Attn: Duc racers...could it be???

Started by skiandclimb, September 16, 2009, 11:16:44 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

roadracer162

I remember those VF750 where it seemed like everyone rode one when they were the newest badness. I remember watching Rick Shaw racing his at Moroso-if I can remamber that far back. There was one here in 2004 when I raced in the amateur ranks. It would be pretty cool to watch now, well built, well ridden and down-right fast.

Mark
Mark Tenn
CCS Ex #22
Mark Tenn Motorsports, Michelin tire guy in Florida.

proechel539

CCS has the light weight class so fucked up its silly! I"m looking harder at going racing with WERA it's just better set up for SV's. Put all that other crap such as the Buells in the MW class, where they should be anyway and leave the LW for the SV and similar bikes.The LW class should be where riders can have cheap reliable race bikes.
Darrell Proechel
CCS Ex # 76
02 SV-650, 06 GSXR750
proechel1@comcast.net

roadracer162

It's a tough choice for any organization to cater to everyone which is what I believe CCS has attemtped to do. As an organizer would you cater to the new stuff or more to the old? The Buell is new along with some other models such is the case of the Bimota. The SV is from 2000 almost 10 years now with a few ugrades. It isn't the organizations fault that the SV isn't keeping up with the newest badness.

I know I am rambling and my statements may seem contradictory but they are all food for thought. I believe that club racing is about getting all different kinds of motorcycles and people together to enjoy our enthusiasm. I also believe there can be some overall limits to displacements for each category regardless of the configuration of the motor. I also think there can be some concessions for the year of a motorcycle.

Can you imagine my 1989 FZR400 in any Superbike trim is considered competitive against an SV. I guess I gotta find a grey market FZR.

Mark
Mark Tenn
CCS Ex #22
Mark Tenn Motorsports, Michelin tire guy in Florida.

HAWK

My argument has never been that the SV needs to be the baseline or that the class should march on with technical development. I just don't think that 130HP is a lightweight class figure. I thought that the LW classes were supposed to be a little more budget friendly, the current trend will have tire consumption as high in LW as MW soon.

I have no intention of ever racing a MW machine, I'm too old to deal with the speed at the end of the straights but we're headed for MW-A and MW-B and no LW.
Paul Onley
CCS Midwest EX #413

roadracer162

I'm with you Paul on your thoughts. I think the trend has been around for sometime it's just that the newest class leading lightweight bikes have finally been built to full advantage by their respective manufacturers.

I would prefer to see the LW Supersport and GT lights class keep the 1000 anything out. That would relegate the air-cooled 1000 twins to LW GP, LW SB and the sportsman class of Thunderbike. The SV could be legal for Ultralight Superbike, LW Supersport and GT lights. A stock FZR400 can never beat a stock SV with equal or even close in skill rider, it's just too much to overcome. The FZR400 and the SV weigh the same but at 60 rwhp for the FZR and 70+ for the SV there is just no match. Then you may say well who races and FZR anymore, but then that will also be the way of the SV.

Mark Tenn
CCS Ex #22
Mark Tenn Motorsports, Michelin tire guy in Florida.

George_Linhart

Guys - time marches on.  LW used to be FZR400's, Hawks and GS500's.  Along came the SV and pushed those bikes to the back of the grid.  The SV was legal for the class pretty much because when the rule was written for the 650 cc three valve hawk nobody thought about specifying that the 650 twins couldn't have 4 valves per cylinder...  Oh well, it was legal and took over the class.


I almost think there are 2 separate issues here.  First is bike development and the second is just the willingness of the racers to build the maximum bike allowed by the rules.

In terms of bike development I think the problem is that Suzuki hasn't done any improvements on the SV while other manufacturers have offered products that fit in the class and have gotten much better than previous generations.  Ever notice that the most competitive SV's out there are actually 1st Gen units - that pretty much tells me that subsequent changes by Suzuki actually were going backwards while other manufactures moved forwards.  The Ducati 1000SS is really just an improved version of the 900SS which always was in LW - a bit more stroke in the crank and much improved heads with a dual spark design.  The Buell XB 9 and 12 are just the same old Harley engines wrapped in a new frame.  Why hasn't Suzuki done anything new?  At its heart, the displacement advantage for air cooled 2 valve twins shouldn't be a huge advantage against a liquid cooled 4 valve engine at 700 ish cc's.  While I do have a big advantage in torque on my Ducati I have absolutely zero over-rev and it takes more effort to get the big crank on the bike to lay over into turns. 

