 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General MotorcyclesHarleyYamahaSportbikesRacingOff-roadSnowmobilesTechnicalCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupClassic (UK Group)Related Topics CarsBoatsMore Topics ... |
Motorcycle Forum / General / Racing / September 2008G'day Mat, err Mate..
Mat's toast and congrats to Spies for winning the title.. http://www.cyclenews.com/ShowStory.asp?HeadlineID=12914 Evidently Suzuki wasn't able to find any production bikes with similar cranks and I wonder why... >Mat's toast and congrats to Spies for winning the title.. > >http://www.cyclenews.com/ShowStory.asp?HeadlineID=12914 All the bullshit aside, I've never had any issue with Mat's DQ if his crank really was non-compliant. My complaint from day one was the idiotic decision to tear down only Mat's and not Ben's (or Tommy's). I mean, how stupid can you get when you say "they're all from the same team so we'll only tear down one of them"? Considering the points battle, which they obviously didn't, it was a monumentally stupid move. > >Mat's toast and congrats to Spies for winning the title.. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > battle, which they obviously didn't, it was a monumentally stupid > move. Well, it was only stupid if it wasn't intentional, and that's the big unanswered question here. My guess is Mat's crank was strictly illegal, but the back story on that is what we'll probably never know. And at the end of the day, I have to believe DMG was quite intentionally going after Mladin there, and really didn't have that much interest in tagging Spies or Hayden. Hayden may have gotten sucked in at RA just because they couldn't only pick on Mat a second time, that would be too obvious. What is interesting on this move is how quickly they slammed the door for good. One wonders if it's just that Suzuki's case was obviously weak, or if there was never any intention at all to give it any consideration. >>> Mat's toast and congrats to Spies for winning the title.. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > weak, or if there was never any intention at all to give it any > consideration. Apparently, and like I said earlier, finding a production bike with that particular crank in it was the appeal killer, because without it, or the promise of producing one damn quick all the paper records in the world don't matter. As far as the "slammed the door for good" goes, in most ALL racing series you must be ready and willing to prove yourself innocent, not so much be proven guilty and in a homologated series such as AMA SB they tend to go with what you can prove you sell when there's "disagreements" and in this case evidently Suzuki couldn't find one...(because none ever existed to begin with..) T3 <notme@nowhere.net> Sat, 6 Sep 2008 00:49:38 >Apparently, and like I said earlier, finding a production bike with >that particular crank in it was the appeal killer, because without it, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"disagreements" and in this case evidently Suzuki couldn't find >one...(because none ever existed to begin with..) Except that:- http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34046  SignatureJulian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433 Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat Certain Limitations Apply > Mark N said: >> Well, it was only stupid if it wasn't intentional, and that's the big >> unanswered question here. My guess is Mat's crank was strictly [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and in this case evidently Suzuki couldn't find one...(because none ever > existed to begin with..) Here's the only thing that I've seen from Suzuki's side so far: http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34046 "It makes us question the integrity behind the enforcement of the rules and suggests that there was never an intention to assemble an appeal board to conduct an objective and impartial hearing. From all appearances, the AMA had clearly made its decision well before 5:00 p.m. The 'deadline' was obviously a ruse to create the impression of fairness." Of course you'll dismiss anything they say out of hand, but the way this whole thing went down raises huge questions about DMG and their tactics and process... >> Mark N said: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > this whole thing went down raises huge questions about DMG and their > tactics and process... I'm not about to say they're above screwing with someone, but a cheater cryin' about a so-called travesty? Puhleeze.. If Zuki' had actually put any of those cranks in production bikes they could've easily found a few, that they did not convicted them and now they cry injustice? They had their chance to prove themselves innocent and came up a "little" short, crying about it now only makes them look worse IMO.. http://www.cyclenews.com/ShowStory.asp?HeadlineID=12868 “He needs to provide to us production records for these crankshafts, vendor information, and the VIN range of the motorcycles that they went in. That’s part A,” Syfan said. “Part B is they have to provide a motorcycle in that VIN range, whether it’s new or used, and have it disassembled with an AMA official there." Heh, only in America can you be caught red-handed then claim you're being picked on... > Heh, only in America can you be caught red-handed then claim you're > being picked on... We've learned well from our elected representatives. > Mark N said: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Heh, only in America can you be caught red-handed then claim you're > being picked on... And once again every single crumb of what position you take comes directly from the mouths of Your Boys at DMG. If you can find the bit you quote above anywhere in the AMA rulebook, I'd sure like to see it. If the cranks Suzuki uses are ones that appeared in some stock motorcycles at some point over the last four years and those bikes are all sold (which they likely would be) and they don't track individual parts by individual bikes sold, which they say they don't and should quite reasonable, then the requirement that that be done in a few days is ridiculous. IF that crank actually showed up in stock bikes, it seems likely to have been in a very early production run back in 2005. And nowhere have I seem anyone but you who claims that crank provided a performance advantage - see the blurb on this in the current CN. That doesn't mean Suzuki shouldn't be penalized, but a double DQ? And what does all this say about the way DMG will be operating generally? Of course, you prefer to gloss over the details, as usual, mere facts can only get in the way of a good pro-Daytona position... >> I'm not about to say they're above screwing with someone, but a cheater >> cryin' about a so-called travesty? Puhleeze.. If Zuki' had actually put [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > directly from the mouths of Your Boys at DMG. If you can find the bit > you quote above anywhere in the AMA rulebook, I'd sure like to see it. Mark, the governing body *always* sets the height of the bar, never the accused.. > If the cranks Suzuki uses are ones that appeared in some stock > motorcycles at some point over the last four years and those bikes are > all sold (which they likely would be) and they don't track individual > parts by individual bikes sold, which they say they don't and should > quite reasonable, then the requirement that that be done in a few days > is ridiculous. What, you think Zuki' doesn't keep records? My a.s they don't! Hell, even GM still has my addy after not owning any of their garbage for over 2 years, Harley sends me sh.t all the time and the one in the garage is based on a '91, Yam got my addy when I transfered warranty on their sh.t, so please come up with a more plausible excuse, if any bikes had those cranks in them they could have been found.. > IF that crank actually showed up in stock bikes, it seems likely to > have been in a very early production run back in 2005. So? > And nowhere have I seem anyone but you who claims that crank provided > a performance advantage - see the blurb on this in the current CN. If you're saying that increased durability isn't performance enhancing you prolly need to re-think that, or whatever.. > That doesn't mean Suzuki shouldn't be penalized, but a double DQ? As per the rules.. > And what does all this say about the way DMG will be operating generally? Umm, don't get caught cheating? > Of course, you prefer to gloss over the details, as usual, mere facts > can only get in the way of a good pro-Daytona position... Seems to me you're the only one glossin' over anything, but that's not surprising considering who's involved and if recent history says anything, name-calling is prolly next... Go Gator's, kick some 'Cane azz! T3 <notme@nowhere.net> Sat, 6 Sep 2008 11:14:19 >http://www.cyclenews.com/ShowStory.asp?HeadlineID=12868 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >motorcycle in that VIN range, whether itÕs new or used, and have it >disassembled with an AMA official there." http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34046 -------- On Saturday, August 30th, AMA Special Projects Manager Bill Syfan informed Don Sakakura of Yoshimura Racing that they must produce supporting documentation and crankshaft production records and information by 5:00 p.m. (EST) today. The written submission, along with an opinion from an independent crankshaft expert, was faxed to the AMA shortly before 5:00 p.m. (ET) this afternoon. In addition, early this morning Yoshimura Racing and American Suzuki Motor Corporation delivered to the AMA offices in Ohio an exemplar crankshaft for inspection and comparison. -------- So if Suzuki did what the AMA asked, why was it dismissed out of hand? -------- Shortly after 5:00 p.m. (ET) today, less than half an hour after the written submission was timely sent to the appropriate AMA officials, Don Sakakura and Mat Mladin were notified by phone by Bill Syfan that an appeal board would not be convened. -------- Looking from the outside, it looks like whatever was delivered wasn't what the AMA were looking for. Or they were never even going to look at it. Or maybe they're fax machine is in the basement and the fax didn't hit anyone's desk till after the deadline. Or... Let's hope Suzuki tell their side of the story about what really happened. SignatureJulian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433 Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat Tear Here To Open > T3 <notme@nowhere.net> Sat, 6 Sep 2008 11:14:19 >> http://www.cyclenews.com/ShowStory.asp?HeadlineID=12868 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Let's hope Suzuki tell their side of the story about what really happened. You mean man-up and tell the truth? Heh, I wouldn't hold my breath waitin' for that to happen... >Heh, only in America can you be caught red-handed then claim you're >being picked on... Those aren't mutually exclusive possibilities. The team was clearly using crankshafts that didn't meet the requirements, yet in spite of the extremely easy way of determining non-compliance (removing one engine side cover), the sanctioning body went after one rider in particular. Nobody has come out of this mess looking good. >> Heh, only in America can you be caught red-handed then claim you're >> being picked on... