 |
 | 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 / November 2008AMA Pro Racing Rules
AMA Pro Racing finally releases the rules package and it's pretty much where you might have expected it to end up if you'd guessed in Feb. So all that heartache and messing around was for nothing. Superbike: Very close to WSB but:- - Without the ongoing adjustments to Twins - With 2008 style BSB restrictions on cranks/conrods/pistons; All stock. - With modified stock forks rather than free replacements - With stock gearbox - With Dunlop spec tyres - Same cam limits. stock lift/free duration. So. A bit cheaper due to the gearbox and forks. A bit more expensive if stock cranks/rods/pistons means more rebuilds to make sure they survive. Performance should be close to the same as now and close to WSB/BSB Daytona Sportbike. - The expected mix of Aprilia RSV, BMW HP2 Sport, Buell 1125R, Ducati 848, Honda CBR600RR, Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R, KTM Super Duke, Suzuki GSX-R600, Triumph Daytona 675, Yamaha YZF-R6. - Maybe I missed it but I can't see any reference to horsepower checking. With cams, valves, head all stock with no modifications allowed it's hard to see where any tuning is going come from apart from a pipe and power commander. Which probably means a single machine will dominate. Supersports. - Daytona Sportbike with an age limit on the rider. Other wise I can't see any difference And then there's Moto-GT. With a horsepower limit and very little said about what you can change in the engine. And of course the fly in the ointment. "Aftermarket parts and equipment must be approved by AMA Pro Racing and must appear on the Eligible Equipment List before being used in competition. Each company with approved equipment must post bonus awards for those products." Which apparently applies to all classes. With the relatively free spec in Superbike, you have to wonder how the hell that will work. --- Hard to find anything about homologation on Superbike. It's just different enough from BSB/WSB and with Dunlop tyres there's not much hope of wild cards at the WSB round(s) in North America. Or any cross over and tuning info from other national teams or the factories. I don't know. Still looks like a mess to me. And its still not clear who's actually going to go racing. Will Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki/Kawasaki field teams in Superbike? How about DSB?  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 Universe Is Created By The Participation Of Its Participants > AMA Pro Racing finally releases the rules package and it's pretty much > where you might have expected it to end up if you'd guessed in Feb. So > all that heartache and messing around was for nothing. Personalities and posturing aside, I believe the economy, or lack of it, drove the sides together, albeit grudgingly.. > Superbike: Very close to WSB but:- > - Without the ongoing adjustments to Twins [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > who's actually going to go racing. Will Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki/Kawasaki > field teams in Superbike? How about DSB? I saw no mention of the Red Bull thing either. I'm told these rules are "in transit" and there will be a major push to for a universal set for all national series through the FIM and if this deal is any indicator that should be very "interesting," to say the least... > AMA Pro Racing finally releases the rules package and it's pretty much > where you might have expected it to end up if you'd guessed in Feb. Hah! Not me... > So > all that heartache and messing around was for nothing. Well, it certainly wasn't the birth agony of a beautiful baby... > Superbike: Very close to WSB but:- > - Without the ongoing adjustments to Twins [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > a pipe and power commander. Which probably means a single machine will > dominate. Weight is the assumption - instead of creating a hard horsepower/weight ratio it will be more fluid, DMG jiggering minimum weights based on what they guess will be the power differences, and then adjusting from there based on their competitiveness caveat. So the Japanese OEMs can build tothe rules on power, but won't necessarily reap the benefits of lighter weight, unlike SS today. The initial weight minimum numbers should be interesting. > Supersports. > - Daytona Sportbike with an age limit on the rider. Other wise I can't > see any difference I haven't worked through all the details, but surely SS allows fewer mods? > And then there's Moto-GT. With a horsepower limit and very little said > about what you can change in the engine. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > apparently applies to all classes. With the relatively free spec in > Superbike, you have to wonder how the hell that will work. If you read the specifics published so far, they don't apply the EEL to too many parts in ASB, and the final rules will have to be specific on that. For instance, fasteners and the like can't be EEL items, but fork kits and swingarms are specifically cited, and shocks and exhausts not. But DSB has many more EEL cites than in the ASB rules. > Hard to find anything about homologation on Superbike. It's just > different enough from BSB/WSB and with Dunlop tyres there's not much > hope of wild cards at the WSB round(s) in North America. Or any cross > over and tuning info from other national teams or the factories. > > I don't know. Still looks like a mess to me. Well, it IS a mess. It makes the true premier class much less clear than in the old AMA (where I really don't think there was any question at all), it doesn't solve the "Daytona problem", it muddies the water even more with regard to class differences/distinctions (try explaining this to a neophyte), and it bears no resemblance to what they run elsewhere. > And its still not clear > who's actually going to go racing. Will Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki/Kawasaki > field teams in Superbike? How about DSB? My guess is that the factories will cut back notably, because of what a protracted mess this has been and because of the economy. They will continue to sponsor races, which was the big issue at the end, but teams might not amount to much. To the extent they do race it'll be in ASB for sure, and DSB possibly - they fought awfully hard for some sort of literbike SB class and a dyno-less 600 class, and these are that, sort of. But they also got 600s shoved into three classes, so maybe they'll just let sheer numbers do the trick. What I think we'll see this year is something that looks like a cross between a true professional championship and a national club series, and a lot of people just trying to find their way. I can't see SS working, not without a big sponsor like Red Bull helping fund the riders. Not sure who will be very interested in MOTO-GT, given that it's only part-time. And in ASB and DSB the Japanese factories will be watching DMG very closely, to see if the obvious tendency to screw the Japanese in the process almost to the end will remain in the way they flex their power regarding juggling the rules to enhance competitiveness. > AMA Pro Racing finally releases the rules package and it's pretty much > where you might have expected it to end up if you'd guessed in Feb. So all > that heartache and messing around was for nothing. > > Superbike: Very close to WSB but:- > - Without the ongoing adjustments to Twins From what I read Twins would have 15lb lower minimum weight. I don't think that makes up for the displacement difference in SBK, but it is something. SignatureAndrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo Andrew <yogig.nospamm.no.spam.nooo@hotmail.com> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:04:10 >> AMA Pro Racing finally releases the rules package and it's pretty >>much where you might have expected it to end up if you'd guessed in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I don't think that makes up for the displacement difference in SBK, but >it is something. I think it's 15lb *more* weight for twins. But WSB has a complicated adjustment process based on average points over groups of 3 races. If the twins get too fast they add weight and then restrict intakes. If they're not fast enough, they lose weight. In WSB they didn't have to use it. In BSB, they added 5 kilos once. So why doesn't the US use kilos for their race regs? 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 Products And Colours May Vary > I think it's 15lb *more* weight for twins. But WSB has a complicated > adjustment process based on average points over groups of 3 races. If > the twins get too fast they add weight and then restrict intakes. If > they're not fast enough, they lose weight. > > In WSB they didn't have to use it. They just didn't use it, don't you mean? Twins, representing 20% of the manufacturers on the grid (Ducati), so far have taken 42.3% of the wins (Yamaha is 2nd at 26.9%), 42.3% of the podiums (Yamaha is 2nd with 29.5%), and have scored 34.1% of the manufacturer's points (Yamaha is 2nd with 30.2%, with the #2 and #3 riders in points). > In BSB, they added 5 kilos once. And didn't they back off what the rules dictated, or what they originally imposed, because Ducati threatened to pull all their machines due to critical "safety" concerns? I mean, can you imagine Suzuki threatening to pull their machines after VIR on safety grounds because they hadn't tested their motors with the particular cranks DMG was mandating, and then DMG backing off? Please. Those are Euro series run for Euros. > So why doesn't the US use kilos for their race regs? Uh, because that would've messed up DMG's nice little 3-to-1 ratio on pounds to horsepower? Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:54:22 >> I think it's 15lb *more* weight for twins. But WSB has a complicated >>adjustment process based on average points over groups of 3 races. If [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >29.5%), and have scored 34.1% of the manufacturer's points (Yamaha is >2nd with 30.2%, with the #2 and #3 riders in points). Well WSB set a process in place, everyone agreed to it and then they followed it. And over the season, really the only guy to push the Ducati up to the podium has been Bayliss. And all the fours were right behind him. It's not like Bayliss has just cleared off into the lead and we've had some great racing. >> In BSB, they added 5 kilos once. