Jamie Hacking suspended

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 30 2009, 12:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Here is my problem, I don't believe RE has the capabilities to achieve the goals road racing has.

What are the goals?

We know Edmondson can bring in sponsors, and venue owners. He's not bad at attracting talent. Viewership is the unknown.

It's hard to judge Edmondson's competence from Grand Am; although, you can certainly see his attitudes and his MO. A lot of the decisions they made to change Grand Am were a response to the competitive environment. Grand Am must be different than ALMS or Indy or NASCAR in order to attract viewers/sponsors. AMA has a completely different competitive environment so it's difficult to gauge what he will do in the long run to attract people to the series.

I really don't know what road racing is supposed to achieve for motorcycling. If anything, road racing has been making bikes marginally worse over the years; though quality has been improving. Imo, the best thing someone can do is throw out displacement limitations and find another rules formula that will encourage bikes that are more enjoyable to ride. I am worried that Edmondson believes "parity" is a rules formula in its own right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2009, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What are the goals?

We know Edmondson can bring in sponsors, and venue owners. He's not bad at attracting talent. Viewership is the unknown.

It's hard to judge Edmondson's competence from Grand Am; although, you can certainly see his attitudes and his MO. A lot of the decisions they made to change Grand Am were a response to the competitive environment. Grand Am must be different than ALMS or Indy or NASCAR in order to attract viewers/sponsors. AMA has a completely different competitive environment so it's difficult to gauge what he will do in the long run to attract people to the series.

I really don't know what road racing is supposed to achieve for motorcycling. If anything, road racing has been making bikes marginally worse over the years; though quality has been improving. Imo, the best thing someone can do is throw out displacement limitations and find another rules formula that will encourage bikes that are more enjoyable to ride. I am worried that Edmondson believes "parity" is a rules formula in its own right.
Lex,its called racing,they are race bikes.They are technological wonders that you can buy for 10k. If your not comfortable riding them,which you obviously are not, there are a bunch of differnt models that suit different needs. I dont particularly want to see a race series for naked bikes,sport toures.sport cruisers etc because they are comfy to ride. Have you ever noticed the % of sport bikes that attend road racing events,its pretty high. Thats what they ride,and thats what they want to see race.Even the Sport Tourer guys want to see real race bikes, the large majority of them transistioned from Sport bikes because of age or a nagging wife. Im stumped with your infatuation for displacement and HP limited bikes,it sounds like you have drank the DMG cool aid which is fine, that kind of racing doesnt appeal to me. Racing to me is about unadultrated performance,setting lap records and getting faster ,must go faster. The tracks and the riders ability will determine how fast is to fast,thats the only way you find out who the best is. The best rider,the best team,the best set of balls. I could actually care less about the winning margin,if its close,great,if its not,great and i could really give a .... if the damed bike is comfortable or enjoyable to ride.Im 6'5" and weigh 250 lbs and a 600 or a 1000 repli racer in not an option for me,I had to go with a larger bike but i certainly dont demand that AMA set up a road racing series for ZX12R's,Zx14's and Hayabusa's because they are more comfy for my old .....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 31 2009, 08:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Lex,its called racing,they are race bikes.They are technological wonders that you can buy for 10k. If your not comfortable riding them,which you obviously are not, there are a bunch of differnt models that suit different needs. I dont particularly want to see a race series for naked bikes,sport toures.sport cruisers etc because they are comfy to ride. Have you ever noticed the % of sport bikes that attend road racing events,its pretty high. Thats what they ride,and thats what they want to see race.Even the Sport Tourer guys want to see real race bikes, the large majority of them transistioned from Sport bikes because of age or a nagging wife. Im stumped with your infatuation for displacement and HP limited bikes,it sounds like you have drank the DMG cool aid which is fine, that kind of racing doesnt appeal to me. Racing to me is about unadultrated performance,setting lap records and getting faster ,must go faster. The tracks and the riders ability will determine how fast is to fast,thats the only way you find out who the best is. The best rider,the best team,the best set of balls. I could actually care less about the winning margin,if its close,great,if its not,great and i could really give a .... if the damed bike is comfortable or enjoyable to ride.Im 6'5" and weigh 250 lbs and a 600 or a 1000 repli racer in not an option for me,I had to go with a larger bike but i certainly dont demand that AMA set up a road racing series for ZX12R's,Zx14's and Hayabusa's because they are more comfy for my old .....

Since when did throwing displacement rules out the window equate with racing cruisers?

