Ducati.ms - The Ultimate Ducati Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm trying to understand something about the Ducati and the MotoGP tires.

I understand that some tires work better for some bikes, or that when a tire is specifically designed for a certain bike then that bike can perform to its full potential.

I understand that the tires supplied to all the various teams, Honda, Yamaha, etc... are not purposely biased against anybody/ducati and the intent is for them to be equitable, but are the tires favoring the Japenese "STYLE" bikes slightly?

A flat out NO is a completely acceptable answer to this.

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
No.


J/K, the tire rule itself is completely stupid. By creating one tire it's forcing the factories to build bikes to suit the tire, arguably the cheapest component of the entire MotoGP machine as a whole. Rather, the tires should be molded to suit each bike's strengths. The Factories have invested millions of dollars into their current machines, and a $400 piece of rubber is potentially ruining that bike's chance at being competitive.

That being said, I personally believe that right now Yamaha has done the best job of making the tires work, or the Yamaha riders aren't being as vocal about the tires as the other riders. Honda has chatter issues (although Dani and Stoner seem to be able to ride around that quite well), Ducati cant keep the front end warm enough to keep grip, and I'm sure the CRTs aren't suited for the tires either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,918 Posts
No.


J/K, the tire rule itself is completely stupid. By creating one tire it's forcing the factories to build bikes to suit the tire, arguably the cheapest component of the entire MotoGP machine as a whole. Rather, the tires should be molded to suit each bike's strengths. The Factories have invested millions of dollars into their current machines, and a $400 piece of rubber is potentially ruining that bike's chance at being competitive.

That being said, I personally believe that right now Yamaha has done the best job of making the tires work, or the Yamaha riders aren't being as vocal about the tires as the other riders. Honda has chatter issues (although Dani and Stoner seem to be able to ride around that quite well), Ducati cant keep the front end warm enough to keep grip, and I'm sure the CRTs aren't suited for the tires either.
Well summed up Ryan & sadly true.
The cost to the teams if 6 tyre suppliers were employed would be very low to the teams as the supplier would be busting there arses to supply tyres to winning teams proving their tyres were the best.
I want to see an open market where at any track, any team can choose a tyre that best suits them. How can this be unfair to any one if they have the choice unhampered by money constraints?
I am not suggesting teams get free tyres, but a standard price could be set that was uniform & fair. Have a tyre limit but make it flexible.
The current situation with tyres is too narrow, the choices are so close that Honda just redesigned a frame & swingarm to suit the available tyres, & Ducati are trying to do the same, come up with a chassis etc that suits "the tyres".
Championship should be about bikes & riders not tyres hindering the whole series.

Craig
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Ok, that brings it together for me. And also then, the bigger the company, ie Honda, the more money and people they have to throw at a big problem like redesigning a frame, even mid season, so they can stay uber competitive. Makes me mad. I really want racing to be about the bike and rider too. I'm already pissed that I kick out $4/500 for tires every 2500mi. Lol. Farkin tires.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,138 Posts
These posts hit at the heart of the tire issue. Spec tires are, in theory, supposed to level the field and bring down cost. While they may (not even sure it's proven) achieve the latter, they fail miserably at the former. To the point thats already been made, now the bikes have to be altered to suit the tires instead of the reverse (which would be a far easier task). I would argue, where's the net savings in this equation?The teams MAY be spending less on rubber but they're more than making it up with the on-going tweaking they are now obligated to perform.

Here's my thoughts: (I made this argument earlier in the season and I still stick by it) In this series the only person truly benefiting from the single-supplier rule is old C.E.--Carmelo Ezpeleta. The manufacturers all approached him with the idea of running a single tire in each of the Motogp classes (It may be the reverse. It doesn't matter who ask who for the first date) and of course it goes without saying, the Old Spaniard got his palms greased in the process. There's more at stake for one supplier running the show than in an openly competitive environment. Consequently, the money being tossed around to be the top pick is equally large. All the manufacturers are wanting to be sole supplier and in effect eliminate any competition. Please don't tell me they weren't willing to throw quite a few shekels his way.

This may smack as being a bit too conspiratorial for some tastes but, let's not be naive. Big money brings big temptations...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
well summed up in the posts prior, and I am one that also thinks that the "1" tire rule is complete horse-shit....

I wonder some times if the other tire manufacturers are a little down on cash to participate? even if they wanted to enter the game, could they afford it?

mind you, I am not taking the side of the man in charge of the GP circus, or His rule... but I wonder if the "war" on tires was , in fact, green lit... could some other companies afford the production, volume, and shipping to compete with Bridgestone?

curious...

I do think that the "1" rule sucks... but even if the "war" was on... the company with more money would be able , perhaps, to create a better tire with more availability on options as well.

same as comparing the production of new parts for the current bikes when looking at how fast Honda is able to do it as compared to say... Ducati.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,185 Posts
well summed up in the posts prior, and I am one that also thinks that the "1" tire rule is complete horse-shit....

I wonder some times if the other tire manufacturers are a little down on cash to participate? even if they wanted to enter the game, could they afford it?

mind you, I am not taking the side of the man in charge of the GP circus, or His rule... but I wonder if the "war" on tires was , in fact, green lit... could some other companies afford the production, volume, and shipping to compete with Bridgestone?

curious...

I do think that the "1" rule sucks... but even if the "war" was on... the company with more money would be able , perhaps, to create a better tire with more availability on options as well.

same as comparing the production of new parts for the current bikes when looking at how fast Honda is able to do it as compared to say... Ducati.
Michelin is a big tire company (though Bstone is a bit bigger). And they're based in Europe. Europe is where most of the races are held (bikes and cars). They got their asses handed to them even so (bikes and cars). Money/size doesn't necessarily = success (though it does help greatly). Further, all the money is usually/likely budgeted as advertising. It's not like anyone will be bankrupted by participating. It is money that will be used for SOME form of adverts. TV, radio, Algorenet, print, tennis, racing......
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top