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

WSuperbike faster than PrototypeGP

157kg vs 165kg. Much lighter? Rider alone would account for a greater variance than that.



And electronics on WSBK are as advanced as the current crop of CRT bikes. Not stock, not even close.



Which is my point all along - I was here in 2008 beating out the mantra "WSBK is catching up".



The weights are immaterial - don't go all Lex on me - a GP bike should be faster.



And Lex, a market is comprised of buyers and sellers. The reason I used the CBR900RR and this may be the absolute peak, the shining light of my genius (yes that dim little backwards spelled thing in the corner - correctly called a "dit") is that it didn't follow the rules, it couldn't be homologated but everyone bought the bloody thing.



Then came the R1 - In those days you didn't see anything else on the roads but they weren't racing in WSBK.



The sellers can do nothing more than respond to buyer demands unless they want to get acquainted with some receivers. Forget all the numbers, the buyer dictates everything in the market and the class. For example I am buying a 1000cc bike (Aprilia) when I am better. If WSBK changes its rules and 800cc bikes are dictated I will still buy a 1000cc bike. If some of the manufacturers stop making them I will go to another manufacturer. This was the success of the CBR900RR in the first place - a product for the market, not a product of a marketing product.
 
Good points.



Not good points. The cost of a factory Aprilia SBK is way over the cost of an ART.



Then factor in a new engine for testing, quallie and each race (which are shorter, as well) and the ART is posting respectable times.



One years development of the ART vs 4 years of the Aprila RSV4. Less than €600,000 for the ART vs the $5-7M Aprilia spends on each of it's riders for the year (bike/tech/R&D costs, not salary). The base RSV4 superbike costs in excess of €300,000, without engine. 30+ engines at around €50k a piece and you start to see the difference.



The ART has to make one engine last 1.5 meetings, the SBK has 3+ engines per meeting, and they can rebuild them to their heart's content.



Compare apples with apples, not some exotic fruit from the depths of the Amazon.
 
...The latest 1000cc SBK engines produce nearly 200hp, an increase of at least 50% over the old 750s (depending on the bike in question). No public roadway (spare the Autobahn) or production tire can handle that kind of power, and most tracks are not equipped to handle bikes with that much power.



Do you actually ride? Ridden anything exotic?



I spent a lot of time on my friend's full Yoshi-kitted GSX1100R - dynoed over 185HP, depending on the weather. It doesn't eat tyres, is light, handles great, is a bit of a pig in slow traffic (hunts and shunts unless you're in second gear) but is in all respects an easy bike to live with, until you open the taps, then it's a snorting monster that you have to fight to keep the front in check.



Since that era, there are stock production bikes that have HP over the 180s (the stock S1000RR comes to mind, the Desmosedici RR is up over 190),



All manage to get reasonable miles on stock, over-the-counter rubber and are great at track-days and club racing. I could put you in touch with someone racing an DS16RR in your neck of the woods, if you'd like.



Maybe you should google some more?
 
Which is my point all along - I was here in 2008 beating out the mantra "WSBK is catching up".



The weights are immaterial - don't go all Lex on me - a GP bike should be faster.



A GP bike is as fast as the guy twisting the throttle. You should see how badly the M1 performs when I ride it!
<
 
Do you actually ride? Ridden anything exotic?



I spent a lot of time on my friend's full Yoshi-kitted GSX1100R - dynoed over 185HP, depending on the weather. It doesn't eat tyres, is light, handles great, is a bit of a pig in slow traffic (hunts and shunts unless you're in second gear) but is in all respects an easy bike to live with, until you open the taps, then it's a snorting monster that you have to fight to keep the front in check.



Since that era, there are stock production bikes that have HP over the 180s (the stock S1000RR comes to mind, the Desmosedici RR is up over 190),



All manage to get reasonable miles on stock, over-the-counter rubber and are great at track-days and club racing. I could put you in touch with someone racing an DS16RR in your neck of the woods, if you'd like.



Maybe you should google some more?



