[TKDmasterZ]

Dorna proposed a spec tire rule for 2008 days before the Motegi race, and the decision is expected to be made during the Malaysia round. Spec tires for MotoGP? Com'on.

Spec tire rule in World SBK series certainly has evened-out the field and made dicing for the podium a close call resulted in more exciting races. But I think MotoGP, where the prototypes are competing, should be given more freedom to push the technology as further as possible.

Don't tell me those Japanense manufacturers going to credit Casey's championship on tire differences.

In any case, I liked the wet race rule currently employeed in MotoGP. It was exciting to see how it all played out during the Motegi Race.

[gitganben]

I agree. As this is prototype racing, I don't think they should switch to a spec tire, some really great developments in street tires have come about through proto tires, it keeps the industry moving forward. Also, if you can't experiment in GP, where can you?

I would, however, like to see them eliminate the qualifying tire. It's a little absurd that the tire only holds up for two laps at most. As we saw with Hopkins qualifying lap at Laguna this year, if other traffic gets in the way on one of the qualifying laps (in his case on his best lap to that point), the lap time is screwed along with the riders position on the grid.

I think the race compound should be used for qualifying.

[.OrgOwner]

I tend to think that a contol tyre might not be such a bad thing for motogp, if it evens out the racing and keep the public interested then it's a good thing. Looking back at some of these motogp threads people were losing interest because Casey was doing it so easily, how much of this has been tyres? There are good arguments either way including the development angle.

[dicknose]

Control tyres have been used in other forms of racing and worked well.

And I dont think there is that much to gain in street tyres from these race tyres.

[TKDmasterZ]

Originally Posted by .OrgOwner

I tend to think that a contol tyre might not be such a bad thing for motogp, if it evens out the racing and keep the public interested then it's a good thing. Looking back at some of these motogp threads people were losing interest because Casey was doing it so easily, how much of this has been tyres? There are good arguments either way including the development angle.

I think this is a bad argument, but control tires are one step closer to forcing all riders to be on the exact same bike. Using Casey as one of the reasons to bring the control tire, it would be similar to banning Suzuki GSXR1000 from AMA racing for dominating the series. I simply would like to see MotoGP going the otherway of giving the manufacturers more freedom, so I can enjoy some radical machinaries and technologies competing.

In any case, I hope to see more competition in 2008 for sure.

[.OrgOwner]

I guess that is a good argument, what do the riders want do you think?

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by TKDmasterZ

I think this is a bad argument, but control tires are one step closer to forcing all riders to be on the exact same bike.

I cant see any basis for that argument.

Plenty of forms of motorsport have had control tyres while allowing different manufacturers to run vehicles. They also run control fuel and other things.

The sport could survive with a single tyre manufacturer (which could be bid for every couple of years) but its unlikely to survive with only a single manufacturer. And I cant see anyone would suggest a single bike manufacturer.

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by .OrgOwner

I guess that is a good argument, what do the riders want do you think?

That would depend on where they stand in the points. Stoner would say no, leave it at status quo. Rossi would probably welcome the change.

I think the bigger issue is that Bridgestone did nothing in 2006. 2007 a tire rule was changed and gave the advantage to Bridgestone.

What Michelin did was bring the best tire for the job. They would find what works the best and then make them, fly them in and give them to the teams. This gave the racers a tire that would last and perform. Bridgestone doesn't have the facilities to do that. So Michelin got punished because they had the facilities to accomplish just that.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by lanbrown

What Michelin did was bring the best tire for the job. They would find what works the best and then make them, fly them in and give them to the teams. This gave the racers a tire that would last and perform. Bridgestone doesn't have the facilities to do that. So Michelin got punished because they had the facilities to accomplish just that.

But you do want to try and make a reasonably level playing field.
Its not like Michelin was using any fancy technology that would improve things, they were just throwing resources (and money) at it to custom make tyres for the day.

The current restriction on the number of tyres and supplying them before the race day isnt a huge restriction. Its not like Michelin dont have data for most of the tracks, so they can still custom make tyres for each track (just not after racing has started)

Still not sure what all the fuss is about. I dont remember anyone in the last few years saying "x won because of michelin". Bridgestone have done well this year, but its not like they have won every race or filled all the top spots.
Look at the riders championship - michelin have the riders in 2nd and 3rd. Basically if Casey wasnt riding it would look like michelin was the best tyre.


Personally I think you do want things to be roughly level. I dont care either way if a control tyre is used. But if its not, then I think its good to have rules in place that keeps the tyre war under control. Having one brand that dominates is not good.

[.OrgOwner]

If your contracted as a rider to an inferior product it must suck tyres or whatever. I guess it comes down to what the MotoGP class of racing is all about. The best of the best.

[Bobcat Sig]

I too am not a fan of the tire/rule change. For me, MotoGP has what no other major motorcycle racing organization has - cutting edge technology and almost limitless resources to win. It's similar to F1, which I also love. So not only is MotoGP a question of the rider, it is ALSO a question of the machine and technology.

Removing that with the tires, losses that spirit. Furthermore, I think it moves the sport closer to something like NASCAR which has a retarded amount of rules.

.OrgOwner said it ... it's all about the best of the best, period.

