MotoGP: Vermeulen slates singles tyre ruling
"Competition will basically cease" says Rizla Suzuki star
RIZLA SUZUKI'S Chris Vermeulen has spoken out against the decision for a single control tyre for next season's MotoGP series.
Japanese tyre manufacturer Bridgestone put its proposal to be the sole supplier to the world motorcycle racing controlling body FIM and organisers Dorna at last weekend's Australian Grand Prix at Phillip Island - a decision that doesn't please the Australian racing star one bit.
The Suzuki rider said the decision would halt developmental progress because there would be no competition between brands, reports The Age newspaper.
"I don't agree with it, I think it's wrong for grand prix racing to go to a mono-tyre. We're prototype racing, we're there to develop, we're at the cutting edge of development for tyres, for brakes, for engine performance. Everything we do on our bike eventually translates to benefits in road bikes."
Bridgestone's proposal is to be considered and a decision on the issue is expected to be made during the Malaysian Grand Prix on October 18. Bridgestone's current competitor in the premier class, Michelin, have not submitted a proposal, saying they're to withdraw from MotoGP competition in 2009.
"Competition will basically cease", says Vermeulen. "The way I see it they will develop a tyre at the start of the year. Tyres may change from circuit to circuit slightly, but there'll be no major development like we have now," he said.
Discuss this story
i have said before, that until i have seen the racing i will leave my decision to whether its good or bad. What i will say though is that WSB & BSB havnt suffered for it, more gained from it i would say
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 11:25
Whether you may think it is a good or bad decision depends on whether you consider that prototype racing should be open for development, or whether it is acceptable for it to be limited in certain areas. I see it as wrong in principle to limit tyres to one supplier. Of course we can ignore all that and just consider whether it is a good thing, based on the spectacle. But prototype racing should be about more than just entertainment.
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 11:59
I think it will benefit Moto GP. I think the racing will be closer and it will be one less excuse for the riders to use as to why they aren't competitive. It will spur on the factorys to make the rest of their package stronger and that will surely help that aspect of development for road bikes. I was getting bored with the Bridgestone riders fucking off into the distance, now everyone is in the same boat, it should make things a lot closer as it is clear now that the bikes are very close in terms of performance. It'll be about who can set up their bike to get the best out of the tire. As for Vermeulen moaning that it'll stop development for road bikes, why the fuck would he care about that?!? Deep down, he probably couldn't care less about road bikes and their development, he probably doesn't even own a road bike! I think he is just sour at the fact that he is going to lose his advantage over the Michelin riders. Lets be honest, the only riders he seems capable of beating (occasionally) this year are sattleite riders on Michelins. None of the top riders have complained as they believe that they can still win on a level playing field. Even Casey Moaner has reserved judgement until the first few races but seems to back the idea. I think Vermeulen is seriously worried about next year as I am sure he knows that the riders he has had a tire advantage over and still struggled to beat (Lorenzo, Hayden, Dovi and Toseland, to name a few) will be relishing the opportunity to have a level playing field. All of whom, imo, are better riders than him and will show that the only reason they lost out on a number of occasions this year, was because of their tires.
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 12:24
Having a single tyre supplier is certainly not going to reduce corner speeds, but it may well slow the rate by which they would have increased. But essentially it's not going make racing any safer. Competition in tyre development should make tyres better so could be argued to make racing safer overall. Personally it doesn't bother me if one person pisses off into the distance for whatever reason. Yes it doesn't particularly make for such good racing, but eventually the cause is identified, resolved and gaps close, until some-one finds another way to gain an advantage. This is development, it's arguably the point of prototype racing. There will always be a reason why one team/bike/rider has an edge, that won't go away, it just won't necessarily be down to tyres - although there will still be reasons why tyres will make a difference. As for giving riders one less excuse to use as to why they are not competitive. For a start it won't really. Some will still complain about tyres (see WSBK for examples of that). Secondly, why is one less excuse of benefit anyway?
