Someone Is Listening
Really please to say that there has been some interest in our recent blog entries. They’ve been picked up by a couple of influential US-based websites and given a much wider audience. They’ve even generated some interesting discussions in the comments section.
Check out the www.motomatters.com and moto-racing.speedtv.com to read further.
What is the best way to cut costs in SuperBike racing?
A few years ago we switched to race in British SuperBikes after several seasons in the highly competitive FIM SuperStock series run as part of the World SuperBikes calendar.
Having raced for several years in a world class series where stock engines were combined with higher than standard rpm limits we were acutely aware of the fragility of components taken beyond their intended performance limits.
With much higher refresh intervals to ensure reliability the costs spiralled to the point where our relatively low spec. 200 hp SuperBike in 2009 cost no more to build and refresh for a season than the 180 hp FIM SuperStock spec. machine we ran the year before.
When the Evo class was first proposed for the BSB championship we suggested a number of alternative ways to reduce costs whilst ensuring an exciting and evenly matched field with close racing:
– Permit aftermarket updates to potentially fragile stock parts when preparing their standard engines on the grounds of safety, e.g. cotters and retainers in some bikes, slipper clutches or gearboxes in others, etc.
– Permit basic tuning rules to ensure an even playing field for performance across different manufacturers and models of bike, e.g. 174 hp Suzuki versus a 195 hp BMW. Getting a Suzuki to 195 hp is relatively cheap so why not let us keep our brand allegiance?
– Implement a price limit for the aftermarket electronics similar to the FIM SuperStock rules, i.e. 1.5 times the cost of stock ECU, or for SuperBike a fixed price cap. If a manufacturer wanted to sell a £100k electronics package to everyone in the paddock for £10k then fair enough.
We thoroughly endorsed the concept of a fixed rpm limit. Spending money on titanium rods or other costly engine internals was always going to be a waste of money if the bike couldn’t rev high enough for them to be of benefit. The fixed rpm limit rather neatly solves most of the other problems of engine cost.
After our sponsorship fell through shortly before the start of the 2010 season we chose to enter the BSB Evo class and built a completely new bike in just 30 days. With only the money for a few rounds we were still able to win races, set lap records and even led the championship despite giving away 20 hp, and a significant amount of budget, on the more powerful stock bikes.
The move to a one bike rule was inspired but you still need a second bike broken down in boxes should the unthinkable happen. Then only the big teams have the manpower to be able to put the parts together again in time for the next session. What are the small teams supposed to do?
To their credit BSB took note of some of our concerns and recommendations. For the 2011 season the rules were modified to allow teams to replace certain key components for reasons of cost and safety. Even models without air bleed systems to control engine braking or slipper clutches were allowed to add them.
They have clearly been listening again as for 2012 the rules will be changing once more and it looks like they will allow enough tuning to equalise the performance across the manufacturers. Trying to make up a 20 hp deficit really makes life hard particularly on some of the faster circuits.
In fact, the key change for BSBin 2012, as the whole grid moves to the Evo rule concept, is that is that the proposed Evo rules are reportedly the same as the previous SuperBike rules but with standard pistons and a ban on titanium rods. Pretty much everything else remains with the addition of the control spec. Evo ECU albeit with a slightly higher rpm limit.
Whatever the engine rules, and let’s face it banning titanium rods will save a sizeable chunk of cash, a decent engine will still cost £10k to build. Kit gearboxes, generators, slipper clutches, head work, cams and other valve train components don’t come cheap. Evo racing is still expensive so why try to sell it as a cheap alternative? The chassis is still the most expensive part of that equation.
Motorcycle racing is now at a crossroads. For so long the high costs have put people off but there are still issues. It’s not just the cost of the parts, it’s the cost of the parts you cannot buy and the information on how to put them together.
This is where the AMA has it right. Everyone can buy the same parts at the same prices. I think they went a little too far in some respects but there are no factory specials for a few select teams. In the same way the one make tyre rule made a huge difference to letting everyone compete on an equal footing this takes it one step further.