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >because they hadn't tested their motors with the particular cranks DMG >was mandating, and then DMG backing off? It did all get a bit silly. Add 10 kilos, refuse to accept it, modify it to 5 kilos, do nothing because the bike with fuel was already 5 kilos over the lower limit. Lots of ways to win races in the back room as well as out on the track. But then a sudden jump in a developed race bike of 10 kilos is a lot. The NW200 team have filled the front axle with lead, put the starter motor back in and replaced all the titanium nuts and bolts and that was still not enough. 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 Products And Colours May Vary > Mark N >>> I think it's 15lb *more* weight for twins. But WSB has a complicated [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > him. It's not like Bayliss has just cleared off into the lead and we've > had some great racing. Specifically, here is that procedure: The minimum weights will be increased or decreased in steps of 3 kg according to the following procedure: 1. By taking the race points of the riders of the best two 1000 cc 4 cylinders and best two 1200 cc 2 cylinders in each race an average will be calculated after every event, the ‘event average’. If there is only one finisher from one of the configurations, the ‘event average’ will be calculated from the first rider of each configuration in each race. No ‘event average’ points will be calculated if one of the configurations has no finishers. The ‘event average’ will then be calculated, based on the results of the other race from the same event. If neither race has any finishers from one of the configurations, the event will not be considered. 2. ‘Wet’ races (as declared by the Race Director) are not taken in account for the calculation of an ‘event average’. 3. After 3 events, the average value of the ‘event averages’ of each configuration will be calculated. The score of the 1000 cc 4 cylinders and the score of the 1200 cc 2 cylinders will be compared as follows: • Should the average value of the ‘event averages’ over 3 events favour the 1200 cc 2 cylinders by more than 5 points, and if a rider of a machine with this configuration is leading the riders’ Superbike World Championship standings at that time, then the minimum weight of all 1200 cc 2 cylinders will be increased by 3 kg. The upper limit is 171 kg. • Should average value of the ‘event averages’ over 3 events favour the 1000 cc 4 cylinders by more than 5 points, and if a rider of a machine with this configuration is leading the riders’ Superbike World Championship standings at that time, then the minimum weight of all 1200 cc 2 cylinders will be reduced by 3 kg. The lower limit is 162 kg. If the minimum weight is not updated, then the results of three more events will be considered, and a new average value of the ‘event averages’ will be calculated over six events and so on, over multiples of three events, until the points gap of the average value of the ‘event averages’ from the last minimum weight update is higher than 5. So basically they compare Ducati to all four of the Japanese factories combined, as if the number of factories and bikes are evenly split between twins and fours, which of course they are not. If Ducatis take 50% of the top positions and each of the Japanese factories only 12.5% each, nothing is done to Ducati. But if, say, Ducati takes 40% of them, Yamaha takes 25%, Honda 15%, Suzuki 15% and Kawasaki 5%, then Ducati actually gets to lose weight (assuming their guy isn't leading the championship). Which is pretty close to what's happened, except that Bayliss was leading the championship. So imagine if there was only one Japanese four in the series and four European OEMs running twins - do you think there would be a chance in hell that the rules would have been written the same way? I can't even imagine it happening. This is a rule written by Europeans for Europeans, same as always, no question. The only question will be, will it stay the same with BMW and Aprilia aligned with the Japanese? Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:16:51 >So basically they compare Ducati to all four of the Japanese factories >combined, as if the number of factories and bikes are evenly split [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >championship). Which is pretty close to what's happened, except that >Bayliss was leading the championship. I think that's right but I'm not entirely sure it's a problem. As you've said it's all twins against all fours. There's nothing about splitting it by factory. So if Twins (Ducati) take 50% of the points and Fours (from any factory) take 50% of the points nothing changes. But there are more fours on the grid and with Yamaha, Suzuki and Honda all taking podiums or wins, I suppose that favours a single Ducati getting more and more competitive as weight is removed. But there's also the factor of the points difference so even if a single Ducati regularly finished first with a four always in 2nd and 3rd, the points difference never gets quite enough to trigger any change. >So imagine if there was only one Japanese four in the series and four >European OEMs running twins - do you think there would be a chance in >hell that the rules would have been written the same way? I can't even >imagine it happening. This is a rule written by Europeans for >Europeans, same as always, no question. Yeah, whatever. >The only question will be, will it stay the same with BMW and Aprilia >aligned with the Japanese? I don't know what's happening next year and if they'll keep the same handicapping scheme. For all that, there's been no change triggered by this rule, and there's a good case to be made that Ducati are pretty even with the other factories. And that the best, most consistent rider won the championship. Haga got very close and it was actually stupid mistakes early in the season that put him out of the running. I suspect that the different overall performance between the Ducati and Yamaha has actually been about tyre preservation though the race and not outright speed. The Ducati doesn't seem to have either a top speed or an acceleration advantage. It doesn't even have a nimbleness advantage. But perhaps it preserves its rear tyre better. but even that has been confused by Pirelli still not getting quality control right. There's been races where Corser especially and occasionally Haga have tyres that just plain didn't work in one race when the same compound was fine in the other race. Whatever. Next year's WSB promises to be great and perhaps the best ever. (Don't we always say that!). Shakey Byrne, Johnny Rea, Spies, Haga on the Ducati, Biaggi on the Aprilia, Corser on the BMW, Checa's 2nd year, Stiggy Motorsports moving to SBK. And WSS will be good too. 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 Serve Immediately > Mark N >> So basically they compare Ducati to all four of the Japanese factories [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > said it's all twins against all fours. There's nothing about splitting > it by factory. Which is exactly the problem. There are five manufacturers competing in this series, and it's considered equal if one of them doesn't have results notably better than the other four combined, and it's considered unfair to that one manufacturer if they have results notably worse than the other four combined, even if they have better results than all of them individually. > So if Twins (Ducati) take 50% of the points and Fours > (from any factory) take 50% of the points nothing changes. But there are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > first with a four always in 2nd and 3rd, the points difference never > gets quite enough to trigger any change. Right, and that's where it has paid off for Ducati to have Fabrizio in their second seat, a guy who hasn't won a race, has been on the box only five times, and is 8th in points. Now imagine of Corser was in that seat. So even with Biaggi ahead of him in points and Xaus and Lanzi having won, Ducati still doesn't have the top two points to be penalized when up against Haga, Corser, Neukirchner, Checa on the top fours. Under this rule it pays to have a lousy 2nd rider, which may be part of why Fab is back next year. >> So imagine if there was only one Japanese four in the series and four >> European OEMs running twins - do you think there would be a chance in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yeah, whatever. This dismissal from the guy who has never had a negative word to utter about Ducati or the rules applying to them in WSB and BSB... >> The only question will be, will it stay the same with BMW and Aprilia >> aligned with the Japanese? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > where Corser especially and occasionally Haga have tyres that just plain > didn't work in one race when the same compound was fine in the other race. Well, you can spin it up any way you want. One could also make the case that Bayliss was over the hill and only won because of his machine advantage, and how good could a guy be when he couldn't even finish a race under no pressure with the championship on the line? And what if Haga wins next year, will that be just because he's then the new best rider? No matter, what really matters here is that they have set up a rule to juggle weight on the Ducati, at the insistence of the Japanese, but that rule is fundamentally unfair, because it equates the results of that one manufacturer against the other four combined. Basically the rule is constructed to balance the results of twins and fours at the same level, which means the rules are designed to assist Ducati in getting the same top results as the other four combined. That's bullshit. > Whatever. Next year's WSB promises to be great and perhaps the best > ever. (Don't we always say that!). I haven't, not since the end of 2000 when Yamaha pulled out... > Shakey Byrne, Johnny Rea, Spies, Haga > on the Ducati, Biaggi on the Aprilia, Corser on the BMW, Checa's 2nd > year, Stiggy Motorsports moving to SBK. And WSS will be good too. WSB will be more interesting, new manufacturers, and it's big that they finally have a few younger guys coming in. But if Ducati continues to dominate and it's the geriatrics at the front again, how different can it be? Anyway, this started with AMA SB, and the twins/fours rule there. Assuming the same bikes that are eligible for WSB are eligible for ASB, and I think you have to, then the 1098R with its kit parts should be at a significant advantage. One assumes balance is to be maintained by DMG penalizing too much success, but will they really do that? DMG is still settling their truce with the Japanese OEMs (the exception perhaps being no-stones Yamaha) after protracted warfare, while Ducati long ago came out fully behind DMG and their Euro-friendly class structure. So does DMG do "the Nips" any favors? I'll believe it when is see it. DMG wasn't willing to adopt WSB rules, but they are likely to have adopted their mentality... Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:47:32 >Which is exactly the problem. There are five manufacturers competing in >this series, and it's considered equal if one of them doesn't have >results notably better than the other four combined, and it's >considered unfair to that one manufacturer if they have results >notably worse than the other four combined, even if they have better >results than all of them individually. But there has to be something. Either you accept that Ducati are part of the entertainment or you don't. If they are part of the game, then you have to find some equivalence rule. If you just say 1000cc, same tuning, same weight, Ducati will never win. If you say 1000-4, 1200-2, equal weight, equal tuning, Ducati can build a bike that will dominate if they can get the right rider. Despite the championships, Ducati have been competitive but not dominant in actual races in BSB and WSB. Which suggests the initial weight difference is about right. So let's say you then build in some mid-year adjustment. If its completely arbitrary from the organisers then somebody is going to get upset. If you build a rule it's always going to be slightly wrong. >This dismissal from the guy who has never had a negative word to utter >about Ducati or the rules applying to them in WSB and BSB... In reaction to the same old, same old, repeated negatives about Europeans, kids and midgets. It's so f**ing boring to hear the same old sarcastic slurs over and over and over again. >Well, you can spin it up any way you want. One could also make the case >that Bayliss was over the hill and only won because of his machine >advantage, and how good could a guy be when he couldn't even finish a >race under no pressure with the championship on the line? Jeez, did you actually watch that race? Most riders would have settled for the points and waited for another chance to seal the championship. Bayliss rode his heart out to try and win it right then. That's why we love him. >And what if Haga wins next year, will that be just because he's then >the new best rider? I think Haga will come second next year. I just don't know who to. >WSB will be more interesting, new manufacturers, and it's big that they >finally have a few younger guys coming in. But if Ducati continues to >dominate and it's the geriatrics at the front again, how different can >it be? I think you wrote that wrong. I think you meant to say, "But if Spies gets his butt handed to him" >Anyway, this started with AMA SB, and the twins/fours rule there. >Assuming the same bikes that are eligible for WSB are eligible for ASB, >and I think you have to, then the 1098R with its kit parts should be at >a significant advantage. This all depends on exactly how the homologation works. If it's 3000, California-approved sales, then the 1098R won't be eligible. And given the tuning limits I don't think a race bike built on the 1098s will be competitive. If it's a 50 49-state sales, Ducati will build a 1098RR and it'll win everything. >DMG wasn't willing to adopt WSB rules So many mixed messages. One minute its US only rules, then its WSB rules, the next its building common rules for all national championships with the FIM. DMG could have just adopted FIM rules. But all the arguments scuppered that whether it was a good idea or not. And it probably is too late now to do that for 2009. It wasn't too late in Sept. It isn't actually too late now. But somebody (Yamaha?) won't agree to it. IMHO all the national championships should just adopt the FIM rules and delegate homologation to them with the one exception of being able to choose tyre supplier or allow tyres to be free. 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 Serve Immediately > Mark N >> Which is exactly the problem. There are five manufacturers competing [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the organisers then somebody is going to get upset. If you build a rule > it's always going to be slightly wrong. Yes, you have to have to balance twins and fours in the rules somehow, but this rule is fundamentally flawed. Because it does exactly what you say, it purports to balance twins and fours as if there were equal numbers of both, instead of recognizing that the participating machines are heavily weighted toward fours, so the results should be as well if there is a balance. FGSport historically has shown no ability and/or desire to manage this issue in the past, and this rule is a laughable example of the same. If one assumes there was balance this year, and I don't, then they ought to look at what the results were and balance off that foundation. If twins won 42% of the races and took 42% of the podiums and the fours-twins manufacturers ratio was 4-to-1, and next year it'll be 6-to-1 (assuming that addition of BMW and Aprilia at a top level), then the centerpoint ought to be 28% of wins and podiums for twins next year, right? So if Ducati wins more than 35% of the time or has more than 35% of the podiums, then they should be penalized. If they win less than 21% of the time or take fewer than 21% of the podiums, then they should be assisted. But of course even that is giving them a big advantage, because those results are built on them having such a great rider this year (according to you), and the assumption built in is that they'd have that again next year. Me, I'd argue the percentages should be lower than this. >> This dismissal from the guy who has never had a negative word to utter >> about Ducati or the rules applying to them in WSB and BSB... > > In reaction to the same old, same old, repeated negatives about > Europeans, kids and midgets. It's so f**ing boring to hear the same old > sarcastic slurs over and over and over again. Oh, c'mon, Julian, that's sh.t. What was your position when WSB was reluctant to balance weight between twins and fours in 94-95, when it had become obvious that they had an advantage? What was your position during 00-03 when it was more than obvious that there was no balance between twins and fours at all and the Japanese were losing all interest in participating in this series? What was your position on Ducatis when in 99-03 they won five straight BSB championships with five different riders? What has your position been on Ducati being allowed under the rules to build low-run homologation race specials year after year? "It's not Ducati's fault that they manage to hire the best riders" "It's not Ducati's fault that they want to win more and so try harder" "The rules allow the Japanese to build race specials as well, so why don't they just do it?" "It's not Ducati's fault if they're simply superior to the Japanese" Etc. >> Well, you can spin it up any way you want. One could also make the >> case that Bayliss was over the hill and only won because of his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Bayliss rode his heart out to try and win it right then. That's why we > love him. Yes, I watched that race, and I saw him make a bonehead move when the championship was all but in the bag. And I don't suppose his being an ex-BSB champion and a career Ducati guy has anything to do with "your" love... >> And what if Haga wins next year, will that be just because he's then >> the new best rider? > > I think Haga will come second next year. I just don't know who to. Well, there really is only one rider in the series who clearly belongs in MotoGP instead... >> WSB will be more interesting, new manufacturers, and it's big that >> they finally have a few younger guys coming in. But if Ducati [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think you wrote that wrong. I think you meant to say, "But if Spies > gets his butt handed to him" Ah, the Spies watch has begun already, eh? How long will it take for him to be declared a total failure by Europe? Christmas? Or will you wait until American Independence Day, as you did with future world champion Hayden? >> Anyway, this started with AMA SB, and the twins/fours rule there. >> Assuming the same bikes that are eligible for WSB are eligible for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > competitive. If it's a 50 49-state sales, Ducati will build a 1098RR and > it'll win everything. Again, I would be quite surprised if DMG outlaws whatever is eligible for WSB. What that will be is still unknown, right? Duacti built the 1098R 1000-bike threshold, but will they build that to the 3000-bike minimum? In any case, don't look for DMG to do a typical homologation limit, so far they seem to just list the bikes that are eligible without a standard for the OEMs to target. So they might well allow the 2008 1098R in even though the class didn't exist in '08. >> DMG wasn't willing to adopt WSB rules > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sept. It isn't actually too late now. But somebody (Yamaha?) won't agree > to it. It's DMG that won't agree to it, and all this business of the FIM attempts at standardization is just a red herring, that has nothing to do with why the ASB rules are what they are - it's totally obvious from this process that DMG doesn't give a sh.t what they do in racing in other places. The FIM is basically toothless today, and the best foundation for this particular notion was what BSB did this year, but they've gone the other way now. DMG wants to eliminate the factory advantage (or maybe eliminate the factories entirely, at least the Japanese ones) and make racing cheaper for the non-factory teams, so dumbing down the bikes and limiting "unobtainium" has been their goal. This is the result of a compromise on that. > IMHO all the national championships should just adopt the FIM rules and > delegate homologation to them with the one exception of being able to > choose tyre supplier or allow tyres to be free. Yeah, yeah, it's so f**king boring to hear the same old line again and again... Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:34:42 >> So many mixed messages. One minute its US only rules, then its WSB >>rules, the next its building common rules for all national [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >this process that DMG doesn't give a sh.t what they do in racing in >other places. Strange. I'm sure I remember one of the DMG press releases from the most recent round that talked about DMG working with the FIM to come up with a consistent set of rules for all the national SBK championships. Or did I imagine that? 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 Serve Immediately > Mark N > >It's DMG that won't agree to it, and all this business of the FIM [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a consistent set of rules for all the national SBK championships. Or did > I imagine that? Take everything DMG has said in the last eight moths, think about how much of it was true, and get back to me with what you think is strange... > Take everything DMG has said in the last eight moths, think about how > much of it was true, and get back to me with what you think is > strange... Heh, Take EVERYTHING you've ever said that was going to happen and get back to us when it does, until then, continue to eat sh.t... > Mark N said: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Heh, Take EVERYTHING you've ever said that was going to happen and get > back to us when it does, until then, continue to eat sh.t... Oh, Tom. Remember this? MN: But, hey, at least we can feel secure in the knowledge that America's premier racing series is now in the hands of people with such a deep understanding of motorcycle racing and a clear vision of how to pull it out of its current doldrums and thrust it toward a brilliant future... WH: I'mmm detecting a weeeee bit of cynicism here... :-) T3: Heh, I'm thinkin' more sour grapes than cynicism, but it should offer some hope given that particular "someone" has never even been remotely close to being correct about anything AMA related in the past.. That was back in March, and you should really go back and take a look at all the stuff you were saying, all the stuff that was totally off the mark. It's really quite hilarious. But just to show that you're not the only one that I'm picking on, that you're not the only one who seems to have gotten it wrong, I came across this one. Although I'm not sure if he got it wrong back then or now... JB: I guess I'll get accused of bias again, but I think BSB might just have got the rules right this year. We should be able to tell after half the season. - WSB chassis - Stock crank, rods, pistons - WSS600 style top end, cams with stock lift but open duration. - Stock valve sizes - Stock intake - Unlimited head work - Free gearbox - 1000cc-4, 1200cc-2 Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:26:11 >JB: I guess I'll get accused of bias again, but I think BSB might just >have got the rules right this year. We should be able to tell after [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >- Free gearbox >- 1000cc-4, 1200cc-2 Yup, I was a bit wrong. So? So bite me. Oh. Wait. You did. >We should be able to tell after half the season. Oh. Wait. That's exactly what 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 Serve Immediately > Mark N >> JB: I guess I'll get accused of bias again, but I think BSB might just [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Oh. Wait. That's exactly what happened. Getting lost in the details again, Julian? The point is that you were touting BSB's leadership in the dumb-down movement seven months ago, and now that they have reversed field you're touting everyone running WSB rules. My overall reaction back then? Looks about right: "As always, everything is "just right" in BSB. Then again, you wouldn't be our Julian unless you're as pro-BSB as our Tom is pro-NASCAR..." > T3: Heh, I'm thinkin' more sour grapes than cynicism, but it should > offer some hope given that particular "someone" has never even been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at all the stuff you were saying, all the stuff that was totally off > the mark. It's really quite hilarious. As much as I detest giving stage to an elitist racist loser, I will, from time to time expose your incessant and over the top drivel for what it is, total bullshit. You're the goggle guy, not me, so, if you actually check I think you'll find that I said the economy will ultimately dictate how far, as well as how fast France and Co. takes M/C racing to their vision and if you haven't noticed, your boi Bush has pretty much f.cked us all in ways we haven't even realized yet, but make no mistake, the Daytona Boy's haven't altered what they feel is the way forward.. Oh, and by the way, don't think I'm in lockstep with that vision, as that would be another error on your part... Wed. mid-night(45 degrees!) in Kowsimmee Florida, the Bill and B-Rock show drew 50k! Change is comin', soon too!!! > Mark N said: =>> That was back in March, and you should really go back and take a look >> at all the stuff you were saying, all the stuff that was totally off >> the mark. It's really quite hilarious. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > racing to their vision and if you haven't noticed, your boi Bush has > pretty much f.cked us all in ways we haven't even realized yet, Takes no genius to make the call that the economy will impact racing, and it seems like for you that was an excuse you had teed up to use once your boys started to stumble badly, which was pretty much right out of the gate... > but make > no mistake, the Daytona Boy's haven't altered what they feel is the way > forward.. Which is? f.ck it all up in every way? > Oh, and by the way, don't think I'm in lockstep with that vision, as > that would be another error on your part... It's funny how you say that, yet you never really come out and say what you don't like about what they're doing or how they're going about it. My guess is that's because you see how badly they've handled things to date, so need to distance yourself some as to avoid losing any shreds of remaining credibility you have around here, but you don't want to be or can't be too specific because you're such a True Believer that you can't see anything those clowns do in anything but in the rosiest hues... No matter, here are a few of your comments in those early days: "The reasons for delaying the "coming out party" were not only to link the announcement with the 200, as well as get the OEM's onboard... Racing's commin' home folks and if just half of what I've heard actually happens, in a very big way too..." "DMG, huh? Hmm, it's got a nice ring to it, especially the D part..." "SB returns to the 200? You betcha'! Are we gonna' change the rules? Ayup, if we see fit..." "On another note, I was talking to an old commentator friend about his thoughts on whether the OEM's will fall in line behind the new guys. He told me 4 car manufacturers had given NASCAR $100 million for a series where they don't actually race a single product they make and can't see where bike OEM's are gonna bitch about how an actual production series is run. In fact, he said he heard all but one have been onboard for some time." [No comment] "Or, (one can only hope) maybe now they've got a tech guy that actually knew what a stock crank looked like and, as they say, the game was up." [I guess he only knew what Honda stock cranks looked like, eh?] "Really, but just like RRW, or for that matter CN, it's what they do.(generate site hits) I dunno about you, but I take that kind of knee jerk journalism with a grain of salt." [Funny how your opinions of RRW and CN diverged as the summer dragged on] "No crew chief in their right mind starts out explicitly trying to cheat" [I guess Doyle was the exception to the rule, eh?] "I don't like monopoly's, hell, who does? But anyone who really loves 'Merkan 2 wheeled racing as a sport knows it needs to grow to survive and there's little doubt these are the best folks ever to make that happen and given what we've had to endure for sooo long, why anyone would lament their arrival is beyond me." [Hope the last eight months have taught you something...] "I'm down with de-professionalizing SSport and forcing the focus on SB, I might even go for a Red-Bull type cup for the kids, but watch out in SB, those races could easily end-up longer, perhaps even doubling in length at the expense of the dual race weekend we've come to expect at many venues, not to mention being the only race on Sunday... Be that as it may, beyond maybe adding/deleting some venues next year and of course, writing a much stocker rule book, I'd be a little surprised if there were (m)any earth shattering changes, at least in the very near future." [Well, you missed the boat on all that, but it's not like it mattered regarding your opinion of DMG] "A fairly candid interview with Edmondson in this weeks online version of CN, check it out if you have the chance and while overall it might raise a few questions, he certainly addressed a few critical one's. Such as, he likes a lot in the WSB rule book and thinks it might be "arrogant" for us to be a lot different, or telling Ray Blank (US Honda head honcho) the OEM train that use to run AMA has left the station and it's "a new era" and for sure I'm down bigtime with that last part, but I'm wondering what he meant when asked what exactly the SB class will be. "It could be 1000's, it could be a new program, or they could be companion pieces." Okay, I get the first two, but companion pieces? WTF?" [WTF was right, and now we all know what a liar Edmondson was in that interview. Well, at least I do...] Anyway, ins and outs.. In, clearly defined classes.. Out, OEM dominance.. Out, classes.. (plural? Hmm..) Out, more OEM dominance.. In, dictators.. Out, pre-detremined winners..