motoho - 13 May 2008 09:34 AM

odie - 13 May 2008 03:41 AM

To start with Suzuki is paying VIR's sanctioning fees as part of being the race's title sponsor. It may be different at other tracks but in this case any savings will go toward promotions or back to Suzuki. VIR however is paying a big percentage of it's bills with Superbike ticket sales. Secondly all of the complaints about the AMA or Mladin/Spies are being made by people who are buying tickets to the races. I haven't read a single post where anyone wants to kept seeing the two of them run away every race, even form Suzuki fans. But we are still putting our money down to see them race. According to VIR their crowds have grown each year if you don't count the times it has rained. And the majority of us will not be going to see 600 superbikes.

The problem is Live Nation runs a successful Supercross series with the same issues and does it without artificial restrictions like horsepower limits, weight limits, aftermarket ECU's or NAScrap phantom yellows. The same manufacturers with the same selfish needs. The same need to fill the crowd with non riders. The same problems with attracting a TV audience when Speed is too busy with 24 hour NASCAR to try and promote any other series.

By the way, throw in two huge MotoGP crowds in the US this year and what I've been told will be very good World Superbike attendance. Seems they have over come their problems too.

Instead we will have a series that's only two goals are slow down bikes so they can try to say they are safe on ISC ovals and attract Harley bike week crowds. Is this going to attract anyone, long or short term? And if you want to know what their true ideas about safety are just look up last years MotoST race at Iowa Speedway. This Syfan god said the bikes get faster but the tracks in the US aren't getting any longer. They aren't getting any longer in Europe either. I guess when you have an effective sanctioning body you make the tracks safer. The AMA couldn't do it now DMG isn't even going to try. To top it off, they will fine you if you point out how unsafe their track really is. How anyone could say lets give this a try, much less say it's a good idea is dumbfounding.

I don't pay for a ticket, and I always try to leave before the Superbike race because it's so boring. I think that all those people buying tickets will still buy them if it's 600s. Kind of like how everyone went crazy when WSBK went control tire everyone said they wouldn't watch.

Supercross is a completely different animal than roadracing. It doesn't make sense to compare them.

Two huge MotoGP crowds this year? Last I saw Laguna was having ticket discounts as well as travel agencies discounting packages. That doesn't say huge crowd to me.

Very good World Superbike attendance? That's not what I've been hearing, but I'd love to be wrong.

Track safety is certainly important, but it's a lot more difficult than people realize. It's a huge investment for the track with essentially no return on that investment.

MotoST fined Parriott (or whoever, I'm too lazy to look it up) for trying to organize a rider boycott, not for saying the track was unsafe.

If you're going to make these grand proclamations, try to have some background.

I have done my checking. That's how I know who pays VIR's fees and how much they are worried about loosing.

I know 15 people who do buy tickets. Six of them are so upset they have canceled their hotel reservations and plans to attend THIS YEARS race at VIR. Only two out of the group plan to go watch 600 Superbikes.

According to someone in advertising at one of the manufacturers Supercross and Superbike promotions are the same. Before DMG I assumed X-Games stuff would be a huge benifit for Supercross but she says it's not.

As for the crowds at MotoGP and WSB I'm going by reports on magazine and new paper sites. If they are not reliable then that is my bad

Your right track safety is a huge investment. RUMOR is VIR checked into upgrading to FIM standards and the estimate was 9 to 10 million. I have no idea if that is true or not. The fact is European tracks have made the investment as have Barber, Miller and as you pointed out Laguna Seca. The only way I can think to come up with the money (or for Yamaha to get a return on their investment) is to sell tickets. DMG is just using safety as one of their justifications to downsize Superbikes.

Maybe you can help with another RUMOR I was told. I was told by someone there were more passes issued (both pit and press) at the Iowa race last year than there were paying fans. I havn't been able to confirm this.

MMsports54 - 13 May 2008 09:56 AM

Do you have a link to the VA State Police estimate? I've been having trouble finding attendance figures for Grand Am.

I got the info from a Trooper who is REALLY pissed at me that I posted it. I know it is public information and its on the report of the senior officer that was assigned to the event. I'll try to find out where you can get it without a Freedom of Information act request. If my cousin (his wife) doesn't kill me first.

As far as getting the attendance anywhere else, the RUMOR is that Grand Am and Motost have it written in the sanctioning contract the track is not allowed to release attendance. If it's true that may be why it's so hard to find.

motoho - 13 May 2008 09:34 AM

odie - 13 May 2008 03:41 AM

Track safety is certainly important, but it's a lot more difficult than people realize. It's a huge investment for the track with essentially no return on that investment. .

No return on investment???? That is like saying once I build a track I will never update anything because there will be no return on investment. The return on investment is the continuation of the races they currently have and the prospect of attracting additional events (other races, track day events, auto racing, etc.....)

A track owner needs to promote their venue just like any other business and improving the facilities is one way to promote their venue.

