuel injection were racing against carburetted ZX-7RRs, WSBK had few manufacturers capable of winning races and titles b/c the rules were a bit of a free for all. If a manufacturer can't win in this day and age, it's because they aren't trying or b/c IMS have rigged the sport. Competitiveness is guaranteed in WSBK and 7 manufacturers are happy to oblige. Competitiveness is not guaranteed by MotoGP, 3 manufacturers will likely be playing next season. It should be the other way around. Prototyping is supposed to have low barriers, mass-production has very high barriers.

cliché guevara said:

1. who says camier doesn't get the same bike ?( i'm not arguing here, but is there some sort of "proof" for that?"

2.the suzuki looked good with haslam on it

3. if we can believe what we hear about the electronics bmw is just waiting to break through

Click to expand...

1. I've seen it written and said without any specific details more than once, can't remember exactly where but i am sure eursport TV coverage is one source.

2. You could have said the same about Ducati in motogp last year

3. You could say the same about Ducat in motogpi this year

mylexicon said:

"When the rules are fair for Ducati"--that part is kind of important. "When the rules are fair" is perhaps more accurate b/c lots of teams have been complaining about special allowances for Aprilia and BMW since 2009 as well.



Ducati, Aprilia, Yamaha, and Honda have all won races in the dry this season. Last season Aprilia, Yamaha, Suzuki, Ducati, and Honda all won races in the dry. In MotoGP, Honda have all of the dry wins in MotoGP, and Lorenzo has stolen just one win for Yamaha in the wet. In 2010, 3 manufacturers won in the dry.



During the tire war, when RC45s with gear cams and twin fuel injection were racing against carburetted ZX-7RRs, WSBK had few manufacturers capable of winning races and titles b/c the rules were a bit of a free for all. If a manufacturer can't win in this day and age, it's because they aren't trying or b/c IMS have rigged the sport. Competitiveness is guaranteed in WSBK and 7 manufacturers are happy to oblige. Competitiveness is not guaranteed by MotoGP, 3 manufacturers will likely be playing next season. It should be the other way around. Prototyping is supposed to have low barriers, mass-production has very high barriers.

Click to expand...

You have now expanded your terms and conditions to include the unfairness of the rules both with regards to Ducati and other manufacturer. The truth is the rules have never been fair and the original claim you made about world superbikes has been valid on very few, if any occasions. Much the same as in GP. As for mass production being a high barrier, you should realize the costs of developing a superbike can be offset against selling it on a mass produced basis, so it is altogether a lower barrier for a given manufacture to get over in order to race competitively.

Tom said:

You have now expanded your terms and conditions to include the unfairness of the rules both with regards to Ducati and other manufacturer. The truth is the rules have never been fair and the original claim you made about world superbikes has been valid on very few, if any occasions. Much the same as in GP. As for mass production being a high barrier, you should realize the costs of developing a superbike can be offset against selling it on a mass produced basis, so it is altogether a lower barrier for a given manufacture to get over in order to race competitively.

Click to expand...

"When the rules are fair in general" was merely an invitation for people to use their brains to widen the scope of "when the rules are fair for Ducati". I thought it was important to mention b/c the participants complain about more than just the Ducati rules. The number of race-winning manufacturers is not dependent upon manipulating the premise so your allegations of shifting arguments are unfounded if not unreasonable.



Furthermore, selling bikes in tens of markets around the globe is immeasurably more difficult and more complicated than signing a contract with Dorna for commercial revenue. Sponsorship agreements are likely less complicated than the vagaries of the production market as well.

Tom said:

1. I've seen it written and said without any specific details more than once, can't remember exactly where but i am sure eursport TV coverage is one source.

2. You could have said the same about Ducati in motogp last year

3. You could say the same about Ducat in motogpi this year

Click to expand...

thanks for the confirmation!





i maybe mistaken but i don't think haslam is that much better than fabrizio.also, a messed up chassis is not the same as an electronics package that can either be fixed or replaced by a proven system and then adjusted over the next couple of months

cliché guevara said:

i maybe mistaken but i don't think haslam is that much better than fabrizio.also, a messed up chassis is not the same as an electronics package that can either be fixed or replaced by a proven system and then adjusted over the next couple of months

Click to expand...

I dont think the difference is pureley down to riders either, but bike racing moves on quickly and Suzuki were falling behind throughout last year and without significant development the results speak for themselves. As for the Electronics issue vs the chassis issue, they may be very different problems but the severity of them can only be measured in results and only after one of them clawed back into contention can we evaluate which was more significant

Tom said:

This is only not true in the cases where the different (but not necessarily inferior) skill sets suit them more to a superbike over a GP machine.

Click to expand...

This is the salient point, and may apply to nicky hayden and the 800 motogp formula, colin edwards (although valentino was also handily faster than him on the occasion they shared a superbike) and from my fanboy point of view troy bayliss.



I don't think max biaggi's failure to win a motogp championship was down to his equipment though, and as povol says I also don't think carlos checa has finally developed super-elite riding ability absent during his years in motogp at age 38 either.

Maybe the question is how to they continue to grow without merging? Both series obviously have a rubbish sponsorship to cost ratio. I think this looks worse for MotoGP as it has good exposure and still can't attract sponsors or offer competitive racing.

browney said:

Maybe the question is how to they continue to grow without merging? Both series obviously have a rubbish sponsorship to cost ratio. I think this looks worse for MotoGP as it has good exposure and still can't attract sponsors or offer competitive racing.

Click to expand...

WSBK can be fixed, but it requires the cooperation of all of the manufacturers.



1. Eliminate free compression

2. Mass produce the racing bikes (homologation specials)

3. Engine scaling

4. Spec ECU

5. NASCAR business model



1. Limit static compression and disallow compression mods. Costs less. Improves engine longevity. Allows the manufacturers to sell race bikes b/c no proprietary air flow technology. Also differentiates WSBK from MotoGP. Means nothing to the fans, but it means a lot for how manufacturers allocate financial resources.

2. Return to mass produced racing bikes. Eliminates the extraordinarily wasteful process of building hundreds of SBKs according to dozens of rulebooks at the national level. Homologate all racing components as well for chassis, suspension, and engine.

3. SBKs - 4 cylinder. Supersports - 3 cylinder. Supertwins - 2 cylinder. Use 1000cc-750cc-500cc or 800cc-600cc-400cc. I don't really care which but allow the manufacturers to use combustion chamber design and certain reciprocating parts across all models. Move the 4-cylinder 600s into Moto2 where they belong.

4. Spec ECU. Electronics are the sticky wicket. Spec ECU would be nice, but the Ducati twins cause some complications.

5. Manufacturers pay private teams to run mass produced equipment. WSBK is close to the NASCAR model right now, but as we all know, the factories pay the privateers to run special factory bikes while the other teams are just also-ran.



Once WSBK is fixed, factory money will flow from WSBK into MotoGP. Manufacturers will not be able to spend tens of millions in WSBK (Ducati, BMW, Aprilia) while developing proprietary technologies. They will be forced to enter MotoGP. Current MotoGP teams like Honda, Yamaha, and Suzuki will allocate funds from WSBK to MotoGP.