"Julian Bond" <julian_bond RemoveThis @voidstar.com> wrote in message
news:6jprOaMPCAeAFA+d@jblaptop.voidstar.com...
> Mark N <menusbaum RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Allowing 750 twins and using WSS rules are two completely different
things.
> >WSS means more internal mods, and the AMA wants to keep the class simple
and
> >cheap for privateers. <snip>
> Or is that "If it ain't broke introduce another class that's almost
> identical, costs more money and which will attract at least one
> manufacturer away." Isn't the relation and problem between Formula
> Extreme and 600ss exactly the same problem as between SBK and 1000
> Superstock?
Not entirely. The difference is that SB is an established class that changed
its rules and encroached on FX's territory. So FX was downsized to give it a
reason for being. 600SS was already there, but the rules are different and
at least initially FX allowed "modern" 750 twins (Ducatis) and "archaic"
larger twins (Buells), and smaller two strokes. FX now is right about where
it was five years ago, when Erion dominated with its CBR900, there were a
few private attempts at the formula and the rest of the field was mostly
privateer 750SS guys. That evolved into a very good class by last year, and
the same could happen again - FX could be the future of SB down the road.
> The base motorcycle is more expensive but what's the difference in cost
> between a competitively tuned Honda CBR600 or R6 and a 749R?
The issue to the AMA was that V&H or FBF might throw a top rider on one and
they would dominate the 600s. The cost of a stock 748 or 749 wasn't ever a
stated issue.
> "Keep the class simple and cheap for privateers" But encourage factory
> teams and factory riders. Can you really have both? Even if you don't
> allow any tuning, the biggest spending teams will still blueprint the
> bikes and still spend more on chassis setup. There'll still be a big
> gulf between the rich and poor.
I don't know that the AMA has encouraged the factories in SS. They haven't
banned them, or at least until they sort of tried to in SStock this year
(which backfired, it seems). But the factories being in SS hasn't really
been an issue regarding non-factory team participation in the SS classes.
> >Tell us, in all
> >your brilliance, what they should have done differently.
> I've thought about writing this but all I end up with is a formula
> remarkably like BSB. And I know that's going to go down like a lead
> balloon. WTF, here goes.
> - Scrap Daytona from the championship. It doesn't fit any more.
So Daytona hurts the AMA championship? Is that like the 500 hurting Cart
before they got tossed out?
> - Use FIM Point scoring.
Agreed. The most ridiculous thing about the AMA has been their points
system.
> - Have all the *races* on one day (probably Saturday) with two SBK races
> on the same day. That way people can get to the circuit on Friday night
> and get home on Sunday. If rain stops play the races can be run on
> Sunday while most of the crowd could still be there. And with all the
> races on one day, it makes for a solid 4-5 hours of entertainment.
Promoters have jumped all over the Saturday/Sunday SB doubleheader formula
because it gives them two paydays. If you can't get home Sunday night after
the last race (I think the SB race was scheduled for 2pm), then you can't
get to the track on Friday night after work. And you can't hang around if
rain stops things on Saturday. Saturday works at Daytona because they
weren't racing at all on Saturday anyway. Pushing another day out of the
weekend doesn't help anything. And why do all the racing in one day? Two SB
races in one day means no crossovers, which means any privateer doing both
SB and SStock will likely drop one of them. Is that good?
> - SBK. Limit tuning but fiddle with it to let twins/triples be
> competitive. Require stock frames and swingarms with no strengthening.
> They could do worse than simply use or at least start with this year's
> WSB rules but with open choice of tyres. Add a secondary prize for
> privateers so they've got something real to aim for.
How are this year's WSB rules different than the AMA's, beyond tires? I
don't think there's a material difference that impacts much of anything. Are
you saying Yamaha and Kawasaki didn't show up in AMA SB this year because
the rules are so different compared to their WSB efforts (assuming they
existed, I guess)? The prize privateers have in SB is purse money, and that
does drive some of them to compete there. I suppose some sort of trophy
would be nice, though.
Btw, SBK is an official designation for WSB; the generic abbreviation for
superbike is SB...
> - Downgrade Superstock. No SBK riders. No slicks. No tuning apart from
> footrest height and exhausts. Target it at young and private riders.
