AMA Rules Crap...

Seems to me that all the uproar in the AMA stemming from Mladin practicing in
the F-Xtreme class, the Superstock guys practicing in the Superbike class,
and so forth, could be easily cured by restricting what machinery and which
riders can be entered into each specific class. i.e. You can't race the same
Superstock bike in both the Superstock class and the Superbike class and if
you practice your Superbike in F-Xtreme then you MUST start the F-Xtreme
race.

The AMA has truly muddied the waters making the F-Extreme bikes and the
1000cc Superbikes SOOOOO close to each other as to be nearly
indistinguishable. And on top of that, they pronounce these mid-season
regulation changes that try to alleviate the situation with no discussion.

<sarcasm>
Make no mistake, they didn't change a rule because you can't change rules
without a discussion period.
</sarcasm>

I've really hated the AMA's policy of letting WAY off the pace Superstock
riders into the Superbike races just to pad the grid for a long time now. The
cross-class practicing and racing has now appeared to really bite them in the
ass.

-Dirt-

 

If the slow bikes in these classes are too slow, then just up the
pole-cut. In F1 they use 107% of pole position. Any bike is fine, as
long as it can keep up (or close enough).

If the slow bikes in these classes are becoming a hazard or
embarrassment, just up the cut-off time.

 

I had forgotten that the FX/SBK cross-over wouldn't be in effect next year,
but the general point remains. I suppose what irks me more than anything
else is that having what amounts to club racers running at dangerously slow
speeds brings the class down in my eyes. It just doesn't seem professional.
Bringing the 115% rule up to 107% would help tremendously and I hope (in
vain?) that they'll change it.

I love the AMA and it could be the premier factory SBK class in the world
next year depending on how the Flamini WSB thing pans out. If it DOES work
out that way, it would be a shame for the AMA to appear as it always has in
the past, because their past appearance isn't always very flattering.

-Dirt-

 

I don't understand how people can run a bike in one class, qualify and
practice in a second and then choose to not run in that second class. I
would have thought it would be fairly easy to get them to nominate a
class for the bike and then hold them to it. And to punish persistent
offenders.

BSB has solved the problem of filling the SB grid by having a second
"Privateers" cup with it's own points and prize fund running in parallel
with the main SB championship. Again, what makes a "privateer" is pretty
arbitrary and mainly consists of a team nominating themselves for one or
the other. Occasionally the organisers make a ruling on a team, so
earlier this year, David Jeffries on a well funded SS1000 was rejected.
2 years ago Shakey won the privateer cup on a privately owned GSXR750
that was a cast off from the Chris Walker factory team, re-started his
career and has now gone on to win the SB Championship so this provides a
good stepping stone. At the beginning of this year they dropped it but
the grids got dangerously small so it was resurrected. Where we've had
backmarkers it's pretty rare for more than a couple to get lapped near
the end of the race which seems about right to me.

 

[snip]

You make some good points. I don't have a problem with slower riders per
say, but those that are getting lapped before 1/2 distance (baring problems)
have no place on the grid of the premier AMA class IMO, be it sparse or not.

I agree that changing the SBK rules to relatively lightly modified 1000cc
bikes is a good thing and that it'll hopefully close the gap somewhat by
making a competitive bike easier and cheaper to make. If they'd change the
115% rule to, say, 110% I think a very large part of the problem (as I see
it) would be taken care of.

-Dirt-

PS: Thanks for the thoughtful responses from you and Julian. Entirely too
few of those on the usenet these days.

 

I agree. As soon as a rider gets lapped -- say, before halfway into the
race -- he should be given the black flag, (unless it's Daytona 200 or
some other quirky event).

-- peer

 

How do you think that a change to a shorter format in the AMA would affect
the racing?

Races tend to start with the sprint to the front, leaders pull away. The
front pairs up into their battles, a bit of coasting and tire management mid
race, then the battle for the finish as appropriate.

With a longer race, the tires are in worse shape, the rider is more tired,
etc (Did anyone see Jason Pridmore after his Forumla Extreme race? He was a
wreck!). Formula Extreme races are shorter than SB, right? (I guess that
should answer my question right there, but...)

Does a shorter race mean that the racers fight that much harder? It
certainly gives the fastest riders less of an advantage as they have less
time to press it. It can ALMOST eliminate traffic problems depending on the
pace of the field. I thought it was rather refreshing at the last MotoGP
race how they never encountered traffic, leaving the race results solely in
the hands of folks running up front versus the luck of how soon they
encounter a lapper. It doesn't happen often, but I really hate it when a
lapper breaks up 1 and 2 in the race. Traffic management is definately a
skill necessary to run up front in the AMA.

It seems that a shorter race is wee bit less "strategic", and more tactical,
but a lot of strategic issues seem to work themselves out early in the race
anyway.

I don't care much for the mid-late race red flag restart sprints in the AMA
(but I don't care much for accumulated time either, from a fan point of
view). But most of those sprints are too short.

Also, with shorter races, you have more dead air that has to be filled by
the folks at SpeedTV, and they don't do a particularly good job of it, IMHO.

Anyway, just curious.

Regards,

Will Hartung
()