FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

I took a look at the rules presented to the manufacturers as made available on the Roadracing World site. I have to say, they looked pretty good to me. In fact, the proposed rules were very much in agreement with the ideas I and others posted in that slew of First Person/Opinion letters submitted back in June. Looks like everyone agrees that we want 1000cc bikes on the grid and DMG proposed two of the three classes dedicated to them. The alignment with FIM rules was an unexpected but a very welcome surprise. It’s an excellent idea; one that I assumed DMG would dismiss out of hand because it was so different from the incarnation of rules floated earlier. I couldn’t have been happier.

So now the manufacturers (at least Honda and Suzuki) have rejected these rules?

From your news article: “Speaking to private team managers at Mid-Ohio last Saturday evening, DMG President Roger Edmondson said that the manufacturers have now changed their positions again and are demanding that existing 2008 AMA Superbike rules be run in 2009 and beyond… …Adoption of the July 10 DMG proposal could have addressed recent demands from manufacturers that rules be made by a third party instead of DMG: The July 10 proposal committed to FIM World Superbike rules for the premier class and based rules for the second 1000cc class on FIM Superstock rules.”

And the pendulum swings:

After fairly harshly criticizing DMG, I find myself siding with them. How ironic that I’m “taking the blue pill!”

Adam Oranchak Brooklyn, New York

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

I have been trying very hard to understand the thinking of the Japanese manufacturers as it relates to the AMA/DMG plans and I can only come to one conclusion–something about spoiled, petulant little boys taking their balls (no pun intended) and going home because they don’t like the rules of the game.

What is harder to understand is why anyone listens to American Honda at all. THEY DON’T POSSESS ANY BALLS. There is no real factory support for the Superbike class, no apparent support of any kind for the Superstockers, very limited for the Supersport riders (except Jake and Josh) and who cares about FX? They insist on giving a Superbike ride to an old has-been who typifies the way their bikes compete–lots of floundering around and making excuses. The one new bright star (Jake Holden) must be thinking it’s time to abandon ship no matter what happens, because it is obvious that he cannot be seriously competitive in the future on a Honda.

I used to be a Honda fanatic (35 years and a dozen bikes) but have turned to Ducati because they talk the talk and walk the walk. They seriously support their bikes and riders in some way in Europe but not in the U.S., most likely due to the childish way their peers(?) act.

When privateer Superstock Suzukis prove to be more competitive that Honda’s best(?) rider and machine offerings, why does the racing community bother to listen to a Ray Blank? If Honda can be competitive in most other venues (WSB, British Superbike, Australian Superbike, et. al.) it seems to me that they are insulting to the American racers and fans and don’t deserve any of our attention about anything. Let ’em sell Goldwings. It seems they aren’t good for anything else.

Hugh Flanary Lenore, Idaho

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

If the OEMs and their American Representatives (Honda and Suzuki specifically) require that much control and influence over the details of the promotion and execution of other peoples’ private business and enterprises–for example the requirements for running and maintaining a franchised dealership–then the factories should by all means get in the race promotion and track ownership business and quit feckin about/around and with DMG.

DMG should know that once you let someone know/start rolling you down hill in a negotiation, they will always see if they can roll you all the way to the bottom or until you make them stop.

Christopher Nugent Crystal Lake, Illinois

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

From the latest news concerning the AMA/DMG debate it appears that the true “bad guys” are starting to became apparent. This debacle is turning into the DMG vs. the Manufacturers, and the OEMs are showing their true colors.

I am officially announcing my services, free of charge, to DMG as a boycott organizer against any manufacturer who continues to disrupt the future of American road racing with such ridiculous, self-serving and childish behavior. This is my first experience seeing companies stomp their feet and refuse to play anymore unless they can have everything their way. Corporate tantrums such as this should not be accepted by the American race enthusiast or the rider on the street. The only way to get these manufacturers to listen is through their pocketbook, and I’m ready to go out there and make sure the American riding public is mad as hell.

Aren’t these the same guys who found out over 60 years ago what happens when you wake a sleeping giant? Ready to report for duty,

Peter Hampton Jacksonville, Florida

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

As a Honda owner and life-long race fan, I thought I’d send Ray Blank (Senior Vice President) an e-mail regarding Honda’s reluctance to sign on to the proposed class structure for 2009. I was surprised to discover that none of the official websites, including their racing site, offer any e-mail address for contacting anyone in American Honda management. They don’t even list the corporate officers!

