MotoGP and Superbikes - the 'future'

[patnicholls]

I haven't done a big topic for a while. Apologies - I will now attempt to remedy.

--

One thing I dislike about many internet forums is silly hypothetical conjecture about things that might happen but never actually will. I like discussion of things that are happening, things that have happened, and things that are likely to happen. And optimism and realism are high up on my list - I don't log into my computer to whinge :)

I believe motorcycling is pretty near to being in its golden age. There was probably one in the early-to-mid-Nineties, and then as the guard changed from the Doohan era in MotoGP to Rossi and now the other 'aliens', as well as Foggy's time changing to Bayliss's period and now 'BSB on tour' in World Superbikes we've got something up there with any time as strong as the series have been. Admittedly, the global financial situation has certainly hurt the teams near the back of the grid - 17 MotoGP machines isn't that impressive - but this period should rightly be remembered fondly.

But things change in all kinds of respects. When I was born in 1981, MotoGP had come off a 1980 season which consisted of just eight races in the top class, World Superbikes was still seven years from existing, but there were five classes in MotoGP - all two-stroke. Over the course of the years, things DO move on in ways we maybe can't predict and some we can.

The introduction of Moto2 this year has been a revelation. Firstly, the races have been absolute epics - the field is the deepest I've seen, the chassis are pretty much all competitive, riders from plenty of different backgrounds are in the running, and the races have just been so {expletive deleted}-ing good. The 250s had their time but I don't miss them compared with what's just showed up at the party.

But the success of Moto2 has wider ramifications. Firstly, it confirms that GPs are obviously moving towards an all-four stroke era (although I do hear whispers of more efficient and economical two-stroke technology being developed for some point in the future). It has made my beloved 125s look frankly rather antiquated, with pretty much just Aprilias or dressed-up Aprilias in the field and some of those older machines from past years - much as I love them the writing's on the wall and it now appears a new four-stroke (250?) formula will replace them in 2012, entitled Moto3. The British 125 champ has been running with 'grandmothered' Honda chassis for some years now so we knew the technology was at an end.

More evidence of Moto2's influence can be seen in Spain, where there is a national Moto2 championship - in place of the previous Supersport championship. It seems likely that this will spread to Britain and elsewhere - Moto2 is effectively a part-spec Supersport championship and is clearly cheaper to compete in than an equivalent Supersport championship as the respective regulations stand (those who complain that Moto2 bikes are a little slower than Supersport machines are missing the point - of course they will be, but only by a little).

MotoGP is scheduled to move back to a 1000cc four-stroke formula in 2012 (at the same time as Moto3 comes in). It is clear that MotoGP as it exists is too expensive to compete in, as witnessed by the small grid (although there are only a couple of bikes less than when I started following in 2000, and more competitive ones). It's clear that as technology gets better that for racing to remain a worthwhile 'sporting' competition that the technology involved has to be artificially limited, and costs cut significantly.

So what I am working round to is this: if Moto2 has moved the middle class pretty close to Supersport, the lower class needs to be reinvented, and MotoGP is set for a revamp as a 1000cc formula, can we conceivably see of a time (in the next five years or so) where MotoGP and Superbikes become one championship? Are we going to be covering enough common ground that there will not be enough difference? Could we see a reinvention of one series with five championships - three with prototype kit (inc chassis) and then two Superstock series as currently run with Superbikes but with a greater profile?

Your thoughts please.

[Mach24]

can we conceivably see of a time (in the next five years or so) where MotoGP and Superbikes become one championship?

No.

MotoGP clearly admire what WSBK are doing.

The WSBK show is far better than MotoGP, but the GP's have the history and prestige.

[Mach24]

Twas interesting to see Claudio Corti mixing it with the established GP riders at Silverstone. Corti whilst fast, was known for being erratic in Superstock 1000, yet now he is mixing it with the 'soon to be' best riders in the world.

For me this put the whole thing into perspective.

It also shows that Dorna understand they need to take the up and coming riders from WSBK.

Moto2 is squarely aimed at the heart of WSBK.

Lets see what happens with the 2010 Supersport 600 Champion..... WSBK or Moto2?

[gids73]

Interesting that Jeremy Burgess doesnt think that Moto 2 is a feeder class to Moto GP like 250cc was.... Thinks Elias is a journeyman who if he wins the Moto 2 title wont get picked up by any big teams in moto gp (not that there are many of them)...

[The Phantom]

Lets see what happens with the 2010 Supersport 600 Champion..... WSBK or Moto2?

That's a good question. Anyone who can win WSS should go ok in Moto2, ok there's a big difference in tyres and chassis but if you have good corner speed in WSS then you can only go faster on a Moto2 bike - better handling and less power would see to that.

As for MotoGP and WSB eating each other - yes, I think it's a distinct threat. Showroom superbike technology has been improving and developing at a ridiculous rate for the last 15 years, on the back of the massive leap in tyre technology of the nineties, and the gap between mass produced and prototype has never been narrower. Look at the S1000RR and RSV4 for prime examples - imagine what the second gen RSV4 is going to be like! The fact that the BMW's bore exactly meets the spec for 1000cc MotoGP is really quite a big deal if they are going to let mass produced engines into the series.

