| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 02:15 am: | 
|
Rocket, Greg, and RacerX1,
What y'all said.
DISPLACEMENT...DISPLACEMENT...DISPLACEMENT...DISPLACEMENT...  Small minds in the grip of forcefully marketed propaganda.
"Modifying rules for FAIRNESS does not change the fact that they're slanted."
Ben, Why do you not perceive that the rules are slanted in favor of the IL4's, allowing them to use a water cooling system, four cylinders, and four valves per cylinder? Answer... You have unwittingly swallowed the popular Jap marketing speal that displacement is everything.
Any of you "smaller is more high tech" and "OHC 4-valve is more high tech" believers care to tell me how exactly it is more high tech to need more valves, more revs, and a chain or belt to drive the cams?  In my view, and that of most engineers, the most elegant engineering solutions are those that are the most simple. Is it simpler to add displacement or two more cylinders, twelve more valves, three more carburetors/throttle bodies, and a water cooling system? 
OHC 4-valve engines have been around a LONGGGG time. Harley was running them back in the 20's. How is it they are now so "high" tech? Answer... Jap marketing has been very successful in convincing us of that.
NASCAR Winston Cup engines are 350". They put out ~750 BHP at the crank. That would be equivalent to an 88" Buell engine putting out 188 BHP at the crank, or with the usual 15% losses between crank and contact patch 160 RWHP. I don't know where you could figure 250 HP.
Ben you think 1340cc goes a long way. How far do you think 15,500 rpm goes? How about four cylinders? Does having four valves per cylinder help? Pretty biased allowing all those features on bikes racing against air cooled two valve V-Twins that don't rev over 7,500 rpm. Displacement is simply one of the factors affecting engine performance.
I guess the simple mind cannot grasp the other factors as easily as displacement. Pity that.  |
Benm2
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 07:42 am: |
|
Whatever. Racing classes have long been ruled by displacement, its the easiest way to divide up the classes. Engines this big over there, engines that big over here. In order to win in a specific displacement class, engines evolved to make more power. This was simply done by increasing engine rpm. Yes, BMEP is lower; and yes, a Buell makes more power down low than a current 600 of equal peak hp. However, HORSEPOWER determines top speed NOT torque. A fat guy on a 6' breaker bar can produce 1800 ft-lb of torque, but there's no way he and that breaker bar run 300 miles per hour.
Yes, the Buell is likely a better street bike engine, it has more low-end torque. So what! Racing is about who's got the fastest stuff, and that's it. Club racing is for people who want to run what they like, not pro-racing. Pro-racing classes for "odd" bikes will only be supported when the factory that makes the "odd" bike supports it.
Simple as my mind may be, I can grasp the "other factors" easily enough. Last I checked, there are no rules preventing Buell or anyone else from making a two-valve pushrod engine that revs to 15,500 rpm, except perhaps Newton's. In addition, please explain to my simple mind how a valvetrain made up of lifters, pushrods, rocker arms, and valves is a more elegant solution than two cams and some buckets? The simple fact remains that the OHC arrangement not only allows for higher rpm, but also allows for much sharper valve timing.
Thanks for schooling me on the finer points of NASCAR hp, I can update my NASCAR fan room in my house now. However, your point shows that NASCAR engines are more highly tuned AND more reliable than buells, as a 160hp Buell would have a hell of a time running 500 miles on the daytona banking. But, I was referring to the output of a 1200cc overhead cam engine, such as a ZX12R engine, in the same state of tune as a pro-thunder bike. Thanks for the personal attacks though, it adds to the debate. |
Imonabuss
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 08:09 am: |
|
If you are into horsepower per cc, then don't talk these pathetic 2003 4 cylinder DOHC motors making 100HP per liter. How about the original 1983 Buell RW-750 at 165HP/750cc for 220HP per liter? Or the 1960s Suzuki 50cc three-cylinder with over 25HP for more than 500HP/liter?
People go overboard on modifying Buell engines in chase of the ultimate in horsepower, but it's not necessary.
