| Author |
Message |
    
Buell_brener
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 12:05 am: | 
|
So how would you group motorcycles for racing? Buell is unique, and as such will have problems in any comparison.
As my two cents worth HP and weight seem to be better factors than engine displacement.
For my money ( and it was my money) I will be riding a Buell on the street as long as possible. It would be nice to see them in a racing class where the can compete and be acknowleged as the technical inovation they are. |
Court
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:20 am: |
|
>>>I read an article on Aprilia & they sell somewhere in the range of 350,000 scooters a year.
Right you are and I am very familiar with Aprilia, it's history and it's people. To expound on the "sjust build sportbikes for grins", that applied, in 1968 when they started doing mopeds, having been a manufacturer of bicycles.
I'd urge you to compare the bottom line contribution of 350,000 scooters at $1,700 each and those eagle baggers, at $26,000 a copy.
|
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:59 am: |
|
Court, thanks for that titbit of info which I believe proves one of two things. Buell have no desire (yet?) to go big time racing or produce a street bike resembling anything like a conventional sports bike.
As for the suggestion of a 1500cc ac pushrod V twin racing against an in-line four from Japan, that would be the only way the XB chassis would be capable of competing against the mighty Japanese fours then?
Let's face it, the XB chassis achieves everything perhaps Erik Buell desired in the road holding department, but as innovative as the 'modern' XB motor is, it is never gonna be a premier class race winner is it. The point is this. If that tiny little chassis had the ability to carry a powerful ohc liquid motor of any configuration and one that kept it competitive in the road holding stakes at the same time wouldn't that type of XB be in production now?
The XB was designed around that 'little' pushrod V twin motor because it stayed with tradition but also, it's probably the only way Buell could achieve the level of performance it has to date without spoiling the handling by carrying a heavier (in its entirety) engine package. But heck what do I know.
XB two stroke anyone 
Rocket  |
Simond
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 08:04 am: |
|
"XB two stroke anyone"
Now there's an idea! V4/V3? Plenty of room below for the spannies, no shock in the way on the XB.
Erik going back to his roots? Any of those old Barton units lying around?
There were some pretty radical direct injection units being developed a few years back in Aus. } |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:12 am: |
|
Rocket... Was that a question? You probably know more about this stuff then I do... my understanding is that the reason the twins should get more displacement then a four is related to piston mass. The heaver the piston, the slower it can move without self destructing. All other things being equal, four smaller pistons will always rev higher and always have a power advantage over two larger pistons, even if the displacement is the same. You can go to an oversquare piston size (wider piston moving through a shorter stroke), but so can the fours, so the fours always come out ahead in the physics by a fixed percentage (I saw some calculations once, and I believe they ended up saying that an 800cc twin is "equal" to a 600cc inline four in this regard).
The valve train of a pushrod has more inertia as well, and that also limits top RPM, which therefore limits top power. You can't make the springs strong enough to return the whole assembly fast enough without breaking things. So the overhead cams (with the very short and light valvetrain) get a performance boost there as well. The gear driven cams of the Ducattis have an advantage over even them, as they don't need springs to get back down. I assume pneumatic valve actuation could achieve as good a performance as the desmos, but the fact that it is not here yet must mean it is not as easy as it sounds. Anyway, a pushrod engine will always be at a physics disadvantage from a desmo, OHC, or pneumatic system.
And finally, an air cooled engine is also at a disadvantage due to increased mechanical tolerance creep. An aircooled motor runs a lot hotter then a watercooled motor, with a much wider temperature range across it's parts, and in order to handle the expansion and contraction with the thermal changes, you have to give things more room (which costs power).
So the obvious response to this is that this is a premier racing class, and that engines of configurations that do not create the maximum power for a given displacement have no business on the track, and that the bikes should be about racing, not about streetability.
If that was the case, and the AMA was consistent, I would have no beef with them. But that is not the case. A two stroke produces twice the horsepower for a given displacement as a four stroke.
But you can't run a 1000cc two stroke up against the 1000cc inline fours, the rules don't allow it. Why? Well, because two strokes pollute, require tons of maintenance, and have awful power delivery characteristics, and therefore make lousy streetbikes and are unrelated to bikes the racing fans can ride on the street. The two strokes would make killer racebikes, but awful street bikes.
So it looks to me, and anyone else who is even remotely objective, that the AMA is trying to make bikes competitive while placing rules on them that limit the technologies to be relative to modern, streetable, and consumer available models. I think that is the right thing to do for most racing classes.