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 14:12
Having a single tyre supplier is certainly not going to reduce corner speeds, but it may well slow the rate by which they would have increased. But essentially it's not going make racing any safer. Competition in tyre development should make tyres better so could be argued to make racing safer overall. Personally it doesn't bother me if one person pisses off into the distance for whatever reason. Yes it doesn't particularly make for such good racing, but eventually the cause is identified, resolved and gaps close, until some-one finds another way to gain an advantage. This is development, it's arguably the point of prototype racing. There will always be a reason why one team/bike/rider has an edge, that won't go away, it just won't necessarily be down to tyres - although there will still be reasons why tyres will make a difference. As for giving riders one less excuse to use as to why they are not competitive. For a start it won't really. Some will still complain about tyres (see WSBK for examples of that). Secondly, why is one less excuse of benefit anyway?
Fair points, but personally, I watch Moto GP for the thrill of the race. Development for the road doesn't really bother me as I don't ride on the road, so anything which is going to make the racing closer or adds to the specatcle of Moto GP I am in favour of.
Yes, prototype racing is about moving development forward, but, it is also still about the battle on track, the skill of the riders and them getting the full potential from the equipment they are supplied with. I find that aspect of racing far more exciting than a company bringing out a revolutionary new tyre that'll do 70,000miles before you need to replace it. Let's not forget, tyres aren't the only form of development. Yamaha's new Big Bang R1 is evidence of that...
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 14:29
Let's not forget, tyres aren't the only form of development. Yamaha's new Big Bang R1 is evidence of that...
True, but taking this one step further, other restrictions on development could be imposed. (Why is it right to limit tyre supply but not limit anything else? ) I mean realistically if you really wanted to slow the bikes down (or stop them getting faster) one way to do it might be to restrict engine development in some way. Then you might not have got the new R1 engine at all.
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 14:39
I would say the one tyre rule isnt going to have much of an effect on the racing the fast guys on the best bikes( factory) will still be at the front. The lower classes of gp racing donrt seem to be affected by what is really also a 1 tyre rule and more often than not the lower classes supply the best spectacle. As for vermulen cant really blame him for voicing an opinion just think he really ought to be vocal in trying to improve the suzuki!
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 15:02
Let's not forget, tyres aren't the only form of development. Yamaha's new Big Bang R1 is evidence of that...
True, but taking this one step further, other restrictions on development could be imposed. (Why is it right to limit tyre supply but not limit anything else? ) I mean realistically if you really wanted to slow the bikes down (or stop them getting faster) one way to do it might be to restrict engine development in some way. Then you might not have got the new R1 engine at all.
Thats true, I don't believe a mono tyre tule will reduce corner speeds, but, I think that realistically, Dorna realised that perhaps there are only two possible candidates for restrictions. Tyres, (which evidently they have chosen) the other being the electronics? If next year Dorna realised that what they set out to achieve in setting a mono tyre rule isn't working, then perhaps we will se a cap in electronics in 2010??
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 15:03
The problem they have with moto gp is there is no BIG step from the 250 up to the 800 as proved this year by the rookies, put the top class on 1000cc bikes ,switch all the electronic crap off and let the riders skill shine through as it was in the 500 days. Riders such as Hayden, Vermeulen, Rossi , Melandri etc would shine while some of these rookies would be digging themselves out of the gravel. Dont get me wrong there are NO mug riders in moto gp but all this electronic shit does paper over the cracks somewhat. Let the tyre war continue. My 2p worth anyway.
