| Author |
Message |
    
Dynarider
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 06:26 pm: | 
|
In the world of racing $50,000 is not astronomically high.
I think $50,000 for a single shock is astronomical no matter where they use it. |
Court
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 06:41 pm: |
|
>>>>I think $50,000 for a single shock is astronomical no matter where they use it.
Then write the $350,000 check for the transmission, immediately before the $50,000 check and see if that eases the pain.
I used to think that $1,000,000 seemed kinda high for an Indy car back in the 70's until I started to see the rest of the budgets.
I'd guess that racing and development are the two most expensive undertakings in the world of motorcycling, following closely by launch marketing and product liability. |
Dynarider
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 08:25 pm: |
|
Must be the same folks writing the checks for the $1000 hammers or the $5000 toilet seats for our military. I know the race teams blow massive amounts of $$$, but I simply cant fathom what the hell anyone could spend or even consider spending $2000 much less $50,000 on a damn shock. They could blow a million on one, but would it really be that much different than the ones they already have?? |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 09:09 pm: |
|
It's high if you subscribe to JQ's "race what you sell" philosophy. We are talking about the Supersport class. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 11:36 pm: |
|
$50000 wont get you a steering wheel for a formula one car. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 03:20 am: |
|
Oh come on now. They gotta have some money left over for the engine and chassis. |
Benm2
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 07:28 am: |
|
Perhaps if the shock were built atom by atom it would cost $50K. The shock cost given by Honda likely includes "engineering time" plus prototype work. The actual shock itself likely cost nowhere near that amount. As all who are around manufactuing know, making one of anything is more expensive than making 1,000 of them. So, it can likely be said that the first XB9R frame cost a few hundred thou, as it had to be developed. If Buell was only making one, the bike would cost alot more. The $50K shock number is similar.
Why aren't 10-year old 750's allowed to race in supersport?
Blake, when you can produce a dyno chart OR an illustrative chart of lap cornering speeds, accellerations, and braking points, then I'll beleive that supersport bikes put down 130rwhp. The bikes should be faster this year, as head milling is allowed for higher compression, but that much more power is unreasonable. Your attribution of it to lap times ignores the fact that (in general) the people who've earned factory rides are faster than those who haven't. The fast gentlemen are in the money class, I've watched WERA races where the 600 expert class posted some of the fastest laps. You yourself state that the XB would have better parity to the i4 600's on "handling tracks". The rider makes a difference too. To be blunt, if top superstock riders show alot of talent, they are picked up and given a factory 600 ride. Kawasaki is trying to improve its chances if winning ANY AMAPR class, and they get more track time. Yamaha jumped on this bandwagon too.
Still waiting for a 1.35L XB, with a 10K redline, to mop up the superstock class. |
Court
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 09:02 am: |
|
>>>The shock cost given by Honda likely includes "engineering time" plus prototype work
As a person who has test ridden several bikes, I have to tell you I'd have grave concerns if, during a pre-ride breifing, I was told..."it has an entirely new suspension and to hold costs down we did not engineering, no modeling or FEA work and we able to stay within an $800 budget. Go ride the hell out of it".
Many folks here have seen me do my crawl around the bike, prior to riding, and read my comparison to a pre-ride checkout to pre-flighting an airplane.
There were two people at the Buell factory that I had particularly elevated faith in. I knew if they signed off, all I had to worry about were the "parts being tested", not the wheel rolling off for lack of attention.
The most memorable set of tests to me, involved not suspension (lardasses are seldom asked to do this, in favor of 137# engineers) but frame geometry. Some of you have head the hilarious story of the "Secret S-3 steering mod".
Court (hoping they put at least $50K into and well aware that a Momo steering wheel costs a TON) |
Jscott
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 04:55 pm: |
|
Some people think that the FUSA is seeking to please American Daddy's
http://www.sacborg.com/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006517 |
Davegess
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 07:56 pm: |
|
blake remember that a F1 car steering wheel includes the electronic shifters as well as the digital display of whatever info the driver would like to see. Plus it weighs about 10 oz.
Dave |
S320002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 08:32 pm: |
|
"Like I said, Ducati sells what they race..."