Just ask yourself why repliracers have made the changes they've made over the last 2 decades. 0% is related to the rider. Companies have done an unbelievably good job convincing motorcyclists that repliracers are good bikes.

I like them, they are fun to ride, but they are not good bikes. They are good bikes if you're stuck using only 600cc, but that engineering limitation only exists in the world of international motorcycle racing.

Displacement rules limit engines to 4-strokes and they reward manufacturers for adding extra cyclinders. Extra cylinders drives up costs exponentially.

1000s are good bikes b/c they have power everywhere. 600s? No.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2009, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What are the goals?
My hope was that he would bring some cash into this sport so we could get upgraded facilities and better television coverage. It's too early to tell how he's doing on that front, we probably won't know for at least a couple of years.

But I had also hoped that the rules packages would stay relatively consistent with what the rest of the world of Superbike racing was doing. This seems to be the major point of difference for you and I, I feel that the series needs to follow that of WSBK and BSB and you don't. That's fine, it's your opinion and who am I to say it's not valid? My opinion is that this is "Superbike" racing, it should follow "Superbike" guidelines. I want to be able to compare Mat Mladin and Tommy Hayden and the guys in our series to the WSBK regulars when they come to town. I want to see our guys get wildcard rides. I want to compare trap speeds. Because what we have now is not Superbikes, it's something else called Superbikes. Because the rules are not similar enough to the rest of the world to draw a direct comparison. What we have now is a wolf in sheep's clothing, or perhaps it's a sheep in a wolf's clothing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Since when did throwing displacement rules out the window equate with racing cruisers?

Just ask yourself why repliracers have made the changes they've made over the last 2 decades. 0% is related to the rider. Companies have done an unbelievably good job convincing motorcyclists that repliracers are good bikes.

I like them, they are fun to ride, but they are not good bikes. They are good bikes if you're stuck using only 600cc, but that engineering limitation only exists in the world of international motorcycle racing.

Displacement rules limit engines to 4-strokes and they reward manufacturers for adding extra cyclinders. Extra cylinders drives up costs .

1000s are good bikes b/c they have power everywhere. 600s? No.
I guess this whole debate depends on what you consider "more enjoyable to ride".Anything in race trim is not comfortable and these bikes are basically in race trim off the show room. Is it the best platform for tooling around the city,absolutley not,unless you 22 years old and dont give a .....And guess what the 600's target audience is. Racers and 20 something year old wannabee racers.Why have the mfg's changed the bikes over the last 20 years.What kind of question is that.To stay in business, better performance,win races,what are you looking for in that statement? Why has every facet of your life changed technologically in the last 20 years. Its called natural progression. Like i said,they are not for everyone but there is no lack of options for riders who want something different.

Displacement rules limit engines to 4-strokes and they reward manufacturers for adding extra cyclinders. Extra cylinders drives up costs .

Who is they in this sentence, and what rewards are THEY giving for adding extra cyclinders. It seems like the rewards are being given to the bikes with 2 cylinders dont you think. Using your logic,all race bikes in the 600 class should be Vtwins to save money.The last time i checked,a Buell 1125, Aprilia Mille R and a Ducati 849 costs considerably more than any of the i4 600's.Does 4 Zx6 pistons cost twice as much as 2 Ducati pistons,no. Big Vtwins with all their exceptions is what gets expensive. To be competitive, I would bet the farm that the Buell has spent close to twice the money that Attack has spent on Hackings bike since it is virtually stock and the Buell is prototyped. How is that keeping the price down.Jap repliracers are the most cost efficient bikes in the world if you consider what you get for your 8 k. World class adjustable suspensions,World class brakes, unbelievable hp at unbelievable revs and realiability.How can that be considered a bad bike

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 31 2009, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>My hope was that he would bring some cash into this sport so we could get upgraded facilities and better television coverage. It's too early to tell how he's doing on that front, we probably won't know for at least a couple of years.

But I had also hoped that the rules packages would stay relatively consistent with what the rest of the world of Superbike racing was doing. This seems to be the major point of difference for you and I, I feel that the series needs to follow that of WSBK and BSB and you don't. That's fine, it's your opinion and who am I to say it's not valid? My opinion is that this is "Superbike" racing, it should follow "Superbike" guidelines. I want to be able to compare Mat Mladin and Tommy Hayden and the guys in our series to the WSBK regulars when they come to town. I want to see our guys get wildcard rides. I want to compare trap speeds. Because what we have now is not Superbikes, it's something else called Superbikes. Because the rules are not similar enough to the rest of the world to draw a direct comparison. What we have now is a wolf in sheep's clothing, or perhaps it's a sheep in a wolf's clothing.

