I just read that Pirelli is going to be the Spec tire for the Canadian series! They`ve already got world superbike/supersport...What`s next??!! :o
Yes they are!!
I don't mind a spec tire as long as everyone pays the same for the tires etc.
That would be very cool if The AMA went that route.
I disagree. I hate the idea of being told that I need to run a particular kind of product. I realize that riders want the same tire choices as the factory teams, so make them available for a price. But reality says that most privateers wouldn't be able to make use of their tires anyway. A spec tire just seems un-american.
I'm with Rob. If you have a sponsor, you might not have a sponsor because of the change in the playing field. And your budget might be ruined by having to purchase tires.
Does anyone feel that the spec tires used in WSB allow WSB riders to go faster or slower? If they are going slower, that means less traction. So, is making less traction more safe or less safe?
Now, if you raced one series with no spec tire, what are you going to do in the series that has a spec tire rule? You couldn't offer any exclusivity to your sponsor.
Quote
So, is making less traction more safe or less safe?
I could argue that less traction is safer, because when you exceed the traction limit (which every rider does at some point no matter how much traction they have) you will be going slower.
As for a spec tire, I believe that the only place for a spec tire is in a spec class. Just because everyone has a spec tire in a superbike class, someone will still have the equipment advantage due to a better bike, etc.
In a spec class, where all the riders are on (ideally) similar machines, then a spec tire is in order as well. I really think the AMA need a spec class. Let the SB guys run the best tires that can be made. SB is not supposed to be cheap.
Another idea is to only allow homologated tires, so that there can be competition among the brands, but noone gets "special" tires. AMA does this with flat track, where they specify which tires are allowed. I guess that should be true with DOT classes, but there are some pretty "special" DOT tires being used.
-z.
I also agree,I think the whole spec tire issue ruined the whole world superbike thing...I like my choices of being able to run the tire I want to.The spec tires also slowed the world gus down also,Look at the times last year the ama boyz were running compared to the world guys at laguna..I believe they were almost two seconds faster. thats my two cents :-/
QuoteI could argue that less traction is safer, because when you exceed the traction limit (which every rider does at some point no matter how much traction they have) you will be going slower.
Given that, one could say that a requirement for a race to be run on used tires would be safer.
Now I`m wondering if their development will go faster
due to more of a higher level of riders on their product. The more fast guys doing R&D the better the product? Seems to have worked for dunlop?!
QuoteGiven that, one could say that a requirement for a race to be run on used tires would be safer.
Used tires are inconsistant, which is were the danger lies.
If everyone was given Cheng Shin tires to race on, once the riders were calibrated to the amount of traction available, and the bikes were set up to suit (i.e. smoother powerband), there wouldn't be any more crashes than there is now.
Has anyone ever said that vintage racing is more dangerous because they have WM3 rims? Maybe if we let them run modern 17" wheels with slicks it would be safer...
-z.
WSBK didn't go to a Spec Tire rule to drop lap times. They went to a spec tire to promote closer racing, level the playing field. Yes, the Pirellis obviously aren't as fast as the Michelines from 3 seasons ago, but that's not the point. The racing, as pretty much everyone would agree, is a lot closer, with more guys winning on more bikes. That was the whole objective, to give spectators a better show. On that level I'd say they definetely acheived their goal.
I think it would be silly to use a spec tire in club racing - sponsorships help a lot of the fast guys. But I don't see why AMA SBK, or any other factory-team class, couldn't or shouldn't be a spec tire class. At that level the $$ isn't as big of an issue.
Lap times don't make a good show, 5 guys dicing for the lead makes a good show.
QuoteWSBK didn't go to a Spec Tire rule to drop lap times. They went to a spec tire to promote closer racing, level the playing field. Yes, the Pirellis obviously aren't as fast as the Michelines from 3 seasons ago, but that's not the point. The racing, as pretty much everyone would agree, is a lot closer, with more guys winning on more bikes. That was the whole objective, to give spectators a better show. On that level I'd say they definetely acheived their goal.
I think it would be silly to use a spec tire in club racing - sponsorships help a lot of the fast guys. But I don't see why AMA SBK, or any other factory-team class, couldn't or shouldn't be a spec tire class. At that level the $$ isn't as big of an issue.
Lap times don't make a good show, 5 guys dicing for the lead makes a good show.
Well said! I`ve also noticed that Pirelli took another step closer to Dunlop at the AMA level this year. You could even argue that they had a better product at some tracks.
QuoteHas anyone ever said that vintage racing is more dangerous because they have WM3 rims? Maybe if we let them run modern 17" wheels with slicks it would be safer...
-z.
That's what ARHMA allows for their vintage superbike classes.
Is it more dangerous?
