DMG - Damage Done

And he is right,i have moved on, and until performance indexed racing goes away,im not going back. I want a real Superbike class. I want a real SS class. If Buell insist on running in the series,let them and others have Moto ST. I thought this was funny

The relationship between DMG, the manufacturers and also the fans of the series is one rich with a pageant of loose metaphors and vague analogies. The one I favor most is to liken the relationship between the three parties as a marriage, DMG married to the manufactures and also the fans of the series. Before the ink was even dry, before the contract was even written, in fact, the manufacturers were shown, in so many words, that DMG didn't want to be married any longer. DMG wanted to cavort with that kooky girl down the block instead (Buell) and seemed to want to attract a class of zombie fans who would applaud a series that thinks adding a car, or the kooky girl, to any situation makes it better. Shockingly, the manufacturers soon stopped budgeting for many teams and promotions at the tracks. Things dried up quickly, all to a low hum of DMG's attitude and, really, near Biblical-level of bad ideas. Now the fans don't care, some of the tracks are bleeding money and DMG are back on the West Coast to see if they can get the little woman to agree to some marriage counseling after all the cavorting and stupidity.
Good luck, boys. But I don't think she's going ever fully forgive you. Ever.

You want some advice on how to fix this? Here is where you start: with resignations.



It will be interesting to see if someone high up at DMG, is laid out on the alter for sacrifice. I have grown to hate DMG to the point that regardless of what they do,i might not go back as long as they are involved in the sport.I want a divorce!

If DMG fail, I'm sure the new owners are going to love to have Dean covering their series. He already knows if DMG succeed, he won't be given access to the sport. I wish he weren't risking the future of his company so he could pursue a personal vendetta against Edmondson and Dingman.

I agree the decision making has been atrocious. However, in that article it seems like the factories are being put on a cross, which I don't agree with. I just can't work up unmitigated sympathy for them.

http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=38131

The way an OEM big-wig tells it, the presentation made by DMG operatives to OEM officials didn't include anything close to, "What can we do to earn your business?"

Thanks for the update povol.

Two spec series? Are the fans at the track going to be interested? I would have liked to see the Battle of the Twins come back; take the big twins out of DSB, along with the "D".

A class of Buells, Aprilia milles, Duc 848s, BMWs, KTM RC8, etc. could be fun. The only trick would be getting the parity right. However, there could be a reason this class is no more, making my idea a bad one. Don't know, wasn't a serious fan back then.

I think DMG made a mistake trying to push Moto-GT "to the forefront." It was originally, as Moto-St, a neat enthusiast series with healthy grids. With the less powerful bikes, that series could have possibly been a good place for young racers to get some track time. I think they should have left out the 600s too; we already have SS and DSB for 600s.

I'm glad DMG didn't go to the manufacturers with their tales between their legs. Maybe this is a heinous remark, maybe it's not, but I really want to see DMG build a racing series that is not reliant upon manufacturer support. That doesn't mean I don't want them to have participation from the manufacturers, but if they were to pull out some time in the future, I would like to know that the AMA can continue without another financial meltdown like the one we are witnessing currently.

I really think the turnkey racer idea is a very interesting concept b/c it could allow the manufacturers and DMG to use cost effective ways to achieve good performance. I can't help but think that many race prep companies would love the opportunity to brand a race prepped a bike for AMA participants; especially if they know it will have a chance to be competitive.

The Buell 1125RR and the Yoshimura GSXR1000RR was a big step in the right direction. I'd like to see a Parts Unlimited Honda and an Erion Honda and a Muzzy Kawasaki and a Attack Kawasaki etc etc etc. What could be better than many different versions of many different race bikes prepped to meet the needs of particular riders, teams, or just a general all-rounder for everyone?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Sep 18 2009, 02:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm glad DMG didn't go to the manufacturers with their tales between their legs. Maybe this is a heinous remark, maybe it's not, but I really want to see DMG build a racing series that is not reliant upon manufacturer support. That doesn't mean I don't want them to have participation from the manufacturers, but if they were to pull out some time in the future, I would like to know that the AMA can continue without another financial meltdown like the one we are witnessing currently.