(Yosh, paying attention?) In, readily available equipment.. Out, pretty much any and everything else they don't like.. In, teams and sponsors, riders too.. Oh yeah, Hope is in too.. [Guess it depends on what one was hoping for. And I thought you didn't like dictators?] "Motorcycle racing in this country suffered/endured many years of AMA lunacy/idiocy for it to be considered anything else but a sideshow, now we have some folks that have a proven record promoting such events and you bitch at them before they even get started?" [Okay, can we bitch now??] > Wed. mid-night(45 degrees!) in Kowsimmee Florida, the Bill and B-Rock > show drew 50k! > > Change is comin', soon too!!! I sure as hell hope it works out better than last time you said that... T3: > "A fairly candid interview with Edmondson in this weeks online version > of CN, check it out if you have the chance and while overall it might [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be. "It could be 1000's, it could be a new program, or they could be > companion pieces." Okay, I get the first two, but companion pieces? WTF?" > [WTF was right, and now we all know what a liar Edmondson was in that > interview. Well, at least I do...] So after a period of silence, CN reports some interesting stuff this week, namely that Suzuki is hardly on board with DMG on the new rules, won't make any decision on whether or not they'll race at all next year until after they know all the details (due on 11/20), and they already don't like a lot of stuff. Stuff like the increased cost of spec tires and spec fuel, the switch from 16.5" tires/wheels to 17", fuel tank size that may not be enough for race length, reliability of motors built to ASB spec, racing 600s on both bankings at Daytona. Abrams in his column goes on to flame DMG on a number of fronts, as usual, and suggests the MIC thing is live and well and now likely targeting 2010. He also flogs the notion of the bopsi twins (Edmondson and Dingman) heading to Japan to meet with the OEMs just as the rules are supposed to be announced. Suzuki's Harris was asked how he thought that would go over and he said, "Not very well because, for my company, I was pushed very hard to make the MIC happen, because they were looking at this DMG thing as a debacle." Anyway, just when things seemed to have largely been settled it appears that this was a false hope, and that once again the Clowns of DMG are continuing to screw things up. And for what purpose is unclear, it's not like there is some meaningful constituency among all the people impacted by their folly who are backing their play, certainly not the tracks/promoters or fans. So don't buy those tickets quite yet, folks... Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:58:46 >Stuff like the increased cost of spec tires and spec fuel, the switch >from 16.5" tires/wheels to 17", Missed that one. So Dunlop go back a generation on tyres? > fuel tank size that may not be enough for race length, 24 Litres not enough? But weren't the races being shortened a little as well? > reliability of motors built to ASB spec Ah. So Suzuki don't think their motors will survive the rev limit without aftermarket rods and pistons. And maybe altered cranks. ;) 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 EPA Pollution Preventer > Mark N > >Stuff like the increased cost of spec tires and spec fuel, the switch > >from 16.5" tires/wheels to 17", > > Missed that one. So Dunlop go back a generation on tyres? Who knows what Dunlop will do. I suspect the decision was based on what wheel size is stock on the machines and that there will be at least some privateers who won't be able to afford aftermarket wheels. Harris' issue, I believe, was that they and others have all these 16.5" wheels that are now useless, and they have to invest in new wheels. > > fuel tank size that may not be enough for race length, > > 24 Litres not enough? But weren't the races being shortened a little as > well? Yes, they are at 50 miles now, used to be 100k. Not sure what the issue is here, assumption is that it has something to do with motor spec and the fuel to be used. Who knows. > > reliability of motors built to ASB spec > > Ah. So Suzuki don't think their motors will survive the rev limit > without aftermarket rods and pistons. And maybe altered cranks. ;) The article says this one is a bit disingenuous, because the AMA '09 rules called for stock bottom end. But those rules were adopted prior to the '08 BSB experience and that mnay have had an impact. The other potential issue of concern could be what they anticipate they'd have to do to beat a theoretical 1098R twin under these rules, again foreshadowed by the BSB experience. My impression is that the particulars are less important than the overall message, which is that the factories aren't necessarily on board with everything now, there are open items that DMG won't even detail until 2-3 weeks before the scheduled Daytona tire test, and DMG wasn't being honest when they suggested all the factories were fully on board a couple weeks ago. They seem satisfied with the basic outline of ASB and DSB, but there are particular items they view as needing further discussion and others that haven't even been detailed yet. So Edmondson's recent announcments are a bit like Kissinger's "peace is at hand" announcement right before the '72 presidential election - at best premature, at worst a flat out lie... > T3: >> "A fairly candid interview with Edmondson in this weeks online version [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > impacted by their folly who are backing their play, certainly not the > tracks/promoters or fans. So don't buy those tickets quite yet, folks... As much as I'd like to see all the factories involved I'm about 5 miles past weary on this whole deal. The what happened, or who did what time is past and yeah, it's unfortunate feeling's got hurt, or whatever it was that really went on, but you know what? sh.t happens and it pretty much always accompanies change and I don't care if some OEM hack that doesn't deserve, either through ability, or impartiality a column in CN claims that one side won, which, by the way, I think not only revealing and foolish, but divisive as well. I was hoping we'd be looking forward to March right now instead of what's obviously nothing more than petty bickering about something that is going to happen with, or without Suzuki, or any other OEM that decides not to be involved. Enough already, either race, or don't... > Mark N said: > > So after a period of silence, CN reports some interesting stuff this [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > is going to happen with, or without Suzuki, or any other OEM that > decides not to be involved. Enough already, either race, or don't Let's review... Fact: DMG has unilaterally acted to fundamentally alter the class and rules structure in the AMA series. Assumption: Their goal was to have a feature class that worked for Daytona, and which was more stock and cheaper and would result in closer racing. Maybe. Fact: The OEMs reacted badly and immediately to what DMG was doing with the class rules, although the levels of objection varied. Fact: DMG proceeded with an extended dance on the class definitions lasting all summer, and the intentions beyond that weren't at all clear. Assumption: Their overall intent was to f*ck with the Japanese OEMs, but the real reason for that isn't entirely clear. Fact: When the break between DMG and three of the Japanese OEMs took place in the fall, it was the objections of the tracks/promoters that came to the fore, making it clear that a full schedule wasn't going to happen without the OEMs and their stars and sponsorship dollars. What became very clear then was that DMG simply doesn't have the power to do just what they want, they have to listen to the tracks and OEMs. Fact: While they hardly conceded an entirely traditional class structure, the significant changes in the classes announced last month were clearly a concession by DMG to the OEMs and tracks. But that was not much more than an outline, and there are significant details that DMG continues to drag their feet on announcing. Some of those are of real concern to the OEMs. What is now clear to me is that the OEMs still aren't convinced on this whole deal, and that the tracks are only as convinced as the OEMs. If the OEMs were committed we'd be hearing contract announcements, and we are not. So DMG can go race at Daytona, that much is certain, but where they go after that is still up in the air, to some extent. You can continue to try to demonize and isolate the Japanese OEMs, but that doesn't quite comport to reality, does it? >> Mark N said: >>> So after a period of silence, CN reports some interesting stuff this [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > to some extent. You can continue to try to demonize and isolate the > Japanese OEMs, but that doesn't quite comport to reality, does it? I'm not trying to demonize anyone, all I'm saying is, enough is f.cking enough. Jeeze, they've demanded a bunch of different deals and then turned them down only to seek something else. Now they don't like shorter races, but need a larger fuel tank, then bitch about 16.5" wheels and more closer/cheaper to stock mods?? Sounds like he's pissin' in someone's boot and saying it's raining to me and I seriously doubt Proracing will view it much differently. If Harris, Blank, Vanderfunkinstien, or whothefukever doesn't/don't, or aren't going to race so be it, hell, given how the economy is f.cking up fast and picking up speed who could blame any factory for not racing next year? The business climate which will directly effect EVERYTHING is so uncertain that no matter who is in charge, or whatever rules we have racing will more than likely be substantially diminished in one way, or another, if not in all ways. However, I bet somebody will find a way to race next year and maybe those guys shouldn't overlook that... > I'm not trying to demonize anyone, all I'm saying is, enough is f.cking > enough. Jeeze, they've demanded a bunch of different deals and then [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > another, if not in all ways. However, I bet somebody will find a way to > race next year and maybe those guys shouldn't overlook that So you don't demonize anyone, and then proceed to rip the factories a new one, as always, your usual one-sided, anti-OEM, pro-DMG presentation. Tom, you ARE a piece of work... >> I'm not trying to demonize anyone, all I'm saying is, enough is f.cking >> enough. Jeeze, they've demanded a bunch of different deals and then [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > new one, as always, your usual one-sided, anti-OEM, pro-DMG > presentation. Tom, you ARE a piece of work... If that's how you need to read that, ok, but it was not, nor given what's happened of late, my intention to disparage anyone. This bickering is like arguing over the size of the volleyball court on the Titanic. Somebody better start thinking about