How much of this is an issue that a lot of SV guys want to race the same 10 year old stock bike and be competitive.  What I see is that LW has become a builders class and that some of us have enough money to build what we want.  There are a couple of SV's out there that pull my Ducati - I can't keep up with Ed Key's bike and at best I can hope to stay in the draft of Kevin Utech on his SV Superbike.  I don't complain about it - I come up with further development plans for the bike to improve power, reduce weight and step up reliability while I think about how to improve my riding.   If there are guys that can afford throwing $30,000 to $40,000 a year into their LW bikes, I don't think we should penalize them for this - it is just a natural advantage in a capitalistic system that you will have to deal with.  I am sorry, but, it is not cubic inches that is a problem here, it is cubic dollars.

I like the eclectic mixture of bikes and think the more brands the better.  What I don't think we should do is to either "protect" a certain bike that hasn't been developed by the factory for many years or become a dumping ground for vintage Middle Weight bikes.  If you want to bring back a "true" LW class, lets go back to the old Fizzer/Hawk/GS days and outlaw SV's with everything else modern.

Just my $0.02.

George

tstruyk

QuoteI just don't think that 130HP is a lightweight class figure.

bingo


QuoteGuys - time marches on.  LW used to be FZR400's, Hawks and GS500's.  Along came the SV and pushed those bikes to the back of the grid.  The SV was legal for the class pretty much because when the rule was written for the 650 cc three valve hawk nobody thought about specifying that the 650 twins couldn't have 4 valves per cylinder...  Oh well, it was legal and took over the class.

Key in on the last sentence., It was legal... 

Either way the rule is written I'll still race.  I just dont see a need to bring older machinery down a class. 
CCS GP/ASRA  #85
2010 Sponsors: Lithium Motorsports, Probst Brothers Racing, Suspension Solutions, Pirelli, SBS, Vortex

"It is incredible what a rider filled with irrational desire can accomplish"

HAWK

George, nobody's got a problem with your bike, it's the fact that the entire thunderbike class seems to want into the LW class.

What it all comes down to is LW bikes shouldn't be as fast as MW bikes and if this keeps up that's where we're headed. The SV was moved to ULW to make way for the new 750 liquid cooled twins, how are they a development of the LW technology, they're too big? If you go back and read the displacement limits for the different classes you will find that the current LW liquid cooled twin limit is what the 2006 MW twin limit was. So LW was rewritten to allow a larger displacement.  A logical deduction here would be to start development on a 900CC Liquid cooled twin so that when LW gets upped to 900 in a couple years you will be ahead of the development curve. It's not that LW bikes are getting faster, it's that bigger bikes are getting let into LW.
Paul Onley
CCS Midwest EX #413

skiandclimb

So....the 748 into LW not withstanding, is anyone here (honestly) against letting a Duc 916 or 996 (112 RWH) into MW & Thunderbike?
#730 CCS MW/GP
Pursuit Racing, The Backstopper's Org.
www.cyclehouseperformance.com - St. Louis, MO.
King Edward's Chicken and Fish- St. Louis, MO.
www.mcraracing.com

backMARKr

Quote from: skiandclimb on September 28, 2009, 07:31:12 PM
So....the 748 into LW not withstanding, is anyone here (honestly) against letting a Duc 916 or 996 (112 RWH) into MW & Thunderbike?

Hey Tim!  What did the R6 dyno out at last month?

NFC Racin',Woodcraft, Pitbull,M4, SUDCO,Bridgestone
WERA #13

roadracer162

Ski,

Do you see what you started? It's the same conversation each year fo what bike should be in what class, but lets race and compare notes as we do.

The 916 or 996 in Thunderbike? Not! Marc's 748 was recently tuned and now produces 119rwhp. Yours at 112 is way off the mark. Take your bike to European Performance Cycles and Marc will make it go.

Mark Tenn
CCS Ex #22
Mark Tenn Motorsports, Michelin tire guy in Florida.

skiandclimb

Yeah....it's got a couple more than 112....I need to Dyno it @ WAFO over in IL. and see what she's making right now.  Just wanted to see what people's thoughts on the subject were. This has turned into a SV discussion group now...just trying to get it back on track.
#730 CCS MW/GP
Pursuit Racing, The Backstopper's Org.
www.cyclehouseperformance.com - St. Louis, MO.
King Edward's Chicken and Fish- St. Louis, MO.
www.mcraracing.com