AMA 2009 SB rules announced

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2007/Jul/e/n070711rule.htm

1200cc twins, 15 pounds of additional weight (385lb minimum),
otherwise rules the same for twins and fours. Internal motor mods
tightened - stock crank, rods, pistons, rings, etc. - so it looks like
lower revs. Swingarm still replaceable. Shock and fork claiming, as
before, but no new replacement parts homolgation. Bike homolgation
numbers same as previous, although the lowest tier (less than 100 US
dealers at 150 units) hasn't been around very long, I don't think.
Based on imported units, as before.

So no radical changes, I don't think, and within the general range of
2008 BSB and WSB changes. Need to compare more closely yet...

...but I know we'll hear Tom complaining as sure as the sun rises over
the east banking...

 

Hey - Maybe MJ can get the go fast parts ...

 

"T3" remains on the warpath:

The discussion is about revised AMA SB rules (check the subject line),
and they have not proposed any revised rules for support classes yet.
If you're going to change the subject, at least leave some hints...

but that was back

When exactly was that? And what is the evidence or indicators that
things have materially changed? Please be specific.

though

Production-BASED. That means the starting point is a production
streetbike, but to the degree that the racer remains that is entirely
dependent on the rules and the intent of the class. Since coming of
age, SB has been intended to be the premier class, the one with the
fastest bikes, and therefore most expensive to develop. And one of the
things that has promoted production-based racing generally is that the
factories are behind it, because that helps sell their products. That
has been the major trend in bike roadracing over the last quarter
century, but maybe you haven't noticed...

and if in fact some do cost that much, why? (Hint, if that

They cost that much because of all the testing and development work
that goes into them. The factories want to win, or at least not
embarrass themsellves, so they commit real resources to accomplish
that.

Here's a thought, they don't want them claimed because they

Oh, Tom...

So who can claim a $500k bike? Jordan, maybe, but anyone else? No. You
want to play in SB, you deal with the cost of doing so. You want to
take on the factories, you don't win unless you do a better job than
them, which means spending a lot of money. Just like in the other
major SB series, just like in GP. You want to have a national club
racing series, that different.

In another thread Carl mentions the lack of

That's just stupid, Tom. Back when there seemed to be more rider
development, who got those riders once developed? The factory teams,
that's who. But you think the factory teams should go, so why would
the factories spend any money and effort develping riders in that
case? And where do they get their riders now if they're not developing
them? You'll grab at any straw...

It goes beyond that as

You spit and sputter, but you say nothing. What has happened here is
that Jordan gave an interview and complained about how Suzuki wasn't
giving him the fast parts in SB, and hoped that the AMA would change
the rules so that either they are required to sell those parts, or the
class is dumbed down sufficiently that it's no longer an issue. Dean
Adams, career AMA-hater, takes a week and a half (probably needing to
sober up) to come up with a way he can use that interview to lay the
whip on the AMA. You read that and swallow it hook, line and sinker
(intent bering more important that content), and now you've got your
new anti-AMA mantra to repeat ad-nauseum.

So what exactly are these parts Jordan can't get? We've established
that internal gearing, forks and shocks are obtainable, if not
entirely in the manner he'd prefer, I'm sure (claiming from the
factory that supports you isn't necessarily wise). Internal mods to
the motor are pretty limited. So is it brakes? Wheels? Unlikely, that
stuff is pretty available. Swingarms? Could be, but Jordan can modify
stock items, buy kit items, buy aftermarket items (as from Roberts),
which is what American Honda does. So what is the real issue on parts?
Or does Jordan just want to write a check and instantly have the
fastest bike on the grid? So should the AMA revise the rules just to
keep him happy? What happens then when he gets bored and leaves?

Kind of hard to pick it apart more since it's just a bunch of rusty
old loose parts lying around, the same tired, old, emotional,
irrational anti-AMA rant...

I

Consider what? Where's the content? What would you suggest as an
alternative set of rules that you think would make the racing better,
would grow the sport? What specifically is wrong with what the AMA has
proposed? I don't see anything coherent in any of this stuff you're
spouting.

And

Of course not, you don't want to be delayed from your attack on the
AMA by trivialities like actually reading what they are proposing...

but on

Again, what's your (specific) alternative? How do you think it will
change things? Or do we have to wait for Adams to suggest something in
his usual shrill manner, and you'll then parrot that?

 

T3 gives up:

in reply to Mark N

Shit, I'm not sure what to say now.

When his Nusbaumness is clear, concise, and has actual data he can
be very enlightening in his viewpoint. His verbosity and tendency to
minimize equally reasonable arguements is juvenile at best.

It's a friggin usenet newsgroup (even though I've sunk to using
"Google groups"). Read the good, ignore the bad or overwrought,
and let's see who wins in East Germany. I mean Germany.