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nobody has come out of this mess looking good. I agree, but this was forgone to be a lose, lose deal on it's own, but just consider the flak if they'd have DQ'd the whole Yosh team at VIR, ho-li-fook!! Talk about vendetta BS, it wouldn't stop for years! On another note, I was perusing RRW's archive's and ran across this little nugget that someone sent in, obviously the dude knows what he talking about... http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34024 By Michael Gougis If the folks from American Honda’s motorcycle division really are considering throwing their support behind a new road racing series to compete with the AMA/DMG series next year, they need to get up from their desks, walk across the aisle to their automotive racing counterparts, and say, “So, we’re thinking of backing a breakaway racing series. Got any thoughts on that?” When the car guys stop choking and spitting coffee onto their computer monitors and manage to start breathing again, they’ll probably gasp out one word of advice: Don’t. The few remaining fans of open-wheel motorsports in the United States can remember a time when Championship Auto Racing Teams posed a direct threat to Formula One on the world stage. I say the few remaining fans because a decade of competing racing series essentially destroyed open-wheel racing in the U.S. Honda was there for the whole thing. When open-wheel racing split in 1996, the company backed CART over the rival Indy Racing League, which was dismissed as a low-tech, lowbrow form of racing, clearly second-fiddle to the technologically advanced turbo-powered Champ cars. Over the next decade, Honda would wind up changing its mind on virtually every decision it made in open-wheel racing, ending up as the only supplier of a spec-engined series of normally aspirated cars. Simply put, if anyone knows the damage that can be inflicted on a sport by even the talk of a breakaway series, it’s Honda. While published reports indicate that Honda and Suzuki are the main proponents of a motorcycle road racing series that would compete with the AMA/DMG races next season, Suzuki hasn’t been through this before. Honda has. It’s not an exact analogy, but it’s pretty close to what I feel would be a worst-case scenario for next year in motorcycle road racing. When open-wheel racing split, the IRL was viewed by many as the breakaway series. But really, it’s more accurate to view CART as trying to break away from Indy. When it went its own Indy-less way, CART was well-armed. It had the stars, more advanced cars, and many of the traditional race venues locked up. When CART went public in the last part of the decade, it had a war chest of more than $100 million. Honda, Toyota, Ford and Mercedes-Benz provided engines to teams. Honda and Toyota dug deeper than others, paying driver salaries and offering technological advantages (wind tunnel time, etc.) for favored teams. And CART was a team-owned series. In other words, those manufacturers had in open-wheel racing what proponents of a breakaway series are calling for in motorcycle road racing: A manufacturer-run program, well-funded, with everything except the series’ signature event. And at the beginning, it seemed to work well. CART ran a 500-mile race at Michigan on the same day as the Indy 500 in 1996, and winner Jimmy Vasser took a swipe at one of the longest traditions in motorsports when he sneered, “Who needs milk?” (Traditionally, the winner of the Indy 500 takes a swig from a bottle of milk in Victory Lane.) But it all fell apart. One key miscalculation: The presence of Indianapolis in the American racing public’s consciousness. CART forgot that its stars and the popularity of all the other events were based on their link to Indy. And as the years piled up, CART became defined in the public’s mind as the open-wheel cars that DIDN’T do the Indy 500. Race promoters were unable to ask fans to come to their races to see the winner of the Indy 500, as they’d done for years. Attendance at CART events fell year after year. Road America, Laguna Seca, Mid-Ohio – all venues that once hosted massive open-wheel celebrations – either fell off the calendar or saw attendance drop to a fraction of what it once was. Teams and drivers, too, pined for the chance to win at what they felt, in their hearts, was the one race – the only race – you had to win in your career. Everything else paled compared to a win at Indy. Another key miscalculation: The gamble that manufacturers would always be able to get along. With varying budgets, marketing plans, and other influences, the infighting intensified. Within six years, all four of the manufacturers left CART, which wound up buying an engine company, building a spec turbo motor, and leasing it to the teams that still wanted to come play – which were fewer and fewer each year. As manufacturer support dropped off, teams found it easier to sell themselves to sponsors who knew only one word when it came to open-wheel racing: Indy. Honda literally threw a fit – “It was a very emotional announcement,” Robert Clarke, now president of Honda Performance Development, told a news conference – over CART’s proposed rules changes in 2002 and announced it was leaving open-wheel racing in the United States. A cynic might have noted that Honda was looking for a way to desert a sinking ship. A few months later, Honda changed its mind. The low-tech IRL that it once dismissed? Honda would provide engines for that series. Honda’s longtime policy of in-house technology development? Tossed out the window. In its rush to do a U-turn and get into the IRL for 2003, Honda basically badge-engineered an Ilmor powerplant. Honda’s disdain for spec racing series? That went by the wayside in 2006, when Honda agreed to provide identical engines to everyone racing in the IRL. Time after time, Honda wound up eating its own words. When the two series reunited this year, 12 years after “The Split,” Honda found itself the only engine provider in a series it once turned its back on. But it wasn’t exactly the same series. Overall attendance was a fraction of its former self; the TV ratings for its non-Indy events now are somewhere around infomercial levels. Honda’s technological challenges – its oft-cited reason for racing – have basically been reduced to questions of production rather than R&D. It’s not about getting more horsepower, torque, reliability or speed; it’s about making enough race engines for all the teams. And quick, name the last three winners of the Indy 500. There was a time when they were cultural heroes, even outside the world of motorsports. Now, they couldn’t get arrested. Is there a parallel here? Stronger than you might suspect. Substitute “DMG” for “IRL” and “Daytona” for “Indy 500” and you get pretty close. DMG and the IRL are well-funded organizations headed by strong-willed, richer-than-hell individuals who don’t mind being called names and are willing to spend money to keep their organizations afloat. And like the IRL owned the Indy 500, DMG owns the most well-known national motorcycle road race – the Daytona 200. Like Indianapolis, Daytona has a resonance with the American motorsports public that only Indy comes close to. Everyone knows what the Daytona International Speedway is. You’d be hard-pressed to find an average motorsports fan in the U.S. who could find Road America on a map. Hell, you’d be hard-pressed to find an average motorsports fan in the U.S. who could find Road Atlanta – even if you gave them a map of Georgia. And ask any national-level motorcycle road racer what race they would like to win if they could only win one race in their lifetime. Dollars to dimes the answer’s Daytona. So if the motorcycle manufacturers start their own series, they may well wind up in a situation exactly like the CART of old. They may have money, machines, and the established stars. But they will be competing against someone with as much or more money, someone with media savvy, a series of tracks with traditional events, and who – perhaps crucially, history suggests – owns the series that will hold the only motorcycle road race that many Americans have ever heard of. The manufacturers will constantly be explaining that they’re not the group that races at Daytona. It’s an argument I wouldn’t want to have to make. Simply put, the American fan doesn’t have that kind of time and attention. And the manufacturers will have to do this while resolving disputes between themselves by themselves – and then convincing everyone else (privateers, outside sponsors) that they’re playing fair among themselves and also not making “gentleman’s agreements” among themselves. Breakaway series have a lousy track record. Honda backed a one-year split in Supercross in 1984, but that rift was quickly repaired. The CART/IRL fiasco has had one positive outcome. When rifts threatened to develop in other series (as was the case in Formula One), all someone had to do was say, “Look at what happened in the United States,” and everyone came back to the negotiating table – quickly. No one wanted to create the next CART/IRL. Seriously, can anyone name a successful breakaway series that survived while competing with its predecessor? If there is one, it’s a rarity. The damage to open-wheel racing, many feel, may be beyond repair. The fan base fractured. Outside-the-industry money gravitated to NASCAR. Few fans truly, honestly, believe that IndyCar racing will ever reach the level again where Formula One feared it on the