Posted: 10/10/2008 at 21:00
Maybe we should actually consider what racing is about, surely is about one guy going faster than the others over a set track and distance, the factories turned it into a way to develop faster more efficient machines, tyre makers joined in and away you go, would the spectacle of racing actually change if some of the development was stopped, I dont think so, other areas would be changed to get round the issue, if tyre development stops the bike makers will adapt to using the set standard tyre more efficiently, we have in my opinion been suckered into thinking that to be a race everything must move forward all the time at a massivly fast rate, look however at 250 and 125 GP, very slow advances in recent years really, you still have bikes racing that are basically 8 years old, with only maybe 1 second a lap time difference, and only a few mega factory bikes out front, with the same dunlop tyre tech moving slowly forward, still superb racing with on occasions much more entertainment than the Moto GP class. Maybe with the coming of a cheaper 600 class we will get a return to the days when riders race in different capacity classes ala spencer, ago and co, bring on the changes, racing will always be racing no matter how the organisers try to twist it to thier own advantage.
Posted: 12/10/2008 at 10:35
MotoGP has the spin off of developing better stuff, it is not it's purpose. Whilst it's an attractive benefit for the makers of bikes and tyres, they'd still be there if it wasn't the case, as I suspect would mr Vermeulen. Vermeluen grizzling that the tyres won't develop isn't anything to do with his lust for technological progress - rather it's 100% based on the fact that he's pissed off that he's now in direct competition with this years Michelin blighted runners! (a point made well earlier in another post) MotoGP is about racing. The more bikes at the front, the better that racing is - watch 125's most weekends and imagine that it was a MotoGP race and you'd pee yourself with excitement at the thought of it. The one make rule takes us a step nearer that, and beacuse it does, I'm 100% for it. Michelin have been poor, and have bought it on themselves. As for tyres needing further development, for what exactly? Most road tyres are way more capable than the riders they are being used by (I ride very very keenly and unlike the 80's when I started, I no longer get scary slides or vague feel and I'm on an R1 not an LC!) modern tyres are just brilliant, and if they stopped developing them now, it would take human performance years and years to catch up. Bring on 09, it's going to be a cracker, and despite being a Rossi fan for all the usual reasons, the 2 guys I really will be interested in seeing next year are Lorenzo on Bridgestones, and Hayden on a Ducati. God I love MotoGP. toosmooth
Posted: 12/10/2008 at 11:52
You know, everyone (me included) thought that it was Michelin making unfair advantage of the European location and that poor old Bridgestone were the underdog... That was until last year, I remember that one of Bridgestones spokespeople when asked about the factories success in 2007 commented something along the lines of "it's a fair trade off, as we've invested around 7 times as much into our MotoGP project as Michelin have" What if we've got this all wrong and Bridgestone are the Evil Empire and Michelin are the Small battling JEDI in all of this? Did taking away the overnight flying in of tyres remove the smaller operations sole advantage against the big spending Jap corporation? regardless, Michelin have been bordering on incompetent with some of their decisions this year and Bridgestone deserve their status. toosmooth
Posted: 13/10/2008 at 13:14
Regardless of the causes and the money spent, or the immediate consequence, I fail to see why one Manufacturers failing is reason to reduce the supply to a single manufacturer. Would you have all bikes supplied by one manufacturer because others couldn't do a decent enough job to compete at all events?
Posted: 13/10/2008 at 13:20
But iBurty, it's a series for bikes from different factories to race against each other - thats the point, sometimes they are good, and sometimes they are bad (Yamaha last year and this) tyre choice puts an extra dimension into it, which can be entertaining, but for the last 2 years has crippled half the grid. Leaving Michelin to service just the shyte at the back of the grid (which is where it would have ended up) means that the back of the grid then struggles to attract riders and sponsorship and then we have an all bridgestone grid when everyone gets pissed off with running michelins... One make rule will keep money coming in to all levels, and in my book there's very little to warrant keeping a poor manufacturer of tyres on the rims of any teams bikes.
Posted: 13/10/2008 at 13:33
Sorry, don't buy that at all. You will always get shyte at the back of the grid regardless of what the tyre rules are. Removing one variable does not automatically guarantee money for the lesser teams. In my book there is very little to justify restricting the competition purely on the basis that there is only one supplier able to produce something reliably competitive.
Posted: 13/10/2008 at 14:49
|
|