It seems that they don’t really want to hear from us, just sell us bikes. Silly me, I assumed that since the customers pay their salaries, however indirectly, they might at least pretend to be interested in what we have to say. Apparently not so. Is it just me or is something a little inscrutable going on here? Just what are they afraid of, freedom of opinion? Accountability? Words?

PJ FitzGerald Chicago, Illinois

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

DMG, Blank, & Racing

Is it me, or does it seem that DMG & Edmondson are going out of their way to try to cater to the demands of the UJMs, or more specifically Suzuki and Honda, and giving them exactly what they have asked for, only for Honda and Suzuki to change their minds/demands every time DMG gives them what they want?

It almost appears as if Honda & Suzuki are acting out of desire for some sort of retribution against the AMA & DMG for trying to make this work.

From what I can see, DMG has proposed some classes that look to be really exciting, only to have the 4 UJMs demand basically what we have right now.

DMG relented to the will of Honda, Suzuki, etc., only to have Harris and Blank come back each time DMG met their demands, and change them again, while all the time telling everyone that we have deadlines to meet, and we need to wrap this up.

It has all of the appearance of the UJMs stalling everything deliberately in order to implement something else on their own, in order to compete with the DMG group.

Also, for years we have heard Duhamel and other factory riders whine about the backmarkers and that the AMA needs to “Get them out of there” and when DMG does exactly that with the Factory Superbike class, suddenly, the UJMs don’t want that.

I for one look forward to the Daytona Superbike class more than any of the others, as it seems that it will be the most diverse class with the most interesting bikes.

Yes, I a have a lot of respect for the talent of Spies, Mladin, et. al., but really could not give a rat’s ass about watching the $500,000-each 1000cc Superbikes do their parade laps.

I don’t know that I have seen an exciting AMA Superbike race in several years, for that, I watch World Superbike, which is an every race nail-biter.

I also don’t understand the complaints from the riders about going to a 600cc class structure in light of the safety issues with the speed of the 1000cc bikes. I seem to remember that same argument when the AMA went from 1025cc to 750cc at the end of the 1982 season, for exactly the same safety reasons, and guess what?

The racing was just as good as ever, and I don’t think anyone could ever say that Schwantz, Rainey, Merkel, Polen, or any of the other racers of that era didn’t put on fantastic races, or have the ability to compete on the world level.

I really don’t understand the constantly changing positions of Honda/Blank & Suzuki/Harris on their dealings with the DMG group.

Five years ago, everyone prophesized the end of world Superbike with the loss of support from the factories when Flamini announced spec tires and spec motorcycle race kits. The UJMs announced that they were withdrawing from WSB support. We all know the results of that.

I am beginning to think that loss of factory support in the new AMA/DMG series would be a great thing. Go back to DMGs original proposals, and tell the UJMs play with us or go f–k off. Flamini did that, and it has worked out fantastically well, without UJM support.

I smell something fishy in the air, and it seems to be blowing in from southern California.

I guess it has also shown that Harris and Blank are full of sh-t when it comes to saying we want this, this, and this, and then when they get it, they decide that they want something else. This is all in their own words, and I think that they are up to no good.

If I were the home offices in Japan, I would be sharpening my ax.

Mark Lewellen Ozark, Missouri

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

~https://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=33606~

In regard to the above, it’s a little late in the day to be asking these questions “in two weeks” if anyone has any intent on running an AMA-level series in 2009. It will nearly be September by that point in time. These questions are far too preliminary in nature. The series needs to be off the ground and rolling by now.

This is unreal. I see both sides in terms of DMG vs. the riders/OEMs, but DMG has at least backed down a great deal from their original stance. It’s not rocket science to put together a successful series (as much as the previous powers would have had us believe otherwise). The change of “Daytona Superbike” to Supersport rules was a great modification, and the change of Superbike to FIM-regulated is a great one as well. I don’t know if the “American” vs. “Factory” Superbike is quite necessary. It seems a bit redundant to the manufacturers and riders. Combine that and you now have two classes packed full of talent is a great way to start things off.