So any privateer who does SB is banned from SStock? No tuning at all? That
might well eliminate many of the private teams, who then don't have much to
do. Too radical, too "clubby".
> - 600ss. Use World rules but possibly with stock gearboxes for cost
> reasons. Exclude SBK riders as allowing one rider to do 3 races in one
> day is too much. It also stops the best riders from swamping every race.
> The really costly part of building these is getting more compression
> without machining the head/cases/pistons. So somewhere in there there's
> a set of rules that allow limited tuning that's still relatively easy.
> New cams, shaved head and machining reliefs in stock pistons is a whole
> lot easier than building up pistons with weld and hoping it all stays
> together.
Why use world rules? What purpose does that serve? What's wrong with the
rules the AMA uses now? What current problem for the class arises out of
those rules? Are bikes blowing up? What problem does the class have now that
arises out of the inclusion of SB riders? Note that the only factory SB
rider who does SSport now is Yates, who wasn't even out there at Fontana and
who hardly dominated at Daytona. Factory SB riders have won only 2 of the
last 5 SSport championships. Perusing the qualifying sheets, there were very
few privateers who did both classes. Other than allowing Ducatis (who may
not show up anyway), I don't see what any of this does.
> - Formula Extreme. Kill it. It's too confusing and dilutes the other
> racing. There might be a place for a Formula Libre perhaps with no
> fairings to encourage lunacy like Turbo Bandits. One day maybe an
> unlimited 600 formula will make sense, but not today.
Why doesn't it make sense today? Because there isn't such a class attached
to WSB or BSB? What does the existence of FX do to detract from the series
today? How does it "dilute the other racing"? Is it pulling teams out of SB,
which is the central issue here? What history does Formula Libre or whatever
have in the US, why would it be better?
> - So far we've only got 4 races. Add in a one make Formula for teenagers
> like an R6 cup. Add in one novelty race like BMWs, Sportsters or Triumph
> Triples or SoS or ? That makes 6 races, three of which are 35-45
> minutes. That's a full day.
It's like climbing ito a time machine. The AMA used to have six races, and
people complained that they didn't get to see the classes that mattered.
They used to have Pro Twins, Pro Thunder and 250GP, and few people were very
interested. All that crap wasn't why the series grew, and has nothing to do
with the problem today, which is almost entirely that SB has too few factory
riders and bikes, remember?
> So now you've got.
> - A clear headline race series: SBK.
> - A clear secondary race series: 600SS
> - An entry step for privateers: 1000 Superstock
> - An entry level for the kids with no brains to get noticed: R6 cup
> - A full day's racing that is a coherent package that can be sold to TV,
> Advertisers, Sponsors.
So you've done almost nothing about the central problem, SB, except to
degrade and dilute all the competing classes and add in a bunch of crap. And
to allow even less modifying in SB. I don't know how this sells to sponsors
and TV. Seems like you're just doing what you said, imposing BSB and WSB
structure on the AMA, lock, stock and barrel, where it may well not fit at
all. That isn't a very useful way of dealing with the problem, confusing it
with a bunch of crap that doesn't have anything to do with it.
There's really nothing wrong with the SS classes today, except that they
have bled factory efforts away from SB and FX. That also has made them
somewhat less attractive as privateer or novice classes. So the answer is
to limit the factory teams to SB and FX. Except that they have shown (other
than Honda) that this isn't really where they want to be. And that could be
a real problem. Maybe the reality is that production-based racing is headed
toward SS, and it would be a big mistake to try to stop that.
You said Dean Adams said what the AMA has done wrong better than you could.
His point seems to be, given the choice between SB and SS the factories have
chosen SS. In the end he doesn't seem to have a big problem with that. But
you seem to tout this article and not the similar one at Speed, which puts
the situation in the context of the world scene. Mostly because it seems to
be more critical of the AMA, I suspect, and that it makes a left-handed
compliment on BSB. I think the Speed article is much better, and it will be
interesting to see what suggestions Chris Martin makes in his follow-up. His
stated options:
1) Ride it out
2) Kill (or maim) Superstock and force the manufacturers' hand
3) Adopt Superstock rules for Superbike
4) Adopt Formula Xtreme Rules for Superbike
5) Others<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Fontana second race 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
