Cycle News - Archive Issues - 2000's

four-stroke route for GP, to provide a greater variety of sights and sounds? You know, in most branches of mofor sport, you have a dominant form of engine configuration that evolves into a winning formula that must be adopted by all teams wishing to win races, which are not prevented from doing so for commercial reasons. So in Formula 1 we had the V-eight Cosworth DFV engine dominating for 20 years, before being replaced by the situation today where every team in F1 runs a V-10 engine. In Grand Prix bike racing we had four-cylinder in-line four-strokes from MV Agusta, Gilera, Honda and Benelli achieving constant success for more than two decades, . and in modern times every manufacturer in 500cc GP racing has run V-four two-strokes since 1983 up ,till the present day. I wonder how long it will be before one kind of engine becomes the established format for the new four-stroke GP class, which everyone must copy if they want to win races? In Superbike racing, on the other hand, I have to say that we have had a fantastic confrontation for more than a decade between two contrasting technical solutions - V-tWins, and in-line fours. In fact, until last year there was a third different philosophy, in the form of Honda's V-four - so there was a good assortment of engine configurations, and exhaust notes, which added greatly to the appeal of the class. This is a situation we want very much to maintain - and which we will maintain from 2004 onwards, with the new regulations. Of course, you cannot expect that every year you will have a correct balance, and at this moment the V-twin choice is dominant, so that the balance has been temporarily thrown out of adjustment. But this is being corrected within the time constraints dictated by production considerations, which I referred to earlier - and in any case, you cannot dismiss the huge investment in time, money and riders that Ducati, Aprilia and Honda have all made in developing a winning V-twin package. This is the predominant cause for their deserved success, not that the 750cc fours are unduly disadvantaged, which I don't believe is the case. Well, that being so, why did you propose with the approval of the FIM - a short-term 10 percent capacity bonus for the 750cc fours, which would have allowed them to run 825cc engines from next season onwards, until the introduction of the new 1000cc regulations in 2004? This would not have added greatly to outright horsepower, but would have given the fours significant extra torque, to counter the Y-twins' crucial edge in acceleration out of turns. Why float this idea at all, if you didn't intend to push it through over the objections of the Y-twin brigade? Because we thought this was an idea which would have been welcomed by the manufacturers, to help them redress the balance of the class which was not the case: the MSMA rejected the proposal, saying it would create other problems. We were only trying to help out, but all six manufacturers voted unanimously to reject the idea. End of story. So the two companies which stood most to gain from such a proposal actually voted against it, even though the teams which run their factory Superbikes were desperately lobbying for it to be adopted? Or was it that one company remained so adamantly opposed to the suggestion that it vetoed it and, in the search for consensus, the MSMA rejected the proposal en masse as a result? The report back from the meeting of the MSMA, which we of course had to abide by, said that it was a unanimous decision, and though I obviously wasn't present at their meeting, I have to say I think their attitude has been sensible and cooperative. Look - if we are a championship where by definition the manufacturers play an important role, because we're racing bikes they have developed for customer sale, we can't go in the opposite direction from them on technical matters, because this would be a big mistake and risk destabilizing the whole series. That's why the 10 percent proposal was dropped. Our philosophy since 1990, when we took over the running of the World Superbike series, was to develop the product in harmony with the manufacturers hence our decision to work with and support the operation of the MSMA. We are always very much aware that the World Superbike Championship is a series for bikes derived from production street motorcycles. This consideration is always important in understanding the attitude of the manufacturers, for when we make a decision about the technical regulations of Superbike, we know that this decision will influence the production of thousands and thousands of units. Today, largecapacity sportbikes represent a significant part of each company's total volume, and profitability - so we cannot expect to treat them as if they were producing a prototype to go racing with. We must understand that what we do affects the industrial process - so that sometimes restricts the speed and depth of any changes we can make. In that case, did you consider reducing the homologation limits for the larger manufacturers - basically, the Japanese and Harley-Davidson, who might well have taken a different approach to World Superbike if they didn't have to build 500 examples of each model in order to