In simple terms if I build a commercial building and I don't keep it up or improve amenities over the years I will lose tenents and over time my building will fall into decay, a track is the same thing.

garyb425 - 13 May 2008 05:10 PM

Perhaps if one was to say '600's are no slower in corners, and faster in some' this would please you, zoot. Granted this wouldn't be true in, say, a 180 mph kink, but which US track currently raced, or which has been mentioned, has one?

no, not really. again, hoping your 180 is an exageration for point. 600s are slower in enough corners to make a safety difference*. again, it's all about weight and handling. both being set up as superbikes we can say the handling should be similar beyond power delivery, so that leaves weight. an r1 is 390 dry stock, and r6 is 366. that's 24 lbs,6% or 4 gallons of gas, less than a full tank. sure that's an advantage but not enough to make a severe handling change that would give the 600 faster mid corner speeds in any but the tightest corners. heck, it's less than the differece b/w rossi and pedrosa.

the reason 600s are clocked faster in tighter corner is more a corner entry and exit technique than bike capability/handling. most big bike riders prefer to get in upright, make the corner tight and quick so they can stand it up and roll out hard using the motor for maximum acceleration. the longer they are laid over the longer they aren't wide open. the 600 riders generally tend to widen a corner to carry corner speed as they don't have quite the acceleration as the big bikes. the higher corner speed is only MID corner speed.

if you apply that to your highside comment you'd see that slower corners where a 600 might stay leaned over longer while trying to maximize acceleration run a greater potential for highside over a longer area for 600s. the sooner you're upright, the less chance you have for a highside.

*when i say safety difference i speak to crashes compounded by walls/ditches/bariers, not simply crashes. crashes are part of racing, crashes compounded by momentum changing objects is the issue.

So you are saying that mid-corner 600s ARE at a higher speed, but trying to talk down to me as to why. No ####, sherlock. Thank you for making my point. I do realize that 1000s (or more powerful bikes in general) tend to be more point and shoot, that as a very general rule (that is to say, not exclusively) they tend use a later apex entry to get the drive out. Save the condescension, I do understand motorcycle racing.

Have you noticed, despite your diatribe, that large displacement bikes tend to highside more often (without TC)? Or were the 500s strong tendency to highside in the early 90's directly related to the fact that at that time getting the bike up on to the center of the tire as quickly as possible, as was done in those days too (yes, even on 500 GP bikes) didn't work as flawlessly as you are stating? No, it was the abrupt torque of a powerful engine. TC is legal in FX - who is using it?

The sooner you are upright, as you put it, the less chance of crashing - so you are saying there would be a greater chance of crashing a 600, and potentially at a higher speed. So your safety relation of smaller displacement would be, uh, wrong, based on what you are saying - correct? Or are you saying that once upright the 1000s tend to lowside. Maybe this is what I don't understand about racing.

Now I'm all confused... (<--- I put a wink there so you'd know it's all in good humor)

garyb425 - 13 May 2008 09:51 PM

So you are saying that mid-corner 600s ARE at a higher speed, but trying to talk down to me as to why.

no, i'm saying they may be in slower corners but ONLY in slower corners.. which are generally less dangerous.

you're a very angry person there, sherlock. i wasn't talking down to anyone but you clearly understand less than you think you do. comparing 500cc 2 stroke power delivery to 2008 1000cc 4 stroke power delivery says volumes about your comprehension.

you're last paragraph is a cluster i'm gonna stay away from. but no, i didn't validate your argument.

NOW, i'm talking down to you.

kisses

I understand the power delivery of a 500 2 stroke completely - I'm simply saying 'get it in the fat part of the tire fast' doesn't eliminate high-sides.

Also, 'slower corners' is a pretty broad definition.

highside response> oh of course not. i already said we can't eliminate high sides. i think i said something about racing cars to do so. it sure reduces it hella mucho.

'slower corners' response> below 50mph? how's that? but that's just as vague unless you have a track map with corner speeds at your disposal. i have a little first hand experience to draw from and it's still tricky. depends on the tracks but i'd say very few of the corners. hows this?> corners like turn 1 at monza. no, that's a bad example. corners that slow but 180* turns, not chicaines

I think 50mph is a gross exaggeration, but I'm tired of debating with you. Odd that riders like Ben Bostrom comment on how they feel getting on a 600 helps their superbike riding as it requires them to run a high corner speed instead of pointing and shooting - but apparently he either was trying to improve at speeds under 50, is a liar or doesn't have your vast experience. Who knows? I'm starting to miss LJB...

50 mph was a rough guess, not an exageration. didn't i make that clear? but i'm sure all your race experience gives you a better idea than mine eh?

you can loose quote ben the same way you extrapolated that 600s corner so much faster than 1000s b/c someone told you 125s corner faster than 800s all you want. campaign promises.

why don't you put me on ignore too? then you could take me off when you felt like argueing. i've just been trying to help you out. my bad, shoulda realized you don't need any help.

honestly, i was trying to clear up a misconception for everybody, you just didn't believe me and i got suckered in.

we're done here.