Who is the next great American rider

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Mar 9 2010, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Which is why so many purists defend the current 800cc class. We have come full circle, back to the classic line, and to that avail then I agree 250cc racing was the best breeding ground for potential GP talent

We have the classic line b/c the bikes don't have enough fuel to ride anything but the classic corner speed line. The capacity has little to do with it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Mar 9 2010, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Factory WSBKs are far more complicated that 250GP bikes. Yet WSBK has never produced a champion who has gone on to win GP. I suppose its just another example that technological complexity doesn't help the riders develop skill. Technology only makes the bike faster.
Not in the nature of their set up. They are heavier less refined beasts and do not demand the same level of finesse to master.

Interesting to note though, that AMA Superbike has produced a champion that has gone on to win GP. Prior to technological advancements the same series was the stepping stone for some of the greatest Grand Prix talents the sport has ever seen - weaned on prehistoric CB9's and Z thou's.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Mar 9 2010, 12:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not in the nature of their set up. They are heavier less refined beasts and do not demand the same level of finesse to master.

Interesting to note though, that AMA Superbike has produced a champion that has gone on to win GP. Prior to technological advancements the same series was the stepping stone for some of the greatest Grand Prix talents the sport has ever seen - weaned on prehistoric CB9's and Z thou's.

Regardless of which is more complex to setup, the point is that technological complication is highly overrated. According to the more-is-more technological philosophy, 4-strokes should have produced a vastly superior caliber of rider just b/c of the exponential growth in technological complexity. As we all know, that didn't happen. If anything the riders have fewer skills in their repertoire; though, the remaining skills have been sharpened to a much finer edge due to the growth of the sport and GPs dedication to sourcing new talent.

At one point, the AMA had a similar thing going. Before the days of 1000cc WSBK, the AMA waters were very deep, and a group of very motivated riders had access to competitive equipment. The changes to WSBK were announced in 2003 and the MSMA made their intentions known. National series like BSB followed WSBK. The AMA chose to go its own way.

I'm glad the AMA went its own way, but they followed the povol-philosophy which caused them to have an unhealthy focus on the technical sophistication of the bikes. While WSBK prohibited all modifications that were not listed in the rulebook, the AMA made all modifications unlimited and then prescribed certain limitations in the rulebook. They believed that technologically advanced bikes were the key to capturing fans and riders. Eventually, they realized that unlimited racing was far to expensive to maintain, but rather than implement sensible rules reforms, the competitors simply divided the class-victories amongst themselves

The best national SBK series was dead-to-rights in just five seasons precisely b/c they thought people would be attracted by blue skies technology.

I certainly agree that a certain level of technical complexity can be beneficial for the riders. Suspension and chassis modifications are a good example of beneficial aftermarket parts so I hope in the future that the AMA allows more suspension adjustments and chassis mods like swingarms. However, I do not wish to hear anymore rants about how the lack of prototype engine parts or factory electronics is harming American riders.

Utter and complete lack of access to good equipment was killing the AMA riders. An unhealthy focus on motorcycle parts was killing AMA riders.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 8 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Now let me get this straight, Spies is great because he was on a Yoshimura Suzuki. Or was he great because of the Yamaha Italia bike, or maybe he was great because of the American Suzuki bike he rode to the FX title.

What I think he meant to convey was that the only great rider of recent history from the AMA came from the yoshimura team, because they were the only team that had the resources and facilities to groom an up and coming young star--which is a high risk venture. The other factories had to focus their resources to beating mladin, and the safest bet (in their opinion) was to bank on veteran riders, not invest in a young future star who's dividends won't be seen any time soon.

Spies came from the yosh team because they were the only team that didn't have to put their entire essence into beating Matt Mladin, since they had Matt Mladin.

That is what I interpreted from Lex's statement. The comment had nothing to do with the bike, I don't think. But they were Lex's words, not mine so he can feel free to correct me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 9 2010, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Show me technical regulations in the las 9 years where an AMA Superbike surpassed a WSBK in technical sophistication.

There was nothing in the rulebook, that was the problem. Unlike the WSBK rulebook which prohibits any modifications that are not listed in the rulebook, the AMA rulebook allowed all modifications not governed by the rules.

We don't know what exactly was on an AMA bike b/c none of the manufacturers wanted to tell one another what they were running or who was supplying it. The lack of information about the mods is what made the sport so difficult for the AMA to control. Honda and Suzuki were unwilling to adopt WSBK-style code regulation, but when DMG came along, Yoshimura saw an opportunity to use DMG's rulebook to sell aftermarket parts. Conversely, Ray Blank was angry b/c he knew that superstock code rules don't benefit Honda.

Please don't misunderstand me. The bikes were only a symptom of the underlying problems, not the problem itself. Parts homologation was the medicine the sport needed to kill the virus (bad technical regs), but killing the virus has coincided with the departure of much of the financial support from the manufacturers.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming their racing budgets have been slashed to nil, but if they have simply withdrawn in anger, they are only confirming that they were the problem with the sport.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yello13 @ Mar 9 2010, 06:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What I think he meant to convey was that the only great rider of recent history from the AMA came from the yoshimura team, because they were the only team that had the resources and facilities to groom an up and coming young star--which is a high risk venture. The other factories had to focus their resources to beating mladin, and the safest bet (in their opinion) was to bank on veteran riders, not invest in a young future star who's dividends won't be seen any time soon.