One of my clients has a D16RR as a living room piece. I have no desire to dawdle around town on it, nor do I have any desire to play 'Nicky Hayden' at a local track day. I prefer usable power (80-125bhp). I like to get on the throttle, and shift through the gears. I'm not going to pay big money for a 'man's bike', then ride it around like a housewife to keep my license and my limbs. I've ridden a few 1000s and a GSXR750. Honestly, I can't tell the difference apart from the torque. They are insanely fast to 100mph. I'm sure it's night and day above 150mph, but that's not really my territory.



But my own personal tastes are not so much a motivating factor. I understand that the current 1000cc SBK marketplace has run amok by the MSMA's standards. They need to reduce costs, increase profits, and they need to sell. New 800cc SBKs could be as simple as bolting a new cylinder head onto a re-sleeved 1000 with a short-throw crank. Two engines for the price of one, but SBK has a new identity and it's much safer for national racing series.
 
One of my clients has a D16RR as a living room piece.



Pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, isn't it?



I have no desire to dawdle around town on it, nor do I have any desire to play 'Nicky Hayden' at a local track day. I prefer usable power (80-125bhp). I like to get on the throttle, and shift through the gears. I'm not going to pay big money for a 'man's bike', then ride it around like a housewife to keep my license and my limbs. I've ridden a few 1000s and a GSXR750. Honestly, I can't tell the difference apart from the torque. They are insanely fast to 100mph. I'm sure it's night and day above 150mph, but that's not really my territory.



So it's your limited experience that is making you an expert on tracks, tyres and public roads?



I bought the first GSX1100, and the second, third and finished with a Katana 1100. Ridiculous bikes, every one. Tyre technology was crap, brakes were funny (in a hysterical way, not humerous) and roads were empty and without speed cameras.



It's what you are used to.



Since that time I have chased increasingly higher horsepower and not regretted a moment of it. Which isn't to say I don't love my Piaggio or dirt bike, but different horses for different courses.



But my own personal tastes are not so much a motivating factor. I understand that the current 1000cc SBK marketplace has run amok by the MSMA's standards. They need to reduce costs, increase profits, and they need to sell. New 800cc SBKs could be as simple as bolting a new cylinder head onto a re-sleeved 1000 with a short-throw crank. Two engines for the price of one, but SBK has a new identity and it's much safer for national racing series.



But you said "[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]No public roadway (spare the Autobahn) or production tire can handle that kind of power, and most tracks are not equipped to handle bikes with that much power."[/background][/font]



Which is, respectfully, .........



And your marketing ideas would seem to fly in the face of reality - people want big-bore blasters and its where the motorcycle manufacturers make the most profit.



Sure 125 four-stroke singles represent about 80% of all bikes sold, but those Indonesian, Chinese and Thai bikers would give their left nut for an R1. They just don't have the readies. The manufacturers would love to sell them to them as well... there's not a lot of profit on a bike that's sold for US$1100 new.
 
There isn't a single track that SBKs are quicker than GP bikes in a race. Where they race the same track, top speed and lap records are all held by GP bikes. Those figures can deceive, though, as sometimes the tracks are different lengths for the different classes.



Easy to prove - Lorenzo vs Biaggi - winner takes all
<




(my money's on Jorge!)

Was trying be subtle.

But then, I is am ......

 
So it's your limited experience that is making you an expert on tracks, tyres and public roads?



If you try to deny physics by claiming physics is a matter of experiential perspective, regulators will hand you your ..., and we'll all be riding 125s/250s in accordance with the philosophy of Indo regulators. You like 'ridiculous' bikes. Stick to that. It carries more punching power than your version of experiential physics.



Furthermore, I don't know what experience you are trying to leverage anyway. The FIM sets performances classes and circuit homologation classes based upon their 60 years of 'limited experience' organizing/sanctioning races. They have concluded that 1000cc SBKs are in the highest performance category, and very few circuits around the globe meet the FIM standards for WSBKs.



And your marketing ideas would seem to fly in the face of reality - people want big-bore blasters and its where the motorcycle manufacturers make the most profit.



