EssFour Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 As the suject title states. Is there a massive difference in machinery, budget, rules regarding developemnt etc. I noticed that a former MotoGP rider now features in the Superbike championship is this a move up, down or sideways? Why don't superbike riders go onto MotoGp. Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whisky Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 I'm probably wrong but thought MotoGP is to biking what F1 is to cars, and superbikes is based loosely on the bikes having to be a production model? Like GT racing. Like I said I might be wrong... Thats what I understood though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssFour Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Ah. I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busby Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 That's about the strength of it. Moto GP bikes are pure prototypes and not a single component will be from a road going bike - just like an F1 car. A superbike could be built by you or I if we had the cash as they are road bikes that have had a heap of engine, brake, suspension, etc work. Various forms of superbike racing have different rules about what components you are allowed to change - eg I think BSB bikes have to retain a lot more road components that a WSB bike. Moto GP bikes push about 260 bhp and weigh 140 odd kilo's and a BSB is around 200bhp and weighs circa 170 kg I think, so there will be a hell of a performance difference. With all the development costs associated to them I think a Honda or Yamaha Moto GP bike is worth something like £1m a throw! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 [ QUOTE ] I noticed that a former MotoGP rider now features in the Superbike championship is this a move up, down or sideways? Why don't superbike riders go onto MotoGp. Thanks in advance [/ QUOTE ] They have but apart from Colin Edwards & Chris Vermeulen non have been able to keep their rides. The problem is, a rider that is dominant in Superbikes enters motogp with great expectations, when they fail to live up to those expectations (usually sporadic good results at certain tracks but no constancy) they are not offered a new contract in motogp. Superbikes is seen as a demotion, but the opposite can occur, a motogp rider not dominating superbikes as expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32Ash Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Don't forget what happened in the last round of 2006 Moto GP - Troy Bayliss was entered (as a late replacement for the injured Gibernau) and having just claimed the World Superbike title, he won the race. It was his first and only Moto GP of the year, although he'd been in the series previously, having been 'promoted' from Superbikes with Ducati. To answer the question about why few Superbike racers end up in GPs, I suppose it's like F1 in that respect. In F1 the majority will come up through the 'formulas' rather than touring cars or GTs and in Moto GP they tend to come up through the ranks of 125 and 250 GP classes, mostly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanG Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Also cc's. Superbikes are 1000cc limit and I thought Moto GP were 500cc...? they were a few years back anyway. Neil Hodgeson went from British Superbikes to World SB (World Champion), then Moto GP, where he didnt get on too well, and then to AMA (US) Superbikes where he does pretty well.. So Moto GP seems to have the best riders..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busby Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 The old GP bikes were 500cc two strokes but then the rules changed when it became Moto GP that you could have 990cc fours and they proved to be quicker and easier to ride so everyone moved to them. This year the Moto GP bikes are limited to 800cc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgera Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Along with the basic rule differences, they key thing is the prototype nature of Moto GP vs the modified stock of the Superbike. On a Moto GP bike just about any parameter can be changed, even things like engine position, all pivot points, bodywork even the stiffnes of the chassis whereas Superbikea have certain fixed things and all run the same tyres. Thus a Superbike rider may have loads of skill in riding a bike that is not quite 100% perfect for the conditions, but in Moto GP that just will not do. It obviously takes a lot of skill and teamwork to get the bike right, do this incorrectly and you are starting with a handicap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukeboy749r Posted March 29, 2007 Report Share Posted March 29, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Also cc's. Superbikes are 1000cc limit and I thought Moto GP were 500cc...? they were a few years back anyway. Neil Hodgeson went from British Superbikes to World SB (World Champion), then Moto GP, where he didnt get on too well, and then to AMA (US) Superbikes where he does pretty well.. So Moto GP seems to have the best riders..... [/ QUOTE ] Except Neil Hodgson did porrly in AMA, failed dismally in Moto GP and now is without a ride this year. 2002 changed from 500cc - dominated for every year except 2006 by a certain Valentino Rossi (he even won last 500cc title) Now it is 800cc, 230 - 240 bhp and faster through the corners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukeboy749r Posted March 29, 2007 Report Share Posted March 29, 2007 Oh you can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MotoGP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now