Well, lets follow it all around.
First, take an old race bike that was built in the time with quality components and geometry design to take advantage of the current traction technology.
Take the same bike and move it to a different era with different tires...
The chassis gets overloaded and the geometry twists up the chassis.
Take the bike with WM3's and add more traction to that chassis...they sometimes don't handle well.
I can give you lots of personal experiences with that. You've got to modify the chassis geometry and spring rates to try and compensate.
Now, Chenshing, which produces the MAXXIS tires, could provide a tire. Would it have the same grip as tires that are available?
Why not just put restrictors on the bikes?
Regardless, I think things that increase costs to teams, especially smaller teams, are not in the best interest of the racing. Take away money like that that can even the playing field...
A used tire is inconsistent? No, a used tire doesn't have the same amount of traction. So, when a rider inputs above it's traction limitations, it's gonna slide. A tire with less traction than are used tire new still has less traction.
I teach schools ususally using completely obliterated tires that look awful. They do not have the same traction as new. If I continue to place inputs into them that I do when new, I'm gonna have problems. Similarly, if you ride a GSXR1000 with the throttle activity that you use on a 600, you're gonna have potential "inconsistencies".
Inconsistnecies can be a lack of understanding about the variables. There can be a method to riding hard on a completely worn tire. I won't bore anyone with details though.
QuoteWSBK didn't go to a Spec Tire rule to drop lap times. They went to a spec tire to promote closer racing, level the playing field. Yes, the Pirellis obviously aren't as fast as the Michelines from 3 seasons ago, but that's not the point. The racing, as pretty much everyone would agree, is a lot closer, with more guys winning on more bikes. That was the whole objective, to give spectators a better show. On that level I'd say they definetely acheived their goal.
I think it would be silly to use a spec tire in club racing - sponsorships help a lot of the fast guys. But I don't see why AMA SBK, or any other factory-team class, couldn't or shouldn't be a spec tire class. At that level the $$ isn't as big of an issue.
Lap times don't make a good show, 5 guys dicing for the lead makes a good show.
Ok, five guys dicing for the lead? We talking AMA? Sounds like the small number of factory riders that have a pre-season testing program with new production bikes. Who do you think will have a new GSXR for Daytona? How long does achieving a good set up take? Can you show up at Daytona with, more or less, a street bike and expect to compete for the top five?
At the AMA level, the $$ doesn't make a difference?
Go race an AMA season yourself.
What happened to the big stars that were in WSB? It's closer because some of the guys that were racing in it are gone. Only time will tell.
Racing shouldn't be limited by anything other than "catagories" EI: engine size, engine work allowed, tire types (DOT, slicks). Restricting performance by designating a "spec tire" only makes less competition and less new technology. Without the competition of all of the companies where would we be today?
What's new, Aaron?
In this example, I'm referring to 5 riders in WSBK. Yes, I agree that the AMA only has 7-8 factory guys, but you hardly ever see more than a 2-3 bike battle at the front. The last 2 seasons, you hardly even see battles for 2nd after Mladin has checked out...
I should re-phrase the $$ quote - To the factory teams (and I'll include the satellites - Erion, Attack, etc.), tire $$ isn't an issue. To the true privateer it is, but the reality is that we're not gonna see a true privateer beat the factory boys in SBK. I'm nowhere near fast enough to race AMA, nor do I have the desire to max out all my credit cards, so I'll continue to club race ;)
As for big stars - This year WSBK had Bostrom, Haga, Corser, Vermulen, Laconi, Toseland, Abe, Pitt, McCoy, etc., and Bayliss is headed back there next season. Those names aren't the same as Rossi or Edwards, but it's not exactly a club race grid either. '04 was a Ducati Cup, sure, but '05 was certainly not. And aside from the first few races where Corser ran off and left everyone, there was a lot of competition at the front of most races.
My main point is this: In my opinion, WSBK was more fun to watch this year than AMA SBK. Part of this is probably because of the spec tire rule. If a spec tire made for closer/better racing in AMA SBK, I'd be all for it from a spectator's perspective.
Ok, then let's talk AMA.
Dunlop owns the field, pretty much.
Who in AMA Superbike that wasn't on Dunlops made it on the box?
How well did non Dunlop finishers do? Would they have been able to race at all were it not for the support they received from their tire sponsor? Would the effort by Dunlop supported teams been diminished by their change in budget where they had to pay for tires?
Were their rule changes in WSB that can account for some of the changes? How about AMA Superbike?
From a spectator point of view, amateur road racing can be exciting too. Is the attendee at a premium event like an AMA Superbike event expecting more?
WTF?? Dave, the guy makes some good points and you`re kinda....well....rambling on! ???