Shawn Higbee turned 2:03's at Daytona (before the track revision) on an S1 that dynoed out at 85 RWHP. Try racing a mildly modified XB in club racing, working on your riding (the XB will do anything you can desire, and is very forgiving), and you'll find out how fast you really can be.
You will also find out how much money the 600 Supersport guys really spend if you ask around; they are not cheap! They not only need engine tuning, a pipe, etc., but they need plenty of chassis modifications to go fast, and the motors wear out quicker than a mildly tuned Buell motor.
Racing a highly tuned engine is always expensive, and it's not the way to learn, anyhow. Just go out and have fun, and it's always more fun to race an easy to ride bike with a wide powerband. Nobody cares about the guy who motors by on the straightaway, it's the guy who stuffs himself past the faster bike through the S's that gets the cheers from the fans! Become a cult hero! |
Racerx1
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 08:35 am: |
|
BenM2,
Point taken....guess when it comes down to it, there are many ways to skin a cat. Hope to see you at the races! |
Court
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 10:48 am: |
|
>>>>and you'll find out how fast you really can be.
What?....PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY? ... Remove the Machine from the "if only (insert something here), I would have (insert another thing here)" equation.
I've said, since time began, damn few folks I've ever met can ride a Buell to 50% of the bikes ability. I learned, many years ago, when the s*&t hits the fan, the best thing I can do is turn loose of the bike and let the Buell save my ass.
Court |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:32 am: |
|
Ben... You say a 600cc inline four makes 115 horses, so it is more advanced then a 1200 cc pushrod twin that makes only 85 horses.
Ok. A 500cc inline four two stroke would make closer to 175 horses... so two strokes must be REALLY advanced, huh?
I could care less about displacement. Give me an engine that is light, compact, reliable, easy to work on, has a decent power curve across a wide rpm range, has adequete peak power for my chassis and riding, and sounds cool.
The inline fours fail on at least three (and possibly four) of my above criteria. My Cyclone engine maybe fails (aruguably) one of the above criteria. The XB9 engine fails NONE. Nowhere does displacement enter the equation.
But that's just me. If you want to say "I want an engine that makes the most power for a given displacement... err... so long as it is a four stroke piston based gas powered engine anyway... and thats what I think is cool", then more power to you.
Show me a class of racing that classes by exclusively by displacement, and wheel yourself up to the start line in a two stroke instead of a four stroke. See what the sanctioning body has to say about that. Or wheel a 4 stroke 600cc GSX up to the starting line next to a bunch of 500cc two strokes, and see who gets laughed off of what paddock.
To insist that there is some sort of valid generalization that would allow the blanket dismissal of an entire class of engines based on hp/displacement is just silly, and we will respond as so. Nothing personal.
But hey. I think a 140 horsepower street legal 600cc engine is really cool. I personally don't care for the sound, the look, the power characteristic, the complexity, or the width, but I do think its really cool. No disagreement there. |
Benm2
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 12:06 pm: |
|
"Ok. A 500cc inline four two stroke would make closer to 175 horses... so two strokes must be REALLY advanced, huh? " How much work do you think has gone into the wave / flow characteristics of those 190hp two strokes to get them up from the 150hp they had 10 years ago? Sure, your right. Low tech. Blown away by the SIDE VALVE B&S lawnmower engine. Why, just the other day someone told me you can get them to make 60hp.
"I could care less about displacement. Give me an engine that is light, compact, reliable, easy to work on, has a decent power curve across a wide rpm range, has adequete peak power for my chassis and riding, and sounds cool."
So, you going to get yerself an RD400?
"To insist that there is some sort of valid generalization that would allow the blanket dismissal of an entire class of engines based on hp/displacement is just silly, and we will respond as so. Nothing personal. "
Didn't say it was valid. Said its the way it is, in the pro classes. Throwing strokers in there for comparison doesn't make it look alot better.
And, some years ago, Honda wheeled a 500cc 4-stroke up to the starting line next to a bunch of 500cc two strokes. Don't recall them being laughed off the grid, though. And THAT engine used some new technology.