The repli-racer segment is funded primarily by cruisers, nakeds, and dirtbikes. The market says people want old, air-cooled iron and uncomplicated aluminum. If you haven't noticed, the manufacturers are redoubling their efforts in the 250cc and 500cc segments. The sovereignty of the consumer is not inducing the participation of the Japanese suppliers in the RR segment. They built their brands racing, and they want to continue the tradition. The Japanese economy has serious structural issues, and since nearly all high-displacement sportbikes are built in Japan, the Japanese companies will probably be making changes.
 
Ive followed the typical progression to higher capacity up until a 1000cc zx10 and for a while thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Now just recently i was given a turbo diesel work car and for about the first time i look at the old zx10 and think its not very interesting piece of tech at all. The new bikes dont interest me either. I was truly shocked by this car, the features and price. A 2L turbo with economy and performance modes. In performance mode its better than the 4L V6 that I used to drive. In economy it does big kms on the freeway. And it has self leveling suspension, not quite active suspension but its still good. And the thing was dirt cheap.



By comparison the latest 1000cc bikes are cookie cutter with the 'magic' hidden in the little black box and nothing really innovative going on. Boring. Where's the active suspension and engine modes that allow me to use the same bike to do everything from track day to touring to riding over gravel roads if i have to?



Nakamoto has it wrong imo. Electronic gizmos hidden away in little black boxes and salesmen clicking buttons on the handlebar are not the future. Give me turbos and active suspension fully adjustable ride positions and one bike that does it all. 80's bikes were more interesting in a lot of ways, it seams no one thinks outside the square anymore.
 
Ive followed the typical progression to higher capacity up until a 1000cc zx10 and for a while thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Now just recently i was given a turbo diesel work car and for about the first time i look at the old zx10 and think its not very interesting piece of tech at all. The new bikes dont interest me either. I was truly shocked by this car, the features and price. A 2L turbo with economy and performance modes. In performance mode its better than the 4L V6 that I used to drive. In economy it does big kms on the freeway. And it has self leveling suspension, not quite active suspension but its still good. And the thing was dirt cheap.



By comparison the latest 1000cc bikes are cookie cutter with the 'magic' hidden in the little black box and nothing really innovative going on. Boring. Where's the active suspension and engine modes that allow me to use the same bike to do everything from track day to touring to riding over gravel roads if i have to?



Is the BMW S1000RR HP4 closer to this ideal?
 
By comparison the latest 1000cc bikes are cookie cutter with the 'magic' hidden in the little black box and nothing really innovative going on. Boring. Where's the active suspension and engine modes that allow me to use the same bike to do everything from track day to touring to riding over gravel roads if i have to?



Nakamoto has it wrong imo. Electronic gizmos hidden away in little black boxes and salesmen clicking buttons on the handlebar are not the future. Give me turbos and active suspension fully adjustable ride positions and one bike that does it all. 80's bikes were more interesting in a lot of ways, it seams no one thinks outside the square anymore.



It's called a multistrada. Ducati 1200
 
It's called a multistrada. Ducati 1200

One lone example, its not a sportsbike, not so much fun on a racetrack against sportsbikes, and certainly not motogp derived. Why not develop active suspension? Much more useful to me than engine electronic gizmos and lauch control.



I dont want compromise. I want a kick ... track bike that I can thrash all the way home over pot holes and speed humps like I do my KTM SMT. What I would go for in a second would be an Aprilia V4 Tuono with multistrada style active suspension which can go from 100mm stiff short travel to 200 mm long travel depending on where I'm riding. Att the Tuono is just the SBK without the fairing. So many wasted possibilities.
 
If you try to deny physics by claiming physics is a matter of experiential perspective, regulators will hand you your ..., and we'll all be riding 125s/250s in accordance with the philosophy of Indo regulators. You like 'ridiculous' bikes. Stick to that. It carries more punching power than your version of experiential physics.



