One way to resolve the perceived "midget problem"

I'd have to disagree with you there, Mark. You can roughly break mass
distribution on a rider and bike as follows:

* mass controlled by the rider (works for body english)
* wheels and tires (unsprung and spinning)
* engine internals (sprung, spinning)
* static (sprung, not spinning)

Taking mass off the rider and adding it as static mass (because that's
what the engineers would do with the ballast mass) will produce a very
different handling motorcycle, particularly if the overall mass of the
bike is small, such as on a 125. What will happen is you'll have a
smaller rider who's gonna have to move about on the bike even more
than he/she would have to otherwise. It's not just about acceleration
and braking dynamics, so applying simple F=ma type formulae here is
not applicable IMO.

 

Josh Herrin is 17 and he's not a novice, having come out of USGPRU.
Can you guess what he was racing there? And before that he raced in
Mini GP in Spain.

It means riding a road race bike in a manner more similar to how GP
bikes are ridden. That's not always the same of course, as technology
changes, but more or less, it means you're braking later and deeper
into the corner than you do on a superbike. But even if you don't go
the GP route, racing those kinds of bikes is important for the
development of race craft. They provide a choice of great number of
lines. I've never raced one, but raced against 125's and 250's on
production-based bikes. It's an eye opening experience what they're
capable of. I'd say they benefited me even in this indirect way. If
parts weren't so hard to come by, I'd love to race a 250 now.

You can accept or not accept anything you like. But as someone who
actually races, I am telling you that those bikes are beneficial and
that smaller classes (2-stroke or not) are vital to new rider
development.

That age limit may or may not be good in the context of professional
racing, but I can tell you where it's coming from and it's not a good
place. That limit is being imposed on AMA and virtually every club in
the country by insurance companies. And it's killing this country's
chances of bringing up new racers at a young enough age, where they
can have successful international careers. If this continues, you
watch, you'll be seeing a lot more people coming into AMA from world
superbike, GP, and overseas in general at the end of their careers --
not new kids, unless they've been racing in Europe, when they'll be
more likely to continue their careers there rather than coming home.

Why should they have that limit?

 

If you put 30 lbs of static weight on Pedrosa's bike, it will not make
it more like Hayden's bike. It'll change the bike, but I guarantee
you it won't make it "more like Hayden's". In fact it'll make it less
so because of rider-to-bike mass ratios. So from the perspective of
the rider, the only time it'll be closer in feel is on acceleration.

 

Mark N goes for the jugular:

Luckily for you, it's October 11. When will we hear your
announcement?

http://dev.hrc.org/6708.htm


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

 

It seems like we're going around in circles here, and on chicken-and-
egg stuff. I say Herrin is an example of a young guy who's very small
and rides a 600 well, and is pretty clearly developing and learning on
that bike. You imply that's in part because because he raced on 125s
prior to that. So I would ask, did he get his opportunity because he
raced on 125s successfully, and how much of that success is because
he's so small? Would have a larger rider of equal talent had the same
success on 125s? Would that theoretical larger kid be just as good now
had he raced on 600s instead of 125s?

You say 125s are ridden more similarly to GP bikes. But who is riding
GP bikes? Mostly guys who came up through 125. And who's been
developing the MotoGP bikes, who have they been designed for? Guys
like Rossi, Biaggi, Capirossi, Pedrosa, guys who came up through 125
and 250. So no surprise there.

If you look at all the Americans who have won championships, races and
been on podiums in WSB and 500/MotoGP in the last 20-30 years, al lot
of guys, in their formative years, say 15-19, the years where they
created their future opportunity, how many of them raced four-stroke
streetbikes? Quite a few. How many were racing on dirt in some form?
Quite a few. How many were racing 250s? A few, but not many. How many
were racing 125s? Uh, none? The last champion, Hayden, raced in 125s
when he was 12, 13, but was on a 600 by 16 and SBs shortly thereafter,
and was still racing on dirt.

You say 125s are beneficial, but you also say you've never raced on
one. I don't question that 125s can be beneficial, but I also don't
think racing exclusively on those machines from the age where one
starts to race seriously, maybe 13-15, to the point where one moves to
the 250 GP world championship class, makes much sense. Yet that's
exactly what we see over and over in GP today, and it seems that's
what you are promoting for this country, adding 125 and 250, or their
future equivalents, to the top national series here. I think that does
no one here any good, because it doesn't help them develop toward the
SB class or WSB particularly, and I don't think any of the teams in GP
are going to hire riders straight out of AMA 125 or 250. So pretty
much a dead end, which is what we saw with Rich Oliver and others in
250GP.