international stage. While Suzuki, Kawasaki, and maybe even Yamaha might be looking into a breakaway series with some level of naivety, Honda knows better. Its representatives have been involved in CART, the IRL, the threatened manufacturer-led Formula One breakaway. Honda knows the odds of it being successful with a similar plan for motorcycle road racing are extremely long at best, and the potential damage to itself and the rest of the sport catastrophic. Even rumors can damage the chances of teams getting sponsors. While the DMG show might not be perfect (I’ve got real issues with the ‘run in the rain’ plans for some tracks), creating an opposing series would cause far more problems than it would solve. Talk of a breakaway series needs to stop – now. > On another note, I was perusing RRW's archive's and ran across this > little nugget that someone sent in, obviously the dude knows what he > talking about... > http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34024 I'm certainly not going to dispute the logic of that article, save for one point. While I appreciate the history of Daytona, and its legacy, I'm still wondering if it really still holds the prestige that it once had, and that if it doesn't, then it's because they did it to themselves. The Daytona 200 has most definitely suffered in the past several years. Notably by going to FX, but also simply by being overshadowed by the bigger event that is Bike Week. Where you have a bazillion motorcycle enthusiasts, yet no one comes to the race. In the past, the 200 was, most certainly, The Race to win. Past couple of years, it's has only been The Race to win for Honda, and last year, for Yamaha. But, really, nobody else shows up. Not at the factory level, not at the "star" level. Hell, nowadays it's as if the most famous racer at Daytona is Rick Shaw, lap record holder at Daytona, but not it the classic sense, and notable for getting bumped from the grid with EBoz's flying lap on the Ducati in the last Super Bike Daytona. Now, DMG is going to run DSB, which doesn't really excite, well, anyone, apparently. The series may well even visit the track twice in the season, though most likely only the first will be a 200. And, the 200 hasn't been on broadcast or free cable TV for years. It may run, but nobody is watching it -- they don't have the opportunity. As an enthusiast (yes, I agree I'm not part of the general public), the premiere racing event in this country for past 10+ years has been Laguna. Particularly back in the WSB wild card days. But even today, overshadowed by the GP, AMA Laguna is still THE race, because that's the race where everyone shows up -- factories, fans from around the worlds, riders, pundits, and celebrities. It's the event. GP Indy, actually, has a chance to overshadow it -- maybe. Because of the Power of Indy. Because it might become more of a broadcast media darling than was GP Laguna is. Who knows. Admittedly, particularly here in the west, we have Daytona viewing parties (we have a great one at a local Hoo-Hoo-Hooters here, place is packed). We don't do those for Laguna, simply because we just get up and go see it. I dunno if you saw any community reaction for something like a GP viewing party out by you for Laguna. Anyway, yea, the 200 had some prestige, but I think it's a bit tarnished now. Maybe DMG can bring back the luster, if by no other means than simply getting a broadcast contract to show the race instead of channel 607, with special viewing pack Q, deep in the satellite TV channels. The American Motorcycle racing public has less to lose than the open wheel public did. We have no standing as it is, and I don't think we're here solely for Daytona today. I'm not advocating a split, but, really, we simply don't have that far to fall -- so, maybe it's worth a jump for some. Regards, Will Hartung >http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34024 Intersesting article, but I don't quite buy his analogy. For one thing, with the possible DMG-MIC split, you could argue either way about which one represents the IRL or CART! Secondly, the author is counting far too much on the prestige of the Daytona 200 to make his point. The Indy 200 is known world-wide even among non-motorsports-fans. But even in the U.S., the typical reaction I get to mention of the Daytona 200 is "they race motorcycles there, too?" Remember when world-class riders from around the world used to come to race Daytona? That was a long time ago. Now, with the race having gone to 600cc FX bikes, the rest of the world does indeed view it as the World's Biggest Club Race, to the limited extent to which they're aware of it at all. No, the cachet of the Daytona 200 is long gone as far as the rest of the world, and the non-motorcycle-roadracing majority of the American public, is concerned. And it's worth noting that the final nail in the coffin, the change to 600/FX, was brought about at the request of the management of Daytona. That's either irony or poetic justice, depending on your point of view :) >> http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34024 > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That's either irony or poetic justice, depending on your point of view > :) What was interesting to me was that Honda is one of the principles driving a deal that not only they know from experience has very little chance of success, but will also be very detrimental to MC racing(and sales) here in the states. It's almost as if they haven't spent much time thinkin' this deal through, but have been preoccupied trying to wrest some kind of control back from DMG... (I firmly believe that is a big waste of time) > What was interesting to me was that Honda is one of the principles > driving a deal that not only they know from experience has very little [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wrest some kind of control back from DMG... (I firmly believe that is a > big waste of time) What a load of regurgitated crap. If I remeber to do it when I get back from Indy I'll post up the email I sent to RRW on this a couple days ago (and no shock at all that Johnny U hasn't posted that). But, just as the case was with open-wheel, what has happened here is that an egomonster who must believe that he controls the only event that matters in racing has decided that he will also completely control the rest for the series that races there, shaping it to his desires. Part of that is minimizing or eliminating the OEM influence, which of course runs directly counter to their desires. If you believe what Rog has said, they were contemplating doing this anyway, even before the AMA firesale. So who's bugging out? So what are the factories supposed to do, just bow down to what is a fundamentally bad idea in the first place? What should Honda have done back in 1996? George's concept was less-technical, cheaper, oval-only racing, and just as today the only teams that supported him were ones without much budget who were getting their a.ses kicked already. So where was the place in that for Honda and everyone else who stayed in CART? Where is it today in DSB? It's DMG who is going off on their own, who are ruining racing, not the OEMs, and there doesn't really seem to be any place in the DMG "vision" for them. RRW should be pointing the finger at DMG and not the OEMs. But this bit is entirely consistent with their behavior the last few weeks, since JU's efforts to save racing came to nothing. Being a DMG guy, it's now all about trashing the OEMs... >> What was interesting to me was that Honda is one of the principles >> driving a deal that not only they know from experience has very little [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What a load of regurgitated crap. Sorry you feel that way, though it's not surprising.. > If I remeber to do it when I get > back from Indy I'll post up the email I sent to RRW on this a couple > days ago (and no shock at all that Johnny U hasn't posted that). You don't need to bother for me.. > But, > just as the case was with open-wheel, what has happened here is that > an egomonster who must believe that he controls the only event that > matters in racing has decided that he will also completely control the > rest for the series that races there, shaping it to his desires. Umm, I think that's what most owners do, isn't it? > Part > of that is minimizing or eliminating the OEM influence, which of > course runs directly counter to their desires. That's a good thing, right? > If you believe what Rog > has said, they were contemplating doing this anyway, even before the > AMA firesale. So who's bugging out? HUH? ISTR DMG offering everything they said they wanted, twice! Only to have them change their minds again and again, DMG finally said enough of this booshit and moved on and I think we all should too, that is, if you're not bound in someway to a certain couple of OEM's. Look, I'm far from saying everything is hunky-dory, but removing the overwhelming influence the OEM's pose on racing can only be a good thing and if some want to stay, all the better, but if any feel the need to leave, sayofukinnara.. > So what are the factories supposed to do, just bow down to what is a > fundamentally bad idea in the first place? No, they should start a fire and leave, what wonderful outfits, molded in the Sherman vane I assume.. > What should Honda have done > back in 1996? George's concept was less-technical, cheaper, oval-only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > own, who are ruining racing, not the OEMs, and there doesn't really > seem to be any place in the DMG "vision" for them. They see racing as way to sell their stuff and feel they have to control it and it's direction to serve that purpose. That you can't come to terms with, or accept that very simple fact makes me wonder.. > RRW should be pointing the finger at DMG and not the OEMs. Why? Because they spent good money and are trying to resurrect US M/C racing beyond the trivial? > But this > bit is entirely consistent with their behavior the last few weeks, > since JU's efforts to save racing came to nothing. Being a DMG guy, > it's now all about trashing the OEMs... I don't see them trashin' anyone, but from your head up OEM a.s view that's prolly what it looks like..