Look, I LIKE my Buell. I like the engine, I like the company, and I'm looking forward to racing my bike. I like that its easy to work on, and I like the sound it makes. This whole thing isn't about what sort of bike you, Blake, Rocket, or anyone else likes. To race in the big leagues, you play by their rules. Don't bitch that their unfair or don't make sense, or don't account for various engine technology.
Complexity???!!! Come on, you've got to be kidding.
I4 - two cams, 16 valves, shims & buckets
Buell - four cams, four lifters, four pushrods, four rockers, keepers, and valves.
I4 - four cv carbs
Buell - two cv carbs
I4 - two-piece crankcase, integrated block
Buell - two piece crankcase, two separate cylinders
I4 - plain bearing crank
Buell - roller bearing crank (lots of parts in those)
I4 - direct gear-drive primary
Buell - primary chain with tensioner
I4 - integrated oil filter, pump, and internal oil passages.
Buell - oil on the outside
Boy, you showed me. Simple, simple, simple. Next, why don't you all educate me as to the enormous width difference of the engines? Last I checked, measured from clutch cover to intake filter, Buells are pretty wide. Even at the carb inlet, I doubt there's alot of difference. |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Blake,
I have said before that allowing the 748's in the Pro Thunder class was a major mistake by the AMA. It became apples and oranges, as I have "harped" about before.
If I was Buell, I would have stopped racing AMA right then and there in 1999 and moved on to FUSA and fully support the "apples to apples" Lightning class by selling "race ready" X1's with chain conversions, laptop programmable race ecms and a second front disc brake.
Instead they went the other way, which ended up with no more AMA Pro Thunder three years later anyway, but along the way gave people the impression that Buell bikes were not competitive unless given rules breaks which turned them into time bombs that either won or blew up, while at the same time their street bikes were being recalled.
I think this approach hurt Buell's image in the motorcycling buying public.
Quote:Why do you not perceive that the rules are slanted in favor of the IL4's, allowing them to use a water cooling system, four cylinders, and four valves per cylinder..
Let's see, I'm starting a new road race series and I want to have as many brands and people participating.
Would I would choose rules that reflect what bikes are actually publicly available for sale?
That would make sense.
Last I checked, there are at least five different manufacturers selling tens of thousands of watercooled, 4 valve, 600cc sportbikes at under $10 at your local bike showroom.
Or, should I make the rules revolve around a single bike company building and selling approximately 5,000 aircooled, 2 valve, push rod V-twins at $10,000 in the US per year?
While I'm at it, I'll also let them add a a fairing, a second front brake, a chain conversion (as long as these items are supplied by the OEM), and to top it all off, I'll let them build up the engine to whatever displacement they want, regardless of what the stock bike started displacing? |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Quote:So, José, did FUSA cave to the factories and get the shaft anyway?
That's what it sounds like, they changed the Superbike class to what the manufacturers wanted it to be. They even let the 250GP bikes in there too.
They kept the Sportbike class with the hp/weight limits.
Honda dropped out as the Sporbike Series Sponsor, but they are still paying contingencies in these classes, like Buell is doing in Thunderbike. |
Benm2
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 01:26 pm: |
|
Uncle.
Ben |
Rick_A
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 02:50 pm: |
|
You can't conclusively say that any one modern engine is more advanced than another. All configurations have their pros/cons. The same principles apply to them all.
IMO AMA Pro Racing blows because all they seem to care to see on the track is the big 4. Even the two strokes are slowly going to the wayside. What, 1000cc 4 strokes against 500cc two strokes...whoa...those 4 strokes are crap!!!! Unfortunately, the rules of the series favor the fours and their development.
I think it'd be FAR more entertaining to have a WIDE range of bikes in a WIDE range of classes where the rules favor COMPETITIVE racing between all of them. Unfortunately, most people seem to disagree.
What's the fun of watching the same type of bike drone around? It's like watching insects swarm around a streetlight  |
Benm2
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 03:50 pm: |
|
How about this: Make a Buell that's competetive in at least ONE of the remaining classes, regardless of how the rules are setup to allow it, that's within the spirit of the rules. At least in Supersport, the "intent" is that a privateer could be competitive with a lightly-modded bike. To get to that point, the Firebolt would need about 20-30 more hp, with the 'race kit' on it. Other than that, Buell's racing future rests with FUSA, where class structure is more fair.