Furthermore, I don't know what experience you are trying to leverage anyway. The FIM sets performances classes and circuit homologation classes based upon their 60 years of 'limited experience' organizing/sanctioning races. They have concluded that 1000cc SBKs are in the highest performance category, and very few circuits around the globe meet the FIM standards for WSBKs.



More .........



The sanctioning of racetracks has as much to do with the number of garages, the media centre and how much executive parking as it does to safety and medical facilities. And lets not forget how much dosh the track has to pay InFront for the rights...



Your post is a joke, right? Physics is the reason the FIM sanction a racetrack? Do you ever read the trite ..... you post? Wrapping it up in flowery verbiage is all very well, just as you can roll a turd in glitter, but it is still .....



As to 'ridiculous' bikes - who is the arbiter of that? You don't ride much, do you? My 1200cc BMW goes the same speed as a 125 at 50mph. I managed to commute on a Hyabusa. I have raced a 50cc step-through.



How bout you restrict yourself to talking about subjects you have actual experience with, or preface such comments with - 'I think', then refrain from being such an arse about defending a position you have absolutely zero credibility with? Because that's what you are doing.



You obviously have absolutely not one iota of knowledge about how tracks get their various race approvals.



The repli-racer segment is funded primarily by cruisers, nakeds, and dirtbikes. The market says people want old, air-cooled iron and uncomplicated aluminum. If you haven't noticed, the manufacturers are redoubling their efforts in the 250cc and 500cc segments. The sovereignty of the consumer is not inducing the participation of the Japanese suppliers in the RR segment. They built their brands racing, and they want to continue the tradition. The Japanese economy has serious structural issues, and since nearly all high-displacement sportbikes are built in Japan, the Japanese companies will probably be making changes.



More ......... Do I really have to go and get the sales figures for bikes worldwide, or are you only referencing the US with their 'outlaw' overpriced POS based on designs from the last-century-but-one?



Face it, the US has ceased to be the main market for most motorcycle manufacturers. You just aren't that important any more.
 
More .........



The sanctioning of racetracks has as much to do with the number of garages, the media centre and how much executive parking as it does to safety and medical facilities. And lets not forget how much dosh the track has to pay InFront for the rights...



Your post is a joke, right? Physics is the reason the FIM sanction a racetrack? Do you ever read the trite ..... you post? Wrapping it up in flowery verbiage is all very well, just as you can roll a turd in glitter, but it is still .....

So there was no generalised concern about the 990 bikes being too fast for the racetracks after dajiro kato's death in the reality you were inhabiting at the time, or in IndyCars after dan wheldon's death for that matter? And Jerry Burgess didn't suggest that a 600cc formula (as opposed to a fuel limited formula for larger capacity bikes) might be best for gp racing because of the need to limit the speed of the bikes?; despite the ducati adventure I still think he knows a thing or two about gp bike racing, possibly even more than you.
 
So there was no generalised concern about the 990 bikes being too fast for the racetracks after dajiro kato's death in the reality you were inhabiting at the time, or in IndyCars after dan wheldon's death for that matter? And Jerry Burgess didn't suggest that a 600cc formula (as opposed to a fuel limited formula for larger capacity bikes) might be best for gp racing because of the need to limit the speed of the bikes?; despite the ducati adventure I still think he knows a thing or two about gp bike racing, possibly even more than you.



Aren't you conflating two arguments here, though, Michael? Concern about the speed of bikes (or cars) is something that all forms of motosport have to address, since few, if any, circuits currently on MotoGP/WSBK calenders have the potential to increase runoff areas if speeds continue to grow; certainly not without reducing spectator capacity, or forcing them to watch the action from the next postcode. The sad incongruity of Kato's death was that the location, not the capacity of his bike, was the primary reason for his fatal injuries. As Edwards said, "We've always known, you can't crash there--if you do, you're gone."



Anyway, BJ.C has a point, I think. I mean, look at Laguna Seca--there's no way if that track was anywhere else in the world that MotoGP would still be racing there in this day and age. And WSBK doesn't have a round in Sugo anymore because of $$$, not because of safety concerns. That is not to say that safety concerns are ignored when it comes to sanctioning circuits, or their continued use, but it doesn't necessarily receive the priority it should.
 
