http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2009/11/no-2010-suzukis-planned.html

So I guess Teams have to run 2009's.

How reliable is that source? I've never heard of it.

garyb425 - 20 November 2009 06:09 PM

How reliable is that source? I've never heard of it.

Good question. If I read that right, Suzuki is not going to import any 2010 GSX-R bikes until the "leftover" 2009s are gone. In this economy, that may take awhile. Onna uvver hand, it may bring the GSX-F650 I've been looking at down in price a bit.

The article didn't mention racing bikes, so my guess is, the MotoGP folks and maybe the Superbikers will get whatever's new in 2010. Development doesn't necessarily stop just because the economy takes a tumble.

How reliable is the source? I can't say. The article was full of "from a source" and "Suzuki had no comment," so draw your own conclusions. I suspect there's a good deal of guesswork in there. We shall see come next spring.

There needs to be bikes on showroom floors to meet homoligation.

Oh wait.. it's a DMG series...never mind

The '09s are already homolgated, so they are fine for DMG's joke.

garyb425 - 20 November 2009 06:27 PM

The '09s are already homolgated, so they are fine for DMG's joke.

Apparently nobody told Tommy Handen and Blake Young there were homologation problems with the 2010 bikes because they've been testing at Fontana.

http://www.suzuki-racing.com/news_page.aspx?SRS_ID=1&OBJ_ID=17696

The first question that comes to mind is, does the homologation rule require bikes manufactured and offered for sale in America, or just somewhere in the world? The VR1000 supposedly was available in Poland which satisfied the AMA way back when...

ridenm - 28 November 2009 11:50 PM

The first question that comes to mind is, does the homologation rule require bikes manufactured and offered for sale in America, or just somewhere in the world? The VR1000 supposedly was available in Poland which satisfied the AMA way back when...

Good question. It also begs the question of what, exactly, is a "production bike?" Is it something taken off the showroom floor, or a "homologation special" that was built for the purpose? I'd also like to know if the company has to actually show the bikes exist, the way Porsche did with the 917s, or just say, "it's what we say it is," as Ferrari did with the 250 GT and the 250F GTO? And a lovely little bit of creative rule-bending that thing was! Ferrari was required to build 200 cars "similar to the race car" for homologation. So they pointed to the 250GT and said, "this is just like those, only different; a completely new car from the ground up, with a simlar name." Of which they only built somewhere between 25 and 37 copies, depending on whom you ask.

Not so strange.
- who will buy a 2010 bike which is marginally better if you can get the 2009 bike dirt cheap, especially given the crisis conditions. Basically you would have to sell your 2010 bike pretty close to the price of the 2009 bike. While at the same time you want to get rid of the 2009 stock ASAP while still breaking even.
- what sales volume would you expect on 2010 bikes to make it worthwile to ship a bunch to the US and spread them around the country. A couple of hundred is not enough to make it worthwile.

ridenm - 28 November 2009 11:50 PM

The first question that comes to mind is, does the homologation rule require bikes manufactured and offered for sale in America, or just somewhere in the world? The VR1000 supposedly was available in Poland which satisfied the AMA way back when...

There were no VR1000s ever sold for street bikes - and sure, DMG can allow a '10 to race. Hell, the bike doesn't even have to be street legal to race in a series that requires it, why stop the BS now?

ridenm - 28 November 2009 11:50 PM

The first question that comes to mind is, does the homologation rule require bikes manufactured and offered for sale in America, or just somewhere in the world? The VR1000 supposedly was available in Poland which satisfied the AMA way back when...

politics removed