Honestly, I think the GP thing is a poor idea. It costs a mint and there isn't much to be gained from it - however... and this is where I think they're at - far more people watch GP races than watch WSBK races. Or WERA. Or Moto-USA. Or BSB. Or CSBK. That attitude is crap, IMHO - because it's like most people only watch the one series that has bikes you can't buy and need to be inhuman to ride. It's exposure that has driven them to MotoGP.
But being Aprilia, they have done very little to make it
completely clear that they are in the early stages of testing and are not there even
trying to win races but to develop a platform that can. They brought a modified version of the CRT bike out last year and discovered that a few seconds a lap isn't a gap you can make up even with a top-flight rider without a true GP bike (I doubt this surprised them).
Despite their stated goal being that they wanted a top-10 finish
in 2016 and having already reached it... I think that for most people, their image in GP is negative. Because, when it comes to brand recognition you're either a winner or you're a loser, and as you know,
MotoGP is *SO* easy to win at. When it comes to superbikes, there may be such a thing as bad exposure.
I would have advised working to dominate SuperStock where their new bike already made a big debut in, and use the savings to
advertise and market their products. And maybe use a modified version of the 1100 engine in the Caponord to address the perceived power deficit in that bike (misguided, perhaps, but perceived).
They can still derive data from their GP effort that will improve their standard bikes, but I think there is far less to be learned there than in production-based racing, as they are not going to build a production engine with 260hp+ and a life of 1500km. And I think they should have done what Suzuki did, testing their bike in private for a year if that's what it took, instead of taking a bike they knew wasn't competitive and entering it in races. They could have used race data to judge their bike against, like Suzuki did.
BTW .... I ride Dorso, and the middle weights are not exactly bikes which shine when compared to others. In my view they are OK, but not very good or great. The price was right, kind of a thing .... They don't seem to care, it's all about Tuono and RSV4. Would you agree it you have a different take on it?
Despite the fact that the Caponord is down on power in the sport-touring class compared to some, I think it is still an excellent bike. I have a friend with one and he puts it through hell - gravel roads, rail trails, two-up day trips and a bit of scratching. It's held up and it's very comfortable in most situations. However, the Dorsoduro and Shiver need an update to be sure, the Shiver moreso than the Dorso. There doesn't seem to be much will to do it and there doesn't seem to be much interest from Aprilia in general.
When you look at the technology in the V4 bikes and the technology in the Shiver, it's night and day. I don't have the answers - but if I had an ideal world they would find a way to assume MV, drop the F4, drop the Shiver, put an I3 in the Dorsoduro and create a V4 / I3 mix of superbikes, super-tourers, super-nakeds and the same based off supersports (675/800cc) that would set them apart... and take some styling cues from MV for the whole line. But I doubt it'll happen, as MV has *massive* debt to deal with. Also, I would probably drop the 800 except for the touring & naked versions... you're not likely to race the 800 in a superbike class and you can't race it in the 600 class, so... why not the RSV4?