bailing out the ship, either that, or shine it on and get in a lifeboat... > Mark N said: > >> I'm not trying to demonize anyone, all I'm saying is, enough is f.cking [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If that's how you need to read that, ok, but it was not, nor given > what's happened of late, my intention to disparage anyone. Oh please. You say, "all I'm saying is, enough is f.cking enough", with which I absolutely agree. But then you go on to say, "Jeeze, they've demanded a bunch of different deals and then turned them down only to seek something else. Now they don't like shorter races, but need a larger fuel tank, then bitch about 16.5" wheels and more closer/ cheaper to stock mods?? Sounds like he's pissin' in someone's boot and saying it's raining to me and I seriously doubt Proracing will view it much differently. If Harris, Blank, Vanderfunkinstien, or whothefukever doesn't/don't, or aren't going to race so be it". That's all totally one-sided condemnation of the OEM position, and where have you said anything negative about what DMG is and has been doing? > This > bickering is like arguing over the size of the volleyball court on the > Titanic. Somebody better start thinking about bailing out the ship, > either that, or shine it on and get in a lifeboat... Again that's true, but where is you critism of DMG for their part in this? You crapped on MIC for not having rules and classes for their theoretical series a few months ago, but now that we have to sit yet another month for DMG to actually fill out their picture you say nothing. The point Harris seemed to be making was that the rules proposed don't necessarily make racing cheaper, at least at the sharp end of the stick. His guys are telling him the spec tire and fuel structure will actually make those items more expensive overall, and having to buy new wheels at 17" is more expense, given that the current SB tires produced by Dunlop are 16.5s. And he also makes the point that what DMG has put out so far doesn't even confirm that the ASB tires will be slicks and not DOTs, just as an example of how much they don't know. And all this supposedly will be cleared up 2-3 weeks before the scheduled Daytona tire test, which leaves no time at all to negotiate further if there are unpleasant surprises. And given DMG's track record, what are the chances that there won't be any? Anyway, there is no question at all that if it was the old AMA operating exactly as DMG has done you'd be having a field day ripping them to shreds. But with France at the helm your position is that the factories should just accept whatever it is DMG proposes without complaint or bail and move on. I guess even a chronic liar with no credibility has a right to his opinion... I'll just toss this one in. http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2008/Nov/081104ar1.htm With Yamaha US buying equipment from the Yamaha WSBK team last season and Ben Spies, who has won some AMA Superbike races in his time, having ridden the Yamaha WSBK machine now, the natural question might be this: could that Yamaha win races in the US? Yamaha Superbike riders Eric Bostrom and Jason DiSalvo were winless in '08. "It's a very good motorcycle," Spies said emphatically about the 2008 ex-Haga R1 he rode. "I don't understand why it wasn't more competitive in the US." ---- So. Eric and Jason weren't good enough? Or the team weren't good enough to setup and race what they'd bought? Or What they got wasn't what they thought they'd got? Or they bought the base parts but then had to modify or re-modify the bits due to the rule differences? Or what? "Yamaha US buying equipment from the Yamaha WSBK team". Yet again, how is this sort of thing going to happen when the rules show considerable differences? Same for Honda. Ten Kate will sell you a race bike and if you're not competing directly with them, they'll sell you a replica. But will they sell you a bike to US rules? Note also, Suzuki and Yamaha have new bikes to develop for 2009. We don't know at the moment who's doing this work for Alstare and the two UK Suzuki teams. I'm guessing that the '09 bike Spies/Sykes have been riding is mostly built by Yamaha Italia and not Yamaha Japan. So where does that leave Suzuki-Yamaha US? If they can't simply get ready to go race bikes from Japan and they're still not sure what it is they're building to, why bother. Why not just take a rain check for a year. On the wheel size thing. John Laverty won the BSB privateers cup on a Superstock spec 1098R. For the first third of a year they were using 17" wheels on Pirelli European Superstock tyres. The team were good enough to get top 10 finishes. So what were the US Superstock 1000 Dunlops like? On Homologation. Guess what, the 2009 1098S is actually an 1198. Which means it's as good a platform to create a 1098RS as the 1098R was. So who's going to build the AMA Ducati team and can they get a good enough rider? 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 EPA Pollution Preventer > I'll just toss this one in. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > thought they'd got? Or they bought the base parts but then had to modify > or re-modify the bits due to the rule differences? Or what? I think you have to start with this - Yamaha stripped down their team and raced SSp only during 03-05, stepped up to homebuilt FX machines in '06 and homebuilt SBs in '07, then bought stuff from Yamaha Italia for '08. Wasn't their latest stuff, of course, even at the start of the year. The crew chiefs on the team are guys who wrenched on SSp bikes or were just mechanics most of their careers, DiSalvo never raced a SB before, and at least by the end of the year E-Boz was so unmotivated that he decided to go farming in So. America next year. So there are all kinds of possibilities. > "Yamaha US buying equipment from the Yamaha WSBK team". Yet again, how > is this sort of thing going to happen when the rules show considerable [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > race bikes from Japan and they're still not sure what it is they're > building to, why bother. Why not just take a rain check for a year. Well, there's the question. It seems part of DMG's motivation on rules is to stop the factories from simply importing a plug-and-play SB, which perhaps they saw as at least part of the issue with Yosh dominance. So now the rules are dumbed down and perhaps all of the OEMs will be in the same boat as everyone else, building their own machines. While I wouldn't yet predict it, it is quite possible that the OEMs will end up taking a pass on next year. If that happens, what happens to the rules package, does DMG stay with the new one that was so impacted by their need to compromise with the factories, or do they go back to what they proposed at the end of the summer? Can they afford to and have any hope that the factories will return instead of starting their own MIC-fronted series with world-type rules? > On the wheel size thing. John Laverty won the BSB privateers cup on a > Superstock spec 1098R. For the first third of a year they were using 17" > wheels on Pirelli European Superstock tyres. The team were good enough > to get top 10 finishes. So what were the US Superstock 1000 Dunlops like? Black and round. They apparently were good enough to post some decent lap times, but it's hard to tell, because I assume Dunlop used qualifiers in SSt (Pirelli was challenging them) and the top SSt machines running in SB likely did so with SB wheels and rubber. Not that it matters - Dunlop is the spec tire supplier for a SB series, so one would expect they'll develop SB tires, no matter what size. > On Homologation. Guess what, the 2009 1098S is actually an 1198. Which > means it's as good a platform to create a 1098RS as the 1098R was. Is that really true? There's no difference beyond displacement? > So > who's going to build the AMA Ducati team and can they get a good enough > rider? Don't know for sure what Ducati is planning, but my guess is they'll just give Pegram more backing and they'll likely be a second rider. At best; they may not support ASB at all - their guy was saying the factory wasn't going to support a full SB team for next year, but they would try to do something in ASB under the previous rules, which were pretty much SSt. One of the problems with the OEMs building their own stuff here, beyond lack of time and not knowing the complete rules package, is that they've already lost three heavyweight crew chiefs - Luddington and McGrath at Honda and Houseworth at Suzuki. So it's really getting to the point where you have to wonder if anyone can get things together in time for Daytona now. And if that is all intentional on the part of DMG, who seem to have been playing a sort of delaying game almost from the beginning... Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Sat, 8 Nov 2008 00:58:18 >> On Homologation. Guess what, the 2009 1098S is actually an 1198. >>Which means it's as good a platform to create a 1098RS as the 1098R >>was. > >Is that really true? There's no difference beyond displacement? Yes, in the sense that all the bits that are different are bits you'd throw away if you were building an SBK. Ducati won European Superstock and World Superbike this year. With the rules going to 3000 build for 2010, they need the main production road bike to have all the bits they will need for the race bikes and can't change within the rules. It's what they've been doing for decades now. Last year's RS is this year's R, is next year's S. >> So who's going to build the AMA Ducati team and can they get a good >>enough rider? > >Don't know for sure what Ducati is planning, but my guess is they'll >just give Pegram more backing and they'll likely be a second rider. John Hackett has been building fast Ducatis for years now. Michael Rutter is not exactly at the peak of his game. They managed to win a BSB race and finish 6th in the championship as first non-premier team. It can be done. The evolving AMA rules and messing about from the other manufacturers may be playing into a private Ducati team's hands. Isn't there going to be a US based Ducati team in WSB next year? Thinking about that whole 17" wheel thing and making it cheap for Privateers. That is bollocks isn't it? If you can't afford a few sets of aftermarket wheels, you really shouldn't be racing in the top Superbike class, no? And if you're buying several sets of aftermarket wheels, it makes little difference if they're 17" or 16.5". 