homologate it, against 150 from the smaller companies - including Ducati, and Aprilia? It might give more flexibility, as well as be fairer, would it not? This is an issue we discussed in some detail back in 1996 - and, perhaps surprisingly, the Japanese industry collectively at that time was not in favor of any loosening of the rules on this pOint. I think this underlines the strength of the Superbike race class in terms of their overall industrial strategy. They wanted to keep the numbers high, because they sell a lot of bikes based on that race model, so they don't want to run into a prototype situation they prefer to see Superbike racing used as a means of earning a return from their huge industrial investment in this area. But have you instead considered introducing a non-points scoring prototype class in World Endurance, which Octagon also now controls, in order to give manufacturers an arena in which to develop new models, or alternative design strategies, which in due course will be homologated for Superbike? We haven't considered this possibility, because we have always focused on Superb ike racing's link with production, and with the market, so the prototYl?e option has never been a viable one for us but we are working on something else. For the past couple of years, the question of the increased cost of participation in motorcycle sport for manufacturers and teams has become an burning issue - there are many pressures on us to keep costs down, and participation up. What we have tried to do in order to address this issue is instead of decreasing costs, to increase the revenue. How? We are in the process of uniting the regulations of all the National Superbike championships around the world on a com mOD cue homologation platform, as well as applying these rules to World Endurance. This will create a broad base for Superbike racing which will create a very big market that each manufacturer can tailor their products to, without having to worry about different detail specifications for each country. This will not of itself reduce costs - but it will enable manufacturers to obtain more revenues from the sales of their bikes, and racekits, which in turn will allow them to lower prices to their customers as well as to increase their own racing budgets. WOUld this apply even in the aSA, where the AMA has its own set of Superbike rules? Of course, we don't control the AMA - but we have already held discussions with them on establishing a common set of regulations, and they are willing in principle to adapt their rules to be the same as those governing World Superbike. We're still in discussion with them about this. The current upheaval inside World Superbike has coincided with the advent of four-stroke Grand Prix racing, which seems to many observers to have been created specifically as a counter to the ongoing success of Superbike racing. World Superbike is presently Octagon's chosen promotion vehicle for motorcycle road racing - but there have been many rumors over the past couple of years about Octagon seeking to buy Dorna, and thus add Grand Prix racing to its two-wheeled portfolio. Can you confirm whether such discussions have ever taken place, with the aim of joining the two forms of World Championship road racing under a common roof? I cannot confirm that - but I can tell you this. Octagon Motorsports is a division of Interpublic Corp, a billion-dollar conglomerate which is the world's largest marketing communications company, with a capitalization of seven billion dollars, and of course has the financial power to purchase Dorna when this will be offered for sale. At the moment, though, there are no negotiations about this. But is it nevertheless conceivable that Octagon might be interested in acquiring Dorna in the future, and thus add the rights to Grand Prix racing to those of World Superbike it already possesses, as well as GP Motocross and World Enduro which Dorna's owners CYC Capital Partners have recently acquired, perhaps in order to enhance its appeal to interested parties? I can only say that this represents an option which a company like Octagon can not forget about. But at this stage - that's all there is to say. The support which a company like Octagon can deliver to motorcycle racing as a whole is a very important weapon in our hands. As I said before, we have a certain financial power which would allow Octagon in theory to buy Dorna - but in the meantime this financial power, as well as our global marketing expertise, and the territorial presence we have with offices all over the world, are the best weapons we have in our hands to make our chosen category of racing, World Superbike, grow and flourish. The participation of all six major manufacturers on an official level with factory teams from 2004 onwards is now confirmed - but before that, in 2002 & 2003 we will have a strong grid, with new manufacturers joining all the time, and even in 2002 we will have some surprises to announce in terms of new manufacturers committing to World Superbike, with factory support. This is a class with a strong future, full of variety and excitement. The difference is that now we know where it's going to be in 2020, not just in 2002. eN Q A A I e n e _ S • NOVEMBER 14, 2001 37

• Cover