To make the statement that ANY factory sells what they race is asinine. To expect an intelligent person to believe it is idiotic. Even if there were a "pure stock" or "box stock" class, it would be the last class to receive factory support. After all what would be the point in the factory supporting a class that would not allow modifications?
Homologation; Does it make sense for one brand to dedicate one percent of their output to meet homologation while another brand must dedicate fifteen or twenty percent to meet the same requirements? If your answer isn't "Absolutely not!" then it's not likely that you have more than two live brain cells.
What is the #1-shit-for-brains idea? "Let's risk millions to build an engine and bike to meet the rules so we can lose those millions when they rewrite the rules before we can race it." Anyone who knows the history of the RW750 should know Erik won't fall for that one again.
This ain't rocket science!
Greg |
Benm2
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 08:56 pm: |
|
quote:What is the #1-shit-for-brains idea? "Let's risk millions to build an engine and bike to meet the rules so we can lose those millions when they rewrite the rules before we can race it."
Do you honestly beleive that if Buell made a 600cc four cylinder bike that AMAPR would make it illegal?
quote:"This ain't rocket science!"
Then don't ask to play in the arena where it is. Support FUSA, post contingencies in Thunderbike, be happy. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 09:32 pm: |
|
Ben,
Are you blind? Superbike? Superstock? Pro Thunder? Get a clue. |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 10:18 pm: |
|
When Triumph wins an AMA Supersport race, what will be your excuse, how will you make it fit your conspiracy?
I keep rereading the AMA rulebook, and i can't find where it says "600cc Twins or Fours, except if it's made by Ducati or Buell"
Nobody is stopping Ducati from building a 600 Vfour street bike and racing it in AMA supersport.
Now if Triumph or Norton came out with a 600cc triple and was not allowed to race it in AMA Supersport, your conspiracy theory would make more sense.
The AMA has their rules, if you are not happy with them go find somewhere else (FUSA, WERA, CCS) to race.
Erik seemed pretty happy at the Daytona FUSA event. They just need to work on their miles per gallon...... |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Blake, why didn't AMS Ducati race FUSA this year? Will you answer that please? I'm sure you asked him that. |
S320002
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 12:38 am: |
|
José,
As usual your blathering does nothing to address the real issue.
In terms of risk vs. reward, the risks you suggest far exceed any possibility of reward. Even if every AMAPR racer currently in the 600 class were to switch to a Joser 600RR how many would that be? Lest you try to use streetbike sales as an excuse; even the Moto mags agree that there are much more practical motorcycles for the street than the current crop of 600RRs. In fact the Kawasaki 636R beats the Kaw 600RR on both the street AND the track.
Do yourself a favor and research the profit margins of the highly specialized 600RR models. Why do you think they are produced in such limited numbers?
Hey at least your idea is #1 in one category.
Greg |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 12:50 am: |
|
JQ,
More of the same rhetoric. You still haven't answered THE question.
I'm not debating rules. I'm talking about lies, blatant bias, favoritism, and lack of integrity. It is not a "theory." It's not that anyone is simply unhappy about the rules. It's that the rules keep changing and the people in charge keep lying.
Uh, JQ... I race in a CCS/FUSA affiliated club. That certainly doesn't mean I shouldn't call out what stinks in the current premiere moto road racing series in America. What AMAPR is doing stinks, is bad for the sport, and is just flat wrong.
Jeff said he needed a break from racing this year. Last I spoke to him, he was still angry at AMAPR management and was planning to confront them at their next open meeting.
Care to answer the question I've been asking? |
S320002
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 01:09 am: |
|
José,
If you can't understand anything else, try asking yourself these two questions.
1. Which came first, the 600cc motorcycle or the 600cc AMAPR class?
2. Now, why is it possible to create competitive classes some motorcycles and not for others?
Forget the conspiracy crap just try giving the questions some logical thought.
Greg |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 07:22 am: |
|
"Like I said, Ducati sells what they race..."
To make the statement that ANY factory sells what they race is asinine. To expect an intelligent person to believe it is idiotic. Even if there were a "pure stock" or "box stock" class, it would be the last class to receive factory support. After all what would be the point in the factory supporting a class that would not allow modifications?
