G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile Ads by Motorcycle.comMotorcycle InsuranceMotorcycle PartsMotorcycle Helmets Motorcycle Tires Buell Motorcycles

Buell Motorcycle Forum » Quick Board Archives » Archive through August 25, 2003 » Something stinks! » Archive through April 23, 2003

« Previous Next »

Author Message   Blake Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 11:27 pm:        I'm confused about the AMA Pro Racing Superstock race results at Daytona and then Fontana, and apparently the rest of the season. I'm bewildered no one else has mentioned anything about it... How the hell does a 636cc ZX6R beat a slew of GSXR750's (18% more displacement) at THE biggest baddest all out horsepower track of the world? In Superbike, Miguel drafted past Ben Bostrom using an identical bike. How is it none of the other three in the lead pack, on vastly more powerful machines, were able to draft past Tommy Hayden. He's not that good, is he? AMA Superstock Race Results: Place/Name Bike Deficit 1. Tommy Hayden Kawasaki ZX-6R 15 laps 2. Lee Acree Suzuki GSX-R750 -0.009 second 3. Eric Wood Suzuki GSX-R750 -0.098 second 4. Steve Rapp Suzuki GSX-R750 -0.209 second 5. Vincent Haskovec Suzuki GSX-R750 -1.410 seconds 6. Mike Ciccotto Suzuki GSX-R750 -1.412 seconds 7. Adam Fergusson Suzuki GSX-R750 -1.436 seconds 8. Tony Meiring Kawasaki ZX-6R -7.576 seconds 9. Jason DiSalvo Yamaha YZF-R6 -12.059 seconds 10. Matt Furtek Suzuki GSX-R750 -12.067 seconds 11. Josh Hayes Suzuki GSX-R750 12.135 seconds 12. Chris Ulrich Suzuki GSX-R750 -16.839 seconds 13. Scott Greenwood Suzuki GSX-R750 -17.387 seconds 14. Jordan Szoke Suzuki GSX-R750 -17.424 seconds 15. Jimmy Moore Suzuki GSX-R750 -20.769 seconds 16. Brian Stokes Suzuki GSX-R750 -21.656 seconds 17. Chris Caylor Suzuki GSX-R750 -22.421 seconds 18. Rich Conicelli Suzuki GSX-R750 -22.426 seconds 19. Scott Harwell Suzuki GSX-R750 -25.721 20. John Haner Suzuki GSX-R750 -25.779 21. Hawk Mazzotta Suzuki GSX-R750 -37.941 seconds 22. J.J.Roetlin Suzuki GSX-R750 -38.458 seconds 23. Jason Peters Suzuki GSX-R750 -39.592 seconds 24. Jake Holden Suzuki GSX-R750 -46.823 seconds 25. Justin Blake Suzuki GSX-R750 -51.131 seconds 26. Kevin Pate Suzuki GSX-R750 -60.006 seconds 27. Dave Estok Buell -84.708 seconds 28. C.R. Gittere Suzuki GSX-R750 -103.131 seconds 29. Tom Wertman Suzuki GSX-R750 -106.457 seconds 30. Eric Haugo Suzuki GSX-R750 -119.641 seconds 31. Crash Chris Lowe Suzuki GSX-R750 -119.682 seconds 32. Michael Hanley Suzuki GSX-R750 14 laps 33. David Alley Suzuki GSX-R750 14 laps 34. Andrew Nelson Honda CBR600RR 14 laps 35. Jason Pridmore Suzuki GSX-R750 13 laps 36. Michael McAllister Yamaha YZF-R6 9 laps 37. Michael Hannas Suzuki GSX-R750 8 laps 38. Chris Peris Honda CBR600F4i 6 laps 39. John Dugan Suzuki GSX-R750 4 laps 40. Ottis Lance Moto Guzzi 4 laps Something stinks. Can anyone explain to me how a 636cc ZX6R is anywhere near being competitive in a 750cc class, let alone able to win it?   Blake Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 11:42 pm:        And again at Fontana... AMA Superstock Race Results - Round 2 - California Speedway Place/Racer Bike Deficit 1. Tommy Hayden Kawasaki ZX-6R 14 laps 2. Adam Fergusson Suzuki GSX-R750 -3.604 seconds 3. Tony Meiring Kawasaki ZX-6R -9.645 seconds 4. Chris Caylor Suzuki GSX-R750 -9.801 seconds 5. Vincent Haskovec Suzuki GSX-R750 -11.235 seconds 6. Jimmy Moore Suzuki GSX-R750 -11.236 seconds 7. Jamie Stauffer Yamaha YZF-R6 -20.119 seconds 8. John Haner Suzuki GSX-R750 -20.498 seconds 9. Jason DiSalvo Yamaha YZF-R6 -20.542 seconds 10. Josh Hayes Suzuki GSX-R750 -24.618 seconds 11. Matt Wait Yamaha YZF-R6 -24.643 seconds 12. Jeremy Toye Suzuki GSX-R750 -27.938 seconds 13. John Dugan Suzuki GSX-R750 -34.309 secondsd 14. Chris Peris Honda CBR600F4i -37.278 seconds 15. Rich Conicelli Suzuki GSX-R750 -42.737 seconds 16. Jordan Szoke Suzuki GSX-R750 -42.857 seconds 17. Alan Schmidt Suzuki GSX-R750 -45.654 seconds 18. Jason Perez Suzuki GSX-R600 -51.831 seconds 19. Chris Ulrich Suzuki GSX-R750 -61.979 seconds 20. Mickey Lane Suzuki -70.309 seconds 21. Scott Simpson Suzuki -72.374 seconds 22. J.J. Roetlin Suzuki GSX-R750 -77.943 seconds 23. Eric Haugo Suzuki GSX-R750 -78.686 seconds 24. Tom Wertman Suzuki -79.462 seconds 25. Mike Ciccotto Suzuki GSX-R750 -80.388 seconds (Penalty +10s) 26. Jeff Bostrom Suzuki GSX-R750 -81.004 seconds 27. C. Rolland Suzuki -85.603 seconds 28. Danny Eslick Suzuki GSX-R750 -87.116 (Penalty +20s) 29. B. Musselman Suzuki -87.947 seconds 30. Matt Furtek Suzuki GSX-R750 -87.948 (Penalty) 31. D. Bell Suzuki -1 lap 32. J. Chisum Suzuki -1 lap 33. S. Alexander Kawasaki -1 lap 34. M. Simon Suzuki -1 lap (penalty +10s) 35. Chris Siglin Suzuki GSX-R600 -1 lap (penalty +10s) 36. Brian Stokes Suzuki GSX-R750 -9 laps 37. Jake Holden Suzuki GSX-R750 -10 laps - DNF/crash Stanky I tell ya. Now we even have an R6 in the mix. Why no Buell?? Side note: I was lucky enough to meet up on a weekday at OHR with John Haner (eighth place above) and his crew. Super nice young man. Showed me his preferred racing line and gave me some great hints for lapping OHR. Nice to see him graduating on to AMA Pro Racing. GO JOHN!   