The nice thing about the new thunderbike class is that bikes made for it might have a shot in sportbike. Just wish I could watch on Speedvision.
Ben |
S320002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 03:55 pm: |
|
OK guys heres the way I see it. Trying to force fit every bike into the same neat little box stifles creativity. I like to see different ideas used on the track. It's how technology changes come about.
Right now I see the AMA 600 class as a series of bikes made with the same cookie cutter, just different icing. That's boring to me but easier for the AMA to regulate.
If you aren't going to put any budget restrictions on Superbike why not make it an unlimited, anything goes class? THAT could be entertaining.
Racing was really interesting to watch when you never knew what kind of wild creation was going to show up next week. Some worked and some didn't. It made for some great races and some great innovations too.
Most race organizations today act like lawn mowers, anything that grows above a defined level or outside a tightly defined boundary gets chopped off and thrown in the compost heap.
Just one man's opinion.
Greg |
Benm2
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 04:22 pm: |
|
I think there is at least SOME fear what "wide open" rules would produce. A creative engine builder could easily develop a motorcycle engine that made several hundred hp; I've got a British Superbike magazine here with a 340hp 'busa in it, and that was a STREETBIKE. I imagine that absolute wide-open motorcycle racing with no other rules than one rider & two wheels would be scary as hell to participate in, but the first few laps might be entertaining to watch. Turbos, nitro, superchargers, etc. can produce scary-fast motors without alot of effort or knowledge. I imagine the death rate of such racing might be a concern. |
Court
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 04:54 pm: |
|
>>>> A creative engine builder could easily develop a motorcycle engine that made several hundred hp
Read the above post again.....I'd bet you would be better served having Shawn Higbee's skill to that last 250hp. As we used to say in the aviation world, "there are two things that are worthless.....Runway behind you and altitude above you.
Court |
Benm2
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 06:11 pm: |
|
I remember hearing an "urban legend" about some guy who got hold of an unused JATO (??) pack, really a few rockets attached to the bottom of an airplane to shorten takeoffs, and attached it to his car. The legend involves the untimely death of the driver, and something about estimates that the car started to disintegrate around 300 mph.
No doubt that anyone would be better served to have Higbee's skill, but with wide open rules there is no guarantee that they would be combined with such motor. |
Court
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 09:01 pm: |
|
>>>an "urban legend" about some guy who got hold of an unused JATO (??) pack, really a few rockets attached to the bottom of an airplane to shorten takeoffs, and attached it to his car. The legend involves the untimely death of the driver, and something about estimates that the car started to disintegrate around 300 mph.
That's on TV in 2 minutes |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 09:09 pm: |
|
FUSA will have an Expert Unlimited GP class, which is about as close to "anything goes" racing here in the US. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 04:20 am: |
|
Ben,
Just trying to broaden your mind amigo.
My 100RWHP Buell has one stock carburetor. I don't see a big need for two.
Is an inaccessible internal oil pump superior to one that is easily removed/replaced?
Is it simpler to maintain/remove the cylinders of an IL4 or a Buell twin?
Do you REALLY want to compare the number of parts between Jap 600 IL4 and Buell Twin engines?
A UJM has...
sixteen... valves, guides, springs, retainers, shims, buckets (96 parts);
twelve... piston rings (12 parts)
ten... cam bearings (10 parts)
five... crankshaft bearings (5 parts)
four... pistons, cylinders, connecting rods, wrist pins, crank/rod bearings, throttle bodies, spark plugs; (24 parts)
three?... cam drive sprockets (3 parts)
two... cams, primary drive gears (4 parts)
one... cam chain, crankshaft, radiator, water pump, thermostat
The total comes to 159 moving/active parts.
Buell XB9R has
eight... cam bearings
six... piston rings (6 parts)
four... cam gears, valves, springs, retainers, guides, rockers, pushrods, lifters, cams, rocker bearings (36 parts)
two...pistons, cylinders, wrist pins, connecting rods, spark plugs, primary sprockets, crankshaft bearings (12 parts)
one... throttle body, crank/rod bearing, primary chain (3 parts)
Total comes to 71 moving/active parts.