But this is where AMA pro racing is at best incredibly stupid, or at more likely unfairly biased and perhaps corrupt. They do correctly change displacement limits versus two/four stroke. Good, the physics work out, a two stroke should have about half the displacement of a four stroke.
But they only marginally address valvetrain. And as far as I have seen they only address it to bring the Ducatti down to the OHC japanese bike level. When looking at the identical Pushrod disadvantage relative to the OHC's, suddenly they seem to see no need to adjust the rules.
And they seem to address air cooled versus water cooled, but not in a very rational way.
Displacement is just one factor of performance, no more or less relelvant then valve train design, number of cylinders, air versus water cooling, fuel delivery system, bike weight, etc. It should be simple enough to derive a decent baseline formula based on raw physics and historical data, and then tweak that formula over time to keep all reasonable bikes competitive.
I don't think the firebolt belongs at 1500cc's racing against 1000cc inline fours, those bikes tend to be big really fast boats that on most tight tracks would have their asses handed to them by a good 600cc inline four. I think the firebolt at 1000 or 1200 cc's belongs with those same 600's. People looking at just displacement might feel that a 2x displacement advantage is unfair for the Buell, but those same people have no problem with a 2x displacement advantage of a four stroke over a two stroke. I can't help it if they can't be bothered to understand the physics.
And for your other question, I think the Duke twin, or the Rotax twin (aren't they the same thing?) would be close enough to fitting in the XB frame that it could have been made to work, and that has fantastic power relative to modern bikes (overhead cam, liquid cooling, oversquare high revver). I think Buell wanted to get a solid new bike out in a reasonable time frame with a reasonable cost with reasonable limits on complexity, and I think they hit a home run.
And call me a fool, but the more time I spend on motorcycles, the more I care about the overall aesthetic of the bike. I am at the point (God help me) where I would happily go from a 100RWHP bike that "sounds wrong" (overhead cam water cooled inline four) to a 85 RWHP bike that "sounds right". I would do it in a heartbeat. I hear my bike every second of every ride, and it never fails to bring a grin. I use the maximum horsepower my Cyclone offers roughly one secound out of every hour or so I ride.
Similiarly, I would love a perfectly reliable Cyclone. But the overall character of that damn sportster motor is just SO COOL to me on so many levels, that the reliability issues seem insignificant. I really like the XB approach, that tries to keep as much of the XL1200 character as possible, but improve it in as many ways as they could. Stroke that XB9 to an XB12, and it'll be perfect.
IMHO |
Grndskpr
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:48 am: |
|
I think Court has put most of the argument in perspective, at least for me. Court has stated that Buell builds street bikes, which is outstanding when you consider the market and how it seems to be going(more comfortable ridable bikes) he has also stated that HD, Buells parent company has enuff cash to built whatever they wanted within reason, with these to statments it seems the AMAPR has gotten the message, and because of these two facts(i will assume these are facts) why would they make special rule adjustments for a bike that is intended for the street, and yet has enuff cash to make a world beater of a race bike, the AMAPR is lookiong out for its best finacial interest, just like HD is as is Buell, now i suspect that if Buell where to make a capable race bike(more race bread than street ie what the Mille is to the Falco), that they wished to go racing with at a factory level they would adjust the rules so they could compete, LIKE THEY DID FOR THE VR 1000, however if Buell(actually hd would be my guess) shows no interest in a factory backed effort there seems to be no reason to open up the class, i still feel the AMAPR is not a grass roots racing orginization, and that there end goal is to be the unltimate in world racing orginization similar to what has happened in dirt bike racing(rides come hear from europe, we dont go there, the US series is considered to be world class)
this again is my opinion and no one elses
Roger |
Dynarider
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 01:03 pm: |
|
I'd urge you to compare the bottom line contribution of 350,000 scooters at $1,700 each and those eagle baggers, at $26,000 a copy.
Harley sells how many of those SE models a yr? 2500 or so..limited editions. The biggest sellers in the Harley lineup is the sportster line. Harley is paying line workers over $20 an hr plus all the benefits to produce these bikes, how much does aprilia pay their workers? I would be willing to bet that Harleys costs between labor, benefits, insurance, government regulations, etc is a hell of a lot higher than Aprilias.
|
Jimmytwobuells
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 02:15 pm: |
|
Interesting side note to this thread... CCS this year is allowing Firebolts to race in their middleweight sportsman class against 1980's technological marvels such as FZR400's,Honda Hawks, and aircooled 650 Ducati's. Does this mean CCS is sucking off Erik Buell? |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 02:16 pm: |
|
Dyna... You ever seen labor costs / benefit costs / taxes / vacation plans for an average European Nation company?
