FIRST PERSON/OPINION Via e-mail By B.J. Worsham LRRS #31 Old Westbury, New York The End Of The Superbike Era? At the Daytona tire tests this winter, Ben Spies went to bed with the fastest lap time one night, set by going faster on his Superstock bike than Mladin had on his Superbike. To be fair, Mladin had gone home already … but the rest of the Superbike riders hadn’t. In a few months we’ll see how close all the Superstock guys can come to the Superbike times, but last year’s data makes a good case for wondering why we still have a Superbike class. Track, Pole Time, 10th On Grid Time Daytona, Time, Time SB 1, 97.1, 100.5 SS 1, 99.2, 101.1 Differential 2.1, 0.6 Barber SB 1, 84.8, 87.0 SS 1, 86.1, 87.7 Differential, 1.3, 0.7 Fontana SB 1, 82.9 85.3 SS 1, 84.0 86.2 Differential, 1.1, 0.9 Infineon SB 1, 95.9 98.1 SS 1, 96.9 98.7 Differential, 1.0, 0.6 Elkhart SB 1, 132.0 135.9 SS 1, 133.7 135.9 Differential, 1.7, 0.0 Miller SB 1, 109.2 112.7 SS 1, 111.9 113.6 Differential, 2.7, 0.9 Laguna SB 1, 84.9, 87.1 SS 1, 86.1, 87.8 Differential, 1.2, 0.7 Mid-Ohio SB 1, 84.9, 87.0 SS 1, 86.2, 87.6 Differential, 1.3, 0.6 VIR SB 1, 84.2, 86.0 SS 1, 85.5, 86.9 Differential, 1.3, 0.9 Atlanta SB 1, 82.0 84.3 SS 1, 83.2 84.7 Differential, 1.2, 0.4 Notes: Times rounded to nearest 10th Second Mid-Ohio times thrown out due to SB heat-race qualifying format While not a rule, closer and cheaper racing generally engenders better competition. The average Superbike pole time (in seconds) for 2006 was 93.8. The average for Superstock was 95.3, or just 1.5 seconds slower. (The actual difference is less, but it’s close enough.) The times for the riders gridded in 10th place for those classes were 96.4 and 97.0, respectively. So the average 1-10 spread for Superbike was 2.6 seconds, and for Superstock it was only 1.7. Some old-timers might argue against the AMA dropping yet another class, but come on already: How much will the manufacturers spend to go less than 1.5 seconds faster per lap? (see chart) The mind boggles thinking about what else could be done with that money. Right or wrong, and regardless of the personal feelings of local riders, promoters, and fans, most riders, rulemakers, and pundits that love the sport feel that Superbikes outgrew New Hampshire International Speedway and Daytona, would have soon outgrown Pikes Peak, (it closed before that could happen) and are in danger of outgrowing a few more tracks in the next 5 years. So with such fast ‘stockers, why do we need an SB class in the United States? (Or even, the world?) Mind you, the class used to make sense … In the early years, many club racers of the time could wring the max out of a 750 or literbike. Those comparatively heavy, slow bikes had so many ills that it was easier to ride them to the point that the bike just couldn’t go any faster. A modified class was needed to sort the wheat from the chaff of riders. Plus, the bikes responded so well to it … backyard gussets and braces made those tube-framed UJM dinosaurs dramatically safer and faster. Eventually, “kit parts” came along. But current Superstock bikes are so capable, so sophisticated, and frankly so damn fast that it’s not an issue anymore: A very small percentage of people can — or will ever dare — race a 2007 GSXR at 10/10ths. This is not an indictment of club racers, (and certainly not of that particular bike) it’s simply an acknowledgment of the success of the prior business model: Racing did improve the breed. (In fact, when was the last time you heard about a factory kit, aside from mufflers and an instruction kit as to which wire to snip.) Now what? Thanks to better tires, brakes, suspensions, engines, frames … better everything! … current repli-racers are so fast straight off the showroom floor that no matter how safe the track there is much smaller pool of people willing to even try to race them at top speed. So even though Superbikes continue to get safer to ride, (traction control and engine management being the latest developments) they seem to be slowly following the F1 model: a few ultra-elite racers, campaigning with insanely expensive teams. Nobody else is even in the ballpark. It’s getting increasingly hard to argue with the premise that if the Superbike class was dropped and Superstock became the premier class, we’d have better racing on the track AND better bikes in the showroom. The manufacturers would be encouraged to produce more limited-edition homologation models, allowing the same trickle-down we’ve always seen between base and homologation specials. 600’s would continue to benefit from the technological improvements. And while not discounting the skill of factory mechanics, more riders could afford to be on comparable equipment, a psychological boost which would help entrees, and thus, competition. (For proof, look at how the spec tire rule closed up the field in WSB.) It’s not a big stretch to predict that in 10 years, Supersport 600s will be lapping faster than our current factory Superbikes at every venue, and will only be slightly slower than the premier racing class. (Whatever that class is.) But we humans cannot adapt that fast, and therefore one could further predict that not much further down the road, (barring a significant changes in tracks, runoff, and safety gear) Superbike racing will become a thing of the past … there will be NO reason to race them when a 600cc inline 4 (or slightly larger V-Twin) can extract equal lap times out of a set of tires. IF that is the case, between now and then we could have 10 years of the