Looking at the Jerez TT this year, the MotoGP pole position was 1:39:532, and the Moto2 pole position was 1:43:005. That's a difference of 3.473 seconds.



While I'm not an expert on the relative performance between WSBK and the Moto classes, I would expect that WSBK would be between MotoGP and Moto2 in speed. Hence I'd think that the natural speed difference between MotoGP and WSBK should be less than 3.473 seconds. For the purposes of discussion, let's call it 2 seconds so that WSBK is closer to Moto2 in time that MotoGP.



The MotoGP team at the test was Ducati, which is often one second off the absolute MotoGP pace. Hence it would not be unreasonable for Ducati to be only one second quicker than the quickest WSBK contenders in like for like situations.



Then we have a mention of sticky qualifying tyres further up this thread, while the Ducatis were said to be on longer lasting race tyres. A very sticky qualifying tyre should be able to give seconds a lap advantage. Hence even if MotoGP bikes are quite a bit faster than WSBK in normal running, in the circumstances of that test it wouldn't be unusual if the WSBKs had beaten the Ducatis by seconds. But they didn't, the margin was far smaller.



It's hard to work out the difference between qualifying laps for the classes as different conditions clearly come into play. But looking at a number of races, a one second difference seems a wild approximation. Hence we'd expect the WSBKs to be matching Ducati's time if they were on qualifying laps and the Ducati's weren't. Hence the WSBKs should be the same speed as the Ducati, but they were 0.670 faster. That would make the WSBKs 0.330 slower than the Ducatis or maybe 1.330 slower than the MotoGP machines, which I still think is a reasonable margin even if the MotoGP machines are inherently faster.



There are a lot of approximations and guesses in this^ But I still think it's more sophisticated and probably closer to the truth than than "OMFG WSBKS WENT FASTER THAN MOTOGP IN A TEST AND THEREFORE THEY'D WHIP THE MOTOGP'S ... ON ANY CIRCUIT".



Please note that I'm not arguing that this test shows that MotoGP are faster, but just arguing that it's not strong evidence that WSBK is faster than MotoGP.
 
More ......... Do I really have to go and get the sales figures for bikes worldwide, or are you only referencing the US with their 'outlaw' overpriced POS based on designs from the last-century-but-one?



Face it, the US has ceased to be the main market for most motorcycle manufacturers. You just aren't that important any more.



Here in Europe, the sports bike market is dead on its arse. Top seller? The BMW GS1200. In Italy, the first sports bike in the sales list doesn't make the top 10, and barely scrapes into the top 20. Story is the same in the UK, once one of the most important sports bike markets in the world.
 
Aren't you conflating two arguments here, though, Michael? Concern about the speed of bikes (or cars) is something that all forms of motosport have to address, since few, if any, circuits currently on MotoGP/WSBK calenders have the potential to increase runoff areas if speeds continue to grow; certainly not without reducing spectator capacity, or forcing them to watch the action from the next postcode. The sad incongruity of Kato's death was that the location, not the capacity of his bike, was the primary reason for his fatal injuries. As Edwards said, "We've always known, you can't crash there--if you do, you're gone."



Anyway, BJ.C has a point, I think. I mean, look at Laguna Seca--there's no way if that track was anywhere else in the world that MotoGP would still be racing there in this day and age. And WSBK doesn't have a round in Sugo anymore because of $$$, not because of safety concerns. That is not to say that safety concerns are ignored when it comes to sanctioning circuits, or their continued use, but it doesn't necessarily receive the priority it should.

I am well aware that kato died because of the the danger of the particular corner and track, but I also don't dismiss most parties including dorna actually having genuine concerns about safety which his accident brought into focus, whether or not they have acted appropriately or effectively in regard to such concerns, with which it would seem you do not disagree.



They may not race WSBK at sugo anymore for other reasons, but they don't race motogp at Suzuka anymore either, and not for financial reasons imo.
 

Recent Discussions