Fontucky (spoilers. yawn.)

[EvilSteve]

They're trying to manufacture close racing but that isn't actually close racing IMO. When you know the deck is stacked in favor of someone so that they're able to compete or even win in the case of Buell then we *know* that it's not fair. There are two ways of looking at fair and the DMG has gone the other way from what the AMA was trying to achieve.

[gm2]

they should have changed nothing for 2009 and done a LOT more due diligence before coming out with a rules package for 2010.

we were theoretically the laughing stock before, although i'm sure that had nothing changed this year that perception would have been lost in the wind given spies' trouncing of wsbk.

now we're such a joke as to be simply forgettable.

[EvilSteve]

Agreed.

I think that they should have kept the 2008 rules this year and gone straight to exactly the same rules as WSBK/WSS for 2010. Less hassle in rule making and less hassle in worrying about different classes. Not sure why we need weird rules for everything in this country, are we really that special?

[derby]

...are we really that special?

duh... 

[EvilSteve]

What kind of special though

[Lars D]

My understanding is the class  is hp limited, and weight restricted.

I guess the 600's are bone stock right?

They get no where near that hp level.

The other 5 Buells were in what place?

The Aprilias were where?

Where is the KTM?

What about the BMW ?

I think it is the rider.

[enzo]

You might be right, but his bike is on 'roids, so we'll never know for sure.

[EvilSteve]

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Mar/e/n090321b.htm

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/Mar/e/n090322a.htm

I'd buy the "it's the rider" argument if it wasn't such an out-there result. Eslick is pretty good but has never dominated. It's always a combination but comparing Hacking on the new 6R to Eslick on a 1125R Buell? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[gm2]

give them 2 equally spec'd 600s and see what happens..

[derby]

My understanding is the class  is hp limited, and weight restricted.

no horsepower limit. there's a minimum weight for the 600s and the buell (365lbs), and the other twins (385lbs).

I guess the 600's are bone stock right?

nope.

They get no where near that hp level.

correct... and the 600s have half the torque.

The other 5 Buells were in what place?

somewhat irrelevant. barney is riding hurt. the others have... issues.

The Aprilias were where?

the aprilia squard is making progress. the buell rules make even less sense if you look at them in the context of the aprilia. the engine design in the ape is about 10 years old and produces (a lot) less power. so why does the buell get the displacement bump and the weight advantage?

Where is the KTM?

making little kids cry somewhere.

What about the BMW ?

i'm actually kinda bummed that there aren't a few hp2s out there. are they even on the homologation list? if so, maybe they'll show up for the other west coast rounds. (but given they weren't there for fontana, i doubt it.)

I think it is the rider.

not to take anything away from eslick, i wish he could've had his breakthrough win on a bike that didn't have a ~2x displacement + ~2x torque advantage. i like the kid (he's another cmra racer like spies, edwards, etc...), i just think that that dmg's technical regulations that math those bikes up are somewhat arbitrary.

(the season may prove otherwise)

[gm2]

somewhat arbitrary.

Superbike: 1000cc 4s, 1200cc twins
SportBike: 600cc 4s, 1125cc twins

uhhh

[Speeddog]

DMG is using that new math I've heard so much about.

[Triple J]

making little kids cry somewhere.

Nice!

[DanTheMan]

i'm actually kinda bummed that there aren't a few hp2s out there. are they even on the homologation list? if so, maybe they'll show up for the other west coast rounds. (but given they weren't there for fontana, i doubt it.)

Parriot was at the AFM round this weekend. Probably will be out there for the sears round AMA.

[gm2]

http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=35951