Moto Gp vs World Superbike

Could the best factory Superbike Rider say Tom Sykes compete with one of the worst factory Moto G P say Leon Camier? Take two races one on each riders favorite 2014 circuit track. say Circuit of the Americas and Laguna Seca. Or Rossi on a Super and Sykes on a G P bike. Can the bikes compete on certain tracks?

Leon Camier is a WSBK rider. He is just riding in a few Moto GP events while Hayden recovers from wrist surgery. I don't think I understand your question though. Are you asking could an WSBK rider who consistently finishes near the front in that series beat one of the Moto GP riders who consistently finishes at the rear in that series on equal equipment?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

No, one on a superbike and one on a moto G P bike. The bikes I presume are different. Can the bikes compete on same track with a top rider on the Superbike and a rookie on the Mot G P, Both riders competing in their classes this year.

Simply put - can the best World Superbike points leader beat the lowest points leader in Moto G P ? on the same track together in a race,? Aren't the two bikes different? Leon isn't ridding the same bike he rides in WSBK is he? Is he on Hayden's bike?

Last year at the same track, there were instances of pole qualifier in WSB being within a second or less of the top CRT qualifier. CRT are the Claiming Rules Teams that run prototype bikes in MotoGP but that aren't factory supported. Different rules this year.

Yes, they are different bikes. WSB requires the use of some "factory" components and I believe a standard ECU where as the full MotoGP bike is all prototype. Yep, the CRT was dropped after last season but there is a factory sub-class for teams that haven't had a win in a certain time period (where Ducati is now) that gives them more fuel, different tire options, etc. I'm not sure of the other variations in rules.

pazz said:

Last year at the same track, there were instances of pole qualifier in WSB being within a second or less of the top CRT qualifier. CRT are the Claiming Rules Teams that run prototype bikes in MotoGP but that aren't factory supported. Different rules this year.

Click to expand...

I went to CODA last two years, just trying to understand, do the WSB ride different bikes on their races than in CRT. Is Hayden's bike built similar to Leon's , but different from CRT like Marquez rides? Could Hayden's bike be used in WSB, could Rossi's bike be used in WSB.. I guess I need to research it, it sounds complicated.

Tommy Sykes is a seriously top class rider and would do well on anything he gets on. Is he better than 93, 99, and 26? Tough for anyone. The biggest difference in the WSBKs and GP bikes to get their heads around is the front Bridgestone. It just requires so much input from the rider and you have to ride the front tire so hard. That and the carbon brakes. Johnny Rea rode the WSBK CBR and RC213V back to back when Casey hurt his leg and and some very interesting commentary on it.

He did quite well but on the BEST bike in the grid, he was mid pack 7th ish. Over time could he improve? Sure. But coming off one and jumping on the other is very difficult. Now if you go back and look at some of the tracks shared with WSBK, the Sykes was actually faster than some of the slower GP bikes. Laguna 2013 - top SBKs were in the 1'22s, worst CRTs were in the 1'24s. Small track and qualifying tires but just goes to show.

fclay said:

I went to CODA last two years, just trying to understand, do the WSB ride different bikes on their races than in CRT. Is Hayden's bike built similar to Leon's , but different from CRT like Marquez rides? Could Hayden's bike be used in WSB, could Rossi's bike be used in WSB.. I guess I need to research it, it sounds complicated.

Click to expand...

NO. Homologation rules require something like 125 unis now to be sold for a bike to be allowed in WSBK. Honda made like 8 RC1000V production racers. The RC213V and the M1 - one off factory prototypes. And next year the SBKs are getting dumbed down pretty heavily.

sharky nrk said:

The biggest difference in the WSBKs and GP bikes to get their heads around is the front Bridgestone. It just requires so much input from the rider and you have to ride the front tire so hard. That and the carbon brakes. Johnny Rea rode the WSBK CBR and RC213V back to back when Casey hurt his leg and and some very interesting commentary on it.... coming off one and jumping on the other is very difficult. Now if you go back and look at some of the tracks shared with WSBK, the Sykes was actually faster than some of the slower GP bikes. Laguna 2013 - top SBKs were in the 1'22s, worst CRTs were in the 1'24s. Small track and qualifying tires but just goes to show.

Click to expand...

Leon Camier a WSBK rider is subbing for Nicky Hayden and commented that the brakes and tires are the big differences. Said a GP bike loads the tires so much more that they distort. And that the GP bikes won't turn without the flat spot distortion.