A support class to me would not be Moto-ST, but a “privateer” version of Daytona Superbike. 600 Supersport machines (pulling from club levels such as WERA, CCS, CMRA, AFM, etc.) that eventually feed into Daytona Superbike and Factory/American Superbike. 600’s are such popular bikes, riders and manufacturers would both benefit from this. Spectators would benefit, understanding the bikes and their relation to the “Nationwide/Sprint Cup” series. Look no further than MotoGP and their new support class. Keep the Red Bull 125’s in there without question, as that is a solid show in regard to the spectators, riders (kids; up and coming talent) and the sponsors (Red Bull, Alpinestar, etc) who are supporting it. Obviously the AMA needs bigger sponsor involvement in the sport.

So there are four classes and the ball is rolling. Package it, market it and run it like a well-oiled machine. For the first year with DMG, I think you would have most everyone happy with that as a starting point.

And as mentioned elsewhere, the FIM rules package is a great idea if for no other reason to assemble some consistency throughout the various series globally. If DMG is the “Nascar” of motorcycle racing, how about the idea of an “All Star Weekend” where with a shared set of rules, the AMA could invite WSBK, BSBK, etc. riders over here for an event, and we potentially go over there for an event. See who is the best of the best on different continents. Sure there are spec tire and fuel issues to be addressed, but I’m sure some concessions could be made to unify and expand racing overall as a whole for such events.

And again, work with the riders, not against them. Riding in the rain at Mid-Ohio was nearly an issue yet again in the riders’ meeting – and we didn’t even have rain. I understand all decisions are not going to be liked by the riders – if you’re building the series successfully, we’ll eventually build trust in that you know the right thing to do. However when it comes to safety – the voice of the riders should clearly be heard at least with open, not tainted ears.

The possibilities and potential with this series are endless and I hate to see simple things screwed up so needlessly. The IRL/Cart story should be enough to persuade anyone and everyone involved that splitting into two series is an absolutely terrible idea.

My two cents,

Eddie Kraft Macomb, Michigan

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

While I’m not surprised, it was disappointing to read Ducati’s Michael Lock’s take on the rules as announced by DMG so far. I’m not surprised because it seems almost as if the definition of the series has been tailor-made for Ducati: They have what is most likely the best base machine for Daytona Superbike in the 848, they have a class in which to run their 1098S flagship streetbike in American Superbike, they can do both on the cheap, relatively-speaking, and they have, I believe, four machines which are eligible for MOTO-ST, which as a pure twins series is defined much more for European machines than Japanese bikes (I believe the top class has 15 eligible bikes, two of which are Japanese). And even though he expresses some concern about Factory Superbike rules, my guess is that Ducati, who have hardly been a consistent player in the AMA, wouldn’t have showed in any case, and DMG says the rules will convert to what Ducati wants in two years anyway, WSB rules. I mean, what else could they possibly ask for?

So beyond his factory’s self-interest, he is supporting a series run by people who have established no credibility at all since it was announced that they had purchased the series back at Daytona in March. Nothing he says convinces me in the least to change my opinion about those clowns; in fact it seems like they handed him a script of things to say in support of them, some of the same stuff they’ve been spouting from the beginning. He even claims “It seems to me that the objective of DMG of making motorcycle racing… safer” – this about the guys who intend to run in the rain at Mid-Ohio this weekend. All this reinforces in my mind is the notion that DMG’s “vision” of this series is decidedly Euro-American and has little room for the Japanese, just as NASCAR hasn’t historically. That works for Ducati, of course, who traditionally want rules that favor them or they threaten to walk, just as they did in the AMA in 2006 or threatened to earlier this year in BSB. An expectation they no doubt picked up in World Superbike over the years, where favoritism for Italian manufacturers on the part of FGSport turned it into effectively a twins series and then almost killed it off when the Japanese bailed with their racing budgets for then-new MotoGP.