I really think the turnkey racer idea is a very interesting concept b/c it could allow the manufacturers and DMG to use cost effective ways to achieve good performance. I can't help but think that many race prep companies would love the opportunity to brand a race prepped a bike for AMA participants; especially if they know it will have a chance to be competitive.

The Buell 1125RR and the Yoshimura GSXR1000RR was a big step in the right direction. I'd like to see a Parts Unlimited Honda and an Erion Honda and a Muzzy Kawasaki and a Attack Kawasaki etc etc etc. What could be better than many different versions of many different race bikes prepped to meet the needs of particular riders, teams, or just a general all-rounder for everyone?

And in the end,the team with the best technicians,the best rider and the most money will win. Thats racing. Regardless of how much you gut the performance of a bike,the top dogs always eats first.The problem is this mindset that has gripped our society where everyone is equal, has leeched into the racing world. The more you try to make a 20th place rider into a top 5 rider by gutting performance,the worse the sport gets. You can eventually get performance so slow where everyone feels comfortable with the pace and they run around in 30 bike packs, but thats not racing. That is manufactuerd results. I have said it over and over and over. Race fans go to the track to see the guy with the biggest balls lay his life on the line to break last years record. That is the guy we root for because we know he is a little more special, a little crazier, a litlle more driven. Do i want to see a dominant rider running around in a pack because he has more talent than his bike has performance,.... NO. I want bikes that have so much performance, no rider can totally tame it,but the guy or guys who come closest to taming it are your stars. The track safety excuse is a canard to establish pack racing. A rider is only going to go as fast as his brain will let him go and that is what seperates the good riders from the great riders,frame of mind.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Sep 18 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And in the end,the team with the best technicians,the best rider and the most money will win. Thats racing. Regardless of how much you gut the performance of a bike,the top dogs always eats first.The problem is this mindset that has gripped our society where everyone is equal, has leeched into the racing world. The more you try to make a 20th place rider into a top 5 rider by gutting performance,the worse the sport gets. You can eventually get performance so slow where everyone feels comfortable with the pace and they run around in 30 bike packs, but thats not racing. That is manufactuerd results. I have said it over and over and over. Race fans go to the track to see the guy with the biggest balls lay his life on the line to break last years record. That is the guy we root for because we know he is a little more special, a little crazier, a litlle more driven. Do i want to see a dominant rider running around in a pack because he has more talent than his bike has performance,.... NO. I want bikes that have so much performance, no rider can totally tame it,but the guy or guys who come closest to taming it are your stars. The track safety excuse is a canard to establish pack racing. A rider is only going to go as fast as his brain will let him go and that is what seperates the good riders from the great riders,frame of mind.


Damn good post, man. Damn good.

I was going to make a joke about a Ninja 250 spec class belonging in the National series, but it looks like DMG has beaten me to it:

"Star attractions for the 2010 series will likely include a spec class for riders on Yamaha 450cc four-stroke Singles and another for riders on Ninja 250R Kawasakis, according to our source at one of the meetings."

A 450 single class is not something for the top national series. A 250 four stroke spec class is not something for the top national series.

These people have just driven the final nail in the coffin.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Sep 18 2009, 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And in the end,the team with the best technicians,the best rider and the most money will win. Thats racing. Regardless of how much you gut the performance of a bike,the top dogs always eats first.The problem is this mindset that has gripped our society where everyone is equal, has leeched into the racing world. The more you try to make a 20th place rider into a top 5 rider by gutting performance,the worse the sport gets. You can eventually get performance so slow where everyone feels comfortable with the pace and they run around in 30 bike packs, but thats not racing. That is manufactuerd results. I have said it over and over and over. Race fans go to the track to see the guy with the biggest balls lay his life on the line to break last years record. That is the guy we root for because we know he is a little more special, a little crazier, a litlle more driven. Do i want to see a dominant rider running around in a pack because he has more talent than his bike has performance,.... NO. I want bikes that have so much performance, no rider can totally tame it,but the guy or guys who come closest to taming it are your stars. The track safety excuse is a canard to establish pack racing. A rider is only going to go as fast as his brain will let him go and that is what seperates the good riders from the great riders,frame of mind.