Well apart from anything else like good publicity, how about 'to sell what's on the showroom floor'. I think you have to be careful what you mean when you use the term 'factory support'. It can be a pretty ambiguous term a lot of the time. Interesting to note though, there are lots of instances in British racing where showroom bikes with stock motors and few , save the obvious and needed chassis tweeks, have succeeded in many a race.
Homologation; Does it make sense for one brand to dedicate one percent of their output to meet homologation while another brand must dedicate fifteen or twenty percent to meet the same requirements? If your answer isn't "Absolutely not!" then it's not likely that you have more than two live brain cells.
That is a ridiculous statement Greg. Witness the Foggy Petronas in WSB. They've had to build 150 road bikes to get themselves a place on the grid. Given that their production bike will obviously be a road legal racing bike their challenge is no more or less than that of a larger motorcycle companies. How many production bikes a factory produces is never going to be necessarily an equal amount compared to their rivals production so it's not a matter of percentage. The rules on homologation I assume are written to be relative not prohibitive, but what do I know.
Rocket 
|
Benm2
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 07:38 am: |
|
Disappointing FUSA results are in, over at RRW.
Blake, I've got a clue, and an opinion. AND, I've said in previous posts that a pro-japanese bias in AMAPR is explainable from a business & market perspective. My points of disagreement are your assertions of corruption, and that Buell should get special treatment due to making a large engine that produces the power of a smaller one.
Is the XB approximately competetive with 600-fours? Well, no, not really, its about 20-hp down. In standard supersport form (AMA rules) it would get thorougly whipped, and you know it. If Buell wants a bigger piece of the racing market, then they will build a racebike. |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 08:48 am: |
|
quote:1. Which came first, the 600cc motorcycle or the 600cc AMAPR class?
2. Now, why is it possible to create competitive classes some motorcycles and not for others?
1. The Honda CBR600 and the AMA 600 Supersport class both happened in 1987.
They also still had the Pro Twins Gran Prix and Pro Twins modified classes, which lasted until 1991.
In 1990 the AMA started the U.S. Twins Class. This class lasted until 1997. Pro Thunder went from 1998 until 2002.
2. Because, held to the same technical standards, a 748/9 Doocatee and a 984cc XB9R would not be competitive with 600cc inline 4's.
If you open up the rules and let the twins have unlimited modifications, like they do in FUSA sportbike or the new AMA Formula Extreme, then they will be competitive, as long as they have a competitive rider and the bike can finish the race.
But that takes a lot of money, so which would a privateer buy to go race with, an $8000 GSXR600, with Suzuki contingency money available, and HUGE aftermarket support, a $9995 XB9R with aftermarket suppport that you will need to heavily modify the engine and contingency money only if you race in FUSA, or a $14,795 Ducati 749S? |
Smadd
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 10:49 am: |
|
I don't know the history of the "class", as it were. But I just saw two 1986 Kawasaki Ninja 600's. I suppose they may have been produced earlier... I'm not sure. |
S320002
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 02:14 pm: |
|
Rocket,
"Interesting to note though, there are lots of instances in British racing where showroom bikes with stock motors and few , save the obvious and needed chassis tweeks, have succeeded in many a race."
There are many instances of American club racers racing bikes, including Buells, with similar tweaks. That hardly qualifies as them as a factory racing effort.
"The rules on homologation I assume are written to be relative not prohibitive, but what do I know."
Relative to what? If your entire production output is used as homologation effort you are not a streetbike company you are a race bike manufacturer.
By the by, last time I heard, no one has any idea where all those Foggy Pat homologation bikes are. You, bing a little closer to the source, might be able to shed some light on that subject??...
I respect Foggy et al for their efforts in creating a new race marquise, just as respect Erik Buell et al for creating a great road bike. I hope that someday their paths cross.
However, given a choice between Buell as a racing motorcycle company and Buell as a street bike manufacturer, I'll take the streetbike thank you.
Greg
|
S320002
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 03:05 pm: |
|
JQ,
Obviously logical thought and the ability to give straight answers are not in your repertoire. Perhaps it has something to do with the DC environment. Here are the answers. The questions really weren't that hard.
"1. Which came first, the 600cc motorcycle or the 600cc AMAPR class?"
The 600cc motorcycle. It came before the AMA and the AMAPR 600cc classes.