Anonymous Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 12:54 am:        Hello Blake , you didnt see a Buell because there is no money! If money was not an issue ,we would be driving all over America (racing). Dave Estok rode for no pay at Daytona, shame on you Harley Davidson! The Motor Co. is tight with the money. They give Buell X amount annually and thats it. Yet they love to shove their Q earnings (a record every time) in the public. Racing costs lots and the return is, well that is a can of worms in itself. This is the reason that Troy the small sees no Buells at the track , it only takes money. Whats really bad is the fact that he has two kids, great 2 more! no patience for newbys, but has two kids GO FIGURE. The Tommy Hayden thing / talent, a big money tree(kaw), a crucial gearing call. Its easy to get pissed at the Motor Co. but 100 years is not easy to do so you have to accecpt the frugalness(is that a word?) I think the mindset is "We KNOW the product is good, we have nothing to prove" I wonder how many U.S. companies are also 100 years old? P.S. troy you look anything but smooth in your photo, keep saving your pennys and some day you can step up to THE BEST! Whats going on with the Dakar? the blast(modified) could very easily FINISH, all ya need is lettuce! Over and out .   Jim_Witt Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 01:22 am:        Blake asked, Why no Buells? Dunno, but if I were a racer (in the class you mentioned) I know I'd be on a budget and be looking for the following in a race bike like the GSX-R750; Price, proven reliability, cost of preparing it for racing, plus Suzuki and their R&D is serious about racing. It weighs in at a mere 365 pounds too. Dominated the race track for the last 6 years. Winning the Formula USA Unlimited Superbike series two years in a row. Blew away the competition in AMA 750cc Supersport racing and a butt-load of other things. It could also have something to do with the Suzuki Contingency. -JW:>   Elvis Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 06:35 am:        I've never been much into racing, but I love going around curves on a small, light bike. I think the XB's are so amazing, that I just want the rest of world to see what this bike can do, so I would love to see a Buell or two on a podium. My concern about anonymous' comments (and I have a funny feeling "annonymous" could show Troy a thing or two on a weighted down S3) are that I've always assumed once Buell sells enough to get some real cash-flow they'd put some of that cash into racing. I wonder though if HD's response would be: "See, you can sell even without racing, so why do you want to waste money on racing?"   Sportsman Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 08:20 am:        I'd imagine the Kawasaki is punched out to class limits. They don't make a 750 anymore so they had nothing else to start with but a 636. As far as the Buell thing goes, In the big leagues racing is their job and winning keeps you employed. Duhammel backed himself into a corner with all the testing, R&D stuff, on the VR, but he was good enough to make a comeback. An iffy decision on machine can cost a good rider his career.   Grndskpr Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 08:46 am:        I'd imagine the Kawasaki is punched out to class limits. They don't make a 750 anymore so they had nothing else to start with but a 636. Its a 1mm overbore limit, not really to the limit, just what is allowed Tommy Hayden. He's not that good, is he? Yes he is that good, and has as much, if not more experience in that class than most Did you watch the race blake??? If you missed Daytona, you missed some of the best riding i have ever seen in that class, and Tommys experience really showed on the last lap, it was very impressive Why no Buell?? I asked someone at Buell HQ that very question, i mentioned Aprilla, and was told they spend more money on racing than HD would ever consider, but with HD being about 10 times bigger money wise, it makes you wonder, there heads are in the game to keep the company going strong, but where are there