Is MotoGP more like Formula 1 auto racing or NASCAR? Is it the riders or the machines? I just noticed an article over at Popular Mechanics where they spent the weekend at Laguna Seca and made this observation:
for many fans the sport is more like NASCAR, because it’s all about the racers: Valentino Rossi and his Yamaha M1 have expanded the sport’s appeal with his seven World Championships, while Australian wonderkid Casey Stoner is attempting to steal the show on his Ducati GP7 and reigning champ Nicky Hayden is struggling to stay in the top 10 on his Honda RC212V.
I would be willing to bet a large percentage of the fans, if asked without seeing it, could not identify the company that builds the RC212V or even what it is. That’s not a criticism, just an observation. The popularity of racing at this level seems more personality driven than machine driven. Though MotoGP certainly has a high tech similarity to Formula 1, even the Formula 1 fans are personality driven.
Over the years, for many racing venues, what you see on the track and what you can buy is getting farther and farther apart. Race on Sunday, sell on Monday doesn’t work. A stock car is nothing of the sort, they are purpose built machines with as much similarity to showroom cars as a Formula 1 car, save for pseudo bodies that carry an impression of the factory look. What does a MotoGP bike compare to? Except for Ducati selling a few Desmosedici machines, after they are no longer current, nothing in the showroom is on the grid.
World Superbike and the AMA racing in the U.S. are where the factory bikes get a chance. Some classes are still highly modified but the bike ridden by Ben Spies has a lot of similarity to what’s in the Suzuki showroom and most fans know exactly what a GSX-R is. In a way, I think the fans for these classes are different than the MotoGP group. The Rossi fan club is huge, in Europe he attracts crowds like a move star, racers in the other classes don’t have that problem, they’re popular and sign lots of autographs but they’re treated differently.
The only time you root for the machine, regardless of who is on it, is when it is so different or cool or the company is small or brand new, or there is something else unique about it that you want it to have an impact by winning or placing well. For motorcycles, the Britten is one of the best examples. Harley Davidson attracted a following when they briefly went racing with their VR1000 and the Harley faithful really wanted to see it do well. Sometimes, just being different technically creates a lot of interest, whether it wins is a side issue. Auto racing is filled with examples, years ago Jimmy Clark showed up at Indianapolis with a rear engine Lotus, Andy Granatelli brought a couple of turbines and in drag racing Don Garlits put the engine in back. Fast forward to today and you see the KillaCycle electric dragbike running low 8 second quarter miles and a Lexus hybrid just won an endurance race not to mention Audi diesels cleaning up in the LeMans series. Those events get the technical juices flowing, who was the rider or driver? Without looking it up, I don’t know but the machines are cool.
Could MotoGP make a technical change so dramatic the riders would not matter as much? The drop to 800cc this year was a big deal but it didn’t take the attention off the riders. I’m solidly in the tech camp, I like to see what makes the bikes tick, who is on them is less important and I thought the NASCAR comparison in the article I referenced, interesting.
So what do all of you think? And what are some examples of technical changes that focused your attention away from the riders and on to the bikes?
Link: Popular Mechanics
Ricky says
as a fan of F1 and MotoGP I would say MotoGP is more like F1 because it has international backing, races in many countries, focus on the nationality of the victor. I actually find it very annoying that the broadcasts do not make more of what team/constructor each rider is with, the starting grid only shows rider names. it took at least 1/2 season to learn to associate rider with marque.
Dramatis Technica: it is a shame Illmor did so poorly, that was an event of rooting for the new an unique.
Fans following drivers more than manufacturers, cars being entirely dissimilar to what the mfg’s sell, these things apply to nascar and F1 IMO. I guess the thing that really makes nascar fans more driver-focused is that the vehicles are practically carbon copies? Not totally true, because you do still get your chevy nuts, ford nuts, etc. who will kiss anything with a blue bowtie or oval.
Some people are just more car/bike nuts and focus more on the machines. Everyone gets something different out of something.
HotRodTroy says
I don’t like NASCAR because it’s all about the drivers. The drivers are not the ones who move technology forward. Racing should be about what “Joe Blow” can buy the day after. It should also be about what new technologies are emerging. How about a Diesel motorcycle endurance race that makes the teams squeeze out as much fuel milage as possible while still being competitive with gas powered engines. The team with the most fuel, the lowest times wins. Just my $.02
Bryce says
Despite similarities to both NASCAR and F1, MotoGP is much more fun to watch. I generally find Superbike more interesting though because I like seeing people racing well prepared factory motorcycles. I feel the same way about auto racing.
Richard says
MotoGP isn’t much like either NASCAR or Formula1. Sure, there are similarites– people are driving expensive machines real fast around a track –but that’s about it. Nascrap is “more about the racers” simply because that’s how it’s marketed. The truth is: Nascrap is fixed, so the winner is not necessarily based on talent.
Winning MotoGP requires a multi-million dollar bike, an extremely talented rider, a well-coordinated pit crew and support team, the correct tires and gearing for each specific track, etc. So, it is neither “all about the rider” nor “all about the bike”.
Plus, with motorcycle racing, you actually can see (and hear) what the riders are doing to control their bikes. With Nascrap, what you see is a bunch a rectangular boxes going round and round, making lots of noise.
Finally, *everybody* who watches MotoGP knows that the RC212V is Honda’s baby.