(disturbing picture;-) Anyway, this all just proves what I said years ago, the OEM's need racing a hell of a lot more than racing needs them... > Mark N said: > > What a load of regurgitated crap. > > Sorry you feel that way, though it's not surprising.. Well, it should't be, considering you're just restating what Gougis wrote. > You don't need to bother for me.. I know - it's not like you'd seriously consider anything that wasn't heavily biased toward DMG... > > an egomonster has decided that he will also completely control the > > rest for the series that races there, shaping it to his desires. > > Umm, I think that's what most owners do, isn't it? Umm, no. The AMA didn't do that, and the other big championships only do it on a limited basis, that mostly based on their commercial interests. DMG is basically trashing the whole thing and replacing it with their Daytona-centric "vision". > > Part > > of that is minimizing or eliminating the OEM influence, which of > > course runs directly counter to their desires. > > That's a good thing, right? Wrong. As the biggest financial contributor to the series they have a right to some say in what it is. > . So who's bugging out? > > HUH? ISTR DMG offering everything they said they wanted, twice! Only to > have them change their minds again and again, DMG finally said enough > of this booshit and moved on That's another RRW-spun load of crap and you know it. Why would anyone reject "everything they wanted"? > Look, I'm far from saying everything is hunky-dory, Coulda fooled me... but removing the > overwhelming influence the OEM's pose on racing can only be a good > thing Says you. But there are huge holes in that statement. But if the OEMs are so bad, why would an alternative series be so bad for racing? Let the people decide, I say... > Says you. But there are huge holes in that statement. But if the OEMs > are so bad, why would an alternative series be so bad for racing? Let > the people decide, I say... So, you'd like to see M/C racing here destroyed, or at the very least shrunk even farther into obscurity so what can happen? The OEM's sell more bikes? Less traffic on the tracks? Less people people in the stands? No TV? Very few tracks? Hmm, I'm seeing a trend here, more for them, less for us.. This is all besides the point anyway, as there isn't going to be any series ran in opposition and if you don't believe it, read this.(and weep) http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34082 (Doncha' just hate it when a plan falls apart?) So much for your MIC, and may it rest in peace... >Mark N said: > > Says you. But there are huge holes in that statement. But if the OEMs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, you'd like to see M/C racing here destroyed, or at the very least > shrunk even farther into obscurity Ah, no, that's what you want, that's what DMG is doing to racing as far as I can tell - detail one definitive aspect to this thing so far that one can embrace as growing racing. so what can happen? The OEM's sell > more bikes? I absolutely can't figure out why you are so against the OEMs actually enhancing their sales through racing. What sponsor would ever get involved in racing if it didn't increase their sales, who would get involved at all if they couldn't make money at it? Less traffic on the tracks? Less people people in the > stands? No TV? Very few tracks? Hmm, I'm seeing a trend here, more for > them, less for us.. Is that actually suppposed to make any sense? How would a MIC-fronted series result in "more for them and less for us"? > This is all besides the point anyway, as there isn't going to be any > series ran in opposition and if you don't believe it, read this. > So much for your MIC, and may it rest in peace... You really grab onto any little tidbit that Ulrich chooses to publish, don't you? There's no question that he's going to do anything that he can to bury an alternative series, he's told me he thinks that's the worst possible outcome. Of course he's already declared that his team will be running in DSB next year, and he hasn't exactly declared that the factories withdrawing from racing will be equally a disaster. So, like, you, he may just fear competition, given that his team would be one of the top ones if no OEMs show. Anyway, Kawi announcing AMA contingencies next year hardly means much, that whole progam as required by DMG hasn't been sorted out yet, I don't think. A MIC series next year is unlikely anyway, and Kawi didn't announce a DSB factory team... >> Mark N said: >>> Says you. But there are huge holes in that statement. But if the OEMs [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You really grab onto any little tidbit that Ulrich chooses to publish, > don't you? Just following your lead Dude..(kinda' suks, huh?) > There's no question that he's going to do anything that he > can to bury an alternative series, he's told me he thinks that's the > worst possible outcome. Umm, it would be.. > Of course he's already declared that his team > will be running in DSB next year, and he hasn't exactly declared that > the factories withdrawing from racing will be equally a disaster. So, > like, you, he may just fear competition, given that his team would be > one of the top ones if no OEMs show. Kawasaki looks to be in and very likely Yamaha too and the only disaster I see looming is the MIC thing, but I doubt it was ever intended to fly in the first place, it was injected into this deal to confound and confuse and nothing more, but that's been all a couple of OEM's have done too, confound and confuse.. > Anyway, Kawi announcing AMA contingencies next year hardly means much, > that whole progam as required by DMG hasn't been sorted out yet, I > don't think. A MIC series next year is unlikely anyway, and Kawi > didn't announce a DSB factory team... Nah, it wasn't much of an announcement, well, only a little over $900 grand anyway!.. Tell you what Mark, answer this, why are certain OEM's so dead set against ASB, are they afraid to race heads-up on a level field with independent teams? What's their big reason for not getting involved? If I were making sportbikes I'd sure like a place I could race them against all the others, so, what's their deal? > Mark N said: > >> This is all besides the point anyway, as there isn't going to be any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Just following your lead Dude..(kinda' suks, huh?) No, you're not. It totally obvious that RRW is taking every shot they can at Suzuki and Honda these dabeys, because they are the leaders of the breakaway movement. That assumedly is cause Ulrich is doing everything he can to stop that from happening. Exactly what he does want to see isn't entirely clear, but he really hasn't taken any shots at DMG from the beginning, except on the racing in the rain safety issue (and he'd lose all credibility if he hadn't), so the assumption is that he's been in their camp all along. What we don't know is if he cares if the factories show at all, or if he just don't want them showing up elsewhere. Anyway, since we know what he's doing, it's just too easy to link his disengenuous posts (and stupid, too), they don't provide evidence of anything. > > There's no question that he's going to do anything that he > > can to bury an alternative series, he's told me he thinks that's the > > worst possible outcome. > > Umm, it would be. Why? You don't seems to see much value in having the factories around, and allowing them any input into the running of the series is detrimental. You clearly believe that any series effectively run by or for the factories will always be small-time. So why does it matter that they have their own series, how is that going to hurt racing? Or rather, how is that going to hurt DMG, since you consider racing and DMG to be synonymous... > > Of course he's already declared that his team > > will be running in DSB next year, and he hasn't exactly declared that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kawasaki looks to be in and very likely Yamaha too So because Kawasaki publishes an ad that lists all the series they're paying '09 contingencies for and it includes the "AMA US Superbike Championship" (will that even continue to exist?), they're in? Kawasaki hasn't taken an official position on where they'll be racing next year, nor have any of the Japanese OEMs, as I understand it, but Kawasaki has said they want to race the other OEMs and they want to race SBs. No surprise that they'd put this out there, even though it's meaningless, and perhaps it's because it's meaningless - DMG has not yet determined what their contingency requirements will be for participants, I'm pretty sure. What they are telling racers is that pay notable contingencies in a bunch of series. As for Yamaha, they've said pretty much nothing to this point, so to assume either way is foundationless. > and the only > disaster I see looming is the MIC thing, but I doubt it was ever > intended to fly in the first place, it was injected into this deal to > confound and confuse and nothing more, Is that actually supposed to mean something? The OEMs got together and said, "Hey, let's float this deal about another series fronted by MIC, just to confound and confuse!"?? > but that's been all a couple of > OEM's have done too, confound and confuse.. And that? > > Anyway, Kawi announcing AMA contingencies next year hardly means much, > > that whole progam as required by DMG hasn't been sorted out yet, I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nah, it wasn't much of an announcement, well, only a little over $900 > grand anyway!.. And if they don't homologate their bikes and pay the required contingencies, they don't have to pay anything anyway! > Tell you what Mark, answer this, why are certain OEM's so dead set > against ASB, are they afraid to race heads-up on a level field with > independent teams? Don't waste my time with your particular brand of stupidity... What's their big reason for not getting involved? If > I were making sportbikes I'd sure like a place I could race them > against all the others, so, what's their deal One would think that even you could figure that out by now. But apparently not, so try these on for size: 1) Edmondson comes out of the box challenging the OEMs, and saying their job isn't to sell motorcycles. In particular they went after Suzuki from the start, suggesting their success is ruining racing. 2) They dump all of the existing classes and replace them on the schedule with a mixed bike class that is poorly conceptualized, is restricted by the dyno and scale, and that class appears to not favor Japanese motorcycles. They also include their MOTO-ST class, which obviously is biased against Japanese participation. 