The latest dustup over the Buell 1125RR and the Yoshimura Suzuki GSX-R1000RR has more than a few builders, racers and interested spectators all up in arms over the interpretation of the rulebook. I previously mentioned “No Rules Racing” as one semi-serious way to deal with the issue but after seeing the many strong opinions, you may want to consider how difficult it is to write a rulebook that makes sense.
You need to start with the end in mind:
You can write very strict rules to define a series, make no exceptions and let the chips fall where they may. This appeals to our competitive side and seems to be the fairest solution.
You can write rules with the idea of including as many competitors as possible, adjusting those rules to give everyone at least some chance of keeping up and tweak those rules if the racing becomes too lopsided. This makes many of us cringe, it’s like penalizing success and rewarding failure.
But, … it depends.
Purpose built racing machines fit easily into the strict rules concept. Here are the rules, build your bikes, let the best man win. Can’t win? Build a better bike and/or get a better team and rider. Stop whining, race.
Any production based racing series creates a very difficult problem for the rule makers. Rules must take into account the real differences in production machinery, the size and budgets of the various companies, and which bikes can realistically perform at a par with each other to create a competitive race instead of a one bike runaway every weekend. Lopsided results might make the team and fans of one manufacturer or rider happy but everyone else will lose interest. Weight, displacement and lots of other things may need adjustments to make an actual race of it.
In production based racing, there’s no right answer, only trade-offs. Helping some smaller manufacturers get on the grid with a shot at competing helps their chances of selling a few more bikes and having a viable business and maybe improving their bikes as a result. Keeping the races competitive for more bikes and manufacturers keeps spectator interest up, helps ticket sales and more money is spent at the track with lots of vendors. If you want good turnouts and lots of competition, that’s a decision with consequences for the rulebook.
Unless you restrict competition to one model or manufacturer, is there any way to be production based, extremely strict and successful? It’s something to think about.
Michael McClellan says
Hard and skinny tires kinda let the rider ride the bike….take off adjustable electronics if possible. Production bikes should have 2000 built …….. otherwise one-offs will abound.
taxman says
when writing your rules i think it really boils down to one question. “do we want to know who the best rider is, or who makes the best bike?”
if you want to pit racer against racer to determine who is the best in the saddle then you need to have extremely rigid rules in place to assure that all bikes on the track are as close in spec as possible. in fact the absolute best for this would be to have every racer on the same bike, but that wouldn’t be as much fun in my opinion.
however if you want to know what company makes the flat out best ride, then you loosen up the noose on what they are aloud to do and how they are aloud to accomplish it and you will see a wider diversity in the style of bikes. this removes a bit of importance placed on the riders skill level but adds to brand competition.
you can go all one way or the other with a fair amount of ease. but trying to get a good balance of both can be very tricky, especially due to the fact that it becomes extremely subjective.
just my thoughts.
John says
I’m one for the competition of Brands I am bored by spec racing.American Lemans is more interesting than Indy car even though there are rules in American Lemans they have many differenrt brands racing.I don’t watch Indy car anymore, not even the 500, who cares,all Hondas,it’s boring.In the 60’s you could see V8’s Ford,V6’sBuick,inline 6 a turboed Rambler 6,Inline 4’s Offenhauser,and Turbine powered car’s,that was fun to watch.
Scott says
As a motorcycle consumer, I’ve got a real problem with the rules that have stood in FIM and AMA for the past 10 years. When strict displacement limits are the key do different classes, as we’ve seen, bikes develop to the most efficient configuration. And when that happens, all the bikes end up looking very similar and our choices as consumers become very limited.
With FIM allowing 1200 cc twins, that at least creates the possibility of one alternative design, but we still see things drift toward a relative lack of variety.
Another problem that is somewhat related is that, in racing, the rich get richer to the point that it’s nearly impossible for someone new to break in. That goes not only for the factories and the design of the bikes, but also the teams. For example, Yoshimura Suzuki wins, so they get big sponsorship dollars. Big sponsorship dollars hire the best racers and the best crew chiefs and big dollars buy the best parts etc. etc. etc. If left unchecked, the top teams could get to a point at which they could never be challenged. That’s why football has salary caps and a draft system that is designed to help the better teams improve. That allows more even competition.