I think they would kill for our labor rates, infrastructure costs, and operating costs. |
Buelliedan
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 02:20 pm: |
|
Dyna,
I almost gurantee you that HDs build costs are much higher than Aprilias especially considereing the fact that Italian bike makers get government subsidies |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:17 pm: |
|
Dyna,
Give it up. You aren't grasping the simple mathematics of the situation. Harley has a great profit margin on all their bikes that sell for far greater amounts than Aprilia's scooters that have much narrower profit margins. You don't need an MBA to understand the relative differences. Multiply 350,000 times $300 and compare it to 250,000 times $2,000. 
Roger,
No one is asking for "special rules adjustments" other than the Japanese. Why not use the same type of rules that govern FUSA racing, rules that allow all manner of engine configurations to compete head-to-head? Or how about even the rules used by Moto GP, where fewer cylinders go hand in hand with lower minimum weight limits? AMAPR will have none of it anymore. Displacement is their one and only measuring stick for performance because it gives their Japanese daddies the advantages they seek. Ducati racers are screwed. Buell racers are screwed. AMAPR makes special rules just to EXCLUDE Ducati and Buell and Aprilia and KTM from competitively racing their longstanding traditional twin cylinder bikes against comparably performing Japanese IL4's. Excepting the 2 strokes in FX, there is NO fair allowance for anything other than displacement to govern which bikes are allowed in an AMAPR racing class.
The point that Imonabus made is perfectly valid. Where the Buell 1350cc limit was in place versus 750cc IL4's, now that Superstock rules have been changed to allow 1,000cc IL4's (a full 33% displacement boost), the displacement limits for air cooled pushrod twins should also be increased. To be fair, the limit should be raised to 1,800cc's (33% increase to 1,350cc). As it was, the 1,350cc Buells couldn't keep up with the GSXR 750's.
Consider an equitable set of racing class technical rules, those of FUSA. FUSA allows unlimited displacement for air cooled pushrod two valve/cyl twins in middleweight supersport, middleweight superbike, and middle weight GP (600cc IL4's); they also allow the Duc 748/749RS. Imagine that, a fair set of rules for the class that includes all possible configurations and makes of sport bikes.
Are the AMAPR tech rules fair? No. Are even the existing biased rules enforced? No. How can a stock 600cc IL4 that puts out less than 98rwhp in stock form, somehow produce well over 130rwhp with the simple addition of race exhaust and ECM? That is what the factories are getting out of their AMAPR 600cc supersport race bikes. That is complete bullshit!
"Special rules", who is asking for special rules? Implement the FUSA rules, rules designed to bring parity among all types and configurations of sport bikes so that they can race competitively together.
Dyna,
AMAPR never "fills the stands" and you are exaggerating the facts by a wide margin. You are also failing to grasp that everyone who visits the race pays the same for their entry, whether they stay in the stands or not; whether they watch the support class races or not, they all pay the same to get through the gate. Your point is inconsequential. Even more silly is your apparent contention that excluding some brands helps race attendance. You'll have to explain to me how it would hurt race attendance if Ducati 748/749 and Buell XB9R based machines were not excluded from AMAPR Supersport. Seems to me it would actually INCREASE interest and attendance. You'd still have all the Japanese factory entries, none would be excluded, plus you'd have two more. That certainly wouldn't hurt attendance!
How will attendance and interest be affected when Ducati drops out of AMAPR Superbike leaving only the four Japanese factories to race each other? I guarantee you, if the literbike IL4's are allowed the same minimum weight and same engine and chassis modifications as currently proposed by AMAPR for 2004, Duc WILL drop out of AMAPR Superbike. Mladin and Yates are already proving conclusively the utter futility of trying to compete a liter twin against a liter 4 cylinder in superbike. And this year the liter 4 cylinder bikes are limited in engine performance modifications compared to the twins. They are significantly faster. Funny how Erik Bostrom, still riding a 750cc machine is able to keep up with the lead pack of twins. But no, it's unfair to give the twins a displacement advantage. What a crock of shit.