hearts, something i have mentioned numerous times in the past. I think i would be cool to see a buell racing out there, and it must increase sales, or else why would the 600 SS race at Daytona, be so important to everyone(several rider do a 1 off 600 race for Daytona, including E.B, A.Y, and K.R, maybe Buell should at least consider it, or HD for that matter) Roger   Jscott Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 09:03 am:        Blake, I think it probably comes down to several key factors: 1. Talent - Tommy gets overshadowed by his younger brother, but he a excellent rider (as are the other names on the list) 2. Full Factory support - Kawasaki has made no bones about it - they want this years SuperStock title and they have a brand new machine and capable rider to get it. 3. Competition - Look through the names and you will see some Formula USA guys and not many big name AMA guys (that was not intended to be disrespectful) About the missing Buell - I for one want to see the FireBolt in there and was wondering the same thing. If it is a money issue (which I have my doubts) and they could only run selected events - Why in the world would you choose Daytona the highest speed track of the series? Exposure? Coming in 27th because of lack of top speed doesn't seem like very good publicity.   Racerx1 Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 09:45 am:        Blake, Tommy is frickin' awesome!!!! Really classy guy too.....thats a big part of it. If you watch the Daytona race, you will notice that Hayden was basically being smoked on the banking....but he could hang with the Suzuki's if they were punching a big hole in the air ahead of him. He was blitzing the infield and was getting amazing drive onto the banking. The 636 is lighter than a 750 suzuki, and has radial mount calipers....so imagine it stops pretty damn good as well. It gives up 120cc to the Suzuki, but the old racer saying is that engines are worth 1/10ths of a second a lap, Chassis's are worth seconds! Accelerating is only 1/3rd of the equation....stopping and cornering speed are just as important in road racing. You stick a world class rider like Tommy hayden on a factory prepared bike that corners, stops, and drives off of corners better than the competition and may be down some top speed, but in the draft can at least hang with a 750, and thats the results you get! Back in the old days (showing my age here.....) NASB used to run a truly unlimited open class. 175 hp GSXR1100's (remember those?) used to get smoked regularly by 80hp 250gp bikes.....granted, the tracks weren't Daytona....   Anonymous Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 10:05 am:        jscott "why in the world ?" well because we were ALREADY THERE (Daytona)for the previous week of formula U.S.A. series. It costs money to put gas in the tank and drive to California (Fontana), never mind prepping the bikes.Money is ALWAYS the issue! Have you any experiance in the road racing world? Always willing to accept help from other people , can show you where to send money if money is the ONLY way you can help. The remark about the competition was very disrespectful, but i wont take it to heart unless i see your team at the the track. We were concerned with FINISHING, and not last (27 out of 40). thanks stay safe and upright.   Grndskpr Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 10:23 am:        It costs money to put gas in the tank and drive to California (Fontana), never mind prepping the bikes.Money is ALWAYS the issue! Why??, with HD, putting up record quarter after record quarter, i mean Ducati is racing in 2 of the biggest(cost wise) races in the world, and they dont put the numbers up that HD does, How does Ducati/Bennelli/Foggy compare in company size to Buell, just wondering for comparisons sake Roger   Anonymous Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 10:50 am:        groundkeeper, pretty sure Ducati is using company credit cards to keep them afloat, but the bill is in the mail and the mailman is only a few blocks away. I read about how ducati has slashed prices on inventory, pretty scary to be on the ropes with dealers carrying 00, 01, 02 models. Some one is gonna spout about buells of 00,01,02 being on floors (dealers) as well but its not the same situation. You hit it pretty close about "keeping the company strong" this is what concerns them . Ducati has been around a while right? they raced in the 50's and 60's how strong (money wise) were they then? Did they dominate? soon after Cagiva? not sure where im going with this but on paper probably doesnt look like a smooth curve (dyno chart wise) Racing is passion , ego , endless prep,patience, and many other things but to figure out the return of it business wise is not very clear to many people incl the board of directors at H-D . Just my 2 cents.   