PS: this is not intended as an anti-NASCAR rant. I’m just making comparisons. If you happen to like NASCAR (“Nascrap” is so much easier to type!), that’s OK with me. Some people like “professional wrestling”, too. But it is what it is, and there’s no sense pretending it’s anything else.
anon says
I think drawing one similarity between MotoGP & NASCAR (fan appeal of the personalities) is hardly enough to liken the two. Certainly, the TV coverage plays up the personalities – but that’s just TV producers trying to ape the success of NASCAR without understanding motorcyclists. NASCAR _has_ to be about the personalities, because without them, it’s basically just spec racing. MotoGP isn’t like that at all. With the variety of fairing shapes, engine configurations, and chassis variability MotoGP is ahead of even F1 in mechanical interest, and light years from NASCAR. Also, with magazines like ‘Roadracing World & Motorcycle Technology’ fan exposure to the technology details is right there for the asking. Beyond that, the gap between what the racers are on, and what is available on the street is the narrowest of the three. Sure BMW plays up the shared technology of their F1 engine management and the ‘M’ cars, but do you really think the M3 is going to have a Carbon Fiber skinned Titanium skeleton gearbox any time soon? But for the bikes, you can walk into a dealer and get a bike better than what GP riders had only 5 to 8 years ago, and better than what Superbike racers had maybe 3 years ago.
Lastly, if some MotoGP racer is at the top of his game and puts half a lap up on the field, you can bet there WON’T be some contrived ‘caution’ to tighten up the field for the advertisers. MotoGP is RACING!
aaron says
why motogp is like F1:
-the bike is continually adapted throughout the year – aero, engine, geometry, suspension, wheels, COG, etc. will all change throughout the year.
-the bikes are fitted to the riders. two teammates might have different chassis settings, wheel sizes, aero, even engines can be different (most obvious when honda riders had a choice between the “big bang” and “screamer” motors)
-the bike can make the difference, just not enough to overshadow a brilliant rider. (see recent yamaha, ferrari 1997-1999) even if the lesser bike (car) doesn’t win the championship, an elite pilot can still scrap for a world championship.
-regardless of the rider and the bike, bad tires can cripple even the best.
why motogp is like nascar:
-in the states, it matters to fans that the rider is an american. if montoya wins a nascar title, you know folks might not show as much interest. (if he does it in a toyota, lock your doors until the police tell you that you can safely come out!)
-drafting still exists.
what makes the riders not matter as much?
traction control and friendly power delivery. watch the old riders on 500’s and you’ll agree. is it suprising that the most dominant rider in the field is a man who learned on the nsr500? I remember that rossi’s training for the 500cc class involved going dirtbike riding with a rear slick fitted!
I think that f1 and nascar share more with each other than motogp, at the moment. (stupid new F1 rules!!!!)
PigIron says
MotoGP is much better than either Nascar or F1. It’s like F1 was 30 or 40 years ago when real technological innovation was going on and there was variety among the different machines. F1 has become a joke. At least in Nascar there is some passing for the lead!!!
aaron says
the biggest problem with motogp is that as of this year, they sound mostly the same….
Matt in NC says
From a fan/spectator point of view, Moto-GP is like F1, in a negative way. Having attended many AMA events over the years, particularly at Laguna Seca, and Infineon (used to go when it was still Sears Point and had Bob Bondurant instructing the race school), I have to say that the MGP and WSB events sucked in comparison. Ticket prices were ridiculous, best spectator spot on the track either required special tickets, or weren’t even open to spectators. Parking put one miles away from their vehicle, prohibiting any kind of lunch break provided by one’s self and forcing the patronage of the greasy overpriced “midway” type food.
AMA events were always more fan-friendly. You got to park right next to the track. You could walk all around, and get paddock passes for just slightly more than the admission costs. The racers were not cordoned off, and many were happy to chat in between sessions. It was great to see veterans like Duhamel and Chandler racing along with rookies like the Bostroms and Haydens. I guess the fun was that you felt your were really there for the racing, and not just because of the umbrella girls, Ducati Island, CBS or FOX tv, or any other distractions that really seem like attractions for non-race fans. Going to the track is a social event, for racers. I hate to see it become a social event for socialites.
Sean says
In my opinion? I agree with the kneeslider. It SHOULD be more about the bikes than the racers. I don’t care who’s riding the Honda, who’s piloting the Ducati or the name of the rider than just caned himself on a Yamaha. I like the technology, the differing engine configurations, the interesting aero systems. THAT is what interests me, more so than some short Italian bloke who likes writing his name on things. But the reason why win on Sunday, sell on Monday doesn’t work anymore? Because the speed limit for most of my countries cities is 50kph. And that doesn’t work well when you’ve got a bike designed to slip into the triple digits with consummate ease.
Lynch says
Bikes are the soul of the sport. The technology fascinates me. However, the riders play a large part in the appeal of the sport. Watch a rider like Rossi struggle on his Yamaha early in the year and tell me it doesn’t make it interesting when he adapts and charges for the lead in points. The RC212V is a wholly different tool in the hands of Hayden or Pedrosa. My judgment/admiration for a particular machine or strain of new technology takes into consideration the pilot on board. It’s a sport. No point in arguing about your way or their way. We are all watching. Enjoy all aspects of the sport or you are missing some part of the experience.