Of course Ducati isn’t the only one practicing self-serving behavior here – although Kawsaki’s Bruce Stjernstrom makes a very good point about two literbike classes and the choice that affords the OEMs and others regarding where to race, it’s kind of hard to read him saying, “One of our goals from the beginning was we want to race against the best. And to split it up so people can move from one place to another to basically try to, I don’t know, if people want trophies I guess they can go buy them, but it seems like you would, I thought this was professional racing. Shouldn’t people want to race against the best?”, and not recall Kawasaki abandoning Superbike five years ago to race Yamaha in Superstock. But his point stands – has DMG, after having no intention at all to have a literbike class in the series originally, offered any justification at all for including ASB? And with top-license riders designated, no other restriction on eligible riders, which allows factory teams and riders to run in ASB, but with a restriction on ASB machines running in FSB, thereby surely limiting that grid. So we’re potentially back to the bad old days of 04-05, two factories in one class and three in the other, and maybe worse – and it’s all intentional this time. It seems obvious that DMG badly wants FSB to fail, or at least not to challenge their beloved DSB in any way. That they offer it at all is only to avoid having all the Japanese OEMs bail along with their racing and marketing budgets, it seems. And framing it as the feature class now is the height of hypocrisy.

Speaking of working with people in a meaningful way, I found Suzuki’s Mel Harris’ position on the four-legged stool running this series interesting. It’s the MotoGP structure, of course, and it can hardly be a serious proposal – is there any chance at all, after what we’ve seen to date, that DMG would consider ceding away even the smallest bit of their dictatorial power? Of course not, not these guys, which leaves one wondering what Suzuki and perhaps others are really trying to accomplish? Is this their last stand – we don’t trust you, what you say today could vaporize tomorrow, so we demand that you grant us and others a chunk of structural power in writing – and if DMG fails to blink they just walk? After three months of the No Superbike – Literbike – American Superbike – Factory Superbike jab and dance, who can blame them if they do?

Mark Nusbaum Albany, California

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

Great interview with Michael Lock at Ducati. It was interesting to hear things from a manufacturer willing to take a few minutes to outline exactly what their concerns are.

However, (as I see it) there’s one thing that the manufacturers are unfortunately failing to, or refusing to understand.

The track owners/promoters simply do not have the money to pour into improvements of the infrastructure of the tracks in North America.

If the manufacturers keep making bikes faster and faster and faster (which it seems they can’t seem to stop doing), then they are the ones who are also going to have to realize that they themselves are going to start having to shoulder some of the responsibility for the bikes becoming too fast for the circuits in America (and Canada) on which they race.

The manufacturers insist that they need a “factory superbike” 1000cc premier class to showcase their flagship models, but where do these same manufacturers think they’re going to race these super-rockets?

It’s no surprise (to me at least) why promoters like the DMG/AMA Pro Racing are thinking about making 600cc based racing the ‘premier’ class in north america. I ride a 2006 Yamaha YZF-R6V at the track regularily, and know how fast these little 600cc machine can be – and they’re already too fast for some of the tracks that I ride at. And I’m not nearly as fast as the amateur racers, nevermind the pro racers.

The 1000cc Superbikes are simply getting too fast for the tracks on which they race. The bikes are getting too fast for the new riders that buy them and ride them on the streets and highways. The bikes are getting too fast for the insurance companies tastes. They bikes are getting too fast for law-enforcements comfort level. Are ya starting to see a bit of a trend here maybe?

The manufacturers insist that improving the facilities at which they race is a big priority. Ok – agreed. But what are the manufacturers doing about it, other than complaining?

The only manufacturer I’ve seen so far that has stepped up and put cold hard cash into a facility is Yamaha, who spent 2 million of their own dollars to help improve Laguna Seca and make the changes that would bring Moto GP back to the US&A. Without those changes, Nicky Hayden wouldn’t have won those 2 moto gp races at Laguna Seca because there would not have been a race at laguna for the Moto Gp bikes to attend.

Mid-Ohio is perhaps the biggest example of the dilema. They can’t expand because they don’t have the money to do so, and it also seems that nobody is willing to help them out. Yet they (the teams, the manufacturers, etc) all complain about it.

The not-so-simple answer to all this is: Help out the track owners – get some money together, move some concrete walls, move some dirt berms, move fences, put in more runoff space and stop complaining your bikes are too fast for the track. Your bikes get faster and faster and faster, and guess what? The tracks stay pretty much the same. What did the manufacturers think was going to happen in 5, 10, 15 years?