Grndskpr Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 11:07 am:        Ducati is using company credit cards to keep them afloat, but the bill is in the mail and the mailman is only a few blocks away Do you really belive this with TPG behind them(for the time being) i realize the business model for Duc is very differrent from Buell(all Buells sold before they leave the factory) however i think that Ducati is far from hurting at this point, of course i am not privy to all the goings on, on the same not how does Aprilla do it(or are scooter sales better than i thought away from the USA, they compare in size, at least i thought so I read about how ducati has slashed prices on inventory, pretty scary to be on the ropes with dealers carrying 00, 01, 02 models. This is true, they also offered financeing, and the like, i thought it was to reduce inventory, for new models(they did change almost the entire line) BMW did the same thing and dropped the price of the S model by 3 or 4K, again with special financing, because of a new line up, i suppose time will tell You hit it pretty close about "keeping the company strong" this is what concerns them . I would belive this a little more if they were recovering, but its been a decade of record sales, time to give a little back, at least i would like to think so Racing is passion Please do take this the wrong way, it is no way ment to make anybody sound bad, but to have soul, you must also have passion, i wish HD would remeber that, and maybe consider giving people other than cruisers something to be passionate about JMHO Roger   Elvis Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 11:54 am:        "Please do take this the wrong way, it is no way ment to make anybody sound bad, but to have soul, you must also have passion, i wish HD would remeber that, and maybe consider giving people other than cruisers something to be passionate about" Interesting point. Buells and Harleys are about as opposite as two types of motorcycles can be. They both have souls, just very different souls. I've never really understood Harleys. I like fast, nimble responsive bikes. I couldn't market a Harley if I tried, because I wouldn't buy one. I'm sure it's just as hard for Harley people to understand Buells as it is for me to understand Harleys. I give Harley a huge amount of credit for giving Buell the amount of autonomy they have, but I have a feeling there are still people at Harley who dabble in the things they can never understand. They have a business model that works for them (God knows how, I'll never understand it), but I think if they really want to get the most out of Buell, they need to have faith that Erik understands his customers better than they ever will. He needs to be the one with ultimate say. I'm not sure if Buell needs to race or not (that's why I sit here typing on message boards rather than running a motorcycle company), but Erik knows. If Erik says: "We need to race" then I hope Harley will give him the support he needs.   Jscott Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 11:56 am:        Anonywho, ReRead my first point if you think I was being disrespectful: 1. Talent - Tommy gets overshadowed by his younger brother, but he a excellent rider (as are the other names on the list) I don't pretend to have any experience or insight into the world of roadracing, I'm just a Buell rider and a fan of racing. Anything I said was purely from my point of view and not the intention of ruffling feathers. I've heard it mentioned several times on this board (maybe it was in jest?)that HD makes more money selling T-shirts in a week than Buell has for a yearly race budget. Well someone at the mothership should free up some cash and field a fully factory supported Buell racing effort. We Buell race fans deserve it since you dropped the ball on the VR1000 program.   