3) Their basic rules allow them to make changes at any time to reestablish competitive balance. In other words, they will penalize success, which must have made the factories wonder why they would bother to try to win there. The rules also make it clear that it's going to be a spec series, limiting the developmental opportunities in racing there. 4) They allow SB back in, but with onerous participation requirements and no purse to attract non-factory teams, and state it has only a two- year life expectancy from the start. It's clear that DMG has no use for SB. 5) They immediately change that to a dyno-capped SS-type class as soon as Yamaha voices any objection at all to DMG's SB (Literbike) concept as too expensive. 6) That class stays, after a conversion to FIM SStock-spec, no matter what is done with the SB class, showing that DMG will try to bleed off participation from any SB class. 7) DMG makes it clear that they don't want to play second-fiddle at the world championship rounds, which further limits the promotional value of racing in their series. 8) No matter what they say, it's obvious that DSB will always be treated as the feature class in their series. 9) According to Doylie, DMG has been going after Suzuki all year long in tech, further verifying that DMG has no respect for, or perhaps no place for, the Japanese factories. 10) The construction of the classes and Ducati's statements of support serve to verify that they are cooperating with European factories and value their participation, just as they did in MOTO-ST, quite the opposite of the Japanese. How's that for a start? >> Mark N said: >>>> This is all besides the point anyway, as there isn't going to be any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, you're not. Sure I was, the only difference is I won't trash them next week like you always do.. > It totally obvious that RRW is taking every shot they > can at Suzuki and Honda these dabeys, because they are the leaders of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > disengenuous posts (and stupid, too), they don't provide evidence of > anything. Sorta' like back when you were calling DMG racist's and rednecks? >>> There's no question that he's going to do anything that he >>> can to bury an alternative series, he's told me he thinks that's the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rather, how is that going to hurt DMG, since you consider racing and > DMG to be synonymous... Obviously you know as little about math as you do bike racing, so, I'll help you out. 4 OEM teams at 2 riders apiece equals 8, throw in one from Jordan(even though he won't be there) and you get 9, you call that big-time? Anyway, spinning as you must, I said OEM's have a place here, just not one dictating terms.. >>> Of course he's already declared that his team >>> will be running in DSB next year, and he hasn't exactly declared that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > As for Yamaha, they've said pretty much nothing to this point, so to > assume either way is foundationless. Dude, your the guy with no foundation, not me.. http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34120 >> and the only >> disaster I see looming is the MIC thing, but I doubt it was ever [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > said, "Hey, let's float this deal about another series fronted by MIC, > just to confound and confuse!"?? That's all Honda and 'Zuki had done up till today, now it looks like if they can't control it they want to it destroyed. Great guys all, though I wonder how long either Blank, or Harris are gonna' be around.. http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=33607 >> but that's been all a couple of >> OEM's have done too, confound and confuse.. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And if they don't homologate their bikes and pay the required > contingencies, they don't have to pay anything anyway! Heheheh... >> Tell you what Mark, answer this, why are certain OEM's so dead set >> against ASB, are they afraid to race heads-up on a level field with >> independent teams? > > Don't waste my time with your particular brand of stupidity... You can't answer a direct question? Oh, that's right, you just start with the name calling instead.. > What's their big reason for not getting involved? If >> I were making sportbikes I'd sure like a place I could race them [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > How's that for a start? According to Doyle? Are you totally out of your mind? I start a long day in about 4 hours, or I'd oblige your nonsense, maybe some other time... > Mark N said: > >> Just following your lead Dude... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sure I was, the only difference is I won't trash them next week like > you always do.. Right, because you're pretty sure Johnny U won't end his vendetta against the OEMs and USSB and his blatant support for DMG any time soon. Me, I have been questioning him directly all summer, and have gotten some frank, honest answers, and also so highly questionable rationale. > > Anyway, since we know what he's doing, it's just too easy to link his > > disengenuous posts (and stupid, too), they don't provide evidence of > > anything. > > Sorta' like back when you were calling DMG racist's and rednecks? More likely back when you said I called DMG racists and rednecks. Me, I never called them racists, but I did say that part of their target audience, the same one that they have captured with NASCAR, has what I think are racists elements. But maybe that's a too-complex notion for you to grasp... > > Why? You don't seems to see much value in having the factories around, > > and allowing them any input into the running of the series is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from Jordan(even though he won't be there) and you get 9, you call that > big-time? Uh, Tom, the question was about why competing series would be the worst possible scenario, not whether or not the AMA SB class qualifies as "big time" according to your personal definition. > Anyway, spinning as you must, I said OEM's have a place here, just not > one dictating terms.. Really? Haven't you been the "Oh, well, c'ya" guy? So what's their place, staying quiet, not enhancing their bike sales and paying much of the racing bills? Sounds quite plausible... > >> Tell you what Mark, answer this, why are certain OEM's so dead set > >> against ASB, are they afraid to race heads-up on a level field with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You can't answer a direct question? Oh, that's right, you just start > with the name calling instead.. Okay, you want a direct answer? Why would they be afraid of racing independent teams "heads-up"? How many times have the factory or factory-contracted teams lost SSport races to non-factory teams in the last decade? Zero? Do you think any non-factory team has the financial resources, the technical resources, the rider resources to consistently challenge the factories straight up in any class? Because they haven't done it yet. Maybe if DMG penalizes factory teams for winning, which they are capable of, or favor larger twins in the rules construction (like allowing in the 1098R in ASB), that will happen, but then that's not "heads-up", is it? > > What's their big reason for not getting involved? If > >> I were making sportbikes I'd sure like a place I could race them [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > According to Doyle? Are you totally out of your mind? Yeah, of course Suzuki-employed Doyle must be a liar, but DMG-employed Syfan and Fraser are as pure as the driven snow. I do have to concede that you'd know a liar better than most around here, seeing one every morning when you look in the mirror... > I start a long day in about 4 hours, or I'd oblige your nonsense, maybe > some other time That's one way to deal with it, I guess. Btw, rained all day today on the way down, and doesn't sound much better the next couple... > > Mark N said: > Right, because you're pretty sure Johnny U won't end his vendetta > against the OEMs and USSB and his blatant support for DMG any time > soon. Ulrich and his magazine do to a degree rely on the good will of the OEMs - they want their bikes seen and favorably reviewed in as many magazines as possible. His certainly isn't seen at the same level as several of the more mainstream ones but I think RRW does have some cache. If the OEMs thought he had a vendetta against them, he likely wouldn't get bikes to review. RRW rarely has a shortage of bikes and news from the OEMS so I doubt they perceive him as having a vendetta against them. > > > Anyway, since we know what he's doing, it's just too easy to link his > > > disengenuous posts (and stupid, too), they don't provide evidence of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > think are racists elements. But maybe that's a too-complex notion for > you to grasp... Oy. Even if elements of the NASCAR fan base are redneck/racist/whatever, that doesn't mean that NASCAR is cultivating that aspect of things, even dog whistle style. Signaturetanx, Howard The bloody pubs are bloody dull The bloody clubs are bloody full Of bloody girls and bloody guys With bloody murder in their eyes remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? > > Right, because you're pretty sure Johnny U won't end his vendetta > > against the OEMs and USSB and his blatant support for DMG any time [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > he likely wouldn't get bikes to review. RRW rarely has a shortage of bikes and news > from the OEMS so I doubt they perceive him as having a vendetta against them. The vendetta, the result of Ulrich's failure to bring the two sides together and his perception that the factories "lied" to him (telling him they would race in DMG if they had a certain SB rules package, when in likely fact they'd already given up on DMG) is way too new to have any such impact. But where I think you see it is that they have declined to talk to his mag on several recent occasions, and here's an example of the same: "Although MIC boasts in its press release about “regularly working with national media,” every attempt I have ever made to speak to someone at MIC over the past few years has resulted in being transferred to a “media hotline” voicemail system. Only