Someone asked if AMAPR gave HD special consideration to race the VR1000. There was no such thing as AMAPR when the VR1000 was homologated for AMA Superbike. Even if it were in existence at the time as a separate business entitiy from the AMA, SO WHAT??? Did the VR1000 EVER dominate the series? NO! Where the rules changed in any way in favor of the VR1000 over any other manufacturers engine configuration? NO! Where there a lot of race fans who enjoyed seeing the VR1000, an American motorcycle, on the track racing against the other five factories involved in AMA Superbike? YES! Did HD totally screw the pooch competitively speaking? Yes. So what?
Why exclude Ducati 748/749 and Buell XB9R from AMAPR Supersport? How does that benefit the competitive racing scene and the interest in AMAPR? Answer... It doesn't. Then why does AMAPR exclude them? Answer... If they don't, their Japanese sugar daddies will be displeased, and any payola will be terminated.
GO FUSA!!! (Where's José?) |
Dynarider
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:32 pm: |
|
Multiply 350,000 times $300 and compare it to 250,000 times $2,000.
Where did you come up with that $300 figure for aprilia? Somehow I think they have a bit more profit margin built in than that. Even at that ridiculously low $300 amount thats still a $105 million dollar profit you are assuming. Harley made how much in t-shirt sale profits last year $50 million or so?? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:49 pm: |
|
Jimmy,
"Interesting side note to this thread... CCS this year is allowing Firebolts to race in their middleweight sportsman class against 1980's technological marvels such as FZR400's,Honda Hawks, and aircooled 650 Ducati's. Does this mean CCS is sucking off Erik Buell?"
Your ignorance is unfortunate. The way you express it is very offensive. CCS did not, as you ignorantly imply, recently alter their displacement rules for the MW Sportsman class to allow inclusion of the XB9R. The rules for that class did not change for 2003. And contrary to your claim concerning XB9R's racing against Ducati 650's, a 2003 Ducati 800SS is perfectly legal in the class. The rules for CCS MW Sportsman are as follows...
quote: MIDDLEWEIGHT SPORTSMAN (Amateur & Expert Divisions)
Single cylinder, unlimited displacement, unlimited frame
Two stroke, liquid cooled, up to 515cc
Two stroke, air cooled, unlimited displacement
Twin cylinder, air cooled, non-desmodromic valves up to 900cc
Twin cylinder, air cooled, desmodromic valves, up to 800cc
Twin cylinder, air cooled, 2 valve, push rod, up to 1050cc
Twin cylinder, liquid cooled, pre-1999 model year, up to 700cc
Three cylinder, non-fuel injected, up to 900cc
Four cylinder, liquid cooled, pre-1987 model year, up to 570cc
Four cylinder, liquid cooled, 1987 to 1992 model year, up to 500cc
Four cylinder, air cooled, up to 750cc
Harley-Davidson Sportsters of unlimited displacement
The CCS description and intent of the class is as follows...
quote:
6.5 SPORTSMAN - Sportsman machines are based upon production models,
sold by manufacturers and their dealers in North America for street use. Proof
of compliance rests with the competitor entering the motorcycle. Single
cylinder machines are exempt from street use requirements. Single cylinder 2
stroke GP road race machines are not allowed in this class. All machines must
have unaltered VIN numbers.
If what you are implying is that the XB9R should have an advantage over its competition in MW Sportsman, I would agree. However, the displacement limits for twin cylinder, air cooled, 2 valve, push rod, engined machines have been in place in the MW Sportsman class long before the XB9R came on the scene. The Sportsman classes are where the more casual and "just for fun" type of racers can enjoy the sport. They are NOT money classes. I'm sure that if/when the XB9R's start to dominate the class, the rules will be adjusted accordingly. It is ludicrous to even suggest that Buell would seek to tilt the rules in their favor for such small and inconsequential class.
Their is one bike however that has completely and utterly dominate the lightweight classes in CCS/FUSA racing in the past four years... The SV650. I'd like to see some XB9R's out there mixing it up in the LW classes to give it some competition. Maybe in a year or two when the XB9R becomes better known.
Again, your insinuation and your ignorance are unfortunate. You might want to take some time to learn a bit about your subject matter before offering it in a public forum. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:52 pm: |
|
Dyna,
Whatever. Court was OBVIOUSLY exaggerating WRT the T-shirt sales comment; his point nonetheless remains valid. Don't you have anything better to do than nit pick? How about actually adding something to a discussion. I've seen you do it once before, I think.  |
Dynarider
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:55 pm: |
|
The way you express it is very offensive.
Blake, dont be a hypocrite. Your "AMA Pro Racing Sucks Off Jap Daddies" Is just as offensive. |
Dynarider
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:58 pm: |
|
Blake, I also dont think his point remains valid. I doubt Harley could afford to buy aprilia. Just because they make small bikes, does not make them a small manufacturer. Hows about this quote?