Grndskpr Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 12:08 pm:        We Buell race fans deserve it since you dropped the ball on the VR1000 program. I really dont think they dropped the ball, i feel(my opinion not ment to be offensive in any way just a perspective) they never really had the ball, or if they did, didnt know what to do with it, i really think that the bike could be released(i just saw one at ukes, first time up close) with some updates, including the vrod motor, and it MIGHT sell well, it would be a true 100 hp superbike, with a relativelly current frame and a very cool motor, it just needs a new head light, it would be cool and require very little developement, but if HD feels its not there place then so be it, i just become concerned with a company that is so single(read road soffa) minded, dont you think they will eventually need to expand the line???or is Buell that expansion, again 2004 new line up will be interesting, hope we see some neat things Roger   Blake Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 12:22 pm:        RacerX1, Your point about HP might be valid, but how did the ZX6R qualify so well? I know Tommy is good. Some of his competition is darn good too. It's just too much of a difference for me to accept. I guess if the ZX6R had 5% less drag the power thing would not be so critical; since peak speed is proportional to power cubed and 18% theoretical power advantage would only yield a 2.6% peak speed advantage. The results are still surprising though. I'm rooting for Tommy to unseat Suzuki. That will be a supreme embarrassment for Suzi, to be soundly beat in their own series by a smaller similarly configured bike. Their sales of GSXR750's will likely plummet.   Mikej Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 01:14 pm:        Just a curious question: has that winning ZX6R been inspected? Sometimes 636 isn't 636, and sometimes there's some other variables involved.   Racerx1 Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 03:04 pm:        Hey Blake, I wasn't at qualifying so I'm not sure what happened, so I'm just basing my comments on what I saw during the race, but Hayden was blitzing the infield at Daytona and was getiing 10-15 bike length advantage over the bikes behind him on the drive up the banking from both the infield and the chicane. During qualifying at Daytona, they basically run around together with transponders (no superpole).....so I would imagine Hayden blitzed the infield on his fast lap, and then got a tow around the banking behind a 750. It was obvious in the race when Hayden was pushing his own air that the 750's were faster with no draft. In fact, he nearly lost the race but for the incredible drive he got out of the chicane on the last lap. 10 more feet to the finish line and he would have gotten 4th. I honestly don't think any funny business is going on. Great (smart) rider on a good factory bike. Jus my humble opinion.... I'm a big Eric Wood fan and he was leading that race at a couple of times....I'd be interested in hearing his opinion (I've seen him post here before). p.s. - FYI - Tommy Kipp won a bunch of 750 supersport races in 1992....on a CBR600F2.   Jssport Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 03:41 pm:        Blake asked; " How the hell does a 636cc ZX6R beat a slew of GSXR750's " Cornering speed,.... and a Haydon on the saddle   Jssport Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 04:58 pm:        (stolen from AMA superbike) *NEW* AMA 2004 bike classes Buells are in Superstock Superbike: 900cc-1000cc four-stroke, any number of cylinders. Supersport: 600cc four-stroke, twin and four cylinders. Formula Xtreme: 600cc four-stroke, four cylinders; 750cc four-stroke, twin cylinders; 250cc-330cc two-stroke. All highly modified. Superstock: 750cc-1000cc four-stroke, four cylinders; up to 1350cc air-cooled twin cylinders   Reepicheep Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 05:27 pm:        So an aircooled 1350cc pushrod 2 valve per cylinder twin is supposed to compete head to head with a 1000cc water cooled 4 valve per cylinder OHC inline four? It may be a step in the right direction, but still stinks to me. Does that mean Ducatti could run a 1350 cc 4 valve per cyl aircooled desmo? That would at least be a fairer fight. Seems like a class like superstock, if I am understanding it correctly, should be working to try and keep all viable sportbikes competitive. Thats are what rules are for. This does not sound like it. I don't know the math offhand, but I suspect the extra 350cc advantage is completely eliminated out of the box by the baseline physics disadvantage of a twin versus a four relative to piston mass alone. So the additional disadvantages of a pushrod, two valve, air cooled setup will further make equitable power characteristics physically impossible. The role of a rule making organization should be to try and make all bikes within a class equitable. The AMA is apparently trying to do this, but doing it in such a way that they might as well come out and say "We are specifically making sure the current Buell and Harley engines will be unable to be competitive in AMA pro races". Am I missing something? Seems to be the Ducattis have been