Ah, are you sure about that? The AMA has had their age minimum for
years, but they also ran that Aprilia cup at some events and it had
riders younger than that, right? This year at Miller I saw the GPRU
125 class at Miller, and it had kids in it. And next year the AMA will
run the Red Bull thing at their events, which is all 13-to-15s. I
don't know the history of the 16 minimum, but it sure seems like it's
a notion of where a professional series simply shouldn't go to get
riders. And I agree with that. Meanwhile it seems like kids have lots
of places where they can race bikes, although I can't say I follow
that closely at all.

And it's killing this country's

And this is why I pan what I'll call the Puig approach. He's been
pushing riders into GP at earlier and ealier ages, to get them on the
path before others can get there. First it's the 125/250 development,
and in GP you can race at 15, I believe. Then there's the Spanish
championship 125 class, his GP academy, and the Red Bull series. It's
all designed to get kids in the door earlier and earlier, to stake out
their place before others can arrive. And the ones closest to that
door are the Spaniards, of course, followed by other Europeans.

If this continues, you

Maybe, if there ends up being no racing on bikes by kids in this
country. More likely racing will just die out altogether here, since
there really isn't much of a non-motorcycle fan base anyway. But I
think we're a long way from anything like that. Seems more likely that
the rest of the world will adapt something like the litigation
environment of this country.

I do not think it's a good thing at all for a world championship to
include racers who are still children. That's like the NBA or the NFL
including high school kids, and I don't favor that sort of thing.
Except that it's worse, because racing is much more dangerous and the
travel is more extensive. And having that sort of limitation would end
this race to get in the door as early as possible, which would in term
make the series more open to riders from differing backgrounds.

 

Ouch! Talk about going for the throat!
(no pun intended;-)

 

I don't understand the question. You raised Josh Herrin's name as an
example of a young guy riding 600's successfully. I made a point that
this kid didn't just drop on that bike out of nowhere. Rather, he's
put in his time on 125's and minibikes, which is an example of
starting your development as a racer on the types of bikes we were
discussing. I'm not gonna speculate how an imaginary rider "would
have done" in his place. I don't even know what "equal skill" means.
If you go watch some amature racing, you'll see people getting into it
in different ways and at different ages. Perhaps, once you see how
this process actually works, you'll be able to better assess this
issue. Suffice to say, that from what I've seen, the following are
important ingredients to becoming a pro rider (of course there are
exceptions to every rule):

* starting riding early
* dirt experience
* small road race bike experience
* seat time
* coaching
* experience with different types of tracks

 

Oh Christ. What do you want, Mark? Do you want the series that's had
the majority of its sponsorship dollars coming from European markets
to suddenly reinvent itself on account of this country, with still
minimal interest in the series (and sport as a whole), not having a
compatible enough system for young talent to learn those types of
bikes? Do you want it to become more like superbikes? Why? We
already have superbike racing. Sorry, but racing is not a game, where
everything is equal. It's a game of king-of-the-hill on all levels.
The new guys are always at the bottom.

 

And he got hired into the series. What's your point? That it was
with American Honda's help? That's how it's supposed to work! If
there's enough financial interest here, there'll be forces backing
American riders in these hiring decisions. If there's not enough
interest here, it'll be that much harder for them to get in it. This
is _professional_ racing. Not democracy racing. Not socialism
racing. Not anarchy racing.

While I haven't raced those machines, I have raced, what might be an
approximation of a 125 4-stroke replacement -- a modified EX500 -- in
lightweight and ultra lightweight classes, usually with a presence of
125's. I did this while racing a 600 as well for a year. And I can
tell you that spending time on the little bike yielded immediate
improvement in results for me on the 600.

What I'm advocating is that there be a good way for kids to progress
through smaller bike classes. USGPRU is about the only link for a kid
younger than 16 between minibike racing and club or AMA stuff. And
they've been under pressure from insurance as well. Hopefully they'll
be able to stand their ground. Losing that link would be bad.

 

You were talking about raising the age limit from 15 to 18. If you do
that, you'll exasorbate the issue of rider weight you're complaining
about.

 

How do you figure?

 

You were making the point that racing 125s while on the way up in this
country is a good thing because that's the way you ride GP bikes over
there. I was making the point that it's the way you ride them because
the guys riding them developed their skills on those bikes, not
necessarily because MotoGP bikes absolutely dictate that style - that
does not mean it's the only way they can be ridden, and it doesn't
even mean it's the best way to ride them.