In terms of size, comparing Aprilia to Harley-Davidson is a "TVR to General Motors" deal.
Maybe that one should have been thought about before it was posted on a public forum?
|
Jssport
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:33 pm: |
|
Was there ever a time when air-cooled 2-valve engines were competitive ?
And at that time classes were based on displacement,...
Displacement provides the best way to group bikes, if'n Buell wants to race, they should build a race bike. |
Steve_a
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:34 pm: |
|
Harley-Davidson could likely find the financial leverage to buy Suzuki, let alone Aprilia, if management could convince the Harley board that it is was essential to the company's future. Have you looked at the Motor Company's market cap recently? Buying any Italian company would be a piece of cake financially for H-D, but remember, they did it once before, and didn't enjoy the experience. I don't expect to hear about the purchase of one of the two big Italian companies unless one of them were to fall into bankruptcy first, and the price was just too attractive . . .
As for power equivalency betwen twins and multis, you can calculate that the displacment ratio for equal power should be the square root of 2, assuming:
1) similar BMEPs are obtained
2) similar piston speeds at peak power can be achieved
3) and similar bore/stroke ratios are used.
That would match up a 750cc four to a 1060cc Twin, assuming similar technology. I leave it to Blake to derive the equation. Hint: express power in terms of stroke length, using power = bmep*rpm*displacement*constant as a starting point. Note that both rpm and displacment are a function of stroke if maxiumum piston speed is the limit for rpm, and if there's a generally optiumum bore-stroke ratio for a given point in valve-train and piston technology.
|
Davegess
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:03 pm: |
|
Steve, well said. There is more to the HP equation than just power, how that power gets to the ground is also important and cause for many an argument over which is easier to ride fast, the twin or the 4. You even here about Ducati tracks on the WSB tour.
|
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:05 pm: |
|
Sure the title of this thread is offensive, and for damn good reason. My comments wrt AMAPR are based on hard evidence and reality. AMAPR's actions, blatant bias, and lies are offensive and warrant strong commentary. I don't pull punches and I call it as I see it based upon the cold hard facts.
Jimmy's glib statements contained no validity and sought to impinge the integrity of a specific individual. If you cannot see the difference, too bad, I don't care to take the time to explain it to you.
Sorry to see that you also fail totally to grasp the simple math of the HDI and Aprilia comparison. Whatever. I don't care. I seek to learn and discuss topics of interest here. Do you really want me to start nit-picking each and every one of your posts? Mr. Positive?
Between you and Court on the subject of HDI and Aprilia, who should a person believe?  |
Court
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:09 pm: |
|
Harley-Davidson could write a heck for Aprilia (and this is not a reflection on any good/bad aspects of Aprilia) just simple business sense, without even calling the bank.
Aprilia, I say again, is a company steeped in heritage and romance. I think they are going to go places and they depend very little on the bikes that appeal to us here. Their world is scooters.
They, like many Italian firms, would likely be envious of Harley-Davidson's efficient and effective labor structure. Italy (Aprilia didn't get in their current pickle entirely as the result of poor management) is a tough business climate. Historians here want to put your hands up if you remember why Zell withdrew from his offer to purchase Ducati?
There are a host of variables and yes, I exaggerated the math. But the order of magnitude is perhaps okay for this conversation. Someone go compare the GM and TVR revenues and then the HD and Aprilia.
HD, last year, was on the order of $2B if memory serves. Assume Aprilia sold those 350,000 scooters for an average of about $1,750 that'd yield about $612,000 ,000...that'd make Harley-Davidson, what 33 times larger? Who knows. I'll let you do the math and guesstimate the t-shirt sales.
By the way...I like Aprilia and what they have done and are doing for the sport.
Court |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:18 pm: |
|
"Displacement provides the best way to group bikes."
BULLSHIT!!! |
Dynarider
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:27 pm: |
|
Gross sales dollar amounts dont equate to how large a company is. Just because company A sells their widgets for twice the amount of company B does not make them larger. Units sold & profits generated by a percentage per unit are better indicators. |
Dynarider
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:29 pm: |
|
"Displacement provides the best way to group bikes."
BULLSHIT!!
Gotta agree 100% with Blake on that. My Harley is 1340 cc's. Does that mean if I wanted to enter it in a race I should be pared up against a 1300cc Busa????? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:38 pm: |
|
"if'n Buell wants to race, they should build a race bike."