Stoner is the real deal.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

 

Mike, I know we've butted heads plenty, but would you really represent
Tom's vewpoint on this topic as being clear, concise and enlightening?
Can you sum it up in 100 words or less (and more than the four it
takes to say. "I hate the AMA")? Do you really think my behavior in
this "discussion" has been less more juvenile than his?

I'm being totally honest when I say that what I wanted was for Tom to
clearly and with detail explain what his issue is with the new AMA SB
rules, but that didn't happen. Maybe I stuck it in and twisted it a
bit more than I should have, but, frankly, I've grow weary of his shit
on this topic, and I never thought he would or could respond in the
manner hoped for. This is supposed to be a discussion group, and with
him on the AMA there is no discussion.

 

Not writing to bash the AMA here but would like to comment. SB racing
was based on production bikes so that it would be afordable to a large
number of participants. Sure, the factories had the advantage of
being able to provide better support for their teams, but the rules
limited modifications to the extent that the cost of the hardware was
not out of reach of many well financed private teams. The way things
have been going it wont be long before SB's have as much in common
with production bikes as NASCAR "stock" cars do with what you can buy
in the showroom.

I would think that keeping the link to the production line a bit
tighter would help the "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" connection
going. But then again Bubba still goes out and buys what won in
NASCAR.

As for the 500k bikes, when someone says a bike is worth $XXXXXX I
don't consider the costs of R&D to be part of the value of that bike.
If the rider wads it up or it got stolen the R&D is not lost. IMHO
the cost of the bike is what it would cost to replace it. If it would
in fact cost even 100K to replace a trashed bike then things have
gotten out of hand.

Like I said above though, this is not about bashing the AMA. They
need to stay somewhat on the same page as the rest of the world.

Bruce Richmond

 

Mark N asks:

This from they guy that isn't a member because he doesn't
understand the AMA's position on public land recreation
policy.

My point was not to defend Tom. It was that this is Usenet.
Get used to it being choatic and people being less than
clear or sane in what they post.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

 

It was to be less expensive than the formula 750 bikes of the time.
It was also intended to have a strong connection to the production
bikes in that they even included a rule about the siloet of the
bikes. Also they gave the choice of modifying the engine *or* the
chassis, but not both. What they were going for was something similar
to the NASCAR stock cars back when they still had some resemblance to
*stock* cars.

Like I said above, in the beginning you had to choose between
modifying the engine or chassis. Almost all went with the engine,
then tried to slip in changes to the chassis without being noticed.
Many things were replaced with aftermarket items, but they were just
that, aftermarket items, not factory provided one offs only available
to the factory team. In 1980 you could build a bike that had a fair
chance of winning a national for under 20k.

I totally agree that the bikes are closer to stock now in may ways,
because the stock items are so much better than they were. And some
of those parts are that much better because it was required that they
use the production parts. If they wanted magnesium case covers all
they needed to do was put them on X number of bikes and they would be
considered stock. If they're not willing to do that I guess they
didn't need them that bad.

IMHO the R&D cost should not be included in the cost of the bike. It
should be charged against the race team as a a business. They may
only make 3 or 4 of the part in the final design, but that same R&D
will still apply next year, and the year after that. It may even end
up being used as a guide for later production parts. If they want to
recoop some of their expenses maybe they should consider selling
copies of the special parts to private teams rather than keeping them
exclusively for the factory team. There was a time when factory race
kits were common and reasonably priced. The thinking was that it gave
their brand of bike that much more chance of displacing a competeing
brand in the results.

 

You seem to have missed a page. Superbike racing started in 1976 with
1000 cc bikes. There was no such thing as an RS500 at the time. And
it wasn't intended to be the premire series, it was a support series
to promote the production bikes of the manufactures as opposed to pure
racing bikes. If you don't believe me maybe you believe the AMA:

http://www.amaproracing.com/prorace/pdf/Superbike_Guide_07h.pdf

"The AMA Superbike Championship was created in 1976 to provide
an affordable, level playing eld for professional race teams, and as
a platform for motorcycle manufacturers to showcase their production
sportperformance models."

I know it was weird but that was the rules. If you modified the
engine you were not allowed to modify the chassis. If you midified
the chassis to get better handling you were not allowed to modify the
engine.

That was much later and a good deal of the improvement was due to the
SB series. But the series had drifted so far from stock that it was
obvious that there was little connection between what you could buy in
the show room and what was out on the track. So they introduce Super
Sport and Super Stock. For Super Stock the bigest mod allowed was
adding a pipe. Super Sport allowed a few more things, but nothing
like SB.

BMW and Ducati won some races in '76 and '77, but the factories were
involved by '77 and the writing was on the wall that twins were done.
BoTT was started after that for the enjoyment of those that love
booming twins even if they aren't the fastes thing around.

The bikes were extensivly modified by '80. Every team tried to push
the rules to the limit to gain an advantage. Some times the rules got
relaxed because "everyone's doing it". Remind you of power shifters
and traction control? Other times enough was enough.

