
Originally Posted by
steveyb
Having stayed away from commenting for fear of having my feelings hurt, I think that information from ASBK (I assume it is true) is enlightening.
Contemporary economic theory and practise it seems (not that either of these are the be all and end all) suggests that only in a competitive market will the best prices for goods or services be achieved. Best for both provider and consumer. That goes for performance also.
IMHO the single supplier argument for any product or service is somewhat of a red-herring and a knee jerk reaction to a situation that might actually not exist.
If, in our case, riders are shying away from competing in a particular class, the provider of a certain product be it tyres, suspension, hell, even bikes, is not the reason for that.
The reasons will be that the overall package is unworkable. Too expensive, too difficult to be competitive, too complicated, too whatever. But it does seem that many believe that our current rules make the bikes too expensive to build and run.
If a single supplier corners any market, they can then supply whatever product they effectively want to, and charge whatever price they can make the market stand.
What would happen say, if Dunstonelli won the contract to supply NZSBK with tyres in 2013/14/15? cos a one year contract would not be workable due to lead times, logistics, margin recovery etc.
But halfway through the year or contract they started ramping up the price, or started bringing over leftover compounds/constructions that no-one else wanted?
You can see where I am going.
Yes, there would be contracts, but what good does that do anyone at that point? The contract would be necessarily vague in several vital areas, and MNZ has the resources to litigate? No, it does not.
Reputation? Not everyone will think they are crap if they end up being crap, but no one will believe our word over that of Dunstonelli will they?
But, you say, we will just cancel that contract and get Metmichcontstone to supply.
What? Halfway through the year? After they have been told their services are not required? How many tyres was that? When, next month?
Yeah, right.
And the obvious logical outcome of the argument is to introduce a single motorcycle supplier. Why just stop with tyres or anything else?
My point is that "dumbing down" effectively a formula motorsport class (Superbike is effectively a formula class based on production bikes) by introducing single suppliers does just that. Dumbs it down, and eventually can actually increase costs in certain areas due to the opportunity risk that is inherent in an inefficient market that was created. Why would another company carry race tyres if the racing classes are on a control tyre? Obviously they will not, so that restricts all other possible users and closes off a product line for those suppliers.
I know that they do this in other sports, sailing is a good example. But competitors therein are happy to race single types of boats that are effectively all the same; Opti, Laser, 420, 490 etc. Effectively we would have to introduce single model classes to go down that road.
So, it seems to me that rather than restricting what products or services riders/teams can use, limiting the rules around what can be built, modified and changed while allowing open use of preferred products/services would be better. Remember, that what will work on a Suzuki, might not on a Honda etc.
So, in the main, I think that yes, the BSB guys are onto something. Leveling the playing field in terms of what can be modified on the bike is a good thing, but restricting supply is not. The best teams with the best intelligence, best workshops, best technicians, best budgets and best riders will still probably come out in the best positions in the end.
Thank you all for listening.
Bookmarks