dominating not because of their displacement advantage, but rather because they have a gear driven valvetrain. Put that gear driven valve train on a four (as Ducatti is now doing) and keep the relative displacements the same, and the four would once again eat up the twin (as the new v4 Ducattis are indeed doing to the similar v2 Ducattis). The physics are pretty straightforward. One could argue that this is professional racing on serious racing motorcycles, but that argument is fundamentally flawed as well. They already have arbitrary rules that eliminate equal displacement two strokes, which would have a huge advantage, so they already gerrymander the rules to try and make a more streetable engine competitive on the track. They should be consistent and apply that approach across the board to all viable sportbikes (of which the X1 and XB9's obviously are) and do what it takes and is within reason to keep them competitive.   Sarodude Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 06:30 pm:        I've gotta make a couple of points here... Are we going off topic? Why is INSANE performance the norm for sport motorcycles? How come in F1 Ferrari can build a car that has NOTHING to do with their road cars and still sell road cars? Why do race bikes have to have ANYTHING to do with street bikes? (stupid kids - nevermind) What is it with motorcycles that demands top level racing be derived from street bikes (or vice versa)? How many times have I asked the same question in this post? -Saro   Blake Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 07:01 pm:        JSS, Where did you get the 2004 rules information. If that is true, I'll be interested to see how José defends it. If it is true, I will promote a boycot not only AMA Pro Racing but of the AMA itself who regardless of its total uninvolvement does bear some responsibility due to the sharing of the name.   Aesquire Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 10:09 pm:        Saro, What relation does a NASCAR racer have to a Detroit automobile? I see your point, it's always been race on Sunday, sell on Monday. AMA rules? beats the #$#@ outa me. Straight forward, truly fair racing rules are rare as heck. I remember when F-1 (cars) was dominated by the ELF team because rules allowed custom rocket fuel, and ELF (french petro company) made the SuperFuel only for their team.   Sarodude Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 12:24 am:        Aesquire- A NASCAR racer at least CLAIMS to be a Ford TBird or Chevy Somethingorother. I chose F1 because there's NO pretending. -Saro   Grndskpr Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 08:32 am:        So an aircooled 1350cc pushrod 2 valve per cylinder twin is supposed to compete head to head with a 1000cc water cooled 4 valve per cylinder OHC inline four? I think the rules as posted may not be correct, actually i fell there was a part missing, the class is super stock, and i would put money on it, that the 750-1000 bikes have to remain near stock, and the air cooled bikes will not have to stay that way, inother words, 1350 air cooled twins, can have any modifications they want other than power adders(drag term) like turbo, or supercharger Formula Xtreme: 600cc four-stroke, four cylinders; 750cc four-stroke, twin cylinders this one seems odd, why lower the displacement, unless they want superbike to be top dog?? It may be a step in the right direction, but still stinks to me. Wait till you see the full rules before you pass judgment They should be consistent and apply that approach across the board to all viable sportbikes (of which the X1 and XB9's obviously are) and do what it takes and is within reason to keep them competitive. If this is true, than they should be called such by there own company, however Buell uses the term sport fighter, thus not to cunfuse everyone, what would your solution be then, so that all bikes could be competative in the class??? Rules are a complicated item, and you will never please everyone all the time Why is INSANE performance the norm for sport motorcycles? How come in F1 Ferrari can build a car that has NOTHING to do with their road cars and still sell road cars? Why do race bikes have to have ANYTHING to do with street bikes? (stupid kids - nevermind) Beacuse it sells plain and simple, you may want to disreguard the stupid kids, but they buy 600 super bikes, i myself did it(vfr 1000)and they continue to do it, not everyone rides a cruiser, and some of us stupid kids(really i am a stupid old person) like the feel of performance, and as far as the ferrari thig, if i am not mistaken there F1 runns a v-12, similar to there