That's what I'm thinking. Or do spec tires per class if you feel it's something that has to happen - keep them all involved and not just one for the whole series.
How many of the bikes racing SBK are actually SBK spec? How many of the bikes on the DSB grid aren't SS spec?
Multiple spec tire vendors wouldn't work. It sounds great from a racers' perspective (believe me!), but from a business/tire supplier perspective, where's the benefit if I'm not the sole tire supplier? Where do I make my money? Where are the logistics/infrastructure to ensure special tires aren't being made?
You're still selling tires to everyone in one class and get the advertising benefit that goes with that as well as the sales. The cost to be the spec supplier would of course be way less than the entire series and your chance of selling as many as with no spec tire at all is just as high if not a little better depending on your product that season. You'd also have to stock a lot less choices and sizes limiting your expense on the supply and shipping end of things.
Yes we have been in touch and as we and they have both been very busy the last week or two no change on anything just yet. Holding pattern for a bit longer.
Yep. Helps that Wayne and Chuck both ran teams that ran with us the last time we did Pro Series so they know Evelyne and WERA pretty well.
Not really, actually. In 2014, SBK had more entries compared to 2013, one time. DSB, one time. Supersport, three times. Otherwise, 2013 had more entries before those rules were implemented. Granted, other variables were potentially at play, such as not having a TV deal.
You asked if the one-bike rule and two-day format increased entries. I joked that multiple spec tire suppliers would be similar to those rules - seems good at first, but not really in the end. With multiple tire vendors, I'm not so sure. Costs go up, ROI goes down for them. Effort to police spec tires goes up. Difficulty in riders switching between classes increases costs, setup time, etc. Now if we're talking personal agendas, I'm all for it.
Ahhhh - I asked about getting more people involved in the series, I wasn't thinking riders. I also see no parallel between two obviously dumb rules and something that could bring 2-3 tire oem's into the paddock. I disagree - cost is down versus a wide open non-spec format as they only have to bring a couple of compounds and sizes. ROI will depend on the health of the series, otherwise you wouldn't have the setup I'm talking about in MotoGP. Bridgestone for GP, Dunlop for Moto2 & Moto3. Riders switching between classes isn't an issue at a pro race that is structured properly, you don't run the same bike in multiple classes.
It doesn't seem like multi-brand spec tire enforcement would be that much harder than the current enforcement. They are already enforcing that you can't just run any Dunlop, you have to run the tires approved for that round. They already randomly pick tires from the stock of tires, or at least so the rules say. You would just need a a tire picker for each vendor instead of one for Dunlop. Each vendor would to pay a fee that would pay the sanctioning body for their tire picker, which would be much cheaper than what Dunlop was paying to sponsor the series. To keep it on the level, you rotate the tire pickers between the brands (assuming the pickers travel with the series).
You're underestimating how critical it is to Dunlop to be the spec tire and what they'll spend to retain the rights to continue to do so.
$$$ If you have 3 brands instead of 1 you just cut the earnings for each by 2/3. At what point does it become a loss to go sell tires and none of them show up?