FIRST PERSON/OPINION By John Ulrich Part Three I think it’s pretty clear that the case made by Stealth Public Relations Operative Henny Ray Abrams (Cycle News, April 16 2008, page 88) against the disqualification of 2008 Daytona 200 winner Josh Hayes cannot be justified on technical grounds. Someone may argue against the DQ because Josh Hayes is a very good rider and a very nice guy, and I can understand that. Unfortunately, as much as I am a fan and supporter of Josh Hayes, and as much as I respect the racing accomplishments of Erion Racing team owner (and former racer) Kevin Erion, there is no Nice Guy Pass for significant Formula Xtreme crankshaft modifications that increase horsepower, and it is ridiculous to even attempt to compare such power-producing modifications to insignificant Formula Xtreme crankshaft modifications that do not increase horsepower. I believe that the most likely motivation behind SPRO Abrams even arguing the point is, the fact that he is paid by Honda Racing to produce press releases that put the best possible face on the performance of Honda motorcycles in AMA National races. Obviously, being the victim of an unfair and unjustified conspiracy on the part of AMA Pro Racing presents a lot better face than being caught racing a Formula Xtreme motorcycle fitted with a crankshaft that was modified in such a way as to increase the performance of that motorcycle. The fact that he could use the occasion to lob a few more mortar shells my way was just extra pleasure for SPRO Abrams. AMA Pro Racing hasn’t released any details concerning the crankshaft installed in the Erion Honda CBR600RR Josh Hayes rode to a convincing victory at Daytona. The original press release issued by AMA Pro Racing stated that “The #1 Erion Racing Honda CBR600RR’s crankshaft was polished, surface treated and metal was removed from it. This is in violation of the 2008 AMA rulebook section 5.4″¦” At Daytona, an official told Roadracing World Associate Editor David Swarts that the surface of the crankshaft confiscated out of the Erion Honda was highly polished. And for some reason, that if a finger was used to swipe a line in the oil film coating that crankshaft, oil immediately flowed from adjacent parts to recoat and re-establish a continuous oil film. A blurry photo surfaced later, taken by fan Rick Hentz of an Erion Honda mechanic taking apart the engine from Hayes’ winning motorcycle, during the post-race tech inspection. The photo showed the crankshaft to be very shiny and polished; it did not have a stock crankshaft’s dull surface. Swarts called a race team source at American Honda and asked what had been done to the Hayes crankshaft. The source offered his opinion that the crankshaft had been surfaced-treated in a tumbler full of some sort of polishing medium, to reduce friction. It took a former racing crew member to put those clues together. Frank Angel’s day job involves developing powerful Internet search engines, and it often seems that there is nothing the guy can’t find on the web. Angel started with searching for websites that mentioned Erion Honda, which led him to proud team sponsor Crane Cams and then to Mikronite Automotive Technologies, Inc., which owns Crane Cams and is apparently a subsidiary of Mikronite Technologies Group, Inc. ~http://www.cranecams.com/?show=newsLetters&no=392~ ~http://www.cranecams.com/index.php?show=mikroniteProcessVid~ Mikronite Technologies Group, Inc. is named for Mikronite, which is, in the words of ~http://www.mikronite.com~ , “the brand name for a surface finishing process that strengthens, smoothes and polishes materials to enhance their performance. In other words, Mikronite improves sharpness, durability, lubricity and impact resistance while reducing friction, resistance and corrosion.” According to the company’s website, “The Mikronite process is based on the concept of applying lapping-like scratching under extremely high compression. Objects are placed in a fluidized medium containing an abrasive in a specially designed reverse centrifugal accelerating agitator”¦This produces molecular-level changes to the surface of an object without changing its size, shape or metallurgy”¦As a result, surface characteristics of an object are extremely optimized, making them harder, smoother, more polished”¦with higher lubricity and less friction”¦Mikronite is solely a mechanical action process. It is not a coating”¦” Under the heading of Total Product Improvement, the website features a small chart labeled “INCREASE” with a list that includes “Horsepower. Performance.” Another small chart labeled “DECREASE” lists “Friction. Vibration. Temperature.” Under “Effects,” subsection “Coating Synergy,” the website states that a side effect of the Mikronite process is to “alter the surface color to a freshly polished look.” Under subsection “Polishing,” the website states that the process “produces an incredible improvement in the appearance of products. With mirror finishes achieved on many products”¦a distinctive stand alone attention grabber, with the quality of the part represented in its jewelry like luster.” Under “Effects,” subsection “Lubricity,” the website states that the surface created through the Mikronite process “now has an evenly calculated pattern of channels that promotes capillary distribution, and temporary adhesion of a lubricant, and has a reduced coefficient of friction (COF). If lubrication from an outside liquid is possible then a barrier film may be desirable”¦” The company makes very specific claims regarding horsepower increases. One example involves dyno tests of treated-versus-untreated automotive ring-and-pinion gears as well as automotive valve train components: ~http://mikronite.com/dyno.asp~ Another example found on the Internet also involves Mikronite-treated-versus-untreated automotive ring-and-pinion gears: ~http://powertvonline.com/video_detail.php?mId=1831~ A third Internet site includes an interesting interview with representatives of Crane Cams: ~http://videos.streetfire.net/video/SEMA-2006—Crane-Cams-interview-with-StreetFiren_80927.htm~ While a Honda CBR600RR does not have ring-and-pinion gears, it obviously does have primary drive gears on the crankshaft and the clutch basket, along with two camshafts and assorted valve train parts. It is not a stretch to conclude that a crankshaft treated with the Mikronite process will make more power, if for no other reason than that the primary drive gear will produce less friction. The side benefit–establishing a barrier film–will also improve the crankshaft’s ability to shed oil as it spins in the cases, reducing parasitic drag. The improvement in “capillary distribution,” likely responsible for the crankshaft-in-question’s interesting ability to re-form a wiped-away oil film, may only apply in this case as an indicator that the Mikronite process was used. Kevin Erion disagrees. He told me, “The rules said I had to have a blue crankshaft, and I had a red crankshaft.” His view is apparently that the modifications to the crankshaft in Josh Hayes’ Daytona-winning CBR600RR were purely cosmetic, although the fact that the crankshaft is not usually visible does tend to discount the argument that the Erion team was going for the advertised “distinctive stand alone attention grabber” effect, “with the quality of the part represented in its jewelry like luster.” In any case, it is interesting that SPRO Abrams states, “the problem is with the AMA rulebook. Engineered to be vague”¦the rulebook specifies two kinds of penalties, which the AMA can impose at its discretion. Category I is for violations ‘that could potentially or effectively enhance the performance of a motorcycle used in competition.’ Category 2 is ‘All other equipment violations.'” So SPRO Abrams is against “vague” rules. Yet he is also incensed that AMA Pro Racing sought to clarify what he denounced as a “vague” rule by issuing a Competition Bulletin: “On Friday, April 4, nearly four weeks after the 200, the AMA issued a tech bulletin that states, ‘Oil galley plugs may be modified, removed or replaced.'” OK. The way SPRO Abrams writes it, a vague rule is bad. Realizing that a rule is vague, and attempting to clarify it, is also bad. A better solution would have been to disqualify two riders, one whose bike carried a crankshaft modified to increase horsepower, and the other whose bike carried a crankshaft that was not modified to increase horsepower. Of course, best of all would be reinstating the rider of the Honda with a crankshaft modified to increase horsepower. Because he’s on a Honda. And because SPRO Henny Ray Abrams is paid by Honda Racing. Got it. To be continued”¦