I’m not completely comfortable with everything DMG has done, but I like the idea that they are at least trying to get more people involved and lower the cost of entry and keep things even. It requires a bit of a dance. I like the way Buell has been able to compete with top teams, but, as a Buell fan, even I have to admit that they have an advantage because of their larger displacement. That displacement advantage isn’t (yet) enough to overcome the advantages of experience and money of the top teams, but they longer they work at it the stronger they will get. Eventually (maybe as soon as next year) Buell will have an unfair advantage and have to get pulled in.
I think an ideal system would have strict limits for the top teams but allow some more flexibility and advantages for the weaker and up and coming teams – but those advantages have to be carefully monitored and pulled back as soon as the weaker team gets to the point they can use them to be dominant.
todd says
I don’t understand why a “production” class would allow ANY modifications. Wouldn’t that make things much more simple? -just remember to tape up the lights and mirrors.
Maybe there could be a qualifying race that is awarded points. Everything from 125s to 1200s would be on the grid. Each racer would race hard to get the points. At the end of the race the bikes are divided into groups based on their performance and then re-raced. This might even place 125s along side 1200s on technical courses. I guess you would need to have enough qualifying races to keep riders competing at their potential instead of taking it easy. Maybe 1 for 1 at each venue.
-todd
todd says
Racing now is a bit “bait and switch”. You can’t go and buy on Monday what won on Sunday. I think that is faulty advertising.
-todd
Gary Perry says
With the advent of chassis (wheel) dynamometers and accurate scales the only sensible way to establish a racing class is the combination of weight to power ratio and tire contact area. The rest should be left up to the engineering skills of the manufacturer.
Production classes should include a minimum SOLD requirement.
The logistics of rule enforcement should actually be simpler given that all measurements can be taken and recorded electronically in a few minutes.
Chaz says
It seems that presently the best motorcycle racing overall is MotoGP, followed closely by WSB. Any of a number of riders on a different makes of bikes can win any race, although some entrants have little or no chance of winning. Attendance is very good, sponsorship is good for the times, and the racing is close and exciting. This is true even though one is based on displacement and the other based (somewhat) on production vehicles. When bikes are disqualified for rules violations, or the rules are constantly changed or tweaked to help a rider or manufacturer, the result is an uneasy feeling that the best rider, manufacturer, or combination probably didn’t win. Who would watch an Olympics in which some runners were given a 10 meter advantage in the 100 meter dash?
On the fourth of July, our family went to the fireworks show and stock car races at the local fairgrounds. The quarter mile dirt track races were some of the most entertaining racing I have seen in a long time. There were 3 classes, small displacement stock, large displacement stock, and modified. That seemed to be about all the rules they needed for the races.
Walt says
I don’t have an answer. Close racing is fun — like it was when Harley KR flatheads used to race OHV Gold Stars and Triumph Daytonas here in the states. Somehow that worked. But technology that is truly dominant kills the competition and ultimately threatens the series.
I don’t see how multiple bike makes can race together without the technology influencing racing success. Indeed, that’s the whole point of the “racing improves the breed” concept.
NASCAR (which I never watch) has tried mightily to take technology out of the picture and it appears pretty much succeeded. A NASCAR “Taurus” is as much a Taurus as a Tide-sponsored car is a box of detergent. And as I understand it, anybody who ekes out a speed advantage through power or aerodynamics gets dragged back into the pack. The idea is to make drivers and teams the heroes. That’s not all bad, but I do find the technology race interesting too.
On the “technology wins” side, Grand Prix has tried to deal with the problem of skyrocketing budgets in Formula One by imposing a spending limit. Ferrari and a couple others just crush the also-rans with dollars, kind of like the Yankees do in baseball. That’s not a lot of fun. But I’m in agreement with John — I like to see technology options duke it out on the track.
Sorry I can’t reach a conclusion.