a small percentage of those calls were ever returned, none quicker than days later. And the same thing is happening today.During my 12-year career in motorcycle road racing I have had easy, direct communication with every top official with every racing organization (not to mention racers and race teams) I have ever covered. Apparently MIC/DTM/USSB has a different policy on working with the media." http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34129 That's RRW's Dave Swarts, and I would guess it's probably the same issue, RRW aren't operating as legitimate journalists on this issue, so why treat them as such? > > > > Anyway, since we know what he's doing, it's just too easy to link his > > > > disengenuous posts (and stupid, too), they don't provide evidence of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Oy. Even if elements of the NASCAR fan base are redneck/racist/whatever, that > doesn't mean that NASCAR is cultivating that aspect of things, even dog whistle style. Perhaps not, but reacting to racists by catering to their desires can be argued to be a problem, yes? If DMG drives the Japanese out of their series or institutes rules that are discriminatory toward their motorcycles or teams, to make the series more appealing to their target audience, how far is that from, say, opening private schools for those folks and banning asian students? I know it's not the same thing at all, but I still think it's dispicable behavior in any case. Yesterday I was driving down through rural Illinois and was following a pickup with these bumper stickers: an American flag, a confederate stars-and-bars flag (a bit of a contradiction, don't you think?), one that said something like "gun control means being able to hit your target", and a Harley sticker. My first thought was, "now there's the kind of guy DMG is after"... > > > Right, because you're pretty sure Johnny U won't end his vendetta > > > against the OEMs and USSB and his blatant support for DMG any time [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > issue, RRW aren't operating as legitimate journalists on this issue, > so why treat them as such? Mmm, how do we know that they aren't like that to everyone? I think you're jumping to conclusions on that issue as proof they believe that Ulrich has some vendetta against them. > > > More likely back when you said I called DMG racists and rednecks. Me, > > > I never called them racists, but I did say that part of their target [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > for those folks and banning asian students? I know it's not the same > thing at all, but I still think it's dispicable behavior in any case. No. Mostly because someone does something that racists might like doesn't mean it was done *to appeal to them*. Besides, I don't think they've intentionally done anything that might appeal to racists - I think there's been fuckups on both sides of this issue. we've been through this before and I'm not all that interested in rehashing it. Signaturetanx, Howard The bloody pubs are bloody dull The bloody clubs are bloody full Of bloody girls and bloody guys With bloody murder in their eyes remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? >>>> Right, because you're pretty sure Johnny U won't end his vendetta >>>> against the OEMs and USSB and his blatant support for DMG any time [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > to conclusions on that issue as proof they believe that Ulrich has some vendetta > against them. http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34272 "Roadracing World is an enemy publication." > >>>> Right, because you're pretty sure Johnny U won't end his vendetta > >>>> against the OEMs and USSB and his blatant support for DMG any time [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > "Roadracing World is an enemy publication." So MIC calling RRW "an enemy publication" is proof that RRW has a vendetta against the MIC? Okay... Seems to be a backwards way of looking at it to me. Signaturetanx, Howard I'll take the case! remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? > So MIC calling RRW "an enemy publication" is proof that RRW has a > vendetta against > the MIC? Okay... Seems to be a backwards way of looking at it to me. I dunno 'bout you, but I would think anyone that was serious about starting a series would be out making friends, not enemies.. >>>>>> Right, because you're pretty sure Johnny U won't end his vendetta >>>>>> against the OEMs and USSB and his blatant support for DMG any time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>> rarely has a shortage of bikes and news from the OEMS so I doubt they >>>>> perceive him as having a vendetta against them. >>>> That's RRW's Dave Swarts, and I would guess it's probably the same >>>> issue, RRW aren't operating as legitimate journalists on this issue, >>>> so why treat them as such? >>> Mmm, how do we know that they aren't like that to everyone? I think >>> you're jumping to conclusions on that issue as proof they believe that >>> Ulrich has some vendetta against them. >> http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34272 >> >> "Roadracing World is an enemy publication." > > So MIC calling RRW "an enemy publication" is proof that RRW has a vendetta against > the MIC? "Proof"? No, but pretty good evidence, I think - why would MIC think RRW is "an enemy publication" if they didn't feel RRW was treating them unfairly or siding with DMG? Okay... Seems to be a backwards way of looking at it to me. I don't see how you possibly figure that. I would think anyone who has been following the DMG story, has been reading RRW online, and has any powers of perception at all would see how hard they have turned against the OEMs (particularly Suzuki and Honda) and MIC, criticizing them at almost every possible turn. Part of the latest was the published email exchange between Ulrich and MIC, and this is what JU wrote in that exchange: > How am I? How about, incredulous? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Call David Swarts at my office, I'll be flying tommorrow. http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34271 Early in in this process I found it odd that RRW was saying next to nothing about the DMG series developments, at a time when other publications were heavily questioning what they were doing and everyone was talking about it, and I wrote to question them about that. Part of John's response was this: "Second, it's hard to comment before the final, detailed rules are known, and we're still waiting on the 1000cc class rules. I don't like to take a position on a maybe or a guess or a rumor." And talking to him later (he was apparently irritated enough by my email to call me over it) he reiterated that in his opinion it was too early to make any material comments about what DMG was doing because "we haven't even seen a rulebook yet" (sound familiar?). Yet he's seemed to take some pretty strong positions on what MIC has been doing (or not doing), and is very active in commenting on the notion of a series attempting to compete with the AMA/DMG - at a point where they've presented considerably fewer details that what DMG had back in May, when Ulrich felt it was still premature to comment in any meaningful way on that proposed series. Completely inconsistent. Based on reading what has been published in their website and magazine and what JU has said in various personal communications, I have no question that he has always been in favor of the DMG takeover, thinking France was the guy to make racing right in this country after years of mismanagement by the AMA. When they got off to a horrible start with it, which he readily admits, his publication refused to critique that, maintaining almost total silence instead. The only time RRW has been critical of DMG at all was over the "racing in the rain" thing at certain tracks. And then after being directly involved in the effort to bring the OEMs and DMG together for months, he swung heavily against the OEMs in his publication, apparently the result of what he describes as lies over what they wanted from DMG and their reaction when they got it. Since then he's hardly stopped in his steady flow of posts condemning the OEMs and MIC. I think ultimately what will answer the question is whether or not he is racing Suzukis next year, after decades of doing so, and not if his mag continues to receive bikes to test. I can't imagine Suzuki feels all that great about the recent editorial slant at his publication, and it certainly doesn't seem that he's all that happy with them. But if this ends well I suppose all parties involved might bury the hatchet. Maybe. > >>>>>> Right, because you're pretty sure Johnny U won't end his vendetta > >>>>>> against the OEMs and USSB and his blatant support for DMG any time [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > is "an enemy publication" if they didn't feel RRW was treating them > unfairly or siding with DMG? It looks like the MIC has a vendetta against RRW to me, based on that comment. > > Okay... Seems to be a backwards way of looking at it to me. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the OEMs (particularly Suzuki and Honda) and MIC, criticizing them at > almost every possible turn. Maybe Ulrich is reporting what he sees and he sees that the MIC bunch are behaving in a way that he thinks is counterproductive (see the article [1] he had up where DMG were talking about settling the rules to be the same as WSB, with "local variance" - that indicated they were trying to work with the MIC but they rebuffed the offer) > Part of the latest was the published email > exchange between Ulrich and MIC, and this is what JU wrote in that exchange: Yeah, I read that already (a link would have sufficed) but I see his tone being one of someone who is getting tired of public relations happy talk bullshit, i.e. evasive answers. > Early in in this process I found it odd that RRW was saying next to > nothing about the DMG series developments, at a time when other [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Since then he's hardly stopped in his steady flow of posts condemning > the OEMs and MIC. Obviously, we can only speculate on ulrich's motivations for taking the MIC to task - I'd speculate that he saw that they tried to muscle DMG into something after they'd offered to make the rules more universal (again, see the article in the footnote) and saw them trying to make racing in the US be more beneficial to their select teams, to the detriment of the rest of what constitutes the field. I'd say that your sentence above - "...apparently the result of what he describes as lies over what they wanted from DMG and their reaction when they got it" - sums it up. He doesn't like being bullshit and that's what he was getting. The MIC said they were forced into trying to make a seperate organization but that doesn't appear to be true. > I think ultimately what will answer the question is whether or not he is > racing Suzukis next year, after decades of doing so, and not if his mag > continues to receive bikes to test. I can't imagine Suzuki feels all > that great about the recent editorial slant at his publication, and it > certainly doesn't seem that he's all that happy with them. But if this > ends well I suppose all parties involved might bury the hatchet. Maybe. Let's hope they do. [1] http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=33607 Signaturetanx, Howard I'll take the case! remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? >>>> http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34272 >>>> "Roadracing World is an enemy publication." >>> So MIC calling RRW "an enemy publication" is proof that RRW has a >>> vendetta against the MIC? >> "Proof"? No, but pretty good evidence, I think - why would MIC think RRW >> is "an enemy publication" if they didn't feel RRW was treating them >> unfairly or siding with DMG? > > It looks like the MIC has a vendetta against RRW to me, based on that comment. Huh? How so? If party A recognizes and acknowledges that party B is exhibiting hostility toward them and nothing more, that means party A is pursuing a vendetta against party B? That makes no sense at all, Howard. >>> Okay... Seems to be a backwards way of looking at it to me. >> I don't see how you possibly figure that. I would think anyone who has >> been following the DMG story, has been reading RRW online, and has any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe Ulrich is reporting what he sees and he sees that the MIC bunch are behaving > in a way that he thinks is counterproductive Oh, there's no question about that, he's made it very clear that he thinks having competing series is a horrible outcome to this mess. But as a journalist that doesn't mean his job is to attack the second series and attempt to weaken their position, thereby weakening the factories' position in their fight with DMG over what racing should be in this country. AS a journalist he should just be reporting on what is happening, and also editorializing on what he thinks is good and what he thinks is bad. But he's done neither here - initially his rag reported the bare minimum on the developing DMG series, when there were a lot of very controversial aspects to that series and they way DMG was going about establishing it, and then since the break in negotiations he's broken completely from that journalistic approach, attacking the MIC series and the factories whenever he could and also boosting DMG in comparison. > (see the article [1] he had up where DMG > were talking about settling the rules to be the same as WSB, with "local variance" - > that indicated they were trying to work with the MIC but they rebuffed the offer) I think you have to read that very carefully. Here is what RRW said in that post: "Edmondson said that he came to the meeting with the proposal to run World Superbike rules made by the FIM, because Blank and American Suzuki's Mel Harris had demanded that rules be made by a third party, not DMG. Edmondson says he committed to running the premier Factory Superbike class under FIM World Superbike rules for the duration." "In an interview with superbikeplanet.com's Dean Adams and posted today, Blank objects to the "local variance" concept even though it was offered in reaction to his rejection of the World Superbike rules he admits (in the interview) that he originally asked for." Now here's what Soup actually posted: "Q Wasn't the Factory Superbike proposal part of Honda's request of DMG? A full-on , no-holds-barred, no spec tire, no spec fuel series? A Yes. We asked for an FIM sanctioned WSB or WSB-derivative series. Q Isn't that what DMG delivered? A Not exactly. DMG delivered a WSB derivative rules package but inserted "local variances authority" within it. Q What does that mean? A I don't know. But I don't think it offers the stability and impartiality that we at Honda can depend on nor that which our race fans seek. It doesn't mean FIM rules. It means "kind of FIM rules". Further, we have a fundamental church and state issue with promoters having rules making authority." Now nowhere in that does it say Blank or Harris just asked for WSB rules, they were asking for a real SB class and they didn't want DMG having full control over the rules. The latter was clearly established as a major concern by the comments Harris made regarding his four-legged stool. DMG's response was to offer WSB rules but apparently with the ability to alter those as they deemed necessary ("local variance"). My impression is that the real issue here isn't necessarily about the SB rules package itself but who controls them and what it takes to amend them. Blank goes on to say, "Our dream is to bring U.S. Superbike, BSB, JSB and WSB rules together under one banner so that we can be part of a truly global series. We want to elevate U.S. Superbike to an international level. I want to see us compete head to head against the the best in the world, not just to lose our best to those series. I think if we can operate under the FIM banner and Internationalize our racing, we could achieve that. I think we deserve that. After all, wasn't Superbike born here?" That strikes me as more of a conceptual statement, a condemnation of DMG for going in a completely different direction than racing is worldwide in many respects, and the desire to have a connection with the FIM, which DMG didn't and doesn't yet. >> Part of the latest was the published email >> exchange between Ulrich and MIC, and this is what JU wrote in that exchange: > > Yeah, I read that already (a link would have sufficed) but I see his tone being > one of someone who is getting tired of public relations happy talk bullshit, i.e. > evasive answers. But you have to look at it in the context of the whole picture. Everyone knows there is little real substance to the MIC series today, it's really only been on the table for a sort time. But Ulrich demands things there he never demanded of DMG, which was already a racing organization, and even months after the Daytona announcement. He even excused his lack of comment on them based on the fact that they hadn't put together a rulebook yet, which is a massive, T3-style dodge - why wasn't he criticizing them for not having accomplished more? He told me in an email last month, "This whole controversy started off badly. That's on Edmondson et. al.; as I told him at the time, I couldn't have written a better script for how to screw everything up." But where did that ever appear in his publications? >> Based on reading what has been published in their website and magazine >> and what JU has said in various personal communications, I have no [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > doesn't like being bullshit and that's what he was getting. The MIC said they were > forced into trying to make a seperate organization but that doesn't appear to be true. But that doesn't explain his overall reporting of this matter since last March when the DMG takeover occurred. What I have a problem with is the issue he has in wearing so many hats - magazine publisher, AMA board member, AMA team owner, general racing industry insider - and the manner in which he chose to balance that in the context of his reporting on this matter. What I've seen is a journalistic bias against criticizing DMG early on, assumedly because he was hoping that they'd be successful in converting the series from the mess it was under the AMA to something akin to a mini-NASCAR. But as a journalist I don't think that's really his prerogative. After he got personally involved in the process his multi-hat problem got worse, and he continued not to report much of anything, at one point saying to me, "And no, I'm not going to blow up the last chance of keeping road racing from CART/IRL by posting it up." But then came, "The Big Lie", and on that he told me, "Yeah, I asked Mel Harris and Ray Blank what they needed to stay in the series. They told me, World Superbike rules, made by the FIM. So I went and got DMG to agree to that, and it was not easy. The problem now is, when I went back to Harris and Blank to arrange the meeting to hash out the final details with Edmondson, suddenly what they said they wanted, and what they got, was not good enough." So, having become personally invested in the process, he'd been hung out to dry (as he probably perceives it), and probably took that personally (the one thing anyone needs to know about Ulrich is that he takes things VERY personally). So to what extent has that impacted his reporting on the matter since then? The other question that has to be asked is concerning how the ownership of his race team impacts his reporting here. Looking at the DMG concept, it would seem to play right into the hands of teams like his, as much as it's been hostile to the factories and their teams. So to what extend has the promise of better days for his team impacted his reporting? His was really the first team to openly commit to racing in DSB next year, I think, and look at how Pergram's opinions and comments have been shaped by what he must also view as his golden opportunity. No question that it's a complicated problem for him to deal with, but from the standpoint of his role as a journalist and one who takes much pride in his integrity, I think he's failed miserably to deliver on that aspect. Hopefully as a go-between matchmaker he ultimately will be proven to have been more successful. {bullshit snip} What unadulterated horseshit! JU is pissed, (as many others are too) that Honda and Suzuki used him and his good faith offices to further confuse and confound the negotiation process. Why? Because they feel, or felt (just like you do too) so much "love" for racing in this country that they would rather see it destroyed instead of letting anyone who knows what they're doing assume command, as they would much rather have inept fools, or more of their paid-off lackeys in charge.. This whole deal is about control and really nothing more, not direction, not classes, not rules, nothing. Those two OEM's feel they own racing here because they surreptitiously controlled the old Proracing to promote sales since before it was conceived. They fear DMG because they know full well with them in charge they will never be able to manipulate racing like they did before, end of story, take that to the bank, stick it up your azz, or whatever it is you do... You need a job writing for McCain you spin so much bullshit. Oh wait, nah... > >>>> http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34272 > >>>> "Roadracing World is an enemy publication." