The sport and the industry

[scott411]

i have been thinking about this for a while, and would like to know other peoples thoughts, some of this comes out of the Teams vs the AMA and Daytona Motorsports Group with the US superbike series, but i think it carries on to alot of other series around the world, both on and off road,

do you think racing and the motorcycle industry are two closely related, in the fact that the industry has too much say in the classes, and how the racing is run,

in other forms of motorsport (cars, boats, karts) and the major industry players have a greater degree of seperation from the sport,

i am not aiming this at bashing anyone, or want it to turn into we do this so everyone else should either, just want to know what peoples thoughts are?

[wharfy]

This has alway been an issue, I remember in the 70's there was a lot of people concerned that Harley Davidson had far to much influence on the AMA and the rules for flat track were tweaked in their favour (TZ700 based flat trackers banned amonst other things) and in the 90's World Super Bike rules apparently favouring Ducati. F1 has also had disputes about rules that were claimed to favour one manufactureer over another.

Manufacturers need to be involved but someone ( Like MNZ ) "should" keep them honest.
It is not big business in NZ. Occassionally some importer will start a class that "their" bikes should win ( I am not sure but I think that is how Street Stock got started - can anyone clarify that ? )

In Europe racing success is VERY important to sales. Even if you are only buying a commuter you want to buy one made by the manufactureres of the World Championship winner.
It is probably more of a factor with bikes than cars. Sportsbikes "look" like motogp bikes whereas there is no apparent relationship between even the hottest production car and an F1 car ( which is starting to get off topic a bit ).

In NZ we have had the same issues with MNZ (or NZACU ?) comming under pressure to restrict the Brittan.

This is an interesting topic - but only academic for a clubmans racer like me

[t3mp0r4ry nzr]

there has to be interest for the manufacturers to be involved in racing, in this respect their interest is that of retailing the motorcycles that win the races ie, win on sunday sell on monday. The million dollar question is whether the interest will be returned if the manufacturers are at arms length or have no say in class structure. If we look at motogp as an example, individual manufacturers have less input into class structure (what can be raced etc), and the direct relation between what wins on sunday and what sells on monday is blurry. MotoGP is ultimately prototype bikes that dont 100% reflect what you can buy off the showroom floor. The individual manufacturers interests in supporting motogp are the pursuit of technological advances (that may or may not reach the showroom floor ie, would you really want a screaming 800cc road bike or a more user friendly and torquey 1000cc) to position themselves high in the technology stakes, also they will be involved due to competition (after all, who wants to be beaten by HONDA!). Ultimately its my opinion that they are not involved in motogp to get a positive return on investment. ie their interest is in the racing is not being returned in a 100% tangible way, only that of a branding positioning. A kind of "benelovent society" (spelling!) approach.

Question is would AMA racing or regional racing, IE, NZ champs survive in a benelvent society where the manufactures pour money into the bottomless pit that is racing, where their interest cannot be measured by way of retail sales (assuming that they have no say in class structure)? In my opinion, no. the racing will not survive. Moto GP is the grandaddy of bike racing, superbikes is not. Superbikes are for showcasing each brands standard of retail available products, it is not a prototype class. For return on investment the brands need to see the reflected retail sales to qualify the investment.

Suzuki has been dominating the AMA's and as a result the other brands arent seen as successfull, their interest in the racing is not being returned. The other brands want to pull out of this class and reclassify it to a class where they product might be on a more even playing field. Fair call in my opinion as without their manufacturer support, the RACING will die. And we dont want to see the racing die, now do we. but what would I know...

[wharfy]

I read Aarron Slights book - "you don't know the half of it" and was shocked to learn that he was forced to use crap after market parts on his race bike because the American distributer of the parts coughed up LOTS of money to the team. I know that I should not have been so supprised , after all the Allblacks (tm inc.) don't wear addidas gear because it is the best but because Addidas paid Rugby NZ shit loads of money. However that (to me at least) is not going to detract from their performance, but using a shitty "performance" part that doesn't actually perform sure will.

I would be interested to know how much a top rider with a big fan base is worth to a team as far as sponsor money goes (not just his chances of winning).
If you could say "I have signed Rossi for next year" would sponsors be reaching for their cheque books, would say brembo give you a million bucks to use their brakes ? but if you signed James Toseland would you only get half a million. or do you use the best brakes you can get hold of ?
Can a race team "make" money ie get more sponsorship money than it costs to stay in motogp ?
How does McLaren stay in F1 ? (they only sell about two cars a year and I think they loose money on them.)