Of course, there’s also another underlying issue when it comes to upgrading tracks: governing authorities. Not all tracks HAVE room to expand, and even if they do have the room, not all municipalities/counties/ townships are willing to allow them the luxury of creeping outward, ever closer to more and more densely populated areas.

Look at Suzuka Japan – a circuit that hosted 500GP and Moto GP races: Moto GP had to stop going there because of runoff safety issues. Suzuka Circuit is owned by Honda, and we know that Honda certainly had enough money to upgrade the circuit, but there was simply no room to do so. Something had to give, and as a result, one of the worlds most iconic circuits was relegated to “not-good-enough” for international level motorcycle racing.

I, like most people, understand that there is no easy answer to all of this, but it would seem to me that if the (both car and motorcycle) manufacturers took some of the responsibility for the ever increasing performance envelope of their machines and started allocating money towards improving the circuits on which they race, then we could create an at least half-sustainable path forward for the sport of motorcycle racing.

Maybe the manufacturers who insist on making the motorcycles faster and faster (i.e. ALL OF THEM) should also start looking at getting together and building some safe racing circuits on which to showcase their products – or start helping improve the existing tracks they race on. If something like this doesn’t start to happen SOON, sport bike and racing motorcycles are going to outgrow the racetracks here in North America (USA & Canada). When that point comes (and it IS coming), the sport of motorcycle racing in North America will suffer gravely for it.

Ted Boruta Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

With all the ongoing drama with DMG, I was really wondering if anyone has really just stopped and thought about something…… Maybe there isn’t a large market for motorcycle road racing in the U.S. despite the large number of sales here? I think that’s the main point people keep missing and is why the AMA has had so much drama and the “show” has suffered.

It’s not just bikes either, look at other international sports that are HUGE elsewhere, Formula 1, Soccer, etc…but are almost second thoughts here. Does anyone think pro soccer in the U.S. will ever match the popularity of the NBA, NFL or MLB? I for one don’t think so and don’t think bike racing will ever come close to NASCAR levels…but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a market for it. I’m one of those minority who doesn’t like NASCAR and probably never will. I can’t tell you why it doesn’t appeal to me but it just doesn’t. I can’t tell you why I love watching the main MotoGP class or the World Superbikes, but don’t really care about the 125cc or the stock 600cc support classes.

To me the problem with the future is that people like the AMA and DMG keep comparing the sport to NASCAR levels and as such deem anything else a failure. DMG keeps talking about improving the show, but I have to hear them explain why 600s would make a better show than the 1000s when running the same rules. No doubt the bikes have begun to outpace the racetracks, but then again despite history some tracks really shouldn’t be holding races anymore. The fact that DMG changed the name to Daytona Superbikes tells you what their main concern is. Looking at Superstock, Supersport & Formula extreme and geez what do you see, “factory” or factory supported teams dominating those also. So to me it the number of cc’s isn’t the main thing guarantee a “better” show.

I’ve been reading comments from some of the pro AMA riders regarding all of this stuff and I have to say I’m really disappointed with some high profile riders like the Bostroms (and I don’t mean to pick on them). Both of them seem to imply that it’s not the hard work of the Yoshimura team that makes them so dominate but some kind of advantage in the rules. We aren’t talking Twins vs. Fours, all the teams are working with the same rulebook. So can someone please point out to me the rule(s) that give the Yoshimura team this huge advantage? Why has it only been Maladin & Spies dominating the past few years and not Yates & Hayden also? Is it because of the rules the Eric & Ben Bostrom never seems to start the season prepared and doesn’t get any kind of form until a title is out of the question and it’s time for a new contract? Or that Honda keeps banking on Duhamel to deliver when he can’t stay healthy for a full season? Sorry to be naive but to me if all the teams would focus their best efforts on the same class then you’d have a better show. But as everyone knows that isn’t the case.

I think the sport would be healthy if it were run with a bit more common sense based on itself instead of aspiring to be the next NASCAR. I can tell you that all the chaos has pretty much killed my interest in pro road racing the USA. I don’t watch the American rounds of MotoGP & WSBK events on TV because that the powers that be think it’s better to switch the regular english-speaking commentators who give great corner-by-corner detail, with American ones who constantly get the facts wrong and treat the audience for every broadcast like they’ve never seen a race before. I don’t understand how that makes for a better “show” or grows the sport.