Dave,
I think we're sort of discussing 2 different points. I'm not arguing your point that a spec tire would rule out some serious help, $$ and free tire-wise, to privateer teams. And yes, this would make it tougher to campaign the AMA series. Yes, Dunlop owns AMA, but would Mladin still win on another tire, if everyone was on the same one? Problably yes.
The reality is that the guys battling for 18th and 19th are not part of the show, at least the TV coverage. At the track, sure, you watch every battle, good racing is good racing, but TV cameras usually focus on the front 5 (unless that's REALLY boring, then you see them scroll back through the field to those battles), and that's where most of us watch the race - from our couches.
Say a Spec Tire rule takes away $$ from some privateers, and the SBK grid drops from 30 riders to 20. I'd argue that the Average Fan watching the race at home isn't going to care, if the racing at the front is better/more exciting.
My point was, if it's good for the spectator, it's good for the series, good for the sport. Club racing is some of the best racing to watch from a spectator point of view no doubt, but it's not on TV competing with NASCAR. AMA SBK was not, in my opinion, much fun to watch for most of the season competition-wise, and WSBK was. Different bikes, different riders, but WSBK was, for my money, more entertaining. If the racing is more entertaining, more people will watch it. More people watch it, more sponsors come in.
I said I'd support a Spec Tire in AMA from a SPECTATOR'S perspective. I'm sure some AMA teams and riders wouldn't agree, they want the sponsorship $, and I can understand that.
But if a Spec Tire made for better, closer racing, and that in turn brought out more than a few thousand fans to the average AMA race, I'd be all for it.
You might have answered the question yourself.
QuoteYes, Dunlop owns AMA, but would Mladin still win on another tire, if everyone was on the same one? Problably yes.
TV time is what could drive a potential sponsor to a team.
But a race track makes it's money by having spectators going through the gate.
Local riders and up and coming riders do draw some spectators.
When you deplete a grid, what's that going to do to one's ability to market?
Would NASCAR be better off fielding fifteen cars for the start of a race or the current 44 or so? Yeah, some guys are certainly not going to win.
If something were to happen where a promoter couldn't make money, the value of the program drops. Purses of today are ridiculously low compared to the purses of twenty five years ago. That's not even accounting for the value of a dollar.
Wanna make things better? Enforce the current rules for one. Require large teams to have second teams to give a bigger playing field and to spread out some of the parts inventory. Change the structure for the usage of new motorcycles. Who's able to ride the new R6 or GSXR600 here? Anyone want to bet that the Suzuki and Yamaha teams have tested already? Reduce the ability of teams to test at tracks that they will race at. How many private teams can afford to rent a track let alone pack up their crew and arrive at a track to test.
Even the playing field. Developing a program to increase the costs for many programs doesn't seem like a good idea when most teams struggle with the costs already.
Years ago, the thought was that if we had more races on the AMA schedule, sponsorship would come. No one could afford what we were racing then. The event schedule has gone from eight to eleven events. I cannot say that I've seen a dramatic change in sponsorships as a result of that.
In 1993, Pridmore and I were talking, and he said that it cost $30k to run one bike in a class in the AMA. I've heard guys spending $45k to $100k to do it today. A very good AMA/FUSA privateer mentioned $70k himself, and he does all his own motor work.
Yeah, sponsorship could find its way into the AMA series if some teams actually developed "a program" rather than just having that loose thing called "a team". We've got "teams" in club racing. Some people actually have "programs" at the club level too.
Wanna have closer racing? Pay more money for a purse. Why risk an opportunity for $100.
I'm not arguing any of your AMA issues. Your points are all valid as to the structure of the classes, factory teams, etc. The purse thing is something I hadn't thought about as well. I agree on all that.
This thread is talking about spec tires, so that's what I'm discussing - not all of the problems in the current AMA system. I'm saying that, based on the WSBK results of '04 and '05, I think you can make a valid case that a spec tire rule results in closer racing throughout the grid. That's my point - I'm not saying that will fix the AMA's problems, I'm not saying it would benefit the majority of privateers, I'm saying we'd have closer battles w/ more riders involved.
Closer racing = more fan support from the casual fan (not gear-heads like us, we all watch regardless).
We can start a new thread if we want to discuss all the problems w/ the AMA series...we already agree on a lot of them ;)
I don't mean to jump in here and cause trouble- but I agree with Dave 110%. I would love nothing better then to run the AMA series, but with very small purses, huge disadvantages and a small race budget - it's more economical for me to run club or FUSA. A more level playing field, more payout and less travel (sometimes), not to mention more chance of earing contingency. Using a spec tire would really hurt the privateer, I can hardley afford tires with the contingency that is currently offered. If a spec tire was to come into the picture I am almost positive that they would not pay contingency (why would they if everyone has to use there tire) and if they did it would be very little. just my 2 cents
whole lotta speculation here......whether we like it or not,there are two organiztions using a spec tire rule. That`s two more than there was two years ago. I`m not necessarily saying it`s going tp be pirelli, but a spec tire rule IS a future possibility. I`m sure Michelin and Dunlop are watching closely! ::)
http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=24362
Would having a spec tire rule help when this happens?