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 EPA Pollution Preventer >Thinking about that whole 17" wheel thing and making it cheap for >Privateers. That is bollocks isn't it? Yes. >If you can't afford a few sets of >aftermarket wheels, you really shouldn't be racing in the top Superbike >class, no? And if you're buying several sets of aftermarket wheels, it >makes little difference if they're 17" or 16.5". Quite so. Christ, when I ran club level endurance in the UK I had four sets of wheels - as you say, if you have to buy extra sets of wheels, it doesn't matter what size they are. And to be even remotely serious you need a minimum of a set for wets, a set for inters, and two sets for slicks. There's plenty of club racers who have at least that amount. SignatureChamp > Mark N >> Is that really true? There's no difference beyond displacement? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > what they've been doing for decades now. Last year's RS is this year's > R, is next year's S. I thought there were also often differences in frames and injectors and stuff like that which you couldn't change. >>> So who's going to build the AMA Ducati team and can they get a good >>> enough rider? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > can be done. The evolving AMA rules and messing about from the other > manufacturers may be playing into a private Ducati team's hands. May be? I think that's been DMG intent from the beginning, to Europeanize (and Americanize) the machine side of the field. Or should I say Caucasianize? Their concept of DSB and even ASB played into the hands of twins over fours, capping horsepower but leaving torque free, and of course MOTO-ST didn't even allow fours. > Isn't there going to be a US based Ducati team in WSB next year? Lot of talk about Boulder, but that seemed like mostly gas to me, they didn't even have a team in the AMA and hadn't reserved Ducatis with the factory last thing I saw. But there was a lot of talk, and Zemke was the rider most often mentioned. > Thinking about that whole 17" wheel thing and making it cheap for > Privateers. That is bollocks isn't it? If you can't afford a few sets of > aftermarket wheels, you really shouldn't be racing in the top Superbike > class, no? And if you're buying several sets of aftermarket wheels, it > makes little difference if they're 17" or 16.5". I'm just speculating on the reason. It may be that DMG did it just because that was already what they'd mandated in their previous classes, where stock wheels were required as long as they fit the spec tires. It's not like these guys have shown that they really think this stuff through. My guess would be that Dunlop didn't make that choice, given where they were with SB tires, but who knows. But DMG definitely takes an anti-factory position on almost everything, which makes them pro-privateer by default, I guess, and they want a full grid I'm sure, so... Given the way that the spec tire thing is structured it's not like riders will be swapping out tires a lot in practice sessions, most of the time they'll only run one tire through a whole session, so there isn't some major budget threshold involved here. Who it really impacts is Dunlop, who have to come up with a spec tire at 17" that's ready to go for the tire test in early December. And what if the OEMs force a change in that? Would only happen if Dunlop wanted to go 16.5 as well, I imagine. >> Mark N said: >>>> I'm not trying to demonize anyone, all I'm saying is, enough is f.cking [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > all totally one-sided condemnation of the OEM position, and where have > you said anything negative about what DMG is and has been doing? Quit being a monumental schmuck and if you're going to quote don't selectively snip, 'kay? I mean, that's so Nusbaumian, oh wait!? I wrote, "If Harris, Blank, >>>> Vanderfunkinstien, or whothefukever doesn't/don't, or aren't going to >>>> race so be it, hell, given how the economy is f.cking up fast and >>>> picking up speed who could blame any factory for not racing next year?" That's a NO sided statement and a hard fact, it even offers an out if anyone so desires and TBH I wouldn't be surprised if some use it too.. Dude, I think it fairly safe to say everyone involved hasn't been on their best behavior, but if they're gonna race, fine, if not, that's cool too, but let's just get down to it instead of this anal bickering that may serve an individual's purpose, but does nothing to move the process forward.. Back in March when I said the economy, or lack of it will drive this deal I had no idea it would get as bad as it's fixin' to, but as uncertain as everything is people still need to plan and if there's an OEM, or two that have cold feet, or are unhappy, maybe they should take a walk, hang back, or however they want to spin it, but just do it and let the process move on.. >> This. >> bickering is like arguing over the size of the volleyball court on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > another month for DMG to actually fill out their picture you say > nothing. If the MIC wants to race, great, they should go for it. If Suz wants to race in AMA, fine, if not, or somewhere else, that's OK too. If you want to go sometime, or watch, cool, if not, oh well. That's how I'm dealing with this from now on, you do what you need to do, just do yourself a favor, back off the name calling, as all it really offers you is further isolation.. > The point Harris seemed to be making was that the rules proposed don't > necessarily make racing cheaper, at least at the sharp end of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > further if there are unpleasant surprises. And given DMG's track > record, what are the chances that there won't be any? Again, if they wanna be involved they need to get involved and by that I mean give a good faith statement that they'll be there next March, if not, all their whining over what is really nothing, well, means nothing.. > Anyway, there is no question at all that if it was the old AMA > operating exactly as DMG has done you'd be having a field day ripping > them to shreds. But with France at the helm your position is that the > factories should just accept whatever it is DMG proposes without > complaint or bail and move on. I guess even a chronic liar with no > credibility has a right to his opinion... Dude, this is how it works, when I was captive at the shop I found your repetitive verbose rants and propensity to call anyone that dared disagree with your myopic views names mildly amusing, but now days my time is mine and you're comin' off a little too creepy for comfort. Anyway, I don't have a computer in my face all day anymore, nor do I need to kill time. Consequently, if you want to discuss these issues I will share what little I may have when I find the time, if it's your usual name calling, or crazy blame assigning bullshit you'll have to "converse" with other's, though offhand I don't know who that would be. Anyway, be advised.. Oh, I almost forgot, remember the other day when you said something about thinking of moving to East Texas for a Sista', or something? Well, I guess that post got E-passed around and it seems like you surprised a few folks who've either had past dealings with you, or lurk the group, though probably not how you think. It was pretty funny too, but it wasn't so much the Texas thing, or an involvement with a minority, it was the chic, you see, for "some" reason they thought you were gay... ;-) Go Gators! > Mark N said: >>> If that's how you need to read that, ok, but it was not, nor given [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Quit being a monumental schmuck and if you're going to quote don't > selectively snip, 'kay? I mean, that's so Nusbaumian, oh wait!? Quoting seven or eight lines without any editing at all is selective? Well, okay... > I wrote, "If Harris, Blank, >>>>> Vanderfunkinstien, or whothefukever doesn't/don't, or aren't going to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's a NO sided statement and a hard fact, it even offers an out if > anyone so desires and TBH I wouldn't be surprised if some use it too.. That the factories have or will decide not to race because of the economy is NOT a hard fact, it's not a fact at all. It IS a possibility, however, as Harris points out in CN, and the reason it is that is mostly because the whole thing is so up in the air and no one's made any hard commitments, signed contracts, hired people, finalized budgets. And that's pretty much entirely on DMG's head, isn't it? > Dude, I think it fairly safe to say everyone involved hasn't been on > their best behavior, but if they're gonna race, fine, if not, that's > cool too, but let's just get down to it instead of this anal bickering > that may serve an individual's purpose, but does nothing to move the > process forward.. Another typical T3 platitude. The only thing that will move the process forward is this kind of thing, because DMG has established a track record of not moving at all unless they are faced with at least the possibility of critical partners in the thing bailing entirely. What's not clear is if the delays are actually DMG's tactic, trying to get the factories adequately committed based on an incomplete picture, thereby getting the tracks on board, and then changing things in the details when it's too late to do much of anything but bail out, if even that. > Back in March when I said the economy, or lack of it will drive this > deal I had no idea it would get as bad as it's fixin' to, but as > uncertain as everything is people still need to plan and if there's an > OEM, or two that have cold feet, or are unhappy, maybe they should take > a walk, hang back, or however they want to spin it, but just do it and > let the process move on.. Tom, the OEMs and the class rules they can live with ARE the process - if DMG didn't care about having the factories in the mix (which in the end may be largely because the tracks insist on that, but also because they need them to homologate and support their machines) this would have been over long ago and we'd be looking at a series made up of DSB and the dynos and scales, MOTO-ST and its twins, the Red Bull Rookies, probably Pirelli spec tires, more racing in southern bowls, and the only people really interested would be the participants themselves. And we'd be hearing more and more