AMA Round 2 FONTANA (Spoilers)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Mar 26 2009, 06:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Thanks for the video Jum. What was the reason for the FCY during the Sportbike race? And another rolling start? How many long-time bike racing fans are going to keep watching when they feel their sport is being .......ized by outsiders? Did Roger learn nothing from Grand-Am? He literally said he wasn't concerned with then-current sports car fans, reflecting those sentiments in his decisions. What did that get him? A well-supported club series with little fan interest and sponsors transplanted from nascar relationships.

These arbitrary nascar touches stand a good chance of dooming the series to being a well-subscribed club...just like...drum roll...Grand-Am!

I'm glad someone wants to make the AMA an arena for good racing, instead of a factory advertisement with slow riders making up the numbers. However, DMG needs to ditch these weird touches that awaken road racing fans' associations with NASCAR, which will ultimately marginalize the series in their minds, leaving few to spread the word about the series and bring new faces to the track.

Edmondson is not Mother Teresa, Shupe sees the problem.

Edmondson is a man with a vision and a handful of really good ideas; however, his vision is indifferent to many of the sport's mandatory traditions. A Superbike class and a true Supersport class (600s only) are mandatory. Superbike has made huge progress in cutting costs and creating parity, Edmondson has left the series to the manufacturers as long as they follow the DMG model for competition----all prototype developments must be sold/given to third party companies who retail them. For whatever reason the manufacturers are still trying to maximize collateral damage rather trying the new system.

Daytona Sportbike is a really good idea and I like that it is unconventional, but the manufacturers fought the hp limitations so now the 600s can't make as much power as the stock 1125R.

All they need to do is move the Daytona spec 600s into a real supersport class with a standing start and no max age or max license restrictions, then bring the old FX bikes back and let them tangle with the Buell in a horsepower-limited class with 1 minimum weight rule. They can give Supersport a paltry $50,000 purse and let the manufacturers run it under the same DMG rules the 600s use in DSB.

That fixes everything. There is a true supersport class that is only for lightly tuned 600cc machines. The next step up is DSB/FX. More tuning than Supersport. Eligible equipment list, HP limit, and no whining. Run whatever you want as long as it is or was a production bike and it's not being run in American Superbike. Then American Superbike which is basically a cheap version of WSBK with a better rules package. Lots of privateers and rider owned teams. It will be the crown jewel.

The AMA will almost always have two classes that can safely run in the rain.

Who knows, if the factories would have reacted to DMG a little less strongly in the beginning, maybe they could have used a better relationship to their advantage and negotiated something more palatable to bike fans. Instead, we have this Buellocracy with arbitrary stock car touches that seem to be there just because.

great vids jumkie.... thanks for postin em!

Lex, you keep taking the position that the fault rests on the manufactures. But its only Suzuki, Honda, and Kawasaki (only two have withheld ad dollars). Now why you keep siding with them is beyond me given the record of DMG's strong-arming their agenda to the point of disrespect for companies who have invested money into the series.

Ok, so where are all the ad dollar from Buell, Aprillia and Ducati? (Cue up cricket chirping) Why are you not calling them on the carpet to kick in? Afterall, they are the ones standing to win from this rules structure.

Why do you keep hailing the concept of having multiple brands in one class? It’s not anything new or "visionary". Most of us welcome and like the concept, its already happening in WSBK. That is NOT the problem. The issue is the parity!

Now you give kudos to Edmondson for this "vision" but he's been the number 1 person to foul it up. He has alienated the established Japanese manufactures who were already providing money to the series and networks for "reasonable" coverage. Now with that alienation, coverage doesn't exist. Not only that, but the parity of the bikes is severely in question, if not an outright mockery. The manufactures have been saying this to DMG, but they have NOT been listening (quite the opposite). They say the proof is in the pudding (or even better, where the rubber meets the road). And you know what, the Japs where right, just look at the product on the field!

Now you wanna stick to your position that it’s the manufactures fault and kissing Edmondson’s ... in this thread despite the overwhelming evidence and reality to the contrary. Why don't you just concede and take a new more defensible position?

Dude, I'm not debating you that change can be a good thing and the series did need it. But in that change you have to listen to the people who understand the sport and its fan base. Yet so far he (Roger) has force fed his knowledge of another sport called Nascar into the series. Like I said previously, I do appreciate some of the changes he is proposing. But when you got a guy canceling venues because he demands a fee that is unreasonable and insensitive to the current economic climate, a man who is pushing for disparity of bikes in a class and furthermore force-feeding it as the "showcase" of racing, and then we have a strong arm tactic of censure of the top riders in the series; then what choice do we have but to question the agenda and assign notions of arrogance?!

What don't you understand about this last sentence?

Ah again, I'm still taking a wait and see approach. I am still optimistic, though so far DMG is bombing on that optimism. If you are interested, check out the interview of Mr. Schwantz on this question. He does his best not to critic because as he says, he doesn't want to impede progress that may come in the future. Why would he say that? Its because currently its not good and needs improvement from the leadership. I echo that same sentiment, but I'm NOT an insider like Schwantz where I need to be tight lipped so as to keep the door open for dialog should anybody put down their pride and listen to a man like him. So while I'm a nobody in the spot, for now I'm calling it as I see it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Mar 26 2009, 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Dude, I'm not debating you that change can be a good thing and the series did need it. But in that change you have to listen to the people who understand the sport and its fan base. Yet so far he (Roger) has force fed his knowledge of another sport called Nascar into the series. Like I said previously, I do appreciate some of the changes he is proposing. But when you got a guy canceling venues because he demands a fee that is unreasonable and insensitive to the current economic climate, a man who is pushing for disparity of bikes in a class and furthermore force-feeding it as the "showcase" of racing, and then we have a strong arm tactic of censure of the top riders in the series; then what choice do we have but to question the agenda and assign notions of arrogance?!

What don't you understand about this last sentence?

I do understand that DMG is using strong arm tactics but:

1. The AMA is a private business; they can restrict speech as much as they want b/c they can't cage or kill their participants (governments can).

2. The AMA/venue owners are paying to put on the show that attracts the media. It's good business practice to keep your riders from engaging in hate speech against the company when you are providing the media platform

Look, the manufacturers can't create good macro rules. When they ran the series they did whatever they wanted. It was a cartel of thieves and cheaters like OPEC. They nearly ruined the AMA. However, they did a very good job of keeping motorcycling true to its roots.

DMG have the rule package and they paid for the privilege to rewrite the rule book. The manufacturers are the keepers of tradition. They saved American Superbike (God love them for that) but they wasted countless hours and dollars fighting DMG when they should have been protecting Supersport and giving DMG counsel on things motorcycling fans like about the AMA.

Instead, the tried everything in their power to spoil the rulebook DMG paid to alter. In the process a lot of the things we enjoyed about the old AMA were lost.

If the fans turn their back on the AMA, it dies. If the manufacturers refuse to protect the important parts of motorcycle racing, the AMA as we know it dies. Sure, I could try to encourage insurrection against DMG but then the AMA will fail. Better to beat up the clowns who've been completely remiss in their duties to the fans who support them. They don't control the rule book so they can't do anything but improve the sport---as long as they have the balls to participate.

Most important of all, Edmondson needs to grow the fan base. He doesn't care who wins as long as participation in motorcycling rises. The current culture in the MIC prohibits them from doing anything other than fighting over a dwindling market.

For some reason, Jumk, you are looking at the AMA from a moral standpoint. Who's right, who's wrong, who's to blame. I don't care. I just know who is best for getting things accomplished and I want them to do it.