MotoGP vs WSBK [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

White trash

30th June 2010, 09:20

Do you really think it'll make any difference.

They've gotta be asking themselves how the hell they can make a modified production bike go only .2 seconds a lap slower than bloody prototype racer, surely. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

onearmedbandit

30th June 2010, 09:32

They've gotta be asking themselves how the hell they can make a modified production bike go only .2 seconds a lap slower than bloody prototype racer, surely. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

You'd hope so. But did they really need a website to tell them that lol, you'd hope that they knew that things were a bit fishy already. Here's hoping that they get a big injection of R & D cash.

Crasherfromwayback

30th June 2010, 10:41

I think Suzuki need to realize that they can't make the v-four work...and do as Yamaha do. Make the GP bike an across the frame four. It's what Suzuki do best.

Cleve

30th June 2010, 10:49

I think Suzuki need to realize that they can't make the v-four work...and do as Yamaha do. Make the GP bike an across the frame four. It's what Suzuki do best.

agree - maybe they will do that when it converts back up to the 1000cc's

imdying

30th June 2010, 10:50

They've gotta be asking themselves how the hell they can make a modified production bike go only .2 seconds a lap slower than bloody prototype racer, surely. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense.To be fair, it's 1200cc vs 800cc. Another way to look at is how come Ducati can only go 0.2 second faster a lap with a 50% larger engine?

Crasherfromwayback

30th June 2010, 11:04

agree - maybe they will do that when it converts back up to the 1000cc's

And maybe (if they're still using Mitsubishi electronics) simply admit defeat and use Webber Marelli electronics like every other factory.

onearmedbandit

30th June 2010, 11:05

To be fair, it's 1200cc vs 800cc. Another way to look at is how come Ducati can only go 0.2 second faster a lap with a 50% larger engine?

I think that's a typo on the website, as all the other comparisons are like for like. Regardless, the GSVR is doing the same laptimes as the 1000cc Production based bikes, whereas the other MotoGP contenders are a clear 2s ahead. Suzuki need to pull finger. I don't care if it's the engine, the chassis, the rider or the way the sun comes up in the morning, something must be done.

Oscar

30th June 2010, 12:14

It will be interesting to see how Moto1 lap times compare to SBK.
I see there's already some prototypes in testing: http://www.twowheelsblog.com/post/4463/motogp-suterbmw-moto1-bike-ready-for-brno-gp-test

That BMW SBK motor in a prototype frame could be interesting...

Crasherfromwayback

30th June 2010, 12:35

Indeed. Hopefully the new rules will see full fields once more in the premier class.

Oscar

30th June 2010, 12:46

Indeed. Hopefully the new rules will see full fields once more in the premier class.

Every starter gets at least a point - It's starting to look like the Special Olympics.

Crasherfromwayback

30th June 2010, 12:48

Aye...it's a bit sad at the mo.

Maido

30th June 2010, 13:43

quite funny how close bikes are, where as you compare cars from a touring car series to F1, the gap is far far larger.

onearmedbandit

30th June 2010, 13:46

quite funny how close bikes are, where as you compare cars from a touring car series to F1, the gap is far far larger.

A good comparison would be between a 1000cc stock bike vs 1000 Superbike and an HSV Commodore vs V8 Supercar. That would be truly telling.

imdying

30th June 2010, 14:42

quite funny how close bikes are, where as you compare cars from a touring car series to F1, the gap is far far larger.What do you think would happen if F1 cars can tyres similar to the touring cars?

kittytamer

30th June 2010, 16:14

What do you think would happen if F1 cars can tyres similar to the touring cars?

...and weighed more and had no down force..... etc etc, not really a comparison, whereas the bikes CAN be compared because SBK and MotoGP both use the same suspension and slicks etc... a full on SBK is a long way from a production bike.
Having said all that, the most important thing is the racing and for the last few years SBK has been so much better than MotoGP. Something has got to be done, but with all the talk of Moto1 with production engines, is this not going to be very close to SBK?

imdying

30th June 2010, 16:42

Yeah, all that too... but just think about the tyres alone... they limit what lap times can be achieved more than anything else.

Very similar on GP and WSBK bikes, not even close on touring cars vs F1.

1 tyre manufacturer, a limit on this that and the other thing... it's all quite sad. It's prototype racing being ruined by needing 'viewer numbers', as if that's the holy grail :rolleyes: Pretty bloody tragic really.

