The Latest on TC in AMA SBK

Now that the crowd realizes it's not Yosh pushing for electronics...

Who could it be.....

 

When I had more free time I used to race a full season with two organizations. This year I'm picking and choosing my rounds with one org and was trying to do it all with another org until work got in the way.

I hate doing only one round here and there....no real reason to make that last lap pass as the points don't matter.

 

making it safe for us old guys helps, but I'd guess financial trauma is the leading cause of folks giving up on the sport. ( track days, club racing or living the ama dream)

 

Graves. Of course.

Why won't anyone say it?

 

For club racing? Absolutely. For Pro-Racing? I don't agree. I don't think it is wise to organize a professional race series around a few one-offs each round. While I absolutely see your point of every dollar helps and funds the series, I think for the professional series it is wise to figure out how to keep the people who do the entire series, and grow that number.

There are so many statements in this thread, that it is hard to put anything succinctly and not get off on tangents. But I will say this - I agree with the statements of realizing that to people outside the racers, any sport or TV or whatever is about entertainment. And that is where the money is - in those numbers. It was said about NASCAR and true - it's less the racing and more the drama that brings people in. And people don't know the difference between 216 mph or 198 mph when they are watching. They want a show - they want drama. Like it or not. So bikes sliding and bucking entertains (and also makes people thinking the riders on the bikes are nuts and cool). Drama between the players makes tuning in interesting to people. The tuning in means a captive audience - that captive audience means sponsors pay to put their name in front of those people. This goes to the out-of-industry sponsors.

Great read of those RRW articles.

I don't think educating people about motorcycle racing is the answer (but what do I know). It's about a show (close racing, lots of different people involved in the chase, motorcycles sliding, drama between the participants or manufacturers or something that people can take sides on). But to us racers, it's about the things that are not drawing the masses (and we think they are crazy for not just falling in love with the sport).

Anyway, I don't know how to end this rant.

/rant

 

If you read between the lines on some of JU's posts, it doesn't seem like Graves will even give a response related to the issue.

 

The latest one with Yosh was the one I've been waiting for the most.

 

I'm not so sure on the safety issue. Say that around a given track, the fastest you can go "safely" with no electronic aids is 1:35. Suppose that if a racer pushes the absolute limits of traction, control, and expertise, he can get to 1:32. Do you honestly think for one bit that if he had traction control or any other electronic rider aid, he'd just ride around "safely" at 1:32? Not a chance. He'd push the absolute limits of traction, control, expertise, and electronics to try to find 1:29 and be not one bit safer than he was at 1:35 or 1:32. In fact, because of the higher speeds, he might be a little less safe.

 

Its all about how sharp that edge is...not whether or not there is one.

 

would it be possible to put a hard salary cap / budget on the team/bike?
Say (pulling numbers out of my ass here)
$2 million a season cap to be spent on bike/rider/crew (transport/hospitality etc would be seperate and up to the teams)
This way you could get a sweet engine build done, but skimp on the electronics and have a moderate level rider. Or you could employ a great rider with moderate electronics and not much engine work, etc. Kinda like the mcn fantasy league, you have to pick and choose where you spend your money...

the articles are good and have enjoyed them thus far.

 

I'm waiting on the Graves one.

 

This is why I vote for the sanctioning body to select a spec ECU like BSB has done. It can be leased for an entire season or for individual rounds. It would take some investment on the part of DMG, but I think they'd get it back with the increased participation and better racing. The spec ECU would have to be such that it could not be reflashed, with only slight adjustments made for tuning and "maybe" a basic form of tc.

The issue here isn't that electronics are bad, just that they need to be reigned in so everyone is on a somewhat level playing field. There are rules for everything else. You can't have a 1500cc engine and NOS just because you're a bigger team and can afford it, so why should you be able to pay over a half a million dollars a year to run a two bike team with the very best electronics system in the world?

If there were a spec ECU with rudimentary adjustments that didn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out, and the cost was laid out beforehand so teams/sponsors knew what it would take to be competitive, the rest would take care of itself.

And if Graves doesn't like it they can buck up and go run a WSBK team for 10 times the cost.

 

But is that edge sharper at 1:35 with no tc, or at 1:25 with all the latest gizmos. Remember all the weird crashes Rossi and Lorenzo had (corner entry highsides that broke Rossi's leg and Lorenzo's ankle) when Yamaha was starting to get really advanced with the electronics?

 

Graves does not run the Yamaha superbike team.

 

I am not qualified to answer that question with authority.

My guess is it depends on how much you pay your nerd.

 

Even so, as James Whitham interviewed Shakey Byrne on the grid of Oulton Park race three Shane said, "Basically the problem we've had is braking. Sounds strange but you have to accelerate a little into the corner to get it stopped. I was missing apexes due to this problem. We found there was an issue with the throttle bodies and hopefully we've solved it." Not word for word but very appropriate. These days it takes more than a champion and brakes to stop the bike.

I thought it was on point to the discussion. Seems plain he's talking about engine braking and or overrun into the corner. Even in the new BSB someone has to interpret the data. He said throttle bodies but it could have been mapping as well.

 

Then who does?

 

It was pretty much a rhetorical question unless you can find a way for your nerd to reverse the laws of physics. No amount of electronics will prevent all crashes. What they will do is allow the rider to push the absolute edge of traction and increase their speed significantly. Corner speed will increase, drive off the corners will increase, and together, these will lead to increased straightaway speeds and ultimately higher forces on the rider, the chassis, and the tires. Eventually a crash will happen, and when it does, it's bound to be more severe strictly because of the higher speed - the rider will tumble further, or, god forbid, be moving faster if he hits something, which will result in a more severe injury.

The edge is sharper at 1:25 than it is at 1:35.

 

Not necessarily. The sharpness of the edge is about how much leeway do you have to recover when you step over. Simply having a lower lap time doesn't mean the leeway is less. Hence why I won't make the assumption on which edge is sharper but I do know if you have a good enough nerd they can help make the edge less sharp.

 

I'll give you that the nerd may be able to make the edge smaller (theoretically decrease the likelihood of a crash) but not any less sharp. I cannot fathom that a crash at a higher speed would be less severe than the same crash at a lower speed.