Povol, for some reason you seem to be fixated on the competitive aspect of the sport. Like you say, the big, rich, intellegent, talented dogs are always going to make mince meat of the weak, poor, unintelligent, untalented dogs. No one wants to change that paradigm. There is no racing and no competition without it.

Have you seen any proposals for handicapping by penalizing a winning rider? Have you seen any proposal for breaking up teams that win too often? Have you seen any proposals for budget caps?

No one is trying to turn pro racing into kids soccer.

Lots of people, on the other hand, are trying to change the organizational and financial structure of professional racing. Streamlining the teams and changing the way bikes are prepared isn't going to change the fact that the talented teams will always beat the amateurs.

I want to see a series that isn't dependent upon the manufacturers. I didn't say I wanted to say bad riders on the box more often.

I think what Lex wants is a series with participants who desire to make racing a business. People who are there to race, not to show off their dealer products at the expense of the sport.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend regarding sports car racing's last boom period. IMSA racing was arguably at its best during the early to mid 80s. Porsche sold competitive 935s and 962s to all who had the dollars and strong, enthusiastic privateers made for very strong grids and great racing. Eventually Toyota and Nissan came in and raised the bar to unsustainable levels. The sport has been in a funk ever since.

The much maligned Roger E. had his heart in the right place with Grand-Am's privateer focus and homologation rules, but the execution resulted in dull machinery that few fans want to see. The ALMS has focused on factories, resulting in an exaggerated boom/bust cycle and its current, extremely weak state (despite a respectable fan base).

Racing doesn't suddenly become illegitimate when factories leave. It can possibly be better!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Sep 18 2009, 03:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Povol, for some reason you seem to be fixated on the competitive aspect of the sport. Like you say, the big, rich, intellegent, talented dogs are always going to make mince meat of the weak, poor, unintelligent, untalented dogs. No one wants to change that paradigm. There is no racing and no competition without it.

Have you seen any proposals for handicapping by penalizing a winning rider? Have you seen any proposal for breaking up teams that win too often? Have you seen any proposals for budget caps?

No one is trying to turn pro racing into kids soccer.

Lots of people, on the other hand, are trying to change the organizational and financial structure of professional racing. Streamlining the teams and changing the way bikes are prepared isn't going to change the fact that the talented teams will always beat the amateurs.

I want to see a series that isn't dependent upon the manufacturers. I didn't say I wanted to say bad riders on the box more often.
Uh yes,i have. Like i said,if you gut performance to where everyone feels comfy on that bikes limits,you have affectivley penalized the rider or riders who can go much faster on real Superbikes. There is a spot in the performance matrix where eventually, lack of performance on the bikes part,will bring less skilled riders to equals with the better riders.And the more i think of it,that does kind of sound like kids soccer. I lose interest in any racing series that goes backwards.Nascar has gone backwards, i have not gone to a race in years. Used to go at least 3 a year. IRL/ Indy Car/CART, whatever they call themselves these days, have gone way backwards. Why pay to see 220mph laps when you have seen 240 mph laps. F1, i dont know whats worse,the lack of performance or the soup opera drama. I used to get up at 6-7 in the morning to catch the races on Speed,not so much any more.If its on rerun when i come home from riding,it makes for background noise while i take a nap. Why do you think WSBK is so popular,they have let the series evolve without gutting performance and you get to hear those magical words on a race to race basis. Ladies and gentlemen, on the pole with A NEW LAP RECORD. I dont really care who builds the bikes, but if they dont stay static or get a little better every year, i lose interest.And i get the feeling im not alone, because its usually the same thing that burns in a racer or a race fan. Must go Faster .

Must cut cost and go slower does not get it with me.

What you guys think?
LINK

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Sep 18 2009, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What you guys think?
LINK
I didnt know Lex's real name. Hi Gary Hoover

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Sep 18 2009, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Must cut cost and go slower does not get it with me.