We don't count individual roller bearing pieces just like we don't count pieces of a chain. Each is a single failure prone item.
JQ,
"Instead they went the other way, which ended up with no more AMA Pro Thunder three years later anyway, but along the way gave people the impression that Buell bikes were not competitive unless given rules breaks which turned them into time bombs that either won or blew up, while at the same time their street bikes were being recalled."
Unlike the management of AMA Pro Racing, Mr. Buell is apparently a man of his word. When he agrees to support a racing series he does so through thick and thin. That is what is known as "integrity" José.
WTF do recalls have to do with this discussion??? Do you recall what was the major item involved in those recalls? Was it a rear shock? Was it a vendor part? Was it a Japanese vendor part? D'OH!
The Buells may have not won a series championship, but they were right there. I think the last two years came down to a total of three points, am I correct? Your contention that they embarrassed themselves is utter nonsense. Did each Ducati 748, a model of bike that has been around for a while and is very well developed for racing, finish every race? If the VR1000 had done as well in SB as the Buells did in PT, it would have been lauded as a leading world class racing mororcycle.
José, ever hear of "research and development"? For a motorcycle racing team on a tight budget, that gets done at the track during races. How many times did Mike Cicotto's XB9R PT bike, due to mechanical or electrical problems, fail to finish last year?
I cannot believe that you persist in harping (sorry I can't think of a better word) on so called "rules breaks"! Please name me ANY racing series involving different engine configurations where the engine tech rules are not periodically adjusted to maintain parity. To berate Buell over such efforts in Pro Thunder is utterly asinine and you know it.
"Let's see, I'm starting a new road race series and I want to have as many brands and people participating.
Would I would choose rules that reflect what bikes are actually publicly available for sale?
That would make sense."
Hello!!! Fer cryin' out loud... That is exactly what I've been saying. Why not let Buell, Ducati, BMW, Guzzi, and whoever else might want, race in AMA Supersport... You know, LIKE FUSA and CCS do!!!??? Helloooo!!!!
"Or, should I make the rules revolve around a single bike company building and selling approximately 5,000 aircooled, 2 valve, push rod V-twins at $10,000 in the US per year?
Obfuscation and spin extraordinaire that is. I'd hoped you'd drop such rhetorical tactics and discuss the issue honestly. <sigh> How about you simply enact basic rules allowing for ALL configurations of street bikes that fit within the performance class of the racing series? Wouldn't that be better than narrowly defining an entire racing series/class solely on one single specific engine configuration to the exclusion of ALL others and the significant benefit of a select few? You know... like CCS and FUSA do? Helloooooo!!! You betcha!
"While I'm at it, I'll also let them add a a fairing, a second front brake, a chain conversion (as long as these items are supplied by the OEM),...
Sure why not? You forgot the special programmable race ECM and the special race exhaust and race tail section and bodywork. Do you actually believe that the Jap 600 SS racebikes make use of ANY stock bodywork? I guess MAYBE the front fender might be stock.
"...and to top it all off, I'll let them build up the engine to whatever displacement they want, regardless of what the stock bike started displacing?"
Depends on the class. For production "stock" streetbike based classes I agree that the rules concerning use of stock/OEM parts or race kits should be consistent between the different brands. For non "stock" based classes, an allowance of "unlimited displacement" is fine as long as parity is maintained.
Did you know that Suzy and Yammer 600 SS's are not allowed to race with their stock side/case covers? They are crap. The bikes go down and oil goes everywhere. To pass tech inspection, they MUST be fitted with beefier aftermarket covers or special protective guards.
Really though JQ, isn't it simply a matter of balance and fairness? The AMA Supersport class is wholly unbalanced. It is an entirely exclusive spec racing class masquerading as a production sportbike class. You keep dodging the big ugly question...
Why not let other comparably adept sportbikes compete in AMA Supersport racing?
There is only one answer that makes any sense. Can you figure it out? |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 05:02 am: |
|
Rick,
A "swarm of insects", heheh, I like that.