street cars, kinda like BMW's effort with a v-8 that was later released in there auto's, granted they are not the same, but the supply some knowledege for strret cars, plus in the US, i would venture a guess that its a tax write off, regurding advertising, not sure, but i am sure its not far off, this entire part of the disscution is the same for buell owners, ie, why do you own one, its slow Blah Blah blah, to each his own What is it with motorcycles that demands top level racing be derived from street bikes (or vice versa)? I dont see many GP bikes on the street, thats top level racing, not the AMA   Reepicheep Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 09:43 am:        It seems to me it would make more sense for the XB's to be running with the 600's, that seems to be the class where it belongs. Allow the XB's to go up to 1200cc... they would have twice the displacement, but half the number of valves, half the number of cylinders, air/oil cooling instead of water cooling, and pushrods instead of OHC. Power wise, a 1200 cc XB would compare pretty well to an inline 4. It would be a little down on the top end, but a little up on the bottom end. The 600 class is about light and agile bikes, with shorter wheelbases, and emphasizes a balance of power and handling over pure top end. Seems really obvious to me that is where the XB was born to run. Lumping a 45 degree pushrod aircooled twin with 1000cc inline fours is just stupid on the face of it, even if they are allowed significant engine modifications. That class is more about pure top end power and lumbering (relatively) handling. It is just plain stupid to class the XB there. So yes, I should wait to see the whole rules, but if the above are correct, I already know enough to see that the XB's will be forced into the wrong class. One last note on something that came to me when explaining to a good friend why I am not joining the AMA... About 6 years ago I was at GE Aircraft engines when the layoffs were beginning to really cut deep. Jack Welch told his managers to give him a list of people important to their groups ranked from most to least. Most of the managers simply took the people in their group and ranked them by seniority or by job level. Jack hit the roof. He told the managers that if all they can offer is that, then he does not need managers. Either come back to him with a REAL list, or hand in your resignation. So if all the AMA can do is paint broad and flawed rules that focus purely on displacement, then what, exactly, good are they? I realize making racing rules fair is hard work, but thats what their job is, and so far it looks to me like they are either lazy, stupid, or seriously biased towards keeping water cooled inline four overhead cam four strokes on the podium. And would it kill the *American* motorcycling association to show just a little adaptability and creativity in making sure the *only* American made sportbike has a place where it can be in the hunt? Geesh!   Jscott Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 11:34 am:        If I were in charge this is what I'd do: Superbike: 750cc-1000cc four-stroke, any number of cylinders. Supersport: 600cc four-stroke four cylinders; 750cc four-stroke twin cylinders; 1200cc four-stroke air-cooled twin cylinders. Formula Xtreme: 600cc four-stroke four cylinders; 750cc four-stroke twin cylinders; Unlimited cc aircooled twins and singles; 250cc-330cc two-stroke. All highly modified. Superstock: Bye, Bye This would give Buell two classes to compete in (three - if they'd just come out with that watercooled square four)   Grndskpr Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 12:00 pm:        Ok if we are going to play this game then here are the rules as i would like to see them F1- run what you brung, unlimited on all counts, to include gp bikes, modified street bikes, what ever, NO power adders(turbo,blower, nitrous) 2 & 4 strokes Superbike: 1000cc limit, street bike based(minimum 500 in the US)1,2,3,4 cylinders as long as its production based, stock block, stock crank Super Sport: stays the same, other than Stock except suspention BOT(battle of the Twins) Desmo/water colled limit of 800cc, air cooled pushrod, unlimited modification with a displacement limit of 1340 Super Stock: Stock production bikes produced for the street, maximum capacity of the following: 2 cylinder air cooled, pushrod 1250cc 2 cylinder water cooled 800cc 4 cylinder water cooled 750cc All must remain Production stock except air cooled, pushrod 1250 unlimited engine mods, no frame suspention mods I am sure there is a ton of stuff i forgot, but this is just off the top of my head Roger