Sure we can develop a swing arm just like the one the factory supplied to another team but it will cost us a lot more and that’s money most teams just don’t have. It doesn’t have to be standard, especially as standard swing arms are invariably stiffer than the race items these days, but it does need to limit the input of the factory resources.
John Hopkins and the Samsung Crescent team put on an excellent showing at the recent Silverstone WSB round and they did it with a Motec ECU that costs £6.5k. Even at that price it includes the £2.5k data logging and analysis software upgrades so the base ECU is something of a bargain. That’s less than a decent swing arm and, given the rise of the new fuel tanks that are required to help rebalance most bike by moving the weight around, amounts to the equivalent of just two aftermarket fuel tanks once you have the special carbon bodywork and other parts you need to go with them.
Decent electronics need not be expensive. Sure, it’s not going to be the same as the kit the MotoGP boys are using but it doesn’t need to be. Does the Yamaha WSB electronics really need to cost up to 10 times the amount, as has been alleged in the press, to finish just 6 seconds ahead after a 106 km race?
If Motec can supply an ECU with full traction control, launch control, etc. that is capable of putting a bike on pole at a WSB meeting for a base price of £4k why is everyone so keen to remove traction control? Teams will still need a data guy at every round so it can’t be about cost.
Do the front runners in any championship believe it allows lesser riders to keep up with them? Sure they do although not everyone is trying to get it banned. Wiser minds than mine are already concerned that the riders in the CRT class at MotoGP won’t be able to keep up without a decent electronics package. Would the gap increase or decrease if they banned them altogether? If you are looking for close racing then it could be argued that taking it away could be counter productive.
The poor BSB Evo guys are preparing their bikes and throwing away sophisticated electronics, incl. basic traction control, and replacing it with a very capable ECU without it. The 2010 BSB Evo champion on his BMW was only fractionally faster than the SuperStock champion of the same year on his BMW despite better tyres, forks, brakes, suspension linkages, etc.
Even Giorgio Barbier, Racing Director for Pirelli Moto, has been quoted as saying that without traction control Pirelli would have to change a lot. So the man that oversees the tyres that BSB riders have to run with says they would have to change but because WSB retains their rules it is unlikely to happen.
As a small team we set out to make a point this season. We are building a bike as close to some of the race winning BSB bikes as we can in an attempt to show that it can be done on a budget. It might take us all season and we might not be able to afford the expensive swing arms but we can sure afford the not very expensive ECU with traction control. We just won’t have the high staffing costs or other overheads associated with running a big team.
I wonder whether there are too many vested interests in racing trying to sell solutions without being able to clearly communicate the problems they are trying to solve. Racing needs to be cheaper but do you really need more than a few simple changes?
– One bike per rider and a rolling chassis as a back up.
– Price capped electronics with a fixed rpm limit for each manufacturer.
– Homologated parts to reduce the gap between the factory teams and the rest.
The rest of the cost savings need to come from elsewhere, e.g. tyres, transport, staff, etc.
And the final word from someone working with a leading race organisation:
“Do you want to fill your grid from the front or from the back?”
BSB Increases The Cost Of Entry…
BSB Increases The Cost Of Entry…
The promoters of the British SuperBike Championship yesterday announced the rules and regulations for the 2012 season.
As expected the rules have heavily relaxed the no tuning concept found in the Evo class over the last couple of seasons despite retaining the Evo name. In reality it is a transition to something close to the fully tuned SuperBike spec. engines that exist at World SuperBikes and the rest of the British SuperBike field.
They are being sold as a cheaper alternative but this revolves around the use of standard pistons and a ban on expensive titanium rods. As discussed previously running full spec. engines is crucial to be able to have a competitive field across the board yet few rely on the titanium option so the cost saving is questionable but the new found freedom is most welcome.
In fact our own SuperBike is already using stock pistons and rods although, to be fair, the rods have been balanced. Fortunately we can continue to run these modified items although the rules state “The weight must be the same or greater than the original homologated part.”