Ben,
"At least in Supersport, the "intent" is that a privateer could be competitive with a lightly-modded bike."
If that really is the intent of AMA Pro Racing, then it is just one more glaring indictment of their mismanagement and lack of integrity. Privateers don't have a chance in hades to win an AMA SS race. Trap speeds of the factory bikes are routinely 10% higher than that of the fastest privateer. It's pretty clear to me that the intent of AMA Pro Racing is to support their Jap daddies, they fit into the same category as Mitch Boehm and some of his cronies at Motorcyclist magazine.
I sent an email to Motorcyclist to complain about their bias. I'll post their response in a different topic. It demonstrates perfectly the brainwashed ignorant attitude pervasive within much of the motorcyle media. Thank the lord for people like Steve Anderson, John Burns, and Don Canet of late. It's funny that the one moto print magazine that has consistently lauded the XB9R and XB9S is the only one dedicated primarily to racing, Road Racing World. |
Benm2
| | Posted on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 07:53 am: |
|
Blake:
We disagree. We could go on for days arguing about engines, in fact, we have. Done.
Yes, road racing world seems to really like the new Buells; I haven't bought any of the other mags except sport rider, for their DOT race tire comparison, in quite some time. The US mags seem to have about 3 pages of useful content, and alot of ads & crap.
IF Buell had a factory-support supersport XB9R in the AMA, would it be competetive? Regardless of whether the AMA is made up of a bunch of idiots, would an XB9R with a factory tuned ECM, a race pipe, and a valve job run with a current 600? Nope. If it did, there would be more of a case to allow it in.
PRO racing is about the best riders on the best bikes. BMW, Triumph, Buell, Moto-Guzzi choose NOT to make bikes that are competetive with Japanese offerings. Ducati does, Aprilia does.
Buell racing is for FUN, not for GLORY. |
Grndskpr
| | Posted on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 09:24 am: |
|
First off, let me start by saying this is NOT a Buell bash, just looking for more info and maybe leaving a little, i enjoy racing, know racers(life time members of WERA) and find some of what is being said interesting so:
Is an inaccessible internal oil pump superior to one that is easily removed/replaced?
I would think it would be superior due to the fact that if it does fail, it could be changed, not as important as a chain or sprocket, but i could see it being an advantage IF something was to go wrong in practice.
Is it simpler to maintain/remove the cylinders of an IL4 or a Buell twin?
Maybe/ maybe not, there are 2 cylinders on a buell, and i believe there are more bolts holding the buell parts in place, due to the rocker covers, and multiple other parts, on an inline 4 there is only one cylinder, and one valve cover, no need for metal gaskets, just orings, so time wise my guess is in a change over, the time would be close, i guess it would depend on the tech and the bike(some lend themselves to changes a little easier than others)
Do you REALLY want to compare the number of parts between Jap 600 IL4 and Buell Twin engines?
What about a radiator, the only reason i mention this is because in my experience, water cooling has some advantages at a pro level that may not be evident at a consumer level, for instance, water cooled engines last longer due to a constant lower temp. In my experience, water cooled engines stay a constant temp no matter the outside temp(give or take 10/20 degs.) which leads to longer engine life, this is one of the reasons i have only water cooled engine in my business, however this is based on stock configuration, so i am sure it differs on modified and racing engines.
As far SS is concerned, i thought there was a privateer who finished third last year in 750 SS, and several in the top ten, granted this is not 600SS but it is an AMA race, and there are more Private rides than any other class.
The one thing that keeps getting said is private racers can not compete in 600 SS because of the rules or what have you, i was wondering what rules these are, i may have missed it, but on the same line, is it parts or tech superiority, a good tech will win races all day, along with a good rider, now i know World SS has rules regarding cam changes and modifications, however i thought these rules didn't apply here, however i have no idea, i really don't keep up with the smaller classes.
Roger |
Rick_A
| | Posted on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 02:36 pm: |
|
I think you're confusing 750 Superstock with 600 Supersport. There's a big difference. It's not uncommon for the 600's lap faster than the 750's.