CHOPPA

30th June 2010, 16:59

Id say there times would be even closer if they were running the same tyres

2wheeldrifter

30th June 2010, 17:04

Is close. but could the track play apart?
Is this track suited more for the SBK bikes?

Just putting the idea out there.... :)

Kiwi Graham

30th June 2010, 17:08

...and weighed more and had no down force..... etc etc, not really a comparison, whereas the bikes CAN be compared because SBK and MotoGP both use the same suspension and slicks etc... a full on SBK is a long way from a production bike.
Having said all that, the most important thing is the racing and for the last few years SBK has been so much better than MotoGP. Something has got to be done, but with all the talk of Moto1 with production engines, is this not going to be very close to SBK?

I'd like to see GP racing go back to full on prototype two stroke bikes, totally unlimited in anything but capacity and WSBK to remain 'heavily' modified production based bikes. Keep the two very distinctly different.
If MotoGP (1) gets even closer to WSBK than it is already one is going to loose out.

Are we so concerned about times? isn't it the spectacle of the class and close racing that we want. Of course the times are going to be similar, many production bikes geometry specs are copied from the GP bikes and WSBK is based on those same production bikes. Having two similar classes (in so many ways) is going to produce similar times.

However the 1000cc rule in GP's will see a decrease in times I would assume.

MaxCannon

30th June 2010, 21:14

CHOPPA

30th June 2010, 22:03

I think they should have GP Superbikes!!! 40 Bikes on the line, fully modified Superbikes to GP standards! Its heading that way anyways

kittytamer

1st July 2010, 07:40

What I want to know is how come bloddy WSBK doesn't have overhead shots or on bike footage.

The round at Kyalami had helicopter shots and it was the best to watch thanks to different viewing angles.

Watched the GP and WSBK back to back at the weekend and seeing the same camera anlges for two WSBK and one WSS race gets a tad boring.

The Moto2 and MotoGP footage is miles ahead.

I'll let you all know what is looks like up close when I get back from Laguna Seca.

WSBK is getting on-board cameras for 2011 season. I agree, this will make it much better.
Also, did you see the difference in quality with Randy DePuniets on-board camera? He has the HD camera and it looks amazing!

MaxCannon

1st July 2010, 12:09

WSBK is getting on-board cameras for 2011 season. I agree, this will make it much better.
Also, did you see the difference in quality with Randy DePuniets on-board camera? He has the HD camera and it looks amazing!

Yeah the HD cam stuff does look pretty incredible.

I want onboard cam pointing back at the rider whever it's wet and they have clear visors on.
Must be some wide eyed expressions tipping into 5th gear corners on a wet track

discodan

1st July 2010, 15:02

I'm sick of MotoGP's onboard cameras pointing straight at the riders arse, hands or feet while providing very little vision of them going around the track. What's wrong with a camera facing forwards so we can get the riders POV?

imdying

1st July 2010, 15:12

Wow, they haven't got onboard cameras in WSBK? That's crazy... I just watch the 1990 GP500 race at Laguna Seca, and Wayne Rainey had one on his bike... and WSBK can't manage it for at least half a dozen bikes??!

TonyB

1st July 2010, 18:50

I'd like to see GP racing go back to full on prototype two stroke bikes, . The only reason the factories bother competeing at all is because they use the series as R&D. There is no commercial benefit in developing 2 stroke engines as they can't meet emmisions standards in the real world (yet). The series went to 4 strokes because that was what the manufacturers wanted.

onearmedbandit

1st July 2010, 23:32

Well it's what Honda wanted. And got.

Deano

2nd July 2010, 15:24

I'm sick of MotoGP's onboard cameras pointing straight at the riders arse,

Well it's what Honda wanted. And got.

Are you trying to form some sort of association between Honda and gayness ?

Cheshire Cat

2nd July 2010, 21:24

Moto2 FTW!

sil3nt

2nd August 2010, 11:49

Im guessing WSBK just ran the same track as Moto GP did at silverstone. Looking at the superpole time for Carl Crutchlow his time would have been good enough for 5th on the Moto GP grid. Looks like the WSBK Suzuki was faster than the MotoGP suzuki.

*edit*
Ah yep just found this http://www.crash.net/world+superbikes/news/162105/1/crutchlow_sets_motogp_pace_at_silverstone.html

Oscar

2nd August 2010, 12:12

discodan

3rd August 2010, 11:42

Doesn't WSBK use qualifying tyres?