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > exhibiting hostility toward them and nothing more, that means party A is > pursuing a vendetta against party B? That makes no sense at all, Howard. It depends on how you look at it. I see it this way: Party A (MIC) is exhibiting hostility toward party B (RRW), as evidenced by the "enemy publication" comment. > > Maybe Ulrich is reporting what he sees and he sees that the MIC bunch > > are behaving in a way that he thinks is counterproductive [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > series and the factories whenever he could and also boosting DMG in > comparison. It's supposition on my part, but I rather suspect that John Ulrich talks about this stuff with his staff and they are all pretty well aware of the issues brought up in the article that talked about Honda and its repeated desire to seperate racing series for their own benefit, and the less than optimal outcomes of that. > > (see the article [1] he had up where DMG were talking about settling > > the rules to be the same as WSB, with "local variance" - that indicated [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > direction than racing is worldwide in many respects, and the desire to > have a connection with the FIM, which DMG didn't and doesn't yet. "[...] a condemnation of DMG for going in a completely different direction than racing is worldwide in many respects [...]" Based on the stuff I read and linked to, that does not appear to be what DMG was proposing. The "local variance" part could be simply not having Pirellis as a spec tire. We don't know, but MIC, Blank and you have condemned them without knowing what it actually constitutes. > But that doesn't explain his overall reporting of this matter since last > March when the DMG takeover occurred. What I have a problem with is the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > VERY personally). So to what extent has that impacted his reporting on > the matter since then? I don't argue that John Ulrich is involved in this in a lot of different ways and all of those ways do pull him in various directions. But it looks to me that he did what he did in being a go-between between Harris and Blank and DMG as a good faith thing. So I completely understand why he'd get irked when they sh.t on him after that effort. However, the fact that they did that strikes me as being evidence that they were never on the up and up with him and that they considered him to be not working for their interests. Then the way they lied about what had happened coldn't have helped. Signaturetanx, Howard I'll take the case! remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? >>> It looks like the MIC has a vendetta against RRW to me, based on that >>> comment. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It depends on how you look at it. I see it this way: Party A (MIC) is exhibiting > hostility toward party B (RRW), as evidenced by the "enemy publication" comment. A comment made in a closed meeting, not for external consumption, totally out of context. And such a comment is hardly pursuing a vendetta, it may not be anything more than an acknowledgment that RRW is pursuing a vendetta against MIC. >>> (see the article [1] he had up where DMG were talking about settling >>> the rules to be the same as WSB, with "local variance" - that indicated >>> they were trying to work with the MIC but they rebuffed the offer) >> I think you have to read that very carefully. Here is what RRW said in >> that post: <snip> >> Now nowhere in that does it say Blank or Harris just asked for WSB >> rules, they were asking for a real SB class and they didn't want DMG [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > simply not having Pirellis as a spec tire. We don't know, but MIC, Blank and you have > condemned them without knowing what it actually constitutes. I'm talking about the series as a whole, the DSB and LSB (ASB?) definitions, the SS-level, dyno and scale-defined spec concept. And my understanding of the "local variance" thing was that it was included in the rules, which would allow DMG to change the rules at will. The RRW report already stated that Pirelli spec tires had been made an exception, so it wasn't that, nor I would guess anything made specific, which is consistent with Blank's reaction. And where have I condemned DMG on that here? Like Honda and Suzuki, I don't trust DMG at all, based on how they have handled things to date and the repeated mis-truths that Edmondson has made his stock-in-trade. Maybe the reason no one knows what it means is because DMG wants it that way? >> But that doesn't explain his overall reporting of this matter since last >> March when the DMG takeover occurred. What I have a problem with is the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > were never on the up and up with him and that they considered him to be not working > for their interests. Well, if that is true, it may have been for good reasons. Ulrich is known as an in-your-face guy, and an advocate for privateer racers and other non-factory teams across the country. Blank knows him well from the AMA committee work, and Harris knows him because he runs a Suzuki-supported team. Whether or not they could trust him to treat them fairly in his efforts is a judgment made on experience. And why Ulrich thought a series split was so bad is completely unknown - it may be because he knew the loss of OEM sponsorship, the factory teams and their riders would initially cost the series and the promoters to an extent they couldn't afford, but otherwise he lined up with DMG on their role in the longer run. Hell, his concern may have been over losing Suzuki support for his team in the DMG series. > Then the way they lied about what had happened couldn't have > helped. And your representation of it that way - that it was a lie without question - betrays your bias. We don't know that they lied at all, that's just Ulrich's representation of what happened. What I see is the factories being very concerned about the total control of this series by DMG and their objection to that. I see Blank asking for SB rules that are defined by the FIM, wanting a third party to act as a governor on DMG's will, and the same by Harris. Since the AMA ceded that role to DMG and there is no one else who obviously could step in to do that, it kind of leaves the FIM. My guess is that what the OEMs really wanted originally were the '09 rules, and over time that changed because the playing field changed (loss of time, the lack of support from Yamaha and Ducati, maybe the BSB change to WSB rules), but having someone else who had a say in the rules was a critical component. So did they lie? I think Ulrich's representation of the matter is too simplistic and lacks logic, so lacks credibility. And the one-sided nature of RRW's reporting over the last month or so makes me question it even more. > >>> It looks like the MIC has a vendetta against RRW to me, based on that > >>> comment. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > vendetta, it may not be anything more than an acknowledgment that RRW is > pursuing a vendetta against MIC. Hmm, "A comment made in a closed meeting, not for external consumption, totally out of context" isn't ample enough proof that the MIC are pursuing a vendetta against RRW, but that same "comment made in a closed meeting, not for external consumption, totally out of context" *is* ample enough proof that RRW is pursuing a vendetta against the MIC. Hello? > > Then the way they lied about what had happened couldn't have helped. > > And your representation of it that way - that it was a lie without > question - betrays your bias. Well, they indicated they were working with Ulrich - he apparently took it to be in good faith. Then they torpedoed the whole thing and claimed that they never were able to work with anyone on settling the rules. Based on what's been published, that isn't true. Ergo, it's a "lie." Signaturetanx, Howard I'll take the case! remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? >>>>> It looks like the MIC has a vendetta against RRW to me, based on that >>>>> comment. >> > >>>> Huh? How so? If party A recognizes and acknowledges that party B is >>>> exhibiting hostility toward them and nothing more, that means party A is >>>> pursuing a vendetta against party B? That makes no sense at all, Howard. >>> It depends on how you look at it. I see it this way: Party A (MIC) is >>> exhibiting hostility toward party B (RRW), as evidenced by the "enemy >>> publication" comment. >> A comment made in a closed meeting, not for external consumption, >> totally out of context. And such a comment is hardly pursuing a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > consumption, totally out of context" *is* ample enough proof that RRW is pursuing a > vendetta against the MIC. Hello? Hello yourself, Howard. First, I don't really agree with use of the word "proof" in this context; proof is a smoking gun and you're not likely to ever see one of those here. I prefer "evidence", and the propensity of evidence decides this matter. Second, when I linked that comment from RRW is was in response to this by you: "I think you're jumping to conclusions on that issue as proof they believe that Ulrich has some vendetta against them." Now the operative part of that is "they believe" and, yes, I think this comment in their meeting is evidence that they believe Ulrich's rag is conducting a vendetta against them, and pretty compelling evidence. That you think it's evidence that they are conducting a vendetta against RRW still confounds me - a statement in a closed meeting th |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message