Due to the tolerances allowed in the homologation papers we re still safe. We could even have some aftermarket rods made up to 15g lighter than standard despite the new rules. It gets even more confusing with an Aprilia where 21g can be removed due to some minor contradictions in the official paperwork.
Some of the less relevant rules are mainly noise to help sell the concept that this is a new cheap initiative. You can’t lighten the crank but, realistically, nobody ever does these days. In fact many would rather make it heavier to provide greater inertia to help increase grip at the rear tyre.
You can’t use surface treatments on standard parts although it is still possible on crankshaft bearing surfaces. We relied on Superfinishing our crank as it reduces drag and evens out any surface irregularities. This was a cheap option to effectively strengthen the part so that is now not possible.
There are no changes to the previous SuperBike rules as far as the cylinder heads go. Nobody bothers using aftermarket valves so only using stock valves won’t make a difference. Porting is free, adding filler to change the port shape is permitted, replacement camshafts with different lift and duration remain, valve springs, cotters & retainers can also be changed.
You can still replace the stock gearbox with an expensive aftermarket item. The Yoshimura item in our bike retails for around four thousand pounds and, as yet, there are no other aftermarket items available.
The only real oddity is that kit or aftermarket generators are not permitted. Any privateer that has tried to race a tuned Yamaha will be well aware just how much longer their cranks last without the extra weight from the standard flywheel. Whether it should be permitted for cost or safety grounds it remains a strange call, especially as an aftermarket version is available for around five hundred pounds.
In fact, looking at the SuperBike engine we have just built for our wildcard entry in World SuperBikes the only thing to fall foul of the new rules would be the kit generator.
The biggest difference is really with the electronics as the engine is pretty much untouched. The fixed rev limit of 750 rpm over than the standard limit for each model of motorcycle fits within our existing plans also.
The one headline grabbing change for 2012 is the banning of all traction control and other sophisticated electronics strategies such as launch control, auto-blip, etc. The obvious question is why? As discussed in the previous blog there is no real cost associated with having it enabled and Pirelli has already said that the tyres have been developed based on it being available so the real question is why ban it?
Other than the lack of traction control and the absence of a non-standard generator the changes seem pretty much inline with my suggestions in the previous blog so why did I label this as “BSB Increase The Cost Of Entry…”?
One of the reasons given by BSB for these changes is to “Increase the opportunity for private teams to compete competitively”. Inarguably this could only be applauded except for the announcement that followed saying that they were reducing the grid to 32 riders, preferably with 16 two rider teams.
At the first round of 2011 British SuperBikes started with 38 riders, one of the biggest grids in it’s history, although that has now dropped to 28 regulars for a variety of reasons. Lots of new teams joined the series, primarily in the Evo class with the promise of cheap racing.
For 2012 many of those riders won’t be welcome. Perhaps the organisers foresaw the diminished grids as those teams realised they could not afford the higher cost of the new engine rules or maybe they simply wanted to ensure the teams accepted in to the series will be able to fund their racing beyond the middle of the year.
What happens to the number of highly competent but one rider teams? Will they have to double up with another team or miss out altogether? Who owns the entry and what might happen to the partnership in the future?
Once up and running any new teams that wish to join the series will have to buy out an existing team. If sixteen teams want to continue racing that buy out will prove to be extremely expensive. It’s just as complicated should an existing team have problems with sponsorship one year. If they have to drop out through non fault of their own how will they get back in?
For the privateers things just got a whole lot more expensive. The Evo class that attracted so many new riders now doesn’t appear to want them. If they can’t make the new cut for the 2012 season then it is unlikely they will ever be able to afford to get back on the grid.
I understand the logic behind the introduction of these rules, it is intended to secure well financed teams and ensure a row of 16 big trucks behind the pit lane at every round. Whether it can count as more cost effective racing, either from a technical or a logistical viewpoint, remains to be seen. I, for one, have my doubts.