MotoGP adopted rules to allow some use of production parts in the new 600cc Moto2 class. Flamini Group threatened lawsuits and it was a big scandal in the press.

BSB adopted WSBK's rules and no one cared. If you look at what happened to the BSB talent pool, it's obvious why. The AMA cannot survive if it produces world class talent that benefits the international series'. It must attract/produce world class talent it intends to keep.

They can attract and keep good talent by offering equipment parity, maintaining high race purses, introducing teams/riders to sponsors, and encouraging participant ownership of the series. I know it seems like DMG treat people like garbage, but they are trying to channel aggression. You can insult the governing body and you're participation group (a rider can publicly insult another rider), but you can't insult people outside of your participation group (a sponsor cannot publicly insult a rider or vise versa).

No argument from me that the state of tune must increase in the future, but the venues need to improve and sponsors need to show up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 31 2009, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I guess this whole debate depends on what you consider "more enjoyable to ride".Anything in race trim is not comfortable and these bikes are basically in race trim off the show room. Is it the best platform for tooling around the city,absolutley not,unless you 22 years old and dont give a .....And guess what the 600's target audience is. Racers and 20 something year old wannabee racers.Why have the mfg's changed the bikes over the last 20 years.What kind of question is that.To stay in business, better performance,win races,what are you looking for in that statement? Why has every facet of your life changed technologically in the last 20 years. Its called natural progression. Like i said,they are not for everyone but there is no lack of options for riders who want something different.

Displacement rules limit engines to 4-strokes and they reward manufacturers for adding extra cyclinders. Extra cylinders drives up costs .

Who is they in this sentence, and what rewards are THEY giving for adding extra cyclinders. It seems like the rewards are being given to the bikes with 2 cylinders dont you think. Using your logic,all race bikes in the 600 class should be Vtwins to save money.The last time i checked,a Buell 1125, Aprilia Mille R and a Ducati 849 costs considerably more than any of the i4 600's.Does 4 Zx6 pistons cost twice as much as 2 Ducati pistons,no. Big Vtwins with all their exceptions is what gets expensive. To be competitive, I would bet the farm that the Buell has spent close to twice the money that Attack has spent on Hackings bike since it is virtually stock and the Buell is prototyped. How is that keeping the price down.Jap repliracers are the most cost efficient bikes in the world if you consider what you get for your 8 k. World class adjustable suspensions,World class brakes, unbelievable hp at unbelievable revs and realiability.How can that be considered a bad bike

Engine manufacturing costs for twins are lower when the factory is a constant. Sure, mega corps can make 4s at less cost than Ducati can make a twin, but that's economies of scale and labor efficiencies, not race legislation.

I ride a 4 cylinder bike, it is a detuned version of Honda's 900RR lump. Besides it's weight the engine is a dream. Why isn't this lovely lump built from aluminum, clothed in plastics, and sold as a middleweight?

1 reason: it can't be raced/marketed. Why? Because of displacement rules? Why are all middleweights 600cc?

It could be raced in DSB though

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2009, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>BSB adopted WSBK's rules and no one cared. If you look at what happened to the BSB talent pool, it's obvious why. The AMA cannot survive if it produces world class talent that benefits the international series'. It must attract/produce world class talent it intends to keep.

They can attract and keep good talent by offering equipment parity, maintaining high race purses, introducing teams/riders to sponsors, and encouraging participant ownership of the series.
Maybe I'm just cynical but I don't think that the AMA will ever be able to keep talent from leaving for the world stage. I think Mladin is an anomaly and no matter what happens with the series, the best riders are always going to want to move to Europe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2009, 06:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Engine manufacturing costs for twins are lower when the factory is a constant. Sure, mega corps can make 4s at less cost than Ducati can make a twin, but that's economies of scale and labor efficiencies, not race legislation.

I ride a 4 cylinder bike, it is a detuned version of Honda's 900RR lump. Besides it's weight the engine is a dream. Why isn't this lovely lump built from aluminum, clothed in plastics, and sold as a middleweight?

1 reason: it can't be raced/marketed. Why? Because of displacement rules? Why are all middleweights 600cc?