FREEMAN says
I think they should eliminate all the rules. All it has to have is two wheels and a rider. Everything else: engine, fuel, materials, is up to the manufacturer. Let the best of the best stay at the top until someone comes along and figures out how to knock them down. A whole lot of whining about what’s fair isn’t going to make better bikes. The little guys will just have to think outside the box like they should be doing. Either that, or everyone rides the same exact bike and the rider’s skill is all the difference. Nobody will be able to complain about the rules if all the bikes are the same or there are no rules.
fireninja says
We have come a long way from horse racing, but people still want something that feels like it — something with drama and personalities. Race fans want an overall a sense that anything can happen, and that the outcome hinges on skill and ability. That is what makes racing (and gambling on races) fun those heart-in-your throat moments when time stops and the world becomes hyper-real. But Motorcycles are not Seabiscuit and War Admiral — a pack of souped up Gixxers fighting for top slot is not like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVT2MPNCqgM
Gameness, the (perhaps irrational) desire to compete or fight for its own sake, is a trait found in few animals. Some horses have it. Roosters do as well, as do some dogs and Siamese Fighting Fish (Betta Splendens). And some people have it too — everyone who has raced at a stoplight has a touch of it. After all, does it really matter if my Magna can dust your Harley? Probably not, and finding out is dangerous, but it sure feels good to do it.
It is this spirit of competitiveness that makes racing compelling to us, just as our ancestors flocked to the blood sports of old. Watching that drama unfold in real time with the best pro racers on the world’s best machines is exhilarating, like it must have been to watch top gladiators carve each other up in the Colosseum.
Whatever rules or lace thereof need to be formulated to incubate this drama. Personalities, rivalries, and above all stories drive racing. Technology is cool, and can be exciting, but nothing is as compelling as the human element. Insomuch as the rules make races a foregone conclusion the sport will whither and die.
FREEMAN says
How would you like to see some long-standing hundred-thousand dollar import get smoked in a race against some kiwi’s 90 year-old backshed american custom? I know I would. It doesn’t take money or rules to go fast. That’s been proven many times over. As long as there are vehicles, there will always be gearheads making them go faster just because they can and by any means. That’s the spirit of racing and no rules means no restrictions. Don’t be afraid to live a little and think outside your comfortable rules.
MTGR says
One key consideration not included in the article was whether you consider racing to be a form of competition or a type of entertainment. How far you go either way answers most of the conerns. Is it a sport? Product development? Entertainment for fans? Yes, I know all those elements are there and, argueably need to be, but when they have conflicting requirements then which has priority automatically dictates much of the direction the rules will go in. Turn it into WWF like NASCAR or worry primarily about tech like F1 or treat it like the stick and ball sports and follow the athletes stats?
nobody says
The classes which have/had my attention – which have relatively thin rule books:
AMA BOTT in the ’80’s – the most interesting machines ever with “real world” racers on board. It died when it bacame a Ducati 851/888 parade.
FIM Moto2 – no races yet, but I’m anxious to see what differences there will be between bikes with the same engines.
FIM MotoGP – it’s where the top talent AND bikes are.
The ancient F750 class – was too young to remember it, but I sure love listening/reading stories from that era. Killed by the TZ750?
F450 – great idea – shame that the engines are fragile and that the rules were initially written to promote SV650 sales. I like the recent rule change allowing real racing chassis, I just don’t trust the engines.
USGPRU – ever read their rulebook? It is light reading.
Classes that make me want to ride my bicycle:
Any and all AMA/FIM production classes. Period. They bore the snot out of me. If it weren’t for the bruhaha surrounding Buell, I would be completely oblivious to what is going on in the AMA/DMG/WTF.
coho says
I don’t really follow racing, but much of that is the too-many-classes/too-many-different-sets-of-rules thing. If we could combine FREEMAN’s (almost) no rules approach with Gary Perry’s power/weight/contact area formula in several power classes..I’d watch that.