Yep. But you would think that with all the other advantages that a GP bike has, they should still be able to lap quicker.

Still, it shows that not only the bike manufacturers are advancing but also that Pirelli have been working hard despite being a control tyre supplier.

imdying

3rd August 2010, 12:25

Im guessing WSBK just ran the same track as Moto GP did at silverstone. Looking at the superpole time for Carl Crutchlow his time would have been good enough for 5th on the Moto GP grid. Looks like the WSBK Suzuki was faster than the MotoGP suzuki.The NSV500 qualified ok too, but got raped in the race.

White trash

3rd August 2010, 12:27

The NSV500 qualified ok too, but got raped in the race.

Bit like Deano, Drew and Luke over at Team Qualifier then? :shutup:

Oscar

3rd August 2010, 12:31

Yep. But you would think that with all the other advantages that a GP bike has, they should still be able to lap quicker.

Still, it shows that not only the bike manufacturers are advancing but also that Pirelli have been working hard despite being a control tyre supplier.

You'd think so, but look at the difference between the lap records set a couple of years ago by MotoGP bikes with qualifiers and this year's qualifying times.

At Mugello, for example, Pedrosa qualified fastest at 1.48.819, whereas Rossi qualified with a 1.48.130 in 2008.

discodan

3rd August 2010, 14:59

You'd think so, but look at the difference between the lap records set a couple of years ago by MotoGP bikes with qualifiers and this year's qualifying times.

At Mugello, for example, Pedrosa qualified fastest at 1.48.819, whereas Rossi qualified with a 1.48.130 in 2008.

So you're saying that they have nearly made up for the loss of qualifiers with an extra couple of years developement?

It's amazing really that they are just about as quick on race tyres on an 800 than they were on qualifiers on the 990s.

Oscar

3rd August 2010, 15:01

So you're saying that they have nearly made up for the loss of qualifiers with an extra couple of years developement?

It's amazing really that they are just about as quick on race tyres on an 800 than they were on qualifiers on the 990s.

No, I'm saying the opposite.
Seven tenths of a second is a helluva long time.

discodan

3rd August 2010, 15:52

No, I'm saying the opposite.
Seven tenths of a second is a helluva long time.

Ah ok, I didn't catch your drift.

I don't reckon that .8 of a second is too much though, especially on a long lap like Mugello. Some times I see someone lay down a qualifying lap about .6 of a second faster than anyone else and think that will be the end of it only for some shit like Lorenzo to knock another .4 off the best time.

Oscar

3rd August 2010, 16:04

Ah ok, I didn't catch your drift.

I don't reckon that .8 of a second is too much though, especially on a long lap like Mugello. Some times I see someone lay down a qualifying lap about .6 of a second faster than anyone else and think that will be the end of it only for some shit like Lorenzo to knock another .4 off the best time.

8/10 of a second in qualifying would cost you five grid places.

discodan

3rd August 2010, 16:27

8/10 of a second in qualifying would cost you five grid places.

Which is not as many as I would have thought. At Mugello, pole and last place on the grid were seperated by over 4 seconds. Riders further down the grid would need more than qualifying tyres to make up the difference.

I'm not saying they don't make much difference because they do make a huge difference. But I don't think it will be too much longer before we see the pole records being broken again on race rubber.

Rcktfsh

3rd August 2010, 16:36

Doesn't WSBK use qualifying tyres?

The use of qualifying tyres makes it an irrelevant comparision, Jorge fastest lap in the race was 2.03.5 whereas the fastest SBK lap was around 2.05.2 this still doesn't give a fair comparision though as you are talking about different spec tyres obviously. Don't forget the SBK's also run shorter races so obviously the spec tyre can be softer than Moto Gp, finally I think you'll find the Moto Gp guys tend to run more consistent laps meaning a comparision between both series over say 20 laps would show a bigger gap than the 1.6 secs shown by fastest lap times.

sil3nt

3rd August 2010, 18:10

Easy to run consistent laps as moto GP is very rarely a race more a hot lapping session for every rider :shutup:

imdying

5th August 2010, 16:38

That's the curse of having the best of the best... The better the racers and their equipment, the more likely that situation (consistency) is to happen. I don't follow WSBK, but I'm guessing the fastest of them rattle off consistent lap after lap?