about a MIC-fronted series. >>> This. >>> bickering is like arguing over the size of the volleyball court on the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > favor, back off the name calling, as all it really offers you is further > isolation.. Further isolation? Name one person in this group who is in alignment with your radically pro-DMG view on this business. Because I haven't seen him. The only people who I have seen who are really behind DMG are people who stand to benefit significantly by them, the larger private teams and the smaller OEMs who think they can beat the Japanese OEMs under DMG's "leadership" - Ulrich and M4/EMGO, Pegram, Ducati, Buell, KTM and the like. And then there's Yamaha, who have been playing both sides, seem unwilling or unable to race real SBs and want a SS series, as usual, but even Jordan hasn't come out in support of DMG. The other supporting group, of which some of these guys might also be included, are the people who have blind faith in the "NASCAR Miracle", who simply believe these guys will start a flood of popularity and money. You know, kinda like the folks who always blindly believe that the republicans are the best stewards of our economy... >> The point Harris seemed to be making was that the rules proposed don't >> necessarily make racing cheaper, at least at the sharp end of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mean give a good faith statement that they'll be there next March, if > not, all their whining over what is really nothing, well, means nothing.. Again, your position is that the OEMs should just blindly accept whatever it is that DMG will do in the unannounced details in the rulebook, and they have no right to further negotiate or at least demand that those details be revealed. But you say nothing about why those holes remain and will for at least a couple weeks, no criticism of DMG at all, totally one-sided, as always... >> Anyway, there is no question at all that if it was the old AMA >> operating exactly as DMG has done you'd be having a field day ripping [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > repetitive verbose rants and propensity to call anyone that dared > disagree with your myopic views names mildly amusing, Jeez, who's calling people names here? Seems like it's you and not me... > but now days my > time is mine and you're comin' off a little too creepy for comfort. You know, like that... > Anyway, I don't have a computer in my face all day anymore, nor do I > need to kill time. Consequently, if you want to discuss these issues I > will share what little I may have when I find the time, if it's your > usual name calling, or crazy blame assigning bullshit you'll have to > "converse" with other's, though offhand I don't know who that would be. > Anyway, be advised.. Oh, a threat! I shake in my boots... > Oh, I almost forgot, remember the other day when you said something > about thinking of moving to East Texas for a Sista', or something? Well, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wasn't so much the Texas thing, or an involvement with a minority, it > was the chic, you see, for "some" reason they thought you were gay... ;-) Nice, subtle way of calling me a fag, eh? More name-calling. Anyway, it's always interesting to hear about your little off-line politicking, hope that's working well for you. Because if you were just relying on your online posts, you would have entirely been dismissed as a provincial troll long ago. Anyway, say "hi" for me to Mike and Carl and Howard and the rest... >> Oh, I almost forgot, remember the other day when you said something about >> thinking of moving to East Texas for a Sista', or something? Well, I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > long ago. Anyway, say "hi" for me to Mike and Carl and Howard and the > rest... Sorry to upset your paradigm but it wasn't me, though I did comment on your Nicky Hayden Look-A-Like contest. Cults of personality are way creepy. > "Mark N" wrote >> Nice, subtle way of calling me a fag, eh? More name-calling. Anyway, >> it's always interesting to hear about your little off-line [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sorry to upset your paradigm but it wasn't me, though I did comment on > your Nicky Hayden Look-A-Like contest. Cults of personality are way creepy. Carl, that was just a joke, I was painting a picture of Dani reacting to a big, angry-looking Hayden after all the business between them on that team; I don't look anything like Hayden at all. And I didn't accuse you of anything, other than being part of that group of off-line "conspirators", which you openly admit to here... >> Mark N said: >>>> If that's how you need to read that, ok, but it was not, nor given [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Quoting seven or eight lines without any editing at all is selective? > Well, okay... No, you cut a sentence in half, but trust me, I understand.. >> I wrote, "If Harris, Blank, >>>>>> Vanderfunkinstien, or whothefukever doesn't/don't, or aren't going to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > made any hard commitments, signed contracts, hired people, finalized > budgets. And that's pretty much entirely on DMG's head, isn't it? How much they race is dependent of their ad money and if you haven't noticed, money's kinda' tight these days.. >> Dude, I think it fairly safe to say everyone involved hasn't been on >> their best behavior, but if they're gonna race, fine, if not, that's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > getting the tracks on board, and then changing things in the details > when it's too late to do much of anything but bail out, if even that. Wow! You must have your tin-foil hat on backwards.. >> Back in March when I said the economy, or lack of it will drive this >> deal I had no idea it would get as bad as it's fixin' to, but as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > only people really interested would be the participants themselves. And > we'd be hearing more and more about a MIC-fronted series. I thought it was gas tanks and tires this time? Guess not, so now it's what? Class rules? Which class? You mean the great circle class? Where you demand one thing, then demand something else until you get back to where you started? >>>> This. >>>> bickering is like arguing over the size of the volleyball court on the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > with your radically pro-DMG view on this business. Because I haven't > seen him. Whoosh! > The only people who I have seen who are really behind DMG are people > who stand to benefit significantly by them, the larger private teams [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > know, kinda like the folks who always blindly believe that the > republicans are the best stewards of our economy... Huh? >>> The point Harris seemed to be making was that the rules proposed don't >>> necessarily make racing cheaper, at least at the sharp end of the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > those holes remain and will for at least a couple weeks, no criticism > of DMG at all, totally one-sided, as always... Huh? >>> Anyway, there is no question at all that if it was the old AMA >>> operating exactly as DMG has done you'd be having a field day ripping [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Oh, a threat! I shake in my boots... WTF? >> Oh, I almost forgot, remember the other day when you said something >> about thinking of moving to East Texas for a Sista', or something? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > provincial troll long ago. Anyway, say "hi" for me to Mike and Carl and > Howard and the rest... This'll really fuk yer day up, weren't none of them dudes, but ya' can't deny it was pretty damn funny. Heh, just wished I'd of thought of it! Oh yeah, you prolly need to work on your reading comprehension, it pretty much suks... Go Gators! > Mark N said: >>> Quit being a monumental schmuck and if you're going to quote don't >>> selectively snip, 'kay? I mean, that's so Nusbaumian, oh wait!? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, you cut a sentence in half, but trust me, I understand.. Of course you do, but you're trying desperately to spin it away from the observation that I was making, namely that all your criticism of the process is aimed at the OEMs and none at all at DMG. So when I end my quote where you move from your OEM attack to the economy, which has nothing to do with the matter at hand, you respond with baseless accusations. >>> That's a NO sided statement and a hard fact, it even offers an out if >>> anyone so desires and TBH I wouldn't be surprised if some use it too.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > How much they race is dependent of their ad money and if you haven't > noticed, money's kinda' tight these days.. Which means it's a tough time to be making decisions about something as expensive as going racing at this level. Decisions that wouldn't be made today had DMG operated professionally and in good faith 6-9 months ago, when they all could have been in this place by the time they got to the Laguna GP. >>> Dude, I think it fairly safe to say everyone involved hasn't been on >>> their best behavior, but if they're gonna race, fine, if not, that's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wow! You must have your tin-foil hat on backwards.. Insults instead of meaningful on-subject responses? Typical... >>> Back in March when I said the economy, or lack of it will drive this >>> deal I had no idea it would get as bad as it's fixin' to, but as [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you demand one thing, then demand something else until you get back to > where you started? Yeah, Tom, keep hanging onto those few weeks when the OEMs switched around between SB preferences, while they really were at work on determing the viability of a MIC-fronted series and had given up on DMG entirely. Spinning that the way you do is essentially all you have to support anything you say, so hold onto it like gold... >>> If the MIC wants to race, great, they should go for it. If Suz wants >>> to race in AMA, fine, if not, or somewhere else, that's OK too. If [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Whoosh! What, did the wax in your ears finally give way and the vacuum inside suddenly got filled with air? >> The only p |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message