I might even buy a ticket.
todd says
You do realize that a kiwi built streamliner would only need around 40-50 HP to get close to 200 MPH (183.58). It’s not backshed ingenuity that got speed in that case, it was favorable aerodynamics. They’re doing it now with 250’s and under. Romantic stories of the little man that beat the hundred-thousand dollar import (albeit in a different class) are meant for Hollywood, not reality.
It takes, money, fair – open competition, a great rider, and continued innovation to win races. Let’s not start putting limits on those means to justify the end.
-todd
John says
fireninja That sounds like a Term Paper,you should write for the NYTimes.But when it comes to enjoying racing watching a bunch of guys all driving identical Disneyland go carts is BORING.
John says
todd,so your saying it wasn’t ingenuity but aerodynamics that allowed the homebuilt Indian of Burt Munro to break records? So a monkey could have done it? nobody,I agree with what you said ,I never saw it but read about it a few times but not recently a racing organization which I think was called Bears where Triples,Twins and whatever were racing each other and allowed all kinds of upgrades.That would be fun to watch.
FREEMAN says
@ todd:
I believe you’ve taken my hypothetical statement far too literally. It was an example meant to stir up past and present motorcycle examples that both have accomplished great things, but by different means. Furthermore, I expressed the potential excitement that could be experienced from witnessing an all-out “David vs. Goliath” show-down.
fireninja says
John, I’n not advicating “a bunch of guys all driving identical Disneyland go carts.” I honestly think racing would benefit from a truly unlimited class — or perhaps a class with only one limit.
Say that you were allowed to field anything you want with any driver you want for a total expenditure of no more than, say $100,000. With that $100K you would have to buy (or build) your bike and hire your driver and team. Assume everyone has access to a machine shop. Any compensation or expenditures directly related to fielding the bike count against the limit — do it on a 6 month cycle with periodic regional qualifiers and a big race at the end. Winners get a big pot of money.
Let’s not forget that you can get a lot of bike for not much money these days — a full on stock “race replica” can be had for less than $15k. Problems paying your crew? Make them all equity shareholders, pay them less and all share in the winnings. Can’t afford after-market parts? Machine something yourself. Want the best jockey in the biz, well, he wont be riding the most expensive bike. Want the best bike money can buy? I hope you’re a good rider.
Hell, you could do a $20k class, a $500k class, or whatever numbers make for the best race. The point would be that the teams would all have the same budget to work with and have to make tradeoffs and prioritize their use of limited funds. It would level the playing field. Privateers could square-off with the big players — the best team would win, not just the richest. And, (depending on the class cap) just about anyone with talent could run up their credit cards and have a shot.
Hell, if it got popular, I’m betting that there would be a nice trickle-down of bargain priced after-market racing parts.
Something to think about anyway. . .
B*A*M*F says
Grassroots Motorsports magazine has a budget capped challenge. Each year the competitors are allowed a budget as large as the year in which the event takes place. There are a few rules limiting it to production based cars (no tube frame specials). That said, the cars are fascinating home built machines that typically handle well, go like hell, and look interesting.
I’m more interested in a pro-racing series where there are 4-5 rulebooks, all different and all having perhaps 8-12 rules. All teams get a year to develop a bike. The loser of the series draws out of a box for the next year’s rules. So one year it’s V-twins, the next it’s Wankel rotaries that dominate. If by luck of the draw the rules stay the same, then everyone gets to keep developing their platform for a year.
Also, there should be a wildcard lap or race where riders swap bikes.
mike says
i like the idea of letting builders build and riders ride but even i know that you still need some type of guidelines to follow. as stated earlier when there is no brand competition and to many rules you end up with something like the IRL or what is becoming of nascar, boring boring racing that is no longer builder and drivers/riders but owners and budgets with the winning pass made in the pits.
i would rather see something like a min weight, max displacement ruled pro class. stock blocks and limited electronics. put it back in the builders hands. ban engineers from the track/pits and let the racing begin. lets make a super bike class where the bikes are super and all brands can be represented and there are no weight breaks given for smaller displacements or bikes that would otherwise be unable to compete.
nobody says
The cheap & fun car guys have the “24 Hours of Lemons” race.
