Suzuki, Kawasaki and the others in MGP

The way things are ATM Suzuki, Kawasaki and Blata particularly are
always going to be the "also rans", I wonder why they continue to spend
millions every year knowing this. Surely they are better off spending
even more millions and getting competitive rather than dithering about
as they are now. Blata probably doesn't have the funds to spend more in
which case I ask why even bother? I mean why spend a huge sum of money
to cruise around at the back of the pack with no chance of ever doing
better?

As for Suzuki and Kwaka if they aren't really serious about investing
enough to win then whats the point? Do they think just turning up and
people seeing the brand is enough to excite people into buying? Surely
at this level of racing (factory teams) the idea is to be really
competitive and show the companies ability to be at the head of the
field. I'm not complaining, I enjoy seeing all the different
manufacturers compete but sometimes I just have to ask why they even
bother because they aren't competitive and will not be without serious
investment and development.

Paul

 

I think you are very wrong. Suzuki and Kawasaki do get marketing
benefit from being out there. I doubt many motorcycle purchasers only
consider buying a Honda, Yamaha or Ducati because those are the only
marques winning GPs right now. On top of that, they get engineering
spin offs, and the opportunity for staff to work in the hothouse
environment of a race engineering team, which can be good for their
careers, and theefore the overall company culture.

Also, you seem to under-estimate quite how competitive MGP is right
now. Kawasaki and Suzuki may be off the pace, but it's only by tenths
in practise, and a few tens of seconds over race distance. And,
*someone* has to come last - how do you think it would be if all the
teams who weren't winning just quit?

 

You are right just being there is important and has spin off's, but lets
face it everyone likes a winner and Suzuki and Kawasaki haven't won in
MotoGP and they aren't going to without more money invested to really
get the bikes into the forefront of racing technology, if they are
already spending dog knows how many mil a year to be also rans then why
not invest more and become winners of at least a few races, the spin
offs of those few wins would surely repay the divident invested in
acheiving that result.

Once again you are right the lap times of the leading bikes and the
others are often very small, but Suz and Kawa are always just that bit
off the pace and that will remain the status quo until they invest
enough to turn things about, if they don't then what we are seeing now
will be all we will ever see, 3 manufacturers leading the show and the
others turning up to show face.

The fact that a team isn't winning isn't a reason to quit but if your
investment clearly isn't ever going to produce the results you want then
you either need to step up or be content to stay where you are and I
doubt that the Suz and Kawa directors are content to see their teams not
being seriously competitive.

Paul

 

Well, Kawasaki has only been back for a short time, and has at least
podiumed once (granted, it wasn't the bike that got them there, but still).
So, they still have work to do. They certainly aren't doing better than
Ducati (which is just as new), but they do better than Suzuki, and it can be
argued that Kawi has the least money to spend on the series. I'm always
pleased with a good Kawi result.

Suzuki, clearly, has little excuse. Hopper is doing his damndest to get that
bike around the track, and KRJR, well, I think he runs harder in practice
than during race day. He's as much said he won't push unless he's near the
front.

2 years ago, Suzuki really had little excuse to not build the bike, as noone
knew about the 800 switch. This year, they're going to coast, as I imagine
most everyone but Yamaha and Honda are as well, simply because the bike is
going away. They might work on chassis development, but motor work is right
out. Why waste the money unless they're working on something that will scale
to the 800s. In fact, if they were allowed, I'd think that some of the also
ran factories will field 800's sometime next year just to get a leap next
year. I think Honda should lease 800's to KRSR (boy, he'd hate that, but he
should get a good deal, especially if he can run Michelins ). I don't
know if the 800's are allowed to lighter next year or not, so an 800 in the
990 series may be at a very serious disadvantage due to the weight, but it
still wouldn't surprise me to see one of the new motors somewhere on the
track next year.

Suzuki and Kawi are also development teams for Bridgestone, which helps
offset some of the costs I imagine as well. It's not like they WANT
Bridgestones, but Bridgestone needs a way in to the series, so I imagine
they're paying the teams (free tires, better support, whatever) to use their
tires.

There were rumors of BMW trying to get in to GP, and I felt that if they
did, they had better shoot for the top, get a decent development rider for
the first couple of years and then host a young gun once the bike gets its
bugs worked out. But, it's easy to argue from a MARKETING point of view,
that BMW gets better bang hosting their "Power Cup" (or whatever it is) at
the GPs than the money they could spend on a GP team. I'd argue the BMW
series costs them less overall money than a GP team, so BMW would have to
enter because they want the in the field testing and engineering experience
that racing can bring. And if you're there for that, you need to be serious
about it.