You know that the other tire companies are watching.
Suzuki Cup Finals. What an example. Who's gonna win? A Suzuki.
Similarly, if you have a spec tire rule, you eliminate the competition between tire brands. So, you don't have to have the extraordinary development in making tires tons better, only marginally better.
Has competition between brands made tires better?
Would a lack of competition make tire development slow down? As it is now, a 1000 at Daytona is spinning on the banking in sixth.
We can go further. Why not limit the machinery to bikes that are four model years old? That would eliminate the ability of manufactures from immediate and extraordinary development.
I raced the MZ series as it was limited, very limited, for a couple years. You could change tires, fork oil, chain and sprockets, and the brake pads. My bike made a whopping 42HP. Racing was tight. I was supported by Dunlop at that time, and I decided to use Dunlop K591's. If there was a spec tire rule, I woudn't have been able to race the series because of my school program obligations.
NASCAR has close racing. Is that because of spec tires or because of other issues.
I don't see where a spec tire rule makes racing close necessarily. Some riders are better. Some teams have a better set up. Bostrom is a good rider, but he's not in the hunt because their set up isn't as good as it could be. He's a good rider, right? He has the same tires as everyone else, right? Why hasn't he been up front more often then if spec tires evens everything out.
Here is an interesting article,
http://www.speedtv.com/commentary/20067/
Spec tire rule, now do the teams have to pay a fee upfront? If so this may limit the spending ability of some of the teams. Is the program pay as you go, whereas under funded teams can acquire tires at the rate they use them? Is there a certain number of tires that can be used for each race weekend?
Yeah, that is interesting.
Finally broke a lap record from two seasons before.
Is that the tire, or have bikes progressed to in chassis geometry and power? (RC51 vs CBR1000, R1 vs R1, new GSXR1000, 998's vs 999's).
How a payment program would be established would be up to the organizer and the "tire sponsor". Ultimately, the group that is running WSB and WSS is making money from Pirelli to be named as the official tire.
Pirelli breaks a lap record on control tires? Wonder if they finally started supplying qualifiers for superpole like michelin did? I actually use michelin so I`m definitely not trying to be pro Pirelli. I`d just love to see Super Dave in Superstock on the EXACT same tires as Aaron Super freeeeekin Yates!
Give me a bike.
;D
RRW had a good article about Ben Bostrom and the team he was riding for. Yes, they have qualifying tires.
You also forget to mention that the supplying tire company in these spec series pays a huge boatload of money to the racing org. I remeber a couple of years ago some AMA Pirelli guys wanted to do WSB at Laguna . The Tire bill was $5000 for the weekend if they wanted to race , none did the race. In canada it is a very small series so easy to supply. I talked to several of the teams at the last WSB round held at Laguna. Most of the engineers complained that the tire soft to hard seemed like the same brick , riders complaining about things also. If you watched the race sure they were kinda close , but also barely faster then out FX 600's were. Will it make racing better i doubt it here. What happens if you use tire "A" at the local events where you get some help , then go to Road America and are forced to run tire "B" ? I'm sure your sponsore would be ecstatic!
So wouldn`t one of the big three want to pay ccs to be the spec tire? If dunlop was the spec wouldn`t it benefit their sales? EVERY CCS racer buying Dunlops?
I`d like to point out I`m not on a mission to get a spec tire(name your brand) I just brought up the topic after the canadian series signed on. Now there is TWO. CCS racing is a business. Everyone knows AMA thinks about money FIRST. Could it happen?!
Actually , don't count out Bridgestone , they are renewing their efforts in Club racing since they pulled out of AMA. The problem is your tires would probably cost more if it was a spec tire series. What idf as an experinced rider such as yourself were forced to run on a certain brand and you just couldn't adapt to them . Do you quit the sport. Lots of things to consider. It might make sense for a pro series but not for club racing.
Good points all. Sure makes for some interesting `what ifs` though!
I know that when I brought up the facts that pump gas was illegal under the rules that CCS had in road racing a few years ago, there was talk about having a spec fuel. Again, that was all a nice idea, but if you can do well with pump gas, and some kind of fraction of the cost of a racing fuel, why would you want to race for that kind of expense? For club racing, you're gonna have riders that use pump gas.