It’s sad that all those involved aren’t working together to make things better and are more insterested in press release wars. MotoGP & WSBK have shown that bikes can race in the rain, so the question should be “why is that such a problem here.” If the tracks want rain or shine racing then they have to do their part to make it happen as the world circuts have done. The manufacturers have to stop cherry picking titles and come together and focus on the premiere class and work to do better if they get beat instead of lobbying for rule changes. They also have to keep in mind that they can’t just keep making the bikes faster or they won’t have any place to race them. Does 160 mph look any slower than 170 mph to a spectator? If lap records aren’t broken every year does that mean the show has suffered?

I guess it’s always easier looking from the outside, but I don’t see why it’s been so hard for the AMA series to get more organized. To me they need to start by focusing on three items:

1) Create (or adopt) a rulebook that makes sense and is quickly, easily, consistantly, and fairly enforced.

2) All the top teams & riders in the same class

3) More professional production (compare how the AMA is presented to MotoGP & WSBK)

If DMG were to address those three topics they’d have a better show. With a better show you’d have more opportunity for growth. I’ve consistently wondered why the AMA never simply adopted the WSBK model instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?

Terrell Bryant Donwers Grove, Illinois

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

With all of the proposed changes to the AMA road racing series, I thought I’d add my opinion to the mix as well.

At the Fontana round of the AMA National series in 2002, representatives from several satellite teams were invited to a round table discussion with the AMA. John Ulrich and Keith Perry represented (what was then called) Team Valvoline EMGO Suzuki, I was there for Arclight Suzuki, and Chuck Graves represented Graves Motorsports, along with representatives for Corona Suzuki, Millennium/KWS Suzuki and a few teams that are no longer racing.

In addition, Gary Mathers, the retired manager of the factory Honda team was there as an AMA adviser. The AMA wanted to find out what it would take for teams like ours to put competitive bikes in the Superbike series. The response was almost unanimous. If they wanted us to compete they needed to level the playing field so that we could have a shot at winning. The situation then is the same as it is now. The manufacturers had a strangle hold on the series.

If a Suzuki was going to win, it was going to be a Yoshimura Suzuki. If a Yamaha, Kawasaki, or Honda was going to win it was going to be a factory-backed bike. The manufacturers made sure of this by controlling the technology they allowed teams to have. No matter how much money a team brought to the table, the manufacturers simply would not sell this technology to any other team other than their factory-backed effort. (Michael Jordan discussed this problem in an interview last season.) It became apparent very quickly that the AMA had no intention of trying to change this out of fear that the manufacturers would pull out of the series. The topic then changed to trying to create a more level playing field in the Supersport and Superstock classes.

At the time, it was against the rules to machine any gasket surface within the motor. The same thing that was happening in the Superbike series happened in the classes in which the manufacturers were involved. The manufacturers controlled the manufacturing process so it was possible for them to increase the compression ratio by making heads with just slightly smaller volumes and pistons with slightly higher domes and shallower valve relief pockets as well as a variety of other slight modifications. Add all of these things up and the result is a motor with a higher compression ratio and consequently, more horsepower. The manufacturers were able to dictate which teams could be competitive. We wanted to level the field by allowing teams the ability to machine the gasket surfaces. We could arrive at the same compression ratios as the factories and as a result, produce similar horsepower. Compression ratios have a self-limiting aspect in that at a certain levels the motor would start to fail. Whether you reached this limit by making the parts or by machining no longer mattered.

Gary Mathers crossed his arms, looked directly at John and said that if you allowed the manufacturers to start doing this then teams like John’s would have no chance. Without hesitation, John looked back and said, “We will take our chances.” The AMA allowed these modifications the following year and John was proven right. The manufacturers could no longer control the technology as completely in the Supersport class and as a result John’s team has often run in front of the Suzuki factory-backed team in 600cc Supersport. Did Suzuki pull out of the series? Of course not. They realized that they could get more for their money by spreading their support to more teams, putting more Suzukis up front and gaining more TV coverage as a result. Today in the Supersport class, you have Yamaha supporting Graves Motorsports, Kawasaki supports Attack Kawasaki, Honda supporting Erion and Rockwell Honda, etc.