"2. Now, why is it possible to create competitive classes some motorcycles and not for others?"
It is possible, but only if you make the effort.
See how easy it is if you stick to the point?
Your off topic babbling certainly did nothing to answer the questions.
Also if you want to practice making straight and well considered answers to questions, there were other questions asked.
Greg
|
Grndskpr
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 08:39 pm: |
|
Homologation; Does it make sense for one brand to dedicate one percent of their output to meet homologation while another brand must dedicate fifteen or twenty percent to meet the same requirements? If your answer isn't "Absolutely not!" then it's not likely that you have more than two live brain cells.
On the short list of bikes that are brought in and out of the USA to fit this rule includ the following:
91-92 Kawasaki ZX-7r(standard was the ZX-7)
92-96 Kawasaki ZX-7RR(standard was the ZX-7R)
Honda RC 30 $ RC45
Ducati 748/749 & 998/999 RS
Harley VR 1000
Honda 600RR
I could go on and on,if you do not belive a company will bring in a bike to win races and still fit the rules you are welcome to come over and sit on a 92ZX-7R, i would be happy to show you the things that make it different from the standard, like flat-slides, suspention, air box, rear shock, solo seat and so on(it needs work but you could sit on it)
Relative to what? If your entire production output is used as homologation effort you are not a streetbike company you are a race bike manufacturer.
By the by, last time I heard, no one has any idea where all those Foggy Pat homologation bikes are. You, bing a little closer to the source, might be able to shed some light on that subject??...
The Foggy's are in the same place the VR1000's are, collectors hand, same as Britten and other famous one off race/company bikes are, but dont forget Buell started off as a race bike company, kinda like Foggy, only difference is foggy is using races for exposure, making a public desirefor his bike on a world secene before Petronas starts pumping out the bike, give him time
|
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 11:35 pm: |
|
José and Ben certainly have a unique way of looking at the situation, but let's try to keep the personal remarks out of this and stick to respectful debate.
I'm not sure what the point of raising the homologation issue is. I don't see a problem with requiring homologation through a set production quantity for the Supersport class. It does seem a bit disingenuous to impose the same homologation requirements on the Superbike class.
Ben,
Blake, I've got a clue, and an opinion.
If based upon past actions of AMAPR that you think they would not act decisively to maintain Japan Inc's advantage in Supersport, you in my opinion, do not have a clue. They may not exclude Buell if they were to build a competitive 600cc machine, but I'm sure, based upon their history, they would change the rules or the class structure/emphasis, just like thay have in Superbike, to give Japan Inc. the clear advantage. You know, kinda like they did with Pro Thunder, Superstock, and Superbike. Pro Thunder was killed. Superstock and Superbike displacement limits for 4 cylinder machines are increased to 1,000cc's with no equitable adjustment to that of twin cylinder machines. Ducati is not permitted to race their 749RS in Supersport. All those actions are clues. You seem to refuse to get any of them.
I've said in previous posts that a pro-japanese bias in AMAPR is explainable from a business & market perspective.
You can claim that all you like. I have yet to hear a single valid explanation of how excluding other supersport class bikes like the Duc 749RS from racing in the AMAPR Supersport class makes ANY sense from a business perspective. Please enlighten me as to how excluding other competitors makes sense from an honest business perspective. I've been asking that question repeatedly ad-infinitum. No one has answered it.
My points of disagreement are your assertions of corruption, and that Buell should get special treatment due to making a large engine that produces the power of a smaller one.
So in your mind engine size is the only valid parameter by which to gauge performance, and to deviate from that one single governing parameter would constitute special treatment? To you more advanced means more HP/CI no matter the number of cylinders, valves, type of valve actuation, the rev limit, or manner of cooling. None of that matters, to you the supreme gauge of engine performance is one thing and one thing only, its displacement.
The facts are not so simplistic as that. Engine size, while being perhaps the most simplistically understood and most recognizable parameter governing engine performance, is far from being the only valid performance gauge by which to classify an engine's potential performance.
Is the XB approximately competitive with 600-fours? Well, no, not really, its about 20-hp down. In standard supersport form (AMA rules) it would get thoroughly whipped, and you know it. If Buell wants a bigger piece of the racing market, then they will build a racebike.
