Is Pirelli taking over?

[Super Dave]

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.

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.

[Super Dave]

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.

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.

[Green_Knight]

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?

[Super Dave]

What's new, Aaron?

[cleezmo]

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.

[Super Dave]

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?

[TommyG]

WTF?? Dave, the guy makes some good points and you`re kinda....well....rambling on!  ???

[cleezmo]

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.

[Super Dave]

You might have answered the question yourself.

Yes, 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.

[cleezmo]

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  ;)

[Scotty Ryan]

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

[TommyG]

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! ::)