Tim Huntington is the longtime webmaster, photographer, occasional proof reader and general voice of reason for SuperBikePlanet.com.

The MCRCB's announcement that they're planning on going to a single tire supplier for the Brit Superbike Championship should come as no surprise. World Superbikes has been thriving since it went to Pirelli only, though whether there's any correlation between the two events is highly debatable. At least you can say the single tire rule there didn't hurt anything in terms of close racing. The worst you can say is that tire innovation suffered as lap records from the multi tire era lasted a few years at most tracks despite the bikes themselves becoming faster.

I can't help but think that all the current single brand of tire talk stems from this year's MotoGP championship and Michelin's failure to consistently provide a tire that matched Bridgestone's, combined with the championship's most popular rider having to suffer through Michelin's malaise.

This year there's been plenty of talk, including a lot from Dorna itself, that MotoGP could well follow World Superbike's lead and move the world's premier championship to a single tire route as early as 2008.

The thing I find surprising about the MCRCB's announcement is their reasons for bringing the regulation in.

They say that "the most pertinent issue being debated in Worldwide motorsport" today is:

"The equal distribution of a consumable product, which has the clear ability to influence the results of the competition."

They go on to say that:

"Other key findings were the amount of annual competition budget allocated to tyre purchase and the amount of tyres consumed during test and race events. Both these areas will be addressed in this process."

I look at their reasoning and I don't like what I see. If you're going to make sure that there is an equal distribution of a consumable product, there are plenty of other factors such as fuel, oil, brake pads, etc. that could be brought into the equation. Eventually you even get to the issue of the bikes and riders themselves—they're all consumables too. So why are tires being targeted?

The other laudable goal of reducing costs can easily be addressed by imposing a few rules on tires. There are already some implicit rules placed on tires (a race tire has to last the length of a race for instance), but explicit rules are easy to apply too—limit the number of tires a rider can use during a weekend and you're reducing costs.

I can't help but think that all the current single brand of tire talk stems from this year's MotoGP championship and Michelin's failure to consistently provide a tire that matched Bridgestone's, combined with the championship's most popular rider having to suffer through Michelin's malaise. After all, MotoGP already has the cost reducing rules in place and yet are still considering the single tire route. MotoGP also prides itself on its prototype bike status, complete with technical innovation, so why completely kill off prototype tires and technical innovations in the world of rubber?

I have to wonder where it will all end—if Yamaha produce an uncompetitive bike in 2008, and Rossi has to suffer through that bike, will the organizers suddenly be putting out invitations to tender for companies to apply to become the sole supplier of bikes to the championship?

Actually, we can all see where it might all end—one brand of tire, one brand of fuel, one type of bike (with different stickers on it to denote the different brands), one type of cookie cutter rider...

We'll open this topic up for comments. If you have a brief opinion on "spec" tires in MotoGP and want the world to read it, please send it here in the body text of an e-mail. We'll select several for publication. Finish the e-mail with your full name and city/state.