Those articles and the previously posted Q&A with Tige Daane certainly have a tone to them. https://www.roadracingworld.com/news/motoamerica-answers-questions-about-2022-supersport-rules/
Besides HSBK who is going to invest in building and developing any of the new bikes? Tic toc tic toc... Daytona is in 120 days. I doubt many new bikes will be on the grid. This will turn out to be a war of the new motor modifications allowed for the 600s.
They lost their shit over Kawasaki's 36ccs, so I can only imagine how they're going to react racing against "cHeAtEr BiKeS" next year. Interestingly enough, I didn't see any articles or podcast interviews from them in 2021 when SDK was winning...
I'm not saying they are right or wrong, I'm just saying they are absolutely putting these articles out to try and make a point. And that's it's absolutely not going to make a difference with motoamericas decision would be my bet
There’s no way those articles/interviews would exist if Hammer was happy with the rule changes. But MA is paying for the cams with the increase in premier subsidies. So Hammer shouldn’t be that unhappy. MA prob could have left the 600s alone because of minimal participation from the new bikes.
If you look at BSB results, the Triumph's didn't exactly dominate. BSB is supposedly a test bed for the balancing rules from what I read last year.
I mean I get it, MotoAmerica can't exactly sit still with the Supersport class. But there was plenty of time to talk with the teams, and get the rules and information out way earlier. Or at least delay another season. Seems very rushed and chaotic.
The rule change brought at least one more big team to the class. Minimal cost increase to existing competitive teams (the cost of a set of cams and head work per bike or motor isnt much compared to the season budget for M4). The complaining from M4 in 2020 about the Kawi was unwarranted in my opinion, we will see about the new bikes.
the hyperbolic language is off the charts now a days. yea they could they have delayed it a year but what would that have accomplished? would that have helped olmedo continue on at Altus? personally think they (MA) could have communicated more but hindsight is 20/20. as stanger pointed out ,who is behind this article? i find it Machiavellian that m4 isnt on the record. does MA have an owners panel? I remember hearing that some teams and owners are involved in shaping superbike rules iirc but how about a series wide panel?
You don't think 5k per motor isn't a big expense added to a rider who uses 3 motors a year isn't a major increase ? To stay competitive, 15k isn't a big increase ? Your not paying attention to how tight some teams budgets are if you think that's not major.
How much is a current supersport motor build? To me 15k would be a lot, but what percentage of their yearly budget is it?
There are guys that finish top 5 running stock OEM motors. now throw in another 15k to a 100k budget and that's massive.
Is it really 5K for a set of cams and stacks? I'm sure the M4 team will lead the charge against this until they get a GXSR750. With the balancing in effect, wouldn't it be cheaper running costs over a season to run a bigger bike with restricted RPM? Less wear and tear? Looking at the rules, the RPM's haven't been defined but the Ducati doesn't look like it's going to be allowed to rev past 11,000.
I think there has been talk about this all summer and I know some teams that were consulted. RRW just choose to interview the teams that hadn't been. Getting rules out in October is pretty reasonable. Flat track still don't have anything out. A few of their subjects don't race full seasons, so I can see why MA wouldn't bother to talk to them.
GYTR cams were ~$2k for a set. Head porting/decking isn't expensive as long as you don't have to develop the porting. Effective porting for the GSXR, Kawi and R6 are well known. Stacks are ~500 max and aren't attached to the motor. So I'd say maximum $2.5-$3k increase per motor.