Win on Sunday, sell on Monday has always been BS

[Silverbird]

http://superbikeplanet.com/2012/Jan/120120c.htm

Makes you wonder if how much the cost of your bike goes into racing R&D.

How do you guys feel about companies saying they apply what they learn on the track to their streetbikes? Sounds like a load of crap to me, and somewhat insulting that a MotoGP bike would or could have anything in common with a mass produced sport/sport-touring bike.

[atadaskew]

I liked the Ducati Desmocideci.

Honda Rc45, Rc30, Suzi GSXR750RR, Yam R7 all seemed nice too.

[bomber]

hmmmm -- mass centralization, featherbed style frames, traction control, aluminum beam frams, disk breats, race-rep fairings, radial tires . . . .

Yer right -- nothing from racing programs in out street bikes at all!

[DogBoy]

Another massive over simplification of a complex subject by Dean Adams. Marketing and development cannot begin to be analyzed in just ten sentences.

The win/sell model applies to certain sectors of the market but not all.

[DogBoy]

hmmmm -- mass centralization, featherbed style frames, traction control, aluminum beam frams, disk breats, race-rep fairings, radial tires . . . .

Yer right -- nothing from racing programs in out street bikes at all!

Almost none of your list came from moto racing. Most important developments came from auto manufacturing. FI and ABS are good examples and have a much greater impact than feather bed frames (come on) and mass centralization. Marketing is the main reason for racing. We get some development but a lot of gimmicks, too (underseat exhaust, twin pipes, single-sided swingarms, etc).

[DogBoy]

Right. Supersport and Superbike, yes.

MotoGP? No. What's built for MotoGP - some of the tech - might eventually filter down so that some of the stuff ends up on the street, but that's after it's been relegated and deprecated from the GP bikes.

I agree. See my reply to bomber. And remember, there is a large market that has nothing to do with MotoGP or supersport bikes: offroad.

[Blunder]

Racing also promotes the sale of sticker kits and faux carbon fiber fiddly bits.

[bomber]

Almost none of your list came from moto racing. Most important developments came from auto manufacturing. FI and ABS are good examples and have a much greater impact than feather bed frames (come on) and mass centralization. Marketing is the main reason for racing. We get some development but a lot of gimmicks, too (underseat exhaust, twin pipes, single-sided swingarms, etc).

I agree that we get a lot of gimmicks from racing . . . . . god point.

Featherbed frames? Have you ridden anything from the pre-FB Frame days? Just curious . . . huge difference.

OK, if the question is reframed to ask what things originated in motoracing, as opposed to come through, I agree, precious little -- MotoGP and it's antecendents are simply too small to generate the kind of money needed to create stuff like this . . . .

[bomber]

MotoGP? No. What's built for MotoGP - some of the tech - might eventually filter down so that some of the stuff ends up on the street, but that's after it's been relegated and deprecated from the GP bikes.

So the question also excludes things that come to street bikes after being relegated and deprecated from GP bikes?

Narrower and narrower -- I guess the OP is absolutely correct ;-}

[JReazor]

MotoGP? No. What's built for MotoGP - some of the tech - might eventually filter down so that some of the stuff ends up on the street, but that's after it's been relegated and deprecated from the GP bikes.

In other words... "prototype".

[Liquidsilver]

http://superbikeplanet.com/2012/Jan/120120c.htm

Makes you wonder if how much the cost of your bike goes into racing R&D.

How do you guys feel about companies saying they apply what they learn on the track to their streetbikes? Sounds like a load of crap to me, and somewhat insulting that a MotoGP bike would or could have anything in common with a mass produced sport/sport-touring bike.

You don't like motorcycle racing?   Is this why Guzzis are so cheap?
 
And to the cited article... no, they haven't been winning, but they've been paying to play with the world's favorite rider, and the US ex-most hopeful rider.   I wouldn't say that's not paying off at the cash register.
 

[bomber]

In other words... "prototype".

Ah -- thanks for the translation ;-}

[bomber]

OK, I'm not being argumentative, but I AM confused . . . . . .

If something is a prototype (MotoGP hardware fits that definition to a tee, for sure), it cannot appear on streetbikes later?

Or is it the later part that is being focused on?

[DogBoy]

Featherbed frames? Have you ridden anything from the pre-FB Frame days? Just curious . . . huge difference.

Just trying to keep the discussion within the last 50 years. Or should we start a thread about horse vs. new-fangled motorized bicycle?

[ridingfar]

   Less Filling! Tastes Great!  

[bomber]

Just trying to keep the discussion within the last 50 years. Or should we start a thread about horse vs. new-fangled motorized bicycle?

LOL -- I belileve I am beginning to understand . . . . . . it's NOT about GP-level racing tech moving into street bikes as a topic of conversation ;-}

[JReazor]

OK, I'm not being argumentative, but I AM confused . . . . . .

If something is a prototype (MotoGP hardware fits that definition to a tee, for sure), it cannot appear on streetbikes later?

Or is it the later part that is being focused on?

A prototype class should be a testbed for things that will eventually filter their way down to street bikes and production classes.

Problem being that gains in most technologies are small and expensive. Some of the rules changes of late have stifled some innovation in an effort to keep the series viable from a cost perspective. F1 and the ALMS have gone through the same thing.

[bomber]

A prototype class should be a testbed for things that will eventually filter their way down to street bikes and production classes.

Problem being that gains in most technologies are small and expensive. Some of the rules changes of late have stifled some innovation in an effort to keep the series viable from a cost perspective. F1 and the ALMS have gone through the same thing.

Yes. I would agree.

This is somewhat beside what I thought the point was, but right.

I read (Kevin Cameron, perhaps) that one of the major expenses for MotoGP teams was travel -- it might have even been THE most expensive . . . .

If being timely with tech is one of the criteria for "Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday" in any area, it was always marketing hoopla . . .

[bomber]

And we've gotten to a point where we're kind of reaching practical limits on the power and capability of the machines. It costs MAJOR R&D and money to go a tenth faster than last year, when 10 years ago that same money would have gotten you 9 or 10 tenths faster. I don't think (much) faster bikes are going to come from increasing power, but in better management of power and traction, combined with better weight and aerodyne management.

$.02

I would agree . . . . .

Active aero and weight management would be game changers (where's Dan Gurney and Jim Hall when you need them?).

[Silverbird]

hmmmm -- mass centralization, featherbed style frames, traction control, aluminum beam frams, disk breats, race-rep fairings, radial tires . . . .

Yer right -- nothing from racing programs in out street bikes at all!

All those things were invented for the purpose of racing? COOL!