I believe the same thing would happen in the Superbike series. If you no longer allowed the manufacturers to control which teams get the latest technologies, teams like what is now M4 EMGO Suzuki or Jordan Suzuki could build bikes that could be capable of winning races. Rather than having two Suzuki bikes racing for the win you could have five or six. Riders like Ben Spies and Mat Mladin will still run out in front but they could ride for any of these teams and be competitive.

Suzuki might still be the dominant bike and if the other manufacturers want to run for a win then they will need to elevate their game. Once they do, you could have four or five bikes from each of the manufacturers that are capable of winning races. Whether or not we have fifteen or twenty riders capable of pushing a bike that hard remains to be seen but at least they would have a shot.

Mat is one of the best Superbike racers this country has every seen. At the moment, when he negotiates his contract, Suzuki only has to compete with the other manufacturers for his services. No one else can make a competitive bike and if he wants to win, those are his choices. If on the other hand, there are three or four additional teams that can make a competitive Suzuki Superbike then there will be more teams bidding for his services. Mat would still be winning, he might just get paid more to do it. The same would go for all of the top riders. One could argue that no one could outbid Suzuki but I’m willing to bet that Nike could. Look at how much they pay Tiger Woods.

There has been mention of a Nascar style of racing and that is unfortunate. Motorcycle racing will never be like Nascar racing. We can learn some lessons from them though. Very early on, Bill France realized that he had to keep the manufactures from deciding which teams would get special parts that could effect the outcome of the race. Nascar created a rules structure that kept this from happening. The automobile manufacturers figured out that they need to support eight or ten teams to increase their chances of success since they couldn’t provide special parts to just one team. They spread their money around. Now you have several Chevy, Ford, Dodge and Toyota teams being supported.

When DMG first came on the scene, I had hoped that they could wrestle away the manufacturer’s control of the series without pushing the manufacturers out of the series. That hope is diminishing by the day. DMG seems not to care whether the manufacturers are involved at all. That is a mistake. We need them. There is some talk now that the manufacturers will form their own series. In my opinion this is akin to locking the fox in the hen house. I think that DMG needs to tweak the rules slowly to level the playing field. Why can’t we have a similar format as the World Superbike series in which we would have a 1000 Superstock class, a 600 Supersport class and two Superbike races? Having a spec tire doesn’t seem to hurt that series one bit. Neither does requiring a spec fuel. All that would be required is that every team has equal access to whatever technology is available.

Chuck Warren Lafayette, California

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

It is with great satisfaction that I watch the cut and thrust among all the participants involved in motorcycle road racing in the United States. There is DMG, the motorcycle manufacturers, the track owners, the promotors, the aftermarket industry council, and the public. All of the parties are on the web in almost real time to be followed at length in print. The riders, racers, and spectators are all over everywhere all the time, making their opinions known by the minute. The heavyweights; DMG, the manufacturers, etc., are making their moves with thought and deliberation behind closed doors where it quickly leaves by the window, or by press releases or hasty public announcements that either start or try to put out the latest fire, depending on who said what to whom or what was found out when. Commitments to good ideas and/or stuff that makes you shake you head in disbelief are tested immediately in the crucible of the public arena. For every half-baked self-serving idea there is a responsible, thought-provoking suggestion.

This is good stuff. Especially after decades of being stonewalled on things like:

“You got in the pace car by yourself and slotted it in between third and fourth?”

“You booked a racetrack that once the riders saw it, they boycotted it?”

“You gave verbal assurances when asked a direct question but now you won’t back it up?”

“You can’t follow your own rulebook?”

Contrast today’s real-time openness with the last time that Roger Edmondson’s name was big in the news; when the AMA seized his road racing properties in the mid 1990s. I think that both times are of equal impact on the state of motorcycle road racing. That earlier occurrence set into motion the forces that resulted in the AMA finally doing what was right 15 years later, putting us where we are today. But it took Roadracing World single-handedly rolling back the curtain of carefully crafted PR years after the fact to show the riding and racing public who was doing what behind the curtain. It changed things big time and set a new standard. If we keep to those standards we won’t have to go back into the darkness. Pretty cool.

The story is not over, but I love the new direction it is taking. I can’t see it ending badly. Everyone has too much to lose if they screw it up and too much to gain if they get it right.

Joe Facer San Francisco, California