WSBK » Superstock class to be phased out?

The Superstock 1000 and 600 classes could be dropped from 2014 to allow the Superbike class to assume new 'stock-inspired' regulations.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

Buddy - Unregistered

January 07, 2013 6:04 PM

The not so glorious reign of BMP and Octagon who never really got over the multi million pound British F1 car GP and Madam Folstone financial transactions.


January 07, 2013 6:07 PM

@ This is a World Championship after all
"The technical specs of the bike make VERY little difference to the overall team budget."

Ok - I get it that logistics and wages are a very big part of the bills. Perhaps re-arranging the calendar so the circus moves around the planet in a logical manner would help (circuit dates and clashes I know are a problem, but sometimes the way they hop all over the planet just seems nuts?)?

But... it must cost a fortune when Aprilia get through 40 motors just for Max? Add in Laverty's motors and no-once can say that's not a LOT of money surely?
Also - the electronics need what - 2 full time mega-bucks laptop Geeks, not to mention the cost of the hardware and software etc. Surely a stock ECU means a dramatic reduction in Geek expenditure also?


January 07, 2013 6:12 PM

Re: 250's. Well, BSB have run the pure racing 125 strokers as part of the BSB programme for years, and no-one has moaned about the mix of a racebike-only support race at a predominantly 'production' based race series meeting that I know of - so why not 250's at WSBK rounds?
Agree though that it would be a bit too similar to Moto3, and better if they came up with something else, like the 500 twin idea mentioned IMO.

@ TalentFan

You could make the route a nice 'round the world once' trip, but your accom bills would go up even if flight costs came down. & you'd need a full mobile 'workshop' rather than just transporters. Swings & roundabouts. It's a necessary evil of racing in a WC, which is why many teams stick to national championships.

The Aprilia engine issue just illustrates my point about the current rules being almost perfect.

If a factory wants to compete at the front of a World Championship series with a product that is clearly not competitive in STK guise, they can. They may need to spend more money to do so ... but even throwing 40 engines at Biaggis bike didnt make them anywhere near as dominant as BMW have been in the STK championship.
WSBK wins were shared out nicely, with the privateer run Aprilia even winning without a 40 engine program.
Look at what Pedercini & Effen(beer) did with little budget & good riders.

I have seldom seen rules in motorsport that dont reward the guy with the biggest checkbook ... but WSBK is the best I've seen.


January 07, 2013 6:47 PM

I agree that WSBK has been great racing. The Q is - is it sustainable? If it isn't then we have to accept a cheaper alternative, or risk doing without altogether?
Its like the whole UK Nuclear power question. Politicians fudged around cos the Q kep being asked to the man in the street 'do you want Nuclear?' & they'd always reply NO! Wrong Q. If they'd asked instead 'which would you prefer - Nuclear Power, or the very real chance that the electrical network will get overloaded and we'll have to ration your power, maybe turn you off now n then?' then the answer would have been 'Nuclear Power stations please!'
What am I on about? The choice may well be limited to 'less' or 'none' - which one do you choose eh?


January 07, 2013 7:07 PM

And not before time!

I've been harping on about this precise need for the last two years (aye, on here too). It really is great that those with clout have finally got it together and seen the light. For all you naysayers and whingers... well, you'll just need a year or two more than everyone else to see it.

@ TalentFan

Read my earlier post (& the Buckmaster article). If you want to save money, dumbing down the current tech is going to save you SO little, that the risk vs reward makes it 'not worthwhile'.

At the moment you could run a decent competitive little outfit for $2mil. By world championship racing standards, that is not too bad at all.

The biggest question is why aren't there sponsors queuing up to spend that kinda bargain money to reach hundreds of millions of fans around the world on a regular basis. The answers lie in the commercial, not technical sphere.

Why is there no revenue share for teams like there is in F1 where Caterham gets $10mil for coming 10th?


January 07, 2013 7:41 PM

@This is a World Championship after all

Your contentions of risk/reward and of relatively low expenditure on hi-tech by teams is entirely specious. The elephant in the room you either miss or choose to ignore is the vast unseen cost of manufacturer investment in technology in both SB and GP. Truth is, that's why the belt tightening is occurring, and it's not by choice. It's by absolute necessity.

This "dumbing down" is not ideal, but is a necessary evil for the survival of all top level world series racing. It requires the racing of prototypes to be carefully and strictly governed in respect of their technology to avoid an economic arms race the big manufacturers can't afford, while encouraging lesser manufacturers and privateer teams to participate because it is not an entirely hopeless task to do so. It follows and requires that production based racing remains just that... i.e. production based and with fairly and squarely production ethos.

It also follows that such racing need no


January 07, 2013 7:42 PM

...It also follows that such racing need not be dull just by virtue of working within their given framework... in fact, just why on earth should it? I mean, where else are the best riders in the world going to go? And why will the racing of bikes that are far quicker than race bikes of even ten years ago, be oh so boring, when there has been fabulous racing in virtually all technological eras since the invention of the motorcycle?

Page 8 of 14
« 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.