status quo (less than a dozen factory bikes in AMA Superbike, a handful of semi-competitive privateers, and a huge gap between the sponsorship “haves” and “have nots”) or … … 1-2 official factory SS riders for each manufacturer, (somebody to carry the flag) … 2-3X the current number of “factory-supported” teams, … sharply-defined qualifying cutoffs, and/or heat races at every event, … much better racing beyond the first 10 guys on the screen. That’s the kind of money that could be freed up. Whether or not the sanctioning bodies — and the factories — choose to spend it that way is another story. Broader Superbike rules might encourage more variety in streetbike offering — Ducati might have been left for dead in the various national and worldwide Superbike series in which they run without the ability to build their legal-but-stretched-to-the-limit 9xx series bikes. (A problem that may finally be overcome with the larger 1000+ cc engines starting with the 1098.) But here’s one more interesting piece of data to be gleaned from the data: At EVERY SINGLE VENUE in 2006, the top 10 riders in Superstock had a tighter grouping than the top 10 in Superbike. (On average under 9/10ths faster.) The support classes provided the most exciting racing this year on SpeedTV, and it’s backed up by facts. What will the AMA, the manufacturers, the teams, and the riders do with that information? More, from the father of a racer: FIRST PERSON/OPINION Via e-mail: Why kill off Superstock? I am surprised that some people would like to kill off the Superstock class just because Ben Spies’ Superstocker went faster then Superbikes at the Daytona test. In complaining about the AMA, one publication went so far as to applaud NASCAR for having the proper formula for delivering a true premier class, Nextel Cup. He should know that in 2001, Joe Nemechek qualified his Busch car much quicker then Bill Elliot’s pole time for the Daytona 500! Besides, who’s to say how long the Superbike and Superstock classes will remain close? I’d hate to lose the Superstock class. It offers more high quality racing for the spectator and results in more paid seats for professional racers. The same can be said for FX and SS. I don’t see what relative speed between classes has to do with anything. There has to be enough racing going on to fill the weekend and I want to see the Vince Haskovecs and Josh Hayes of the paddock make their marks right up there with the Mat Mladins and Miguel Duhamels. Bob Holcomb Boston, Massachusetts More, from a race fan: FIRST PERSON/OPINION Via e-mail: I agree to a degree on the comments in this article. I have 25 years of history following motorcycle racing and the AMA has to look no further than the Supercross/motocross model to fix its mixed message. The works mx bikes were fun but as you pointed out a stock mx bike can outperform 99 percent of the riders and the case is now the same in sportbikes. Motorcycle fans appreciate exotic equipment as much as F1 guys but the stands can’t support the expense. We do not want a Superbike Nascar clone but some class distinction and equipment variety would be brilliant. Douglas Williams Alexandria, Virginia More, from a another reader: FIRST PERSON/OPINION Via e-mail: Why not kill the Supersport class by renaming it the Superbike class and scrap the old, expensive, not even worth it, Superbike formula? Another bonus is the Japanese manufacturers could call their top bikes Superbikes. I bet that would get under Ducati’s skin in seconds flat. Andy Schwarm Monrovia, California More, from an AFM and WSMC racer: FIRST PERSON/OPINION Via e-mail: Classes and expense seem to be some of the main problems brought up over and over again in regards to AMA Road Racing. Here are some simple solutions. Classes: Premier classes= Superbike and Forumla Xtreme same rules as WSBK. Support classes= Supersport and Superstock. New rules, less mods. Make the support classes more affordable by limiting mods and make them “No-Factory Rider” classes. Limit the modifications to bodywork, brake lines and pads, slip-on exhaust, revalve and spring stock forks and shock, tune it and that’s it. No “kit” parts, shifters, radiators or any of the stuff the “Factories” use. That would be some great racing with half the class racing for the win instead of 6 of the same guys every race, everyweekend. Increase the penalties for cheating, making them very extreme. No “special tires”. Make each of the tire manufactures provide a “production” tire that any racer can buy and have someone from the AMA oversee tire distribution.(in other words, buy from the tire vendor and then go get your tires from the AMA) INCREASE the purse! This will improve the whole show! With less expensive racing and an improved chance of a higher finish and payout more competitors would be able to improve their racing programs to provide a better show. The Premier classes should have the same rules as WSBK. The Factory riders should not get purse money and the purse should be tripled at least, (sorry Factory guys, just have your manager negotiate more money for you in your million-dollar contract.) Get the money to the “support” and privateer teams and the quality of the show will improve to the point where the series could get some sponsorship. Drastic changes have to be made because the current way isn’t working. You can’t expect competitors to have to pay the AMA to race every weekend. You have to give them a chance to make a living out of racing, that’s the only way the sport will grow. Cory Mann Newman, California