Why has Suzuki not had any success since the 4stroke change in MotoGP?

Why is Suzuki not at all successful in MotoGP? Other than a handful of podiums and 1 win in the wet in 2007 their MotoGP team is horrendous. What is the reason behind this? It's odd because they make some of the best sportbikes in the world, have won countless championships in national series and as far as I know won the 2005 WSBK championship(didn't watch WSBK racing prior to 2002 so I am not sure if they won anything previously). How can they make such good sportbikes but when it comes to MotoGP, they stink? I am very curious. Kento or Andrew, can you share your knowledge about this topic? Also what do you think they have to do to get competitive again?  

Compared to companies such as Honda and Yamaha, Suzuki is a very small company, with a fraction of the resources. Yes, Ducati is a small company as well, but the difference there is that the Italian company is built around racing, so much of its resources are easily dedicated towards that purpose (it also helps that much of the Italian culture revolves around motor racing, so there's no shortage of brilliant young engineers coming out of school yearning to work at the Italian OEMs). Suzuki, by contrast, has a diverse portfolio that includes automobiles (they manufacture the best selling automobile in Japan and India, which is a huge growing market). Those resources spent a lot of time developing the GSX-R lineup into the powerhouse that it still is now, and they haven't had a lot of time to devote to the MotoGP effort.

Suzuki Motor Corp Japan is also notoriously conservative when it comes to spending outside its means, which why the company is still relatively healthy financially, while others are in the red more than they're willing to admit. Ironically, the company still loves Grand Prix racing, as Kevin Schwantz and then Kenny Roberts Jr. gave them a taste of championship victory in '93 and '00. That's why they're still pouring millions into the MotoGP effort to keep it afloat; remember that a few years ago, they didn't even have any outside sponsorship, and the Rizla money is a far cry from the Marlboro dollars propping up Ducati's effort or the Fiat money with Yamaha. But the global economic meltdown surely forced them to halt expensive R&D for the MotoGP effort-- right when they were gearing up, as WSBK's decision to let 1200cc V-twins didn't sit well with them, so they were getting ready to put a lot of effort into the MotoGP machine.

Another obstacle in my opinion is the company's decision to stay with Mitsubishi electronics, which are a step behind the Marelli units that everyone else uses. When Mitsubishi makes a step forward, the competition has already made two. And these days, electronics are something you cannot be a step behind on.

The new six-engine-per-season rule has also hurt them, as I'm sure they had to detune them a bit to make them last. Remember that at the end of last season, Capirossi exceeded the then-five-engine limit for the last seven races, penalizing him for the next race at Sepang. The lack of R&D resource monster rears its ugly head once again...

So, incredibly long story short, Suzuki is really going to have to pour some serious money and resources into the project in order for it to regain competitiveness. And it's going to take the economy to rebound before that happens. Let's just hope that the company doesn't tire of making up the numbers before then.  

Thanks for the reply Kento. It makes sense now. I guess I didn't realize Suzuki was such a small company with limited resources.  

Kento good points as always but while I give them props for sticking in MotoGP when they know they really have no chance of being competitive defies logic. Maybe that's due to the contract with MotoGP but it would have made more sense for them to leave temporarily and start working on a 1000cc and re-enter the series in 2012. That would make sense because they could use the R&D to help their production litre bikes and WSB efforts.  

The contractual obligation to MotoGP is one reason they're still spending money to compete, but you also have to remember that there's a lot of promotional value just competing in MotoGP. Think about the lower rung teams that have an even less chance at being competitive.

There's also the aspect of racing being the ultimate testing ground. Look at what Bridgestone's accomplished in six or so years. They had a test team with riders like Luca Cadalora and Shinichi Itoh working with legendary tuner Erv Kanemoto; Cadalora and Itoh may not be considered top tier GP riders, but they were quicker than any test rider you could call up out of the blue. After a year of development, they weren't that great when they debuted. It took them a year or so before they won a couple of races. But once they hooked up with Kawasaki, Suzuki, and then Ducati in real competition, their development curve shot through the roof.

Actually, much of the R&D in MotoGP trickles down to the production bikes (and hence, WSBK). It's rare that any technology becomes applied to production bikes and MotoGP machines at the same time, or vice versa.

Also, Dorna (rightsholders to MotoGP) provide financial assistance to all the teams to help with travel costs, which makes it worth it to conduct testing in the racing crucible more than spending tons of money testing at racing circuits around the world.  

"The new six-engine-per-season rule has also hurt them, as I'm sure they had to detune them a bit to make them last. Remember that at the end of last season, Capirossi exceeded the then-five-engine limit for the last seven races, penalizing him for the next race at Sepang. The lack of R&D resource monster rears its ugly head once again..."

Kent, are you saying that there is an unintended consequence to the "six engine per season rule?"  That the rule actually drives up costs by subtituting "high maintenance costs" with even higher development costs? That the rule favors the bigger. more capitalized, players?  

Good points by Kento on the marketing and technology value for Suzuki to stick around in MotoGP. But is there a bit of backlish for being a backmarker factory?

Backslider you make a good point about the six engine limit negatively affecting teams especially smaller ones such as Suzuki but the Yamahas seem to be a bit off as well. Honda has found some speed and if I'm not mistaken the Ducati has been about the same. I wonder if anyone has compared the trap speeds of the same venues from this year to last year. That may help shed some light on this issue. It will be interesting to see if any teams receive a penalty by the end of the season for exceeding the 6 engine limit.  

xbacksideslider:
Kent, are you saying that there is an unintended consequence to the "six engine per season rule?"  That the rule actually drives up costs by subtituting "high maintenance costs" with even higher development costs? That the rule favors the bigger. more capitalized, players?

In my opinion, yes, because the companies that are willing to spend slightly beyond their means (versus Suzuki, who as I said before are notoriously conservative in many ways) have an advantage with regards to development.

Much of this was supposedly approved by the MSMA, although I'm sure it wasn't a unanimous approval. The bigger factories are more concerned with saving money on the front end than they are the back end.  

MotoMarc1:
Good points by Kento on the marketing and technology value for Suzuki to stick around in MotoGP. But is there a bit of backlish for being a backmarker factory?

Backslider you make a good point about the six engine limit negatively affecting teams especially smaller ones such as Suzuki but the Yamahas seem to be a bit off as well. Honda has found some speed and if I'm not mistaken the Ducati has been about the same. I wonder if anyone has compared the trap speeds of the same venues from this year to last year. That may help shed some light on this issue. It will be interesting to see if any teams receive a penalty by the end of the season for exceeding the 6 engine limit.

In MotoGP, not necessarily, because the manufacturers are involved in that series for the brand image of just being a competitor in MotoGP. The results really have little bearing on consumer's perception of the brand. Look at Mercedes, BMW, or Ferrari's involvement in F1; people don't look down on any of them simply because they at one point or another were "backmarkers" during their F1 racing history. But consumers love the fact that the company was involved in some way. Look at what it did for Jaguar.

Comparing trap speeds, even from one year to the next, aren't necessarily representative of engine potential, because there are too many variables, most notably weather, pavement, and tire development.