Spies came from the yosh team because they were the only team that didn't have to put their entire essence into beating Matt Mladin, since they had Matt Mladin.

That is what I interpreted from Lex's statement. The comment had nothing to do with the bike, I don't think. But they were Lex's words, not mine so he can feel free to correct me.

Exactly. The superiority of the Yoshimura GSXR-1000 or the perceived superiority of the Yosh Suzuki caused the other manufacturers to need established veteran riders who could do the development work, protect the expensive equipment, and ultimately contend for the title.

Suzuki already had the best bike and Mat Mladin so it was only natural that they would find Ben Spies (the next Mat Mladin from Suzuki's viewpoint), and it was only natural that the next Mat would have to race Mladin straight up on equal equipment.

No surprise Suzuki scooped up Blake as well.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 10 2010, 07:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So what your saying is,that is your opinion and you cant verify anything you say.I will give you this,you are very good at making your opinion sound like fact. Have you ever considered running for office, your a natural.

No, I can't take credit for it. I'm basically rehashing the debate they had at the beginning of the season. The WSBK clause has been referenced in quite a few articles regarding changes to the AMA.

I remember Edmondson saying that the lack of a WSBK clause was wasting privateer time and money b/c they were spending half of their time seeking out vendors and managing their parts supply chain. I think he probably got this view from Jordan, a guy who never really liked the old SBK arrangement.

Ray Blank said that a WSBK clause would only enrage the engineers and it probably wouldn't improve the racing at all. Blank's "this should be fun" remark regarding turnkey racers was allegedly an allusion to Honda's interest in building bikes according to the old technical philosophy (to DMG's chagrin). It never came to pass. No turnkey racers ever came to pass except the Buell 1125RR.

I guess they were both right in the end. Neither of them participate the AMA anymore.

Melissa Paris

America's got talent

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 10 2010, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The remark," this should be fun" had nothing to do with building bikes to the old technical philosophy. Unless your saying that the old technical regulations allowed bikes to compete that broke just about every homologation rule in the books. When Blank heard about the 1125RR,he asked DMG sarcastically if they could build a one off prototype race bike , because obviously, everyone at Honda had read the homologation rules the wrong way.Thats when he said "this could be fun". DMG responded by saying if you can keep it under 50 grand,we will "take it into consideration"

Of course it was sarcastic, but it was also in regards to the backpeddling by DMG. Blank was adamant that adding the WSBK clause would not improve the racing. For most of the 2009 season he was right. When DMG announced turnkey racers, they were basically returning to the old AMA rules but with a cost cap. Blank was basically saying "Oh, so now that you've seen the racing you want to return to the way we used to build bikes. This should be fun". He was also probably insinuating that Honda would build something that no one could compete with.

Short but good Q+A sessoin with Kenny Noyes on the MCN site.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 10 2010, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interpret it any way you like,you always do

"It is very difficult for me to comment on the AMA/DMG acceptance of the Buell in question as ashamedly it is evident we had an erroneous interpretation of both the rules and the homologation process," "This is an exciting new opportunity for all manufacturers and I am ashamed to have missed this chance through our inability to accurately analyze the current rules. Frankly, this could really be fun."

Yes. DMG used the homologation rules to circumvent their own eligible equipment list. The end result was that the manufacturers could build SBKs like they used to before DMG arrived.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Mar 11 2010, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>[/b]
Which would be how? Im dying to hear this since the end result was a tuned up streetbike.
Before DMG arrived, we had what was called a Superbike, you know,those things that had forks and suspension that cost more than the whole bike today. How are they possibly building SBK's like they used to before DMG arrived.

How do they build WSBKs?

I dunno let's go look in the rulebook and find out.

How do they build AMA SBKs?

I dunno let's look at the rulebook, the eligible equipment list, and the special allowances.

How did they build AMA SBKs before DMG's arrival?

WE DON'T KNOW! We don't know b/c the rulebook didn't list the allowable modifications. The old rulebook had a list of limitations, but anything that wasn't in the rulebook was unlimited. Why do you think WSBK was a traffic jam, and AMA featured 2 bikes that were 1 minute ahead? The AMA had no idea what was causing the disparity between the teams b/c they didn't know what the teams were doing.

How do they build a $40,000 AMA turnkey SBK?

Start with a bike and 40K then who knows? It's similar to the old rule system. There is no list of allowable modifications. Do what you want, DMG will say no to certain things.

I forgot , what was this thread about? Was it how ama/dmg sucks or doesn't suck?

Just asking.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Loose Rod @ Mar 14 2010, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I forgot , what was this thread about? Was it how ama/dmg sucks or doesn't suck?

Just asking.

It's about maintaining a series that develops great riders. Great riders aren't developed in a series that features 2 or 3 competitive bikes in the premier 1000cc and 600cc classes b/c nobody gets to the edge unless they are being pushed. Parts homologation increases the amount of competitive equipment available to the teams so the riders can develop by pushing one another to the edge.

Because the manufacturers are broke and the fanbase has been killed by bad racing, AMA superbikes lack some important racing-spec components like suspension and swingarms.

The next great american rider is probably going to be some kid that nobody has ever heard of. He might not even have started racing yet. But when he finally gets his chance on the world stage, you'll know it's something special.