So an XB9R would get whipped. So what? There are any number of professional racers who would be willing to campaign an XB9R. They would easily qualify for each and every single AMAPR Supersport race. But according to your philosophy, they should be excluded because they cannot win the class championship? 
Assuming your philosophy is valid... Why let the 600cc guys race in Superstock? They are down 20 HP compared to the GSXR750s with which they must compete. No way they can win right. D'OH!!!
If Buell builds a 1200cc version that makes power comparable to the 600cc bikes, what will you say then? Shouldn't a bike be allowed to try to qualify. If it doesn't make it, it doesn't race. Pretty darn simple. Shouldn't that be the gauge by which a bike should be judged, that it should be able to qualify and race competitively among the class, not that it should be able to win the class. If 600cc bikes are allowed to be campaigned within the Superstock class, why not allow the XB9R to be campaigned within the Supersport class. There is only one answer...
If a factory Ducati 749RS would not be competitive with the Japan Inc IL4s, how can the Ducati 999RS be expected to compete with 1,000cc four cylinder machines? Actually, I think a factory 749RS would do just fine against the 600cc IL4's. The 749RS is a huge improvement over the 748, and the 748 was doing quite well in world supersport just a few years ago. Ducati is not campaigning a 749 in world supersport now because of their GP effort. Same goes for their lack of presence in AMAPR Superbike. Anyway, this is all a bunch of silly blathering. Answer THE question... Why not let them race? It ain't cause they wouldn't win, I guarantee you that.
Personally I'd love to see a true showroom floor stock racing series. Take the bikes off the showroom floor, add safety wire, an enclosed belly pan, remove mirrors and lights, don't change a damn thing on the engine, or suspension, nothing, not even the air filter or muffler, and go racing on pump gas. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 11:48 pm: |
|
That hardly qualifies as them as a factory racing effort.
That wasn't my point and I wasn't in particular refering to club level racing either. BSB privateers for example or the IoM TT. My point was to show that production racing EVEN with factory support doesn't necessarily mean the factory bike is that much better than the bike that was bought off the showroom floor then prepped and raced.
Relative to what? If your entire production output is used as homologation effort you are not a streetbike company you are a race bike manufacturer. Sez who? If your entire production is for homologation purposes, and I'm assuming you're meaning the Foggy Petronas here, well those 150 Foggy's will (and have to be) road legal. That makes 'em street bikes even if they're racers for the road. By the by, last time I heard, no one (you mean you) has any idea where all those Foggy Pat homologation bikes are. You, bing a little closer to the source, might be able to shed some light on that subject??... They're in Malaysia and the pictures have been published in MCN. You know you make it sound like a conspiracy but the truth is Foggy had to have 75 of those bikes built up and ready sometime before christmas last year to assure themselves of a place on the grid. The FIM inspected all 75 bikes and despite Foggy wanting a relaxing of the rules regarding numbers of production models built before deadline, as was allowed with Benelli and their Tornado, they were allowed no concessions at all. Further to that the remaining 75 Foggys have also met their homologation build deadline date and they are due to go on sale I believe in October. Anyway as I understand it homologation numbers are based on how many units manufactured on the whole and not on individual models meaning a large company like Honda would have to build more homologation models than a small company like FP and that's what I meant by relative as opposed to prohibitive.
However, given a choice between Buell as a racing motorcycle company and Buell as a street bike manufacturer, I'll take the streetbike thank you.
Why not both Greg? Afraid Buell aren't up to the job?
Rocket
|
S320002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 01:42 am: |
|
"Sez who?"
If you produce 150 collectors items in order to go racing are you truly a streetbike manufacturer?
"By the by, last time I heard, no one (you mean you) has any idea where all those Foggy Pet homologation bikes are. You, being a little closer to the source, might be able to shed some light on that subject??..."
No I didn't mean me. The statement was made by one of the Brit announcers during a WSB race. Thanks for clearing up the issue.
"However, given a choice between Buell as a racing motorcycle company and Buell as a street bike manufacturer, I'll take the streetbike thank you.
Why not both Greg? Afraid Buell aren't up to the job?"
Read the statement just above that. I'd love to see both, but not at the risk Buell reducing its production to 150 collector items.