[slickwill]

Someone in another debate on this subject pointed out how many races come down to things like a 7 cent fastener. Tires are a decision that a manufacturer has to make. It is a prototype series for a reason. It isn't about the best rider. It is about the best overall package. They are talking about spec ECU's as well to limit traction control, etc. Once everything is spec there are no more advances and the technology won't hit the street. If it spec tires, then spec ecu's, then spec suspension, then spec brake rotors, etc. Where do you stop? If we wanted a best rider series we could put them all on equally prepped Ninja 250's.

[Getsome]

I really hope the tire rule does not happen. I think it will not only start to ruin MotoGP but also start to hinder advances in tire technology for the street and track that the rest of us would like to continue to see improve.

[.OrgOwner]

Yeah I agree with you slickwill but I don't think the Ninja 250 would be a good choice of control bike It should be a Honda as you need to give all riders a fair chance to finish the race....

[Getsome]

Originally Posted by .OrgOwner

Yeah I agree with you slickwill but I don't think the Ninja 250 would be a good choice of control bike It should be a Honda as you need to give all riders a fair chance to finish the race....

[slickwill]

Originally Posted by .OrgOwner

Yeah I agree with you slickwill but I don't think the Ninja 250 would be a good choice of control bike It should be a Honda as you need to give all riders a fair chance to finish the race....

I'll post more detail in another thread, but have you seen the new 250? It has me seriously considering one as a low cost track bike.

Anyway it was just what popped into my mind. I don't care if they ride NSR100's, CBR 600's, or Busa's. Unless the entire thing is spec there is no point to trying to make part of spec.

[fireblade3876]

I like the idea that has already been pointed out that moto gp technology is used to enhance road riding wether it comes to the bikes or tyres,

Tyres have a critical part to play for all the teams and it has been speculated that the only reason stoner won was because of the rubber he was on, i disagree with this but not entirely, michelin have excellent R and D especially with Rossi as one of thier chief testers and you will probably notice that all michelins do better than bridgestones on the european curcuits, this is because Rossi can order a tyre on the wednesday and they will fly or drive it in for the thursday. Bridgestone do not have that advantage.

Lets not forget dunlop, the trech 3 team had a hard time on them but guintolli proved that the dunlops are race competetive.

In a nutshell i think certain tyres suit certain riders and bikes in certain locations so lets keep it as it is.

[TKDmasterZ]

A good article explaining the background of the constroversy:

SPEEDtv.com - The Online Motorsports Authority | Moto GP | MOTOGP: Why Dorna is Threatening to Impose a Spec Tire | by Dennis Noyes | The latest MotoGP headlines | Capirossi, Hayden, Melandri, Pedrosa, Rossi, Stoner, Elias, Edwards, Gibernau, Tamada,

Simply put, tt's all about the TV ratings. The people who paid the big $$$ didn't want to see Casey and Ducati way up front...

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by slickwill

Unless the entire thing is spec there is no point to trying to make part of spec.

Why?

There is a lot of ground between "totally open" and "totally spec".

Other motorsport has done ok with control tyres or other controls (even control brakes!)

In some ways setting some parts as spec means other parts will get better advancements as they are now a more valuable free variable.

Seeing that none of the bike/engine manufactures make their own tyres it shouldnt hurt them in terms of development. It might even help if it gives an incentive for manufacturers who arent doing so well if they think they can get a more level playing field with the tyres.

[.OrgOwner]

Then why not give the riders a choice of 3 or more tyres from different manufacturers? It would continue to stimulate development and riders would have to live with their choices. Could that be made to work? Rather than put a rider at a disadvantage for a whole season due to a contract...

[slickwill]

spec means other parts will get better advancements

I'd like to have tire advancements as well. Plus, if you make the wrong choice for tires then you might be more motivated to work on your engine.

[JBAXX]

Funny how Bridgestone wins for the first time and now Dorna wants spec tires. Nobody said anything when Rossi and Michelin were kicking everybody's ass...

[TKDmasterZ]

Originally Posted by JBAXX

Funny how Bridgestone wins for the first time and now Dorna wants spec tires. Nobody said anything when Rossi and Michelin were kicking everybody's ass...

I think that was the whole point in the SOUP's article. They had the wrong guy (Casey) winning too many races on wrong tires (brid's).

[slickwill]

Nobody said anything when Rossi and Michelin were kicking everybody's ass...

To some degree they did. That's why they implemented the current rule about choosing tires on Thursday. Michelin would make special tires the night before and bring them in for the races giving them an advantage. So the new rule was dreamed up to combat that.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by slickwill

I'd like to have tire advancements as well. Plus, if you make the wrong choice for tires then you might be more motivated to work on your engine.

If you are on the wrong tyres and coming mid field or worse then there is only so much you can do to the engine/chassis to get to the front. Its more likely that the manufacturer will jump tyres rather than sink a vast amount of money into improvements.

And I dont think the tyre improvements mean much to the road rider. These are very specific race tyres tuned to those bikes. At the moment it seems that the difference between brands is down to who can brew the correct rubber for a narrow set of conditions. That was what hurt Michelin - they used to be able to make up new tyres on demand over the race meet.

[.OrgOwner]

It's amazing what they do to produce the race tyres, taking moulds of the track surface before a race meeting for example. Imagine that kind of service from your local tyre guy...