The Ducati 748/749RS is not a race bike? The XB9R cannot be a race bike? As far as I know, the AMAPR Supersport class is for street bikes that are available for sale in significant quantities to the general public.
Buell has a race bike, they will likely have even better qualified versions in the future, but if AMAPR continues to exclude them I guess in your eyes they will not be worthy of racing. Whatever.
The friggin' Japanese have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in brainwashing so many into believing that displacement is the one and only important parameter governing engine performance. What about number of cylinders? What about number of valves? What about methods of valve actuation? What about type of engine cooling system? Only a complete imbecile would recognize the merits of displacement but ignore those of the other major parameters affecting engine performance.
FUSA recognizes all the above listed parameters in formulating displacement limits for each of their racing classes. Why doesn't AMAPR? There is only one answer...
|
Jssport
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:48 pm: |
|
Only if you want to race in a 1350cc class.
"My Harley is 1340 cc's. Does that mean if I wanted to enter it in a race I should be pared up against a 1300cc Busa?????"
This is like saying our Johnny who is overweight and out of shape shouldn't have to run against the fast kids his own age in track n field,..
We should let him run against the small 2nd graders where he can be competitive.
Bitching because they won't give you concessions to enable you to be competitive..... hell just go out and join the special olympics...
Displacement IS the criterial for grouping,... deal with it. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 06:59 pm: |
|
"Was there ever a time when air-cooled 2-valve engines were competitive?"
Ask the rest of the field finishing behind 1st place Eric Wood on his XB9R last year at the Loudon FUSA Sport Bike race. Ask the Japanese brand riders that I passed and beat in CMRA/CCS/FUSA Thunderbike if they think my '97 Buell Cyclone is competitive. Let them race, they will be competitive with comparably powered IL4's. At one time lots of racebikes were air cooled and two valved.
|
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 07:27 pm: |
|
Displacement IS the criterial for grouping,... deal with it."
Well, it wasn't last year. It was less so the year before. It still is not the ONLY criteria in Superbike but that changes next year. It is not the criteria in FUSA. So what am I supposed to deal with again?
Oh, the corruption of AMAPR? You can rest assured I will deal with it. I'm dealing with it by posting this topic. Ducati will deal with it by withdrawing from AMAPR. Buell will deal with it by supporting FUSA instead of AMAPR. The same goes for Aprilia and KTM when they finally get their V-twin sport bike on the street. AMAPR will be left with a hollow and empty racing series. Then when FUSA is the dominant professional motorcycle roadracing series in America, the lying fools at AMAPR can deal with that.
"Bitching because they won't give you concessions to enable you to be competitive."
Let me read for you the introduction to the AMAPR Superbike series rules...
quote:In (the 2003 AMA Pro Racing Rulebook), you'll find rules designed to create a level playing field for all competitors, so that the best and brightest can continue to rise to the top, as they
have for more than three- quarters of a century.
Sincerely,
Merrill Vanderslice
Director of Competition,
AMA Pro Racing
Ducati wants to compete, Aprilia wants to compete, Buell wants to compete, KTM wants to compete. They are rendered uncompetitive or simply flat out excluded by AMAPR.
The three quaters of a century referenced saw a plethora of brands and configurations compete in AMA road racing. Now what we have is one single configuration of Japanese brand bikes. How friggin' boring is that? AMAPR is in the pocket of the Japanese factories. Deal with that. |
Imonabuss
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 08:14 pm: |
|
Jssport,
Bullshit is absolutely right about displacement being the only way to race. It's an absurd statement. Anyone who agrees with it is clueless. Blake's post 4729 sums up the real situation perfectly
Most racing classes in the world aren't merely displacement based. Unless you are talking about the rules at Bonneville, which have 10,000 classes, each one "displacement based". Yeah, like competing in the "1200cc, pushrod, air-cooled, single carb, two-valve, two-cylinder, partially-faired, made between 1958 and 1962 on even days of the month" class...now there's some racing, bub! |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 09:39 pm: |
|
Blake, you want to check this statement?
Mladin and Yates are already proving conclusively the utter futility of trying to compete a liter twin against a liter 4 cylinder in superbike. And this year the liter 4 cylinder bikes are limited in engine performance modifications compared to the twins. They are significantly faster.
Last time I looked, about a week ago, in British Super Bike, the bench mark series for the rest of the world, the Duc's are still the dominant force and the ones to beat.
What are you talking about?
Rocket |
|
AMA Pro Racing 
»
Archive through May 07, 2003