Does motorcycle racing needs its own version, “BolD’orDash”, perhaps? Dig out those FZR600s, Honda Hurricanes, etc….
Anybody remember the first years of Formula USA? Virtually no rules – there were turbos, 500GP bikes, bored out 250 GP bikes with NOS, etc… The more rules they added in subsequent years, the less I heard about that class.
OMMAG says
The KISS principle works.
Someone should explain this to race series organizers.
As far as rules go I am a firm believer that the only rules you need are the safety rules.
secret asian man says
The problem with displacement limitations is that they force specific configurations. For example, a DOHC engine will weigh significantly more than an SOHC engine of the same displacement. However, for the same engine weight, the SOHC engine might make more power.
The easiest limitation is fuel.
At the beginning of each race, every racer should be given an identical, sealed jug of racing fuel.
Your job is to get to the finish line as fast as possible on that fixed ration of fuel – without running out before you get there. No other rules, other than safety ones.
Thure says
Just give all the teams the same tires, and a limited number of them.
This would encourage all kinds of development, and skill.
You could then have the big tire class, the medium size tire class and the skinny tire class.
steve says
I agree with Todd. With todays bikes being pretty good let the company make the bike everyone can buy and take off only items not needed for racing. The racing would be closer than ever. something probably has to be allowed . Allow only cam changes and head porting with exh changes. Stock crank and pistons including valves. Stock frame and suspension components. Tire changes allowed. Electrical being such a big deal now, make electrical stock only, so you get the companies best. Soon the bike you buy from the showroom is way better. Allow much more and the cost factor drives away the competition.
Mel Beaty says
Stock would be stock. Number plates, tape or remove the headlights, different tires only if required for safety. If stock forks and shocks weren’t up to the job the manufacturer would have to make the change to all of their product line. Displacement classes with divisions in each class for number of cylinders. Classes and/or divisions would race together based on lap times. Sanctioning body supplies the fuel, maybe to a set quantity. Motogp would probably remain the same. Someone has to spend all the advertising money. The multi’s would still win overall as for a given displacement, they make more power. Even Ducati in Motogp recognized that. If that doesn’t work, just go to the vintage races and have a ball.
QrazyQat says
One thing should be that rules are rules. Back in the old days of AMA superbikes, they had a junior superbike class for a season… maybe it was more. Anyway, one of the rules was no valve timing changes, yet all the front running 350s were Yamaha RDs with cut ports (running about 115mph; not a stocker’s top speed to say the least). If you’re going to make rules, enforce them.
Allan Lobdell says
I have tried to understand the whys of the inclusion of HD/Buell in AMA Prostock and Roadracing. I can’t, all I can see is a manufacturer that is unable to compete on a level playing field and needs rules that favor it’s inclusion and ultimatly it’s domination of the sport. I quit watching the dishonesty of Prostock and now American roadracing too.
Michael says
Why not keep it simple? Two rubber wheels/tires. No budget cap. Any powerplant/engine/propulsion system, Any fuel. Any frame/chassis combination/composition. Maybe add in some strict rules regarding safety, but other than that the only catch is, you must be able to sell your machine to the competition at a fixed price (say $100,000).
So a team may spend a fortune on hiring the best riders, technicians, engineers, tacticians, strategist, etc but their machines are virtually just a 100K machine (no matter how much they actually spent). This would automatically put the spending in check and have the teams play the game “smarter”.
John says
So,Allan Lobdell,I’m sure you were much happier when it was only Suzukis you were watching.