It could be raced in DSB though

Whick bike cost more to put on the track,Jamie Hackings stock Attack Kawasaki or Danny Eslicks Prototype Buell.. When you answer that truthfully,tell me then how V Twins keep down cost in that series.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 31 2009, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Whick bike cost more to put on the track,Jamie Hackings stock Attack Kawasaki or Danny Eslicks Prototype Buell.. When you answer that truthfully,tell me then how V Twins keep down cost in that series.

You can't compare costs across factories because those costs are governed by economies of scale, business efficiencies, taxation, etc.

Anyway, the idea that lower cylinder bikes are cheaper than 4 cylinder bikes is so straight forward, it is a postulate. A Kawasaki 600 twin (especially a parallel twin) would be significantly cheaper than a 600cc I-4. Obviously, the 600 twin would produce significantly less power, that's why no one races parallel twins. Why do you think entry level bikes, even those over 600cc, often have fewer cylinders?

Displacement is almost free if you keep the number of cylinders constant, but reciprocating engine internals are very expensive to add. Why do you think manufacturers are so keen to push 1000cc products? The margins are higher b/c a 1000cc I-4 costs roughly the same as a 600cc I-4 but they can charge an extra 2 grand for the extra hp.

I'm not saying Japanese I-4s don't offer great value for money, I'm saying a Japanese 750 or 800 twin would make as much power and cost even less than a I-4 with equivalent hp. The margins on the twin would probably be higher as well. Unfortunately, Kawasaki can't make an easy to ride, reliable 750 V-twin b/c they've got nowhere to race it.

DSB could change that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2009, 10:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You can't compare costs across factories because those costs are governed by economies of scale, business efficiencies, taxation, etc.

Anyway, the idea that lower cylinder bikes are cheaper than 4 cylinder bikes is so straight forward, it is a postulate. A Kawasaki 600 twin (especially a parallel twin) would be significantly cheaper than a 600cc I-4. Obviously, the 600 twin would produce significantly less power, that's why no one races parallel twins. Why do you think entry level bikes, even those over 600cc, often have fewer cylinders?

Displacement is almost free if you keep the number of cylinders constant, but reciprocating engine internals are very expensive to add. Why do you think manufacturers are so keen to push 1000cc products? The margins are higher b/c a 1000cc I-4 costs roughly the same as a 600cc I-4 but they can charge an extra 2 grand for the extra hp.

I'm not saying Japanese I-4s don't offer great value for money, I'm saying a Japanese 750 or 800 twin would make as much power and cost even less than a I-4 with equivalent hp. The margins on the twin would probably be higher as well. Unfortunately, Kawasaki can't make an easy to ride, reliable 750 V-twin b/c they've got nowhere to race it.

DSB could change that.
The debate is about DMG lowering cost, so i will ask again. Who do you think has more money tied up in their bike as they sit on the grid, Attack Kawasaki, or the DMG Buell. From what i can gather is you are an advocate of an all v twin class because they are less expensive to produce but become more expensive when forced to compete with with I4 600's. The part that scares me is your first thought is to kill the better technology in favor of the weak.That is the truest form of dumbing down.And would a 750 -800 V Twin have the same performance. as a 600I4, well,it hasnt happened yet. Ducati,the most prominent Vtwin mfgr in the world cant match them with 849cc and that is with a prefered valve system. One more thing, when your comparing the price of a Kawasaki paralell twin 600 to an I4 ZX6,less than half the difference is in motor. Suspension,Brakes Fuel Delivery,wheels,electronics are where the money difference comes in. It amazes me that you can go from one to the other for 3 k difference and it amazes me even more that the japs can produce that kind of performance for so much less than the USA and all of Europe.The Ducati 849 is around 14k and the Buell is 12499.00 . For the differnce in up front cost alone you could almost come close to paying for the modifications allowed in this chicken .... class

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 31 2009, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's hard to judge Edmondson's competence from Grand Am; although, you can certainly see his attitudes and his MO. A lot of the decisions they made to change Grand Am were a response to the competitive environment. Grand Am must be different than ALMS or Indy or NASCAR in order to attract viewers/sponsors.