Maybe it will simply boil down to what the manufacturers deem to be their most important marketing opportunity? Does Yamaha sell more R1s on the back of the success of the R1 in WSB or the M1 in MotoGP? Losing Yamaha from MotoGP - unlikely, but hypothetically speaking - would be disastrous for Dorna...

Could Dorna and Infront agree on a merger? Would the FIM force a merger if it deemed it to be in the best interests of the top level of motorcycle racing?

The underlying theme you've got here Pat is that nothing is ever going to stay the same 'forever'. I bet the teams racing 350 2-strokes never really considered that the class would eventually be buried, much like the 250GP teams would have been thinking only 5 years ago.

Motocross has been through a pretty thorough transformation in recent years; the demise of 125/250 GP was fairly inevitable. What formula will replace 125s I wonder. 250 is logical, but v-twins? parallel twins? thumpers? Maybe they should make the smallest class 500cc thumpers? aka Supermono... which certainly serves up some exciting racing.

[TheFamousEccles]

While I like the great racing and enormous grid that Moto2 provides, I feel that "spec" racing is not what Grand Prix racing should be about. Things are the way they are because no other manufacturer was keen on the changes posed by DORNA, given the obvious clash with World SuperSport, and Honda stepped into the breach with the standard spec engine idea - call me cynical but I cannot remember when Honda did anything that wasn't purely in Honda's favour.

What I think would be a better idea is a category with block and cylinder head based on existing items, with everything else carte blanche (apologies for the bad french). GP racing is meant to be engines tuned to within an inch of their lives - like riding a grenade. Reliability is a good thing, dont get me wrong, but racing improves the breed - you only need to look at SBK for this (and this is with a reasonably restricted modification allowance).

I saw Jeremy Burgess on the teev last race (as did many) and I agree with many things he said, though the main point about Moto2 not being an effective feeder category is the thing I agree with the most. Great racing, undeniably, but it is a glorified supersport category, and when the real WSS bikes can run faster than a Grand Prix bike, something is not quite right. To be effective as a feeder to MotoGP, there needs to be some level of continuity in terms of the technology used and set-up skills required to get the best out of the engine and chassis.

Maybe as Moto2 progresses the usual process of elimination (in terms of chassis ideas) will lead to a general homogenisation of what it takes to be at the pointy end, then what? The engine shouldn't be taken out of the equation IMO, it should be open slather.

Thoughts?

[AndyRAC]

Maybe simplistic, but MotoGP is for prototypes; Suberbikes for production bikes, and never the twain shall meet! However, something needs to be done,we currently have 2 600cc series,and maybe in the future have 2 1000cc series - totally ridiculous!
Maybe Superbikes need to be lightly modded proddy bikes, I honestly don't know, as ever money and politics will have a say. I do agree that Honda's influence is a little unhealthy, and Dorna's running of the sport needs to be questioned.
Interestingly, I think both MX and Enduro have a mixtute of 2/4 strokes in the same class, i hope we haven't heard the last of the 2 strokes, i have read recently that there is still research being done into their continued use.
It's a good thread this, some good points raised, in all honesty, i want to see 5, 6, 7 Manufacturers involved with satellite teams as well.

[patnicholls]

I hear that after the initial three-year contract of Moto2 that the engine regs may be opened up - this first period being a 'save the middle category' measure to guarantee a big field and obviously that has succeeded. With the 250s and also the 125s there were/are plenty of 'grandmothered' chassis in the field - i.e. old ones (the same is true of plenty of national racing, including BSB) which is fine to an extent but doesn't do much for technical progression if you're wheeling out the same chassis every year. The balance is getting new kit in to allow some level of innovation, whilst keeping costs down to a level where people will get involved. That's where Moto2 wins massively and MotoGP is struggling. And you have to bear in mind that in *all* classes the rules are 'artificially' written in such a way to encourage close racing - it's easy to forget how close half a second on a lap time is in real terms in terms of all the factors that go into it.

There is one key MotoGP bike to be discussed as part of this - the 2003 Harris WCM which had some Yamaha R1 bits in it. As you may remember they were thrown out (following a complaint from WSB people that bikes like that were infringing on WSB's ground with regard to production-based machinery) following a promising quali session at Suzuka with Chris Burns riding. In light of financial considerations and the thin nature of the current MotoGP grid the concept of that bike was years ahead of its time as there's a reasonable chance that's roughly where we're headed. Which again brings us back to the two classes edging closer together. I think at Assen today there was some discussion about MotoGP vs WSB lap times, and there's not a great deal in it (less than a second). Is that, in the grand scheme of things, enough of a difference to justify a full-on prototype class?

[ShiftingGears]

One thing they should do is ban traction control and rider aids from MotoGP.