Dr. Gellar says
Thinking about MotoGP….changing of the regulations in MotoGP back in 2007 to 800cc machines has helped, along with a poor economy, to weaken the series considerably. So much so that the powers that be have been getting desperate for a quick fix to the problems currenting damaging the series. Based on the ideas proposed by David Emmett (Kropotkin) of MotoGPMatters.com (see
http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/01/10/saving_motogp_part_3_avoiding_the_traps_.html ) and Lotus engineers Jamie Turner and Richard Pearson (see http://www.rideontwo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2261 ), here’s the basic rules I’d like to see MotoGP adopt for a more open, inclusive series:
an energy limit (with maybe some advantages given for non-gasoline powered powerplants)
a weight minimum
an emissions cap of sorts
slightly more liberal bodywork rules
unlimited displacement
unlimited engine type (4-stroke, 2-stroke, electric, diesel, rotary, whatever…)
spec tires
MotoGP should be about the fastest road-racing bikes on the planet, regardless what engine type or size they may be. Why limit it to simply 800cc 4-stroke, 4-cylinder engined machines?? I think if the series was opened up to regulations similar to what is alisted above, you would start to see a renewed interest in the series by a whole number of different manufacturers. Which could only be a good thing…
Kenny says
OMMAG if you want simple it doesn’t get much moreso than this
http://www.supermononewsletter.co.uk/What%20Is%20Supermono.htm
Some of the bikes you see being built for this series are absolutley stunning, engineering wise. As I mention a while back you have bikes with frames of mild-steel square tubing bought from the co-op down the road with homemade Hossak/Duo-lever front ends competing head to head against “traditional tackle”.
http://www.singlecellracing.com/bike.htm
But overall I agree with secret asian man, all the existing rules have been tried out. The FIM or AMA should try something completely different and off the beaten track, promote the hell out of it. My personal favourite is having a very extreme fuel limit. One so steep that in the 1st year at least you have riders pushing their machines over the finish line. You’d have to put other rules on it of course otherwise you might have CG125’s winning. And nobody wants that;)
Allan Lobdell says
John, it was not only Suzukis, Although they were the ones spending the most $. Don’t read in something that is not there. Yes, changes do need to be made. Making one manufacturer dominant by rule is not the answer, inclusion of a uncompetitive design is not the answer. Forcing the racing world to accept HD/Buell because of the popularity of the brand is not competition.
Shane says
In australia we had a race called the castrol 6hr race where bikes were taken out of the original shipping crate, Impounded and then raced for six hours very popular.Dont know all the details but do a seach for the castrol six hour and i am sure you will find something
hoyt says
re-play of a portion of Gary Perry’s & Dr. Gellar’s comments, respectively:
“…the only sensible way to establish a racing class is the combination of weight to power ratio…. The rest should be left up to the engineering skills of the manufacturer.”
“MotoGP should be about the fastest road-racing bikes on the planet, regardless what engine type or size they may be..”
What about 2 races per track like they do now in WSB, but the 2nd race assigns another team’s bike based on a lottery or some type of ranking based on the 1st race results?
Manufacturers & Teams still need to devote R&D to their bikes, but the lower budget teams (who have great talent in their rider and mechanics, but not necessarily cash to get the higher finishes) have a chance to make things interesting for themselves and thousands of fans.
Top riders from the top teams who finish race #2 on the podium would be impressive.
hoyt says
hey – don’t mistake the above idea for some type of socialism. It’s an idea to keep the field competitive while giving OEM’s & top teams the incentive to execute engineering excellence.
Professional Bull Rider’s scoring is based on the rider AND the bull. The individual rider doesn’t show up to a rodeo with his own bull and ride that same bull every single rodeo. They get assigned a bull by lotter ( I believe) and then the top riders going into the final ride get to select their bull for the final event.
I realize there are significant challenges to consider for road racing (e.g. how a rider from a lower budget team crashing a higher budget team’s bike during race #2 would pay for the repairs), but if the main issues are to see great engineering talent and great riding skill with exciting competition, what other way can we challenge the engineering teams and riders other than to add this type of variety?
hoyt says
…and who wouldn’t like to see Valentino race a Ducati or Aprilia for once?
Brent Meeker says
The best road racing series now is WSB. MotoGP is very expensive and doesn’t relate as well to selling on Monday. As a consequence the MotoGP grid is shrinking while two new manufacturers have entered WSB. The sensible thing for DMG to do is just adopt WSB rules, i.e. production based with fairly wide modifications allowed. It would also allow easy cross-over of technology and riders between Europe and the U.S. Here in the U.S. one of the best series we ever had was Formula Extreme before the AMA took it over. It was “no rules” and “anything goes”. It led to great racing and innovation until Kenny Roberts brought over two GP bikes and dominated the series.
