Posts
1036
Joined
4/3/2007
Location
Calgary
CA
Edited Date/Time
1/20/2012 10:26am
More road racing pains and not AMA this time
The Shop
A bad economy only accelerates it.
DMG tried many of the elements of SBK in the initial '09 rules package but were met by great resistance from the manufacturer distributors in the US. They wanted more exotic machines which is a real long term mistake due to costs, etc.
Making the bikes closer to stock (ala BSB and what is coming to SBK) is cheaper, would allow the manufacturers to develop a bike that is close to stock spec and showcase what they sell and run the same thing in many series (= cost savings and lots of wild cards).
I do not blame the AMA or DMG for the issues in the US...rather I think the blame lies at the feet of some of the manufacturer distributors in the US for what they wanted and then for vacillating repeatedly.
Pit Row
You claim "(T)hey (DMG) did not try to incorporate WSBK rules or the manufactures would have bent more.” You may have missed it, but DMG did offer the WSBK rules package in both SB and SS....and Honda and Suzuki rejected it. The manufacturers then wanted the AMA Committee '09 Rules proposal...and DMG (far from acting like a dictator) agreed. Honda then changed again wanted to use the '08 rules...in spite of the fact that Ray Blank had helped create the '09 package during his tenure at Pro Racing. See article below.
The bottom line is that DMG changed twice (perhaps three times) to accommodate the manufacturers and got stiffed because the manufacturers did not want what they asked for when they got it. See article below. Honda did the same thing before in CART.
You want the fastest bikes in Superbike. Yet you want WSBK rules which are moving away from that and coming closer to SS (and will even more in the future). Remember the howls over WSBK and the spec tire rule. If you followed the rules evolution there you should also recall the gnashing of teeth by the manufacturers over not having the "fastest bikes". The reality has been that the new rules worked: there is now closer racing, more teams, more bikes, and the manufacturers are saving money by racing something closer to what they sell.
I agree with you that there should be one worldwide spec so the manufacturers develop but one bike (saving huge money, creating more teams, and facilitating more lateral movement from one series to another and more wildcards). That appears to be where things are headed...hopefully it will get there.
"You need to get more info on this before you spout." I did and you would be well served to do so as well. Take a moment and read the series of news, enterprise and, reader comment articles that ran in RRW quoting, inter alia, the stakeholders that is set out below. There are even more, but these will give you a good overview. Lest you say RRW is “all wet”…similar articles have run in other places covering the same developments.
It has been a debacle.
There is enough blame to go all around. I did not like the original DMG package and how it was presented. However, it is not all one-sided. I just want full fields of evenly matched bikes and close racing. I suspect you do as well.
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33573
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33116
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33119
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33607
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33120
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33461
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33462
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33463
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33621
http://www.roadracingworld.com/...ticle/?article=33654
The OEMs' positions have been that they do not do this racing thing just for advertising like Nascar, they do it for development of the next generation of bikes. And the new rules would not allow this to occur so there was no point in them racing.
Either way it's a travesty. Furthermore now that the FIM has gotten rid of the most exciting racing class, the 250cc 2 strokes (90 hp, 280 #, cheap to purchase and maintain, allows development of much needed scooter technology for the small OEMs) and replaced it w/ 600cc prototype 4 stroke engines they have further eroded the viability of international roadracing.
The only thing worse is that they are in the process of replacing the 125cc 2s GP bikes w/ 4s MX engines. How stupid is that?
All along the WSBK guys have made their program better and better thru careful rule selection. Now I hear that the WSBK guys are planning on picking up the 250cc GP bikes for the support races which will truly make it the premier racing series in the world.
Except for a few huge personalities there is less and less reason to watch MotoGP these days. Shame really.
It won't take one year, five years, or maybe even ten. But unless this changes the whole thing will go to shit. And the process has already begun, started about 2004.
"I just want full fields of evenly matched bikes and close racing. I suspect you do as well."
If, by the above statement, you mean dumbed down 600cc cookie cutter bikes, ala NASCAR, & full fields then DMG is your game. Me, I want fully involved manufacturers on different bikes & engine configurations, ala WSBK, with a proven formula that works. Why mess with success?
BMSOP wrote:
If, by the above statement, you mean dumbed down 600cc cookie cutter bikes, ala NASCAR, & full fields then DMG is your game. Me, I want fully involved manufacturers on different bikes & engine configurations, ala WSBK, with a proven formula that works. Why mess with success?
No..actually I mean WSBK rules just like you desire. The same program that DMG later floated to the manufacturers and which they rejected.
I agree with you on the first DMG rules package.
Post a reply to: More road racing pains and not AMA this time