Quote:
Originally Posted by Berlin
The route to more speed and higher lap times should be based not solely on power. The WSB bikes are running about 2.5 seconds a lap slower than the GP bikes but cost 10% of the GP bikes to put a team together.
are GP bikes 10 times more technologically advanced?
C
|
Last time I checked the difference wasn't all that great, there's not a lot of road bike left in a WSB front-runner.
I like the idea but I have to say I think it's flawed.
Changing to a BHP cap won't lead to hub-centre steering, or 250 turbos (all of which sounds very 80s). Bike manufacturers spent years trying to find what works, the reason bikes are so similar is that they've found a formula that does.
You can get 100BHP from a 2 stroke 250.
We already have classes down on power, Supersport 600, and superstock classes, any number of club races, the mini-twins, 250 and 125 GPs.
The fact is the public want to pay to see the biggest boys go fastest on the best toys, so that's where the money goes. Now when you go to road racing circuits like the NW200 the playing field is very different, you clearly don't need, or can't use 200BHP in poor conditions on the roads, even if the speed limits and other vehicles are removed.
Current efforts to reduce fuel loads and capacity in MotoGP have simply led to more expensive, complex bikes, as getting the power delivery out of a smaller engine is harder. Back when you had 990cc to play with 250BHP was easy. Now from 800 it's harder, guess what, the companies with the biggest pockets did well. Meanwhile all the independants (and some of the main factories) have gone.
If you want good racing make R&D cheap, don't reward people with the deepest pockets that can afford to develop a 180cc 100bhp bike that's fragile and built of exotic metalergy.
Just my thoughts
Jambo