Cost Cutting

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?”

This entry was posted in 2011, Blog Commentary, Mike Edwards. Bookmark the permalink.