The Business of Racing

When the AMA finally announces a new promoter for the roadracing series there may be an attempt on the part of bosses of factory teams to avoid a change toward rules that lower costs and bring bikes closer to original spec. This is logical because the biggest fear of factory teams is being beaten or even being harried by 'client' teams. Under current rules the factory teams have the normal advantages that come with having big budgets to hire the best technicians and the top riders, but, beyond that, factory teams have the cash necessary to fully exploit all the possible modifications allowed and they also have available to them kit components that private teams are often unable to obtain early