Dr. Gellar says
Brent
I completely agree with you about WSB. Best series going at the moment. Hopefully when WSBK changes their regulations to go to a more Superstock level of engine tuning, AMA/DMG will simply follow suit and mirror the change.
Aaaah yes, Formula USA. Well, that’s what is was called during the WERA years. The biggest problem with that series was that all the teams but the Kenny Roberts Marlboro Yamaha squad were basically privateers. No one stood a chance once Roberts brought the 500’s over. I really do think similar rules (not exactly the same, but similar) would work out in MotoGP though. The difference here would be that most of the competitors would likely be factory teams (wishful thinking perhaps?) and their budgets far greater than any privateer team F-USA/Formula Extreme ever had. I’m sure even some private teams could make things interesting in MotoGP under such regulations.
hoyt says
WSB does seem to be the best currently for both teams & fans.
My comments above describe a crazy idea, but I put it out there anyway as something to think about for a *new* series. I don’t think the current series need to change that drastically. After all, one can argue the only thing wrong with a team like Mladin’s (who goes out and shows that he is the best for the better part of a decade) is that other teams have not stepped up to the challenge. Is that due to the rulebook, money?
Do these series still give a clear indication of who is the most talented road racer and which is the best machine? Or is the winning team just a reflection of the best money spent on tweaking a given bike to a given rider? That’s all and good, but fairly narrow result.
In regards to my comments above, I can see some people thinking “no way in hell will someone race my bike”. True, but is there merit in a new series that looks at “my bike” differently than it is today?….i.e. it’s your bike so far as the current race, but it is the manufacturers’ bike. Points will be awarded to the OEM (or contracted builder of the OEM’s bike) as significantly as they are to the rider/team, in parallel.
The bike “setup” component is still a question as to whether or not professional riders would buy into this different approach…. It seems there are some teams who battle all year with setting up the bike to fit their rider. Is this part of the problem with some racing, particularly a series that tries to project a “stock” form of motorcycles? (if it is “stock”, something that any consumer can buy, then there shouldn’t be so much setup effort because thousands of consumers are expected to ride the bike. Go race after some track adjustments).
The whole paradigm for this series would be setup differently…there would be riders/teams and then there would be the participating manufacturers’ bikes (or race teams contracted to build/maintain the bike). The assignments of teams-to-bikes is highly variable every race. Who can go out and win from one bike to the next on one track to the next? What company can manufacture a bike to be able to race on a wide variety of racers with little setup? What team can be most efficient with racetrack setup?
todd says
Interesting concept but I wonder how sponsorships would work out – how would riders get paid? I can’t imagine Marlboro wanting a rider on their bike wearing Lucky Strike leathers.
-todd
Morpheous says
…and so goes the problem with democracy LOL Paul, Your opening “rules” comments could aptly be applied to our current government’s struggle with the failing auto/financial industires here in the states. Maybe you can solve both rules issues!
hoyt says
Todd – good questions, but those types of things (particularly in today’s world) seem to generate “buzz”, which advertisers love.
Kenny says
Hmmm.
Hoyt’s comment got me thinking. What if instead of teams getting their favoured manufacturers bikes, each track is “sponsored” by a certain manufacturer Laguna Seca will have say Honda CBR’s, Valencia will have MV Agusta’s etc. The manufacturer in question for a certain track gives each rider a bog standard bike. And each team has a set amount of “points” and are given a catalogue of parts upgrades. Uprated suspension, monobloc brakes, turbos……..each part costs a certain amount of points (determined by the race orgainiser). Tire’s would be standardised.
The aftermarket parts manufacturers would help cover the costs as well as traditional sponsors who would do the same as well as help pay for the teams costs.
Logistics for such a series would be hell, but everybody would start off on the same peg the rest is up to their skill, aftermarket companies would have direct competition for development and if the track each manufacturer was assigned to was changed there would be top times competition.