Read his comments http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/motogp/leon-camier-wsbk-pirelli-motogp-bridgestone-tires/#more-68498

Top riders are top riders though (unless they're one of the "aliens") and would eventually come pretty close to each other on different bikes and tracks. It would just take more than one afternoon to get them together.

Would be a fun experiment though putting Marquez on the ZX10 Superbike and Sykes on the RC213.

Call 'em and see if we can set it up... Ha!

I'm thinking of WSBK when Marco Melandri was riding BMW and doing so well. Likewise Max Biaggi was doing so well on the Aprilia. Now this year Melandri switched to Aprilia and had a tough time learning the bike and getting it set up for him. Not that the bike had changed from a dominant performance that Biaggi was able to do, it was the rider. I think putting them on a different bike will net different results. As mentioned above Johnny Rea moved from a WSBK Honda to a MotoGP Honda and did respectably but not tops like Casey Stoner.

Though it's a good question about moving riders to different bikes and wondering about results there are way too many variables to know. MotoGP is the "F1" version of street motorcycle racing whereas WSBK is the "IRL". Not the best analogy because motorcycles take much more talent to race than cars do.

Just move Sykes over to Aprilia and see how he does or doesn't do. Between Kawasaki and Aprilia they're arguably the best in WSBK but that doesn't mean Sykes would be dominant on anything you put him on. Ben Spies couldn't find the magic with GP. Likewise Josh Herrin won the AMA 1000cc championship last year and can't finish a race on a 600cc Moto2 bike, crashing more often than not.

Moving drivers across the aisle in NASCAR will net more boring results. A guy that drives a Ford and moves to a Chevy/Toyota/Dodge will probably do pretty much the same. Take Montoya from F1 to NASCAR and he isn't dominant. NASCAR is pretty much the "dumbest" car to drive... it's the most basic car without fuel injection or space age materials, etc. They don't even race in the rain. How easy is it to drive one for a guy that drove the most technical and advanced car on the planet?

My response was way too long.

Spies was the only rider other than the "Aliens" to win a race in the dry in how many years? I think 6 podiums as well. Overall he did not do what I would consider poorly. He has an absolute disaster of a year with his last factory yamaha and ended in injury.

Herrin .... kid is a **** of a rider. But more often than not he would get beaten handily by his teammate and only really won the championship because of penalties and mechanical issues of Hayes. And also really did not compete against the level Spies did. Couple that with the cut throat nature of Moto2 and he is just in over his head.

Your point about the different bikes among riders is very valid. For extreme example Cal on Tech3 vs Ducati. Or Nakagami in Moto2. Even just the tires from year to year can play havok, although the best teams and best riders generally find their way to the top no matter what. Good point on the car example as well, apples are not apples are not apples sometimes in motorsport.

Big difference in cost of the bikes for sure. The rules allow you to spend a lot more on Moto GP although they are trying to rein that in a little.

Not Dave said:

...

Moving drivers across the aisle in NASCAR will net more boring results. A guy that drives a Ford and moves to a Chevy/Toyota/Dodge will probably do pretty much the same. Take Montoya from F1 to NASCAR and he isn't dominant. NASCAR is pretty much the "dumbest" car to drive... it's the most basic car without fuel injection or space age materials, etc. They don't even race in the rain. How easy is it to drive one for a guy that drove the most technical and advanced car on the planet?

My response was way too long.

Click to expand...

Yes it was, but you brought up an interesting point.

Aren't NASCAR cars almost identical under the plastic nowadays?

They are cookie cutter to the millionth power. They all have to fit an aerodynamic template. The only thing that is different about any of the NASCAR teams is the pit crew/driver/setup. They all have to run the same carb, tires, brakes.... on and on. It is truly a team managed drivers sport. I'm not really a fan of "go fast turn left" kind of racing, but they do squeeze a lot of tech out of archaic cars.

I think I would enjoy seeing a live WSKB race more than Moto G P from films it seems like tighter more competitive with the lead bikes, hope one comes to COTA.

I have seen both live. Nothing compares with the sound of a Moto GP bike. Both series are equally competitive for the most part with some tracks being the exception. Want close, tight racing? Moto2 and Moto3 are your best bet.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I went to both this year (both GP's and the WSBK round), and been to numerous US rounds in the past (still haven't made it to an overseas round). Patric is right. There is nothing like the sound of a GP bike, and nothing like the spectacle of a MotoGP weekend. Tight racing or not, it is the pinnacle of the sport. And there is something very very magical about knowing that was Rossi, one of the greatest to ever throw a leg over a motorcycle, that just went by at over 200mph.