I was looking through the CCS/F-USA rulebook last night and it seems like (as Blake has mentioned before) there's a few classes that a 1200 or 1000cc Buell could be competitive in. I imagine the cost and to a lesser extent weight are the only things keeping more Buells off the track.
I used to get really stoked over watching the Pro Thunder highlights on TV. I wished it was a fully televised event like the Formula Extreme or 600 Supersport race that usually followed. I've hardly even watched AMA roadracing on the tube since it was abolished. |
Grndskpr
| | Posted on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 02:45 pm: |
|
I think you're confusing 750 Superstock with 600 Supersport. There's a big difference. It's not uncommon for the 600's lap faster than the 750's
No confution, just looking at the classes, and wondering what rules dont allow buells to compete, and also pointing out that there are still some AMA classes that are avaliable for a private ride to enter and do well, i am still looking for the specific rules for super sport, but have had little to no time to look them up
later
Roger |
Sportsman
| | Posted on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 05:07 pm: |
|
I think the debate is mostly about the difference between showroom bikes and what runs at tracks. Buells can run tons of classes at wera or ccs. The big point is inline 4 600's off the showroom putting out 112hp+ where a X1 with a race kit is going to get maybe 90. Yes the jap guys spend money too. But if a Bueller isn't going to lose ground on the biggest part of most tracks to 600's, he's going to spend alot of dough. Racer X1 spoke of 115hp with minor mods at Hal's. I hope he's right, because if it turns out to be accurate, and they make it public, the Firebolt will suprise alot of people. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 02:57 am: |
|
Ben,
"IF Buell had a factory-support supersport XB9R in the AMA, would it be competetive? Regardless of whether the AMA is made up of a bunch of idiots, would an XB9R with a factory tuned ECM, a race pipe, and a valve job run with a current 600? Nope. If it did, there would be more of a case to allow it in."
Not right away. Maybe with some development. With the privateers on the tighter tracks, maybe. Buell would probably need to homologate an XB12R or an XB9RR. Against the factory teams, nope. Of course no one can catch those guys with their 5-10% top speed advantage; they are faster even than most of the Superstock (750cc) contenders.
The fact that after only a week Kosko HD/Buell and their racing team performance chief, Richard Cronrath, had a new out of the crate XB9R running with the 115 RWHP rules-limited FUSA Sportbikes at Loudon is promising. Don't know what all work it had done to it. I've heard rumors of 120 RWHP being possible from stock displacement. I also hear that the factory SS 600's are popping out a miraculous 130 RWHP. You are probably right, I don't know though what someone like Wes Brown, Brian Nallin, or Richard Cronrath might be able to do with the XB9R if given the incentive and the chance. What would be the problem of allowing other configurations into the series? So what if they are underdogs? And why not let the Ducati 748/749's race for crying out loud? They certainly are not out of their league racing against the UJM 600's.
Roger,
Good to see you online again.
The AMA 750 Supersport class was not heavily contested by the factory teams, and in reality it was mainly a Suzuki GSXR750 class. You might see the odd Kawasaki, but virtually the entire field was on Suzi's.
As to the rules for 600 SS... funny we've been discussing the class so vigorously, but I for one do not have a copy of the tech rules. I'm pretty sure the displacement is set in stone at 600cc plus some small allowance for 2mm overbore.
The factory teams achieve significantly higher performance than the privateers through highly selective screening of parts (some contend that they actually fabricate them specially), choosing only those at the very edge of the allowable tolerance band so as to achieve maximum compression ratio, optimum cam lift/grind, and other performance critical specs. The rules are written along the lines of mandating "stock" and "untampered" parts, instead of simply being based upon set values for CR and such. That approach guarantees the factories their desired advantage. The privateers have no way to match that OEM advantage.