Finally, if the teams are there more there for engineering platforms than to
actually WIN, then the goals of the factory are different. They could be
trying different things with different goals than the most best perfect
highest HP and handling. In that case, their riders simply suffer,
particularly if they were told that "they'd have a shot" and not simply be
test riders that happen to test on Sundays.

Regards,

Will Hartung

 

Curious that the owning company Kawasaki Heavy Industries is bigger than
all the others put together.

 

I was thinking that too, if Kawasaki Heavy Industries sponsored Kawasaki
MGP then the whole company could / would benefit surely. If the the
racing team was really competitive and had the Kawa Heavy Ind logos on
the bikes the whole industry get advertising benefit, the MGP team gets
results with increased awareness, respect and bike sales and Heavy Ind
gets it's name splattered all over the world.

Paul

 

http://www.superbike-news.co.uk/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=4705&z=4

Japanese rider, Shinya Nakano, will again spearhead Kawasaki's factory
MotoGP campaign in 2006, aboard an *all-new version* of the Ninja ZX-RR,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which is currently under development by Kawasaki engineers in Japan.

So I guess development continues.

 

I'm not sure I want to expose this side of me on rec.moto.racing I
own a somewhat modified Burgman 400. I run the FeetForward mailing list
for machines like the Gurney Alligator and run a website about them as
well at http://www.bikeweb.com Just like the recliner bicycle people,
we're all slightly irritated that a long time ago the rules effectively
banned racing them. This has led us down a route where street bikes are
(in our eyes) more dangerous, more uncomfortable and harder to use than
they need to be. But then if the top flight of racing was 50 years of
development of the NSU teardrop recliner it would probably look like F1
now.

 

I think that depends on the personalities of individuals watching who
might buy bikes. Some may view Suzuki and Kawasaki as also-rans, but
others might identify them as underdogs, and identify with them quite
strongly. Certainly I find it much more exciting watching OJ
challenging on the wet in a Kawasaki than if he had a guest ride for a
top-ish Honda team. There's also the viewpoint that even bad publicity
is better than no publicity.

Cheers,

Ross-c

 

As in my previous post, I think there's a significant minority of
people who like plucky underdogs.

Cheers,

Ross-c

 

They've had the Telelevers since the early 90s by now. I think now they're
actually moving on to a new design, Husak or so, which looks tricker.

Having ridden Beemers since '96 (after I trashed my Honda Blackbird in a
track day I decided to slow things down a notch) I appreciate the boxers
value proposition a lot. First of all, it's different, and many people don't
get them, which is fine by me, the contrarian element is something we're
used to as motorcycle riders anyhow. I am also a huge fan of the 2nd
generation ABS, not sure about the newer linked system - I have never liked
linked systems, perhaps this is better. But once you try ABS and it saves
your skin once, you would miss it immensely on the road, and truly it's not
like one forgets how to brake a bike. The Telelever really works when it
comes to avoid front end diving, but then again the truths is BMWs are never
really ridden *that* aggressively, it's against their nature. The good
things about Telelever is compliance in turns, the downside is that the
front always feels remote - however over time you lear to trust it. The rear
suspension is somewhat harsh (unsprung mass in the Paralever), but the shaft
drive is again something one would miss - I never want to lube a chain
again...

I prefer the boxers because of the low center of gravity and the relaxed and
torquey nature of the engine. They are heavy, but are very easy and
benevolent when it comes to handling, and very underrated on curcy
backroads: one can keep quite a pace up in a very relaxed manner. The K1200
line carries it's weight higher, and combined with the even higher weight
feels clumsy at under 40mph or so. The K1200 is a great Autobahn machine -
high speeds, stright lines, very stable at 100mph+, and all of that. I just
don't think the value proposition transaltes that well to California, where
I live. I think the boxers work beautifully here.

I've had a R1100S since late '99 and do not feel even remotely compelled to
look at anything new. It does everything very well, it has proven very
reliable in long-distance travel (and with the higher handlebar option
quite comfy, too), and is put together well and looks like new. I sometimes
think what I'd get next, look at the newer stuff and flirt with the idea
(I've been a long time Triumph Triple and KTM Duke fan, and really want
either of them sometime), but then again the R is remarkably flexible:
practical to get to work, comfortable to travel, ofers itself to moderate
acts of random hooliganism (it tilts a bit when wheelied, the only torque
reaction left) and so balanced that it's easy to keep up with anything that
rides windy roads at sub-suicidal pace. I have taken it on track days, but
since I once saw a guy drop his and qind up with a $8k damage take it very
easy - the latter is the one downside.

I am curuious about the new K1200R, but then again know that I am not really
about horsepwoer these days.

....pablo