Well put Nathan. Couldn't agree more.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

sharky nrk said:

NO. Homologation rules require something like 125 unis now to be sold for a bike to be allowed in WSBK. Honda made like 8 RC1000V production racers. The RC213V and the M1 - one off factory prototypes. And next year the SBKs are getting dumbed down pretty heavily.

Click to expand...

Since DORNA now owns both they can't have WSBK outdoing the prototype bikes.

Not Dave said:

Moving drivers across the aisle in NASCAR will net more boring results. A guy that drives a Ford and moves to a Chevy/Toyota/Dodge will probably do pretty much the same. Take Montoya from F1 to NASCAR and he isn't dominant. NASCAR is pretty much the "dumbest" car to drive... it's the most basic car without fuel injection or space age materials, etc. They don't even race in the rain. How easy is it to drive one for a guy that drove the most technical and advanced car on the planet?

Click to expand...

It may not be my preferred form of racing but the tech has come up. Nascar went to throttle body fuel injection in 2012 and they are now pushing 9,000 rpm with pushrod motors. In 2013 they with to the Gen 6 cars, they are still pretty much all based on a Banjo Matthews tube frame with a template body with some variations to make them more like the production cars they are styled after unlike the COT (Gen 5) cars that were purely a template/sticker car. They do have some carbon fiber and kevlar pieces. I don't think Nascar cars are as "dumb" as some people make them out to be, in fact much of the tech gimmickry on F1 cars has ruined the racing.

It still requires a different type of driving skill to run a 3,300 pound Sprint (Winston) Cup car around a banked oval near 200 mph on 9.5 inch wide tires a few inches away from other cars. Oval racing is just different and requires a different skill set, many of the F1 drivers would struggle in Nascar because the car doesn't do a lot of things for you and most have come up through the feeder series where the cars are similar to each other.

How did we get to NASCAR? I watch NASCAR and am not afraid to admit it. I enjoy it. Definitely takes a unique skill set and a very high risk tolerance. Yes, the cars are pretty much exactly the same. The engines are manufactured in different shops. Specs are pretty tight on them, but there is enough difference that some break more than others and some do a bit better on super speedways vs shorter tracks.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

bmcdonau said:

Yes it was, but you brought up an interesting point.

Aren't NASCAR cars almost identical under the plastic nowadays?

Click to expand...

I got disinterested in NASCAR several seasons ago. Used to be a big fan. It was when they all went generic and Toyota joined in that I stopped caring.

fclay said:

I think I would enjoy seeing a live WSKB race more than Moto G P from films it seems like tighter more competitive with the lead bikes, hope one comes to COTA.

Click to expand...

I get the BeIN network at home and DVR the WSBK races. I also DVR MotoGP (which includes 2 and 3). I watch every WSBK race and love 'em! No commercial breaks during the races is awesome. Fox Sports has ruined TV viewing of MotoGP. I delete races without watching them simply because of the way Fox decides to show only portions of the races, not all of it. For instance I saw the Moto2 race at Indy and they go to commercial break. When they came back they started talking and showing a building. You could hear the racing bikes on the track but they weren't showing it. Then they cut to an interview with Methuselah himself, the guy that runs DORNA or whatever. This interview is going on while the race is going on but you don't see the race. I'm done. No more MotoGP on TV for me as long as Fox is carrying it. WSBK coverage is soooo much better. The Fox guys don't even know who riders are and get names mixed up or just don't finish a sentence. Just amateur, like an SNL skit about public access TV.

patricjft said:

How did we get to NASCAR?

Click to expand...

This was my fault. Just saying moving a guy to another bike, no matter how good he may be on BIKE A, doesn't necessarily mean he'll be good on BIKE B. At least not immediately. I had said how Montoya came from driving F1 to Nascar (both have 4 wheels, a chassis, a steering wheel...) and he didn't dominate, he was average.

Oh, and sticking Spies on a non-factory sponsored Ducati during his last season was tragic. Ducati was out of sorts, hadn't figured out their Panigale yet and were racing out of their league. His crashes did him in. It's a sad way to leave the sport, really, after all he had accomplished previously.