That's what I understand anyway. I could be wrong.  |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 11:02 am: |
|
From the AMA results archive:
| Track/Stat | Supersport | Buell Pro Thunder | Superstock | | | | Daytona (03/02) | | | RACE TIME: | 34:26.89 min. | 21:24.41 min. | 28:44.63 min. | | WINNER'S AVG. SPEED: | 111.611 mph | 109.759 mph | 111.467 mph | | WINNER'S AVG. LAP TIME: | 01:54.8 | 01:56.8 | 01:55.0 | | SECOND PLACE AVG. SPEED: | 111.589 mph | 108.796 mph | 111.466 mph | | SECOND PLACE AVG. LAP TIME: | 01:54.8 | 01:57.8 | 01:55.0 | | . | | | | Pikes Peak (05/02) | | | RACE TIME: | 27:51.128 min. | 28:15.85 min. | 27:45.17 min. | | WINNER'S AVG. SPEED: | 82.152 mph | 80.954 mph | 82.446 mph | | WINNER'S AVG. LAP TIME: | 00:57.6 | 00:58.5 | 00:57.4 | | SECOND PLACE AVG. SPEED: | 82.006 mph | 80.826 mph | 82.276 mph | | SECOND PLACE AVG. LAP TIME: | 00:57.7 | 00:58.6 | 00:57.5 | | . | | Road America (06/02) | | RACE TIME: | 22:49.162 min. | 23:28.72 min. | 22:45.66 min. | | WINNER'S AVG. SPEED: | 105.174 mph | 102.22 mph | 105.444 mph | | WINNER'S AVG. LAP TIME: | 02:16.9 | 02:20.9 | 02:16.6 | | SECOND PLACE AVG. SPEED: | 105.173 mph | 102.175 mph | 105.433 mph | | SECOND PLACE AVG. LAP TIME: | 02:16.9 | 02:20.9 | 02:16.6 | | . | | Brainerd (06/02) | | RACE TIME: | 22:23.11 min. | 22:40.521 min. | 22:11.68 min. | | WINNER'S AVG. SPEED: | 104.533 mph | 103.196 mph | 105.431 mph | | WINNER'S AVG. LAP TIME: | 01:43.3 | 01:44.7 | 01:42.4 | | SECOND PLACE AVG. SPEED: | 104.515 mph | 102.39 mph | 104.975 mph | | SECOND PLACE AVG. LAP TIME: | 01:43.3 | 01:45.5 | 01:42.9 | | . | | Laguna Seca (7/11/02-7/14/02) | | RACE TIME: | 25:47.981 min. | 26:27.38 min. | 25:48.781 min. | | WINNER'S AVG. SPEED: | 88.48 mph | 86.284 mph | 88.434 mph | | WINNER'S AVG. LAP TIME: | 01:31.1 | 01:33.4 | 01:31.1 | | SECOND PLACE AVG. SPEED: | 87.971 mph | 86.245 mph | 88.358 mph | | SECOND PLACE AVG. LAP TIME: | 01:31.6 | 01:33.4 | 01:31.2 |
Now the case could be made that Buells belong in Supersport. The AMA chooses not to include Buells there, but FUSA does. People are free to choose which series events they want to attend.
But I think both the Ducati 748 and Buell teams have a lot of work to do before being competitive in AMA Supersport or Superstock, as shown by the lap times. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:24 pm: |
|
They definitely would. Often necessity is the mother of invention.
It might be worth looking at the results from another perspective... the lead PT bike would easily place within the top ten privateer finishers in every race and would in no case ever be lapped. In every AMA Supersport or Superstock race I've seen on SpeedTV, there are quite a few competitors getting lapped during the Supersport and Superstock races. That sounds competitive to me. I guess the same is true for the superstock class, so let's see what happens there this year. Maybe we will see a Buell Superstock XB9RR in the future?
I wonder what a top SS rider could do on an XB9R or a Duc 748R/749R? At Pike's Peak over the course of a 28 minute race, the winning PT bike finished within 24.7 seconds of the winning SS entry, about a half lap back. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable deficit to me. |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:05 pm: |
|
Thanks for clearing up the formatting, Blake.
Mike Ciccoto did race in Superstock last year at Daytona, he finished 26th, 69.675 seconds back from the winner, but still on the same lap. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 09:20 pm: |
|
Was that the first race weekend ever for the XB9R based bike? Did they also run on street tires? 70 seconds on Daytona is a little over half a lap back, a LONG way from being lapped. |
|
Honda Drops FUSA Supersport - Should Buell Step Up? »
Archive through January 25, 2003