I bought and installed a Yosh frame kit on my '77 KZ1000. It
consisted of a few gussets pre cut and bent, with instructions on
where to weld them in. Think it cost $30 and another $20 for the
welder.

There were times when it took a lot less than 400 to get something
in. I forget what the rules were in the beginning but I seem to
recall the requirements varied depending on how many production bikes
the manufacture sold.

I think we were discussing what should be quoted as the value of a
factory racer. The rules said nothing about the financing of a race
team, but the idea was that the factories should race what they make.
Want a better race bike? Sell a better production bike.

I don't think kits are nearly as common now days. It used to be
someone like Yosh could make a few bucks selling the kits and maybe
recouping some of their R&D expenses. If it meant having to beat one
more racer out on the track so be it. These days the trick parts
would generally be more expensive, if they chose to offer them. For
the most part the teams prefer to keep everything behind closed
doors. Their business is winning races not selling race kits.

Bruce

 

SB may have become the premier class of the AMA at that time, but it
was hardly the premier class. If a rider did well in SB it was his
ticket to the GPs. And IMHO the SB class was neutered when reduced
from 1000 to 750 cc.

Would the AMA lie to you? The quote above was from their web
site. They provided the venue to showcase the bikes and it took about
one year for the factories to figure out the potential.

Looking back you seem to be correct. There was a lot of shuffeling
going on back then.

There were a few they were hoping to draw back in. Ducati was the
only taker at first, then HD.

 

Exactly who likes to gloss this over? I've not seen anyone doing any
glossing on this topic except you. And exactly what does the death of
SStock have to do with anything? Btw, when Yates won the SStock race
at Barber, he was the first non-factory rider to win a SStock race
since Haskovic at Daytona in 2005, and Vince is the only other
privateer to win in class since it went literbike after 2003. Which
says SStock isn't that much different than SB in this regard (nor is
it different than SSport, which has had no privateer winners in this
time) AND that Jordan has managed to buck the tide anyway.

Sounds like another classic T3 generalization -
...

"Worked up"? I'm not worked up, I just would like to see real
discussion on concrete points related to the SB rules. You, on the
other hand, have gone into pissy mode as usual when pushed on anything
related to the AMA, and are now down to Pablo-like tactics to avoid
answering very specific questions...

was his basic and what I consider

Okay, list these ways, be specific for a change.

I also think the AMA, either willingly, or through lack of

How so? Again, be specific.

It IS a production-based series, any idiot knows that, and that
doesn't need "touting".

why isn't there engine claiming, or

Are motor claiming and bike claiming requirements of a production-
based series? Do they exist in WSB or BSB or AJRR? Not to my
knowledge, never have. Now, if you're suggesting that they should be
in the rules, then what are the specifics? How much is a motor worth?
How much for a complete bike? How do you restrict this so a team
doesn't end up going into the next race without their machines? What
happens if this is so onerous on the factories that they decide to
pull out of SB, as Kawasaki and Yamaha did before? Are you so certain
that it can't happen again?

If the OEM's use only stock stuff,

The OEMs use only stock stuff? Is that in the rules? Or are you
suggesting that "Super"bike should require showroom-stock bikes,
complete with lights and mirrors?

After all they make the stuff and can easily

Easily? How much work do you think goes into building a ready-to-race
factory motor? How about a chassis?

Another question that begs an answer is

Who knows? Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's factoring in development cost,
which is hardly free. It certainly isn't off-the-shelf parts, that we
know.

And now

I think that's an unfair representation. There were a number of OEMs
that courted him when he came in, and I don't see where anyone has
viewed his presence as unwelcome. Suzuki won't sell him one of their
bikes, that's all. They built it, they paid for that, they want to win
on it. I'm certain that Suzuki has limited resources to support SB
racing, just as HRC says they can only support the number of bikes
they have now in MotoGP. So they should be forced by the AMA to go
beyond that? Just because Mike can write a check? Will Mike in turn be
required to sell that bike to Ulrich if he shows up with a check?

How have they failed to enforce that SB be production-based? Have they
allowed the OEM teams to run non-stock parts that are required under
the rules to be stock? If so, I have seen no suggestion of that.

I've answered every direct question you've posed. Can you do the same?
I think not...

I'm not so intransigent and hung up

That's a nice way to frame it - sounds a lot like Pablo's "I've grown
weary of bigotry" bit, another steaming pile...

 

My take on that is that the factory teams have the luxury of building
a motor and/or bike with hand picked parts from the assembly line.
They can, for instance, a given motor makes more HP when the pistons
are at the large end of the diameter tolerance and less at the small
end. The factory can measure every piston that comes off the line and
pick the best fit for the best power. Your average privateer can't do
that and will always be several HP behind. The same could probably be
said of the suspension internals. That said, Joe average certainly
isn't going to claim a SS production special from Suzuki and start
dominating. It takes a Ben Spies or Aaron Yates to use the last
little potential in the bike that the production special enables.