Tom Sykes is a great rider, really great. I also like the after race interviews and trying to figure out what he's saying (his Irish accent is pretty thick). The guy is always smiling. Is he equal to Mark Marquez or Jorge Lorenzo or anyone else at the top of MotoGP? We may never now. He's king of WSBK and doesn't seem to want to leave. I don't blame him. He's with Kawasaki for 2 more years.

WSBK is getting even closer to stock production bikes starting next year with new rules. I love it. MV Agusta, Aprilia, Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, BMW, EBR, Ducati and Bimota. I would love to see them live in the USA. I saw MotoGP at Austin in 2013. Fun but not enough to make me want to go back again in 2014. Didn't even watch the TV coverage. And I went to the AMA races in Birmingham in 2012. That track is awesome! Much better time there than at COTA. I'd rather go to AMA than MotoGP.

^^^ I am a pretty big fan of the Green Team and Sykes. Partially because if you look back at the investment Kawi has put into the WSBK program after pulling out of GP, you can see the evolution of the bike. And the whole time Sykes had a great attitude, worked hard, never bad mouthed the bike or team; and actually always always thanked his crew for the bike and effort. I like watching a character like that.

As far as WSBK goes, I am torn. It seems the EVO bikes are not hugely off the full SBKs to the point of being a joke, but its still tough to see any series dumb-down. Mostly for fear of removing interest and money from the sport. I mean, how many people watch FIM SS1000, even though there are really really great races that happen.

I think if it pushes for manufacturers to come back with the "specials" that we had around the early years of WSBK to comply with the rules, it will be pretty sweet. I watch every race I can, and am never bored with it. Just me I guess. But will tend to agree that TV coverage issues abound. Fox1 sucks, AMA is non-existent, BeIn is too expensive to add as a package.

Barber is an amazing place, used to live about 30 min away in Hoover, AL for a couple of years in 2006ish time frame. The racing was good and I watched every AMA televised race I could until they got dumped. But the series has been in such a downward spiral, its sad.

Not Dave said:

I'm thinking of WSBK when Marco Melandri was riding BMW and doing so well. Likewise Max Biaggi was doing so well on the Aprilia. Now this year Melandri switched to Aprilia and had a tough time learning the bike and getting it set up for him. Not that the bike had changed from a dominant performance that Biaggi was able to do, it was the rider. I think putting them on a different bike will net different results. As mentioned above Johnny Rea moved from a WSBK Honda to a MotoGP Honda and did respectably but not tops like Casey Stoner.

Though it's a good question about moving riders to different bikes and wondering about results there are way too many variables to know. MotoGP is the "F1" version of street motorcycle racing whereas WSBK is the "IRL". Not the best analogy because motorcycles take much more talent to race than cars do.

Just move Sykes over to Aprilia and see how he does or doesn't do. Between Kawasaki and Aprilia they're arguably the best in WSBK but that doesn't mean Sykes would be dominant on anything you put him on. Ben Spies couldn't find the magic with GP. Likewise Josh Herrin won the AMA 1000cc championship last year and can't finish a race on a 600cc Moto2 bike, crashing more often than not.

Moving drivers across the aisle in NASCAR will net more boring results. A guy that drives a Ford and moves to a Chevy/Toyota/Dodge will probably do pretty much the same. Take Montoya from F1 to NASCAR and he isn't dominant. NASCAR is pretty much the "dumbest" car to drive... it's the most basic car without fuel injection or space age materials, etc. They don't even race in the rain. How easy is it to drive one for a guy that drove the most technical and advanced car on the planet?

My response was way too long.

Click to expand...

Speaking of Josh Herrin, I noticed in the last few races that he had been missing from the grid on Moto2 so I googled him and found something about him being released from the AirAsia team and replaced with Wilairot from Thailand who was racing in the World Supersport Series. The article said he found it difficult adjusting to the Dunlop tires and the stiffness and adjustability of the Moto2 chassis which required a totally different riding style than he was use to.

If I recall correctly, in 2006 the year Nickey Hayden won his World Championship at the last race of the year Troy Bayliss came over from WSBK for a one off ride to MotoGP on the Ducati and promptly handed everyone a first class butt kicking

So yes a great rider can make the switch and be easily competitive under the right circumstances. Just as Biaggi went from a top 5 finisher in MotoGP to World Champ in WBSK a couple of years later.