I sometimes think he could have taken Grand-Am somewhere if not for the ridiculous looking cars.

http://www.grand-am.com/photos/full/IMG_3627.JPG

So maybe he does have what it takes to make a series successful, and was only beaten by the ugly stick that were the Daytona Prototype greenhouse dimensions?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 1 2009, 05:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The debate is about DMG lowering cost, so i will ask again. Who do you think has more money tied up in their bike as they sit on the grid, Attack Kawasaki, or the DMG Buell. From what i can gather is you are an advocate of an all v twin class because they are less expensive to produce but become more expensive when forced to compete with with I4 600's. The part that scares me is your first thought is to kill the better technology in favor of the weak.That is the truest form of dumbing down.And would a 750 -800 V Twin have the same performance. as a 600I4, well,it hasnt happened yet. Ducati,the most prominent Vtwin mfgr in the world cant match them with 849cc and that is with a prefered valve system. One more thing, when your comparing the price of a Kawasaki paralell twin 600 to an I4 ZX6,less than half the difference is in motor. Suspension,Brakes Fuel Delivery,wheels,electronics are where the money difference comes in. It amazes me that you can go from one to the other for 3 k difference and it amazes me even more that the japs can produce that kind of performance for so much less than the USA and all of Europe.The Ducati 849 is around 14k and the Buell is 12499.00 . For the differnce in up front cost alone you could almost come close to paying for the modifications allowed in this chicken .... class

That's not the point. We were discussing the merits of repliracers which are not good bikes because they produce peaky unusable power. Peaky unusable power is what is produced by series' with displacement rules for 4-strokes. At least that's how it works in the TC era.

The cross manufacturer comparisons aren't worth examining because engine configuration is not the biggest determinant of cost. Retail price and manufacturing cost are not the same, btw.

I don't care so much about the number of cylinders but the nature of the power produced by the engine. Most sportsbikes aren't good to ride b/c they are built for the track. The rules at the track are antiquated and counterproductive.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 1 2009, 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That's not the point. We were discussing the merits of repliracers which are not good bikes because they produce peaky unusable power. Peaky unusable power is what is produced by series' with displacement rules for 4-strokes. At least that's how it works in the TC era.

The cross manufacturer comparisons aren't worth examining because engine configuration is not the biggest determinant of cost. Retail price and manufacturing cost are not the same, btw.

I don't care so much about the number of cylinders but the nature of the power produced by the engine. Most sportsbikes aren't good to ride b/c they are built for the track. The rules at the track are antiquated and counterproductive.
Since you refuse to answer the question,i will assume you agree that the Buell is a more expensive bike to race in DSB. The rules at the track are antiquated and counterproductive.Im not sure where you are going with that statement.Since we are talking about repliracers that are built for the track,again,i will assume you think that bikes and racing should go into some kind of 20 year reversal in time, where the bikes were heavy,had lower revs and obviously lower HP, terrible brakes and suspensions that left a lot to be desired,but would be more comfy for you to ride around town.Is that what your saying,i dont know. Sometimes your message is kind of intentionally cryptic so you can change directions at a moments notice. Tell me what you mean.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 1 2009, 08:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Since you refuse to answer the question,i will assume you agree that the Buell is a more expensive bike to race in DSB.

The Buell is probably more expensive to race but that's because it's made by Buell, not because it is a twin

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Tell me what you mean.

I'm trying but it isn't the simplest of ideas.

Displacement rules for motorcycles were often designed to control 2-stroke development. When developing 2 strokes, displacement isn't terribly restrictive because airflow management is often most important in a valveless engine. Unfortunately, displacement is hugely restrictive in 4-stroke racing even more so the in the past because TC allows engines to be designed for max revs.

Most repli-racer engines generate power based upon one design philosophy---maximum achievable horsepower at a given piston velocity. This formula creates engines that produce lovely stat sheets with nice max power figures, but the formula was designed to solve an engineering problem that doesn't exist. In the real world sportbikes aren't restricted to any particular cc so they formula isn't useful anywhere but on the track.

Engine stroke controls piston velocity so most new engines have a short stroke. Short stroke engines generally make very poor usable mid-range and low end power but they are more reliable because they generate lower piston speeds per given rpm.

If you shorten a bikes stroke to help it achieve lower piston velocity, common sense would cause engineers to seek more displacement so they don't have to compromise usable power. Unfortunately, more displacement at a given rev level means more hp and more speed. That's why racing series' seek to limit displacement.

If you limit HP instead of displacement, motorcycle companies will seek to produce reliable short-stroke engines that still produce low end and midrange Like my Honda for instance. It is a detuned 900RR lump. It produces the same PEAK hp as a 600 but it about 2x as much usable power everywhere else.

In summary, detuned short stroke engines that use bore (displacement) to supplement low end and midrange power = the best ever. Unfortunately, these engines are not developed for sportbikes because there is no sport bike series that doesn't restrict displacement.

So it's an indefinite suspension? Not really interested but anyway, thanks for sharing the information.










Regards,
Jan
prêts travaux