I have no doubt Buell could produce a serious race bike. In fact it's been done already.
Greg
|
Rocketman
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 06:56 am: |
|
Ah Greg you're pissing in the wind. Those 150 Foggy's 'll only be collectors if collectors buy 'em and collect 'em, right? Well here's the deal. They will be road registered and that I'd assume will inevitably mean that someone, or more, will ride a Foggy on the street. Street bike or not? Either way you've homologated your racer as per the rules. Now if Buell for arguments sake can't or won't do that, that's up to them but I wonder why EB blows a fuse with the AMAPR when he doesn't actually build a racer (yes I've read the above). And please don't tell me you think a failed effort by Buell could sink the company financially or mean they could only afford to build homologation bikes instead of what they already do if they went serious racing. What company campaigns a superbike without success and to the point of embarrassment when allegedly they've got the words best motorcycling genius designer on board? One that dances to the tune of the big bucks and their investors greed perhaps?
Anyways Greg, don't believe those TV pundits. There's only a few that are good at the job, Julian Ryder, Steve Parrish are but two, as for the others they often get slated in the British motorcycling press. And one more thing Greg. Keep your eyes peeled down at the dealers. You might see a Foggy arrive anytime soon and the price is NOT going to be for Swiss bank account holders only, allegedly.
Rocket |
Benm2
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 08:22 am: |
|
Blake:
Second that regarding personal attacks.
I see that AMAPR has a bias. I refuse to accept or suggest corruption without seeing evidence, or having them tried. As a flag waver, I'd expect that you too beleive in innocent till PROVEN guilty. They appear more bumbling & incompetent than vicious. To answer your specific question about 749's or 999's, I'd suspect that Ducati is about to introduce fours.
quote:So in your mind engine size is the only valid parameter by which to gauge performance, and to deviate from that one single governing parameter would constitute special treatment? To you more advanced means more HP/CI no matter the number of cylinders, valves, type of valve actuation, the rev limit, or manner of cooling. None of that matters, to you the supreme gauge of engine performance is one thing and one thing only, its displacement. The facts are not so simplistic as that. Engine size, while being perhaps the most simplistically understood and most recognizable parameter governing engine performance, is far from being the only valid performance gauge by which to classify an engine's potential performance.
In order to simplify categorization of motorcycles for racing, displacement is used. It has been so for some time. In addition, the number of cylinders was capped at some past point. In order to increase the level of performance (to gain an advantage) increased RPM was used. As RPM rises, piston speed and valvetrain capability become issues. These are all things you already know, so I know I'm preaching to the choir.
Also, you already know that four-valve heads allow for a greater area of circumferencial exposure for a given lift & piston area. And, its easier to move smaller valves faster than larger ones. And that overhead cam actuation allows for much sharper valve timing, in addition to allowing for higher valve accelerations & decelerations. Plus, you know that water cooling allows an engine to run a higher compression ratio without overheating, and that higher compression directly corresponds with more power. And water cooling adds a safety factor with regards to overheating by energy used in evaporation. Engine technology has moved on. The Japanese (and Ducati & Triumph & Aprilia) have moved on, and paid the "entry fee" for top-class racing. Buell has NOT. Buell did what they could with the resources they were given. However, I've no doubt that if Buell (and HD) WANTED to compete in supersport, they'd have developed a 600-four.
Regardless, the contention is that Buell builds better streetbikes. Great! BUT they don't build racebikes. Considering the effort that went into the XB chassis, Buell is capable. Look at what Proton has done in the past year, it's possible for Buell also.
BUT...
I started the bike this weekend, first time its ran since last AUGUST. My hands were shaking while I sat on the bike, on the stand, in the driveway. I received several nasty looks from my wife as I warmed up the bike (to the limiter, once or twice) with its 15-disc supertrapp. I even left it idle on the stand, got off, and watched it sit there, idling, shaking like some sort of caged animal ready to pounce. God help me, I LOVE the way the engine sounds, and the bike looks MEAN with clipons & rearsets. Weeks away, we are, from racing. By the way, it started on the first crank. |
|
AMA Pro Racing Seeks to Please Japanese Benefactors 
»
Archive through May 27, 2003