To you, perhaps, but then, you had the unambiguous term "winningest" to help you.  | Talk 

Ambiguity
The problem with "most successful" is that it's ambiguous, since "most successful" can, in general, be defined along many metrics: most sold, most manufactured, greatest market share, and, yes, greatest number of races won using the bike. "Winningest" works along one metric  or two, if one is being deliberately obtuse as to what "winning" means in context of a racing bike. So why not pick a perfectly standard word that avoids ANY ambiguity?

And contrary to Skyring's fake usage claims, "winningest" is a perfectly standard word:

 The Grammarist:
Most participial adjectives are made comparative and superlative with more and most. For example, we say more troubling and most sickening instead of troublinger and sickeningest. So, to many English-speakers, the superlative adjective winningest—meaning having the most wins—sounds wrong. And indeed some peevish grammarians hate the word. Yet despite the existence of grammatically unquestionable alternatives (most winning, best), winningest is deeply entrenched in sports commentary and is not going away any time soon. Those who dislike it might as well get used to it.

Google News searches show winningest has been common since the 1940s, and there are scattered examples from earlier. The word has always been confined mainly to American and Canadian publications. (This is also confirmed by Google Ngram)

My copy of the OED 2nd Edition  while it doesn't have usage notes  uses "winningest" in three of their example quotes for the "winning" entry. So the OED editors don't have a problem with it, either. | Talk