 

A young guy who's also ver little, and my point was that he's got to
be as small or smaller than a lot of guys two or three years younger
who are road racing. My impression was that you felt 600s weren't good
for kids that age to learn on, because they didn't have the
capabilities to handle them, assumedly size and strength, the bikes
are just too big and fast. I don't know that it's that absolute.

I made a point that

So look at guys like the Bostroms, Wait, Yates, Zemke and others who
transitioned directly from dirt racing to Harley 883s to 600s to SBs
and have had notable success. I agree with most of what you say above,
except that the small bike thing is probably the least necessary part
of that equation. I do not think it's really necessary at all to
roadrace prior to about age 16 in order to become a very good
roadracer. Look at Hacking, who never roadraced until he was in his
20s and did motocross before that, I believe. Or Edwards, who did the
same, then raced streetbikes at the club level, did only one or two
seasons on 250s when he was 17-18 and then went to SBs. Or Bayliss,
who didn't roadrace until his 20s, when he started racing on 750s. I
just don't see this 125 thing as being vital at all, unless you're a
Spaniard or Italian, and that's just because that's the process over
there, that's the established path.

 

And we can also look at lots of riders whose careers included racing
125's and 250's. What's your point? That it's not necessary? It may
not be necessary to one person, but important to another. I don't get
how you can extrapolate all of that out of looking at stats on paper
rather than actually seeing how riders are developed and what skills
are involved and in what contexts.

 

And the best way to ride MotoGP bikes according to Mark is.... (drum
roll)

 

And my assertion is that if you have a problem with the European
system of developing rider talent, you have to have enough of a
financial incentive for US-based businesses to back US-based riders if
they are to go through a different ladder up into that class, not
complain that an international series is not bending over backwards to
"our" way of doing things. Money talks. Dig?

Mike, I really don't wanna be the asshole who says "I know more than
you, so shut up," but you're talking to me about something I have
_some_ experience with (racing certain types of bikes and racing
against certain types of bikes) and you have none. I realize that
your historical data are very near and dear to you, but you've got to
get out of the house every now and again.

To answer your point, the EX I raced was not a stock bike. It had the
F2/ZX6 conversion (F2 wheels, F2 front end with cartridge emulators,
ZX6 swingarm, aftermarket (Penske) shock). I raced it with both a
single rotor on the front and 2 rotors, on DOT's and slicks, on big
fast tracks and tight ones. I've raced it against SV650's, 125's,
250's, motards, and other weird shit. What I'm telling you is that
the nature of the bike, while not the same as a 125/250 exactly, was
closer to a 125 than most other bikes you'd see out-there. I know
this from talking to riders I shared the track with, seeing what kinds
of lines worked for me and for them, comparing acceleration and
braking characteristics, looking at the flickability of the bike and
so on.

And yes, you're absolutely right, I'm not even in the top 3rd of the
current crop of my club's fellow members. And how fast are you, Mark,
pray tell? I'm not offended by your comment, but you're now in the
territory of speculating about specific rider skill issues and
advantage points having never gridded up yourself.

Well, that would be your opinion, wouldn't it?

 

Because if you make people race those bikes when they're older, then
you'll be seeking older smaller riders, which leans more heavily on
genetics, than if you were seeking younger smaller riders. Comprende?

 

Simple answer: if you can make 2- and 4-strokes competitive against
each other, it would create a more colorful race class.

 

This is showing your lack of understanding. Attributes of where the
mass is added and what it's doing have a whole lot to do with how the
bike will go. Sometimes, your cornering and braking is limited by
grip or chatter (on one or both ends), sometimes by ground clearance,
and sometimes by how much tire you have on the ground. Whether the
mass can be moved about on the bike (side to side, front to back) will
enter into this very often.

Take something as simple as braking. Your point is that a smaller
rider will always have an advantage over a larger rider on the brakes
if the bikes are equal. Not true. At high speeds, a larger rider is
going to have the advantage of managing aerodynamics for deceleration
much more efficiently than the little guy, who will need to rely on
the brakes much more. In the wet, the little will need to soften the
bike much more than the big guy in order to facilitate the same amount
of weight transfer, so ground clearance may become more of an issue.
And so on. You see, Mark, road race bikes don't always lend
themselves easily to simple theoretical models. A lot of what you
read and see on TV is a simplified or sometimes intentionally
distorted reality. And I feel like that is all you're going on.

 

I don't think you're acknowledging that when you say things to the
effect of, "I don't really know, but this is definitely not the way it
should be."