The 240 mph indy cars nearly guaranteed a major injury each year, not to mention throwing shrapnel into the crowd. Although the IRL pack racing isn't any safer in that respect, possibly worse. CART's Hanford Device worked well. And where does F1 lack performance? Sure they took away some downforce, but F1 cars are still easily the fastest circuit racers on the planet. Can you actually notice the difference?

As exotic as WSBK machines are, why bother watching when Moto GP is faster?

I don't agree that the performance has been "gutted." The numbers may have changed, but I certainly couldn't tell the difference by watching; maybe I'm just not an astute observer.

I do think that a series with better parity, while it may have to earn fan approval, has much better long-term prospects than a series of 6-8 exotic factory machines lapping filler bikes. When WSBK adopted the control tire, causing the Japanese factories to abandon the series, didn't things look bleak for the FLamminis? Weren't they stuck with a "Ducati Cup" for several seasons? They created what seems to be a strong business model upon which a good product could be built, and now factories are coming back!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Sep 18 2009, 05:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The 240 mph indy cars nearly guaranteed a major injury each year, not to mention throwing shrapnel into the crowd. Although the IRL pack racing isn't any safer in that respect, possibly worse. CART's Hanford Device worked well. And where does F1 lack performance? Sure they took away some downforce, but F1 cars are still easily the fastest circuit racers on the planet. Can you actually notice the difference?

As exotic as WSBK machines are, why bother watching when Moto GP is faster?

I don't agree that the performance has been "gutted." The numbers may have changed, but I certainly couldn't tell the difference by watching; maybe I'm just not an astute observer.

I do think that a series with better parity, while it may have to earn fan approval, has much better long-term prospects than a series of 6-8 exotic factory machines lapping filler bikes. When WSBK adopted the control tire, causing the Japanese factories to abandon the series, didn't things look bleak for the FLamminis? Weren't they stuck with a "Ducati Cup" for several seasons? They created what seems to be a strong business model upon which a good product could be built, and now factories are coming back!

And they are pushing performance forward,not backwards

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Sep 18 2009, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And they are pushing performance forward,not backwards

Is it certain that the series owes its success to exotic bikes?

[quote name='Mr. Shupe' date='Sep 18 2009, 06:00 PM' post='210238']
Is it certain that the series owes its success to exotic bikes?
[/quote

Explain
Are you suggesting a certain rider?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Sep 18 2009, 01:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why do you think WSBK is so popular,they have let the series evolve without gutting performance and you get to hear those magical words on a race to race basis. Ladies and gentlemen, on the pole with A NEW LAP RECORD. I dont really care who builds the bikes, but if they dont stay static or get a little better every year, i lose interest.And i get the feeling im not alone, because its usually the same thing that burns in a racer or a race fan. Must go Faster .

Must cut cost and go slower does not get it with me.

The manufacturers technically withdrew from WSBK after the tire war was put to an end. Ducati lobbied the governing body to give them more displacement so they could reduce costs by reducing the state of tune. The 1098R is performance indexed to the rest of the bikes on the grid via min weight and air restrictors. The Aprilia was technically not legal under the homologation rules and Brux Alstare threatened to take InFront to task before they came to an agreement.

Last time I checked, a Roman sports marketing firm is giving special treatment to 2 Italian manufacturers, and an Italian tire maker. I'm not mad about it, they do it in a way that enhances the sport and the competition, but they aren't squeaky clean or a model of fairness.

What if DMG decide to use mild turbocharging in SBK. The bikes would be faster and cheaper than WSBK equipment. How much extra would it cost to turbocharge an SBK to 230 hp? $5000-$10,000? If they combined the turbos with moderately priced racing suspension they would have bikes that were faster than WSBK for $50,000 or less. Add carbon fiber and you might hit $60,000 or $65,000.

What's high tech about wasting money?

I don't think the AMA should move to turbocharged bikes, but the point is that they could cut costs and still increase performance.

Povol- If I wasn't married, and if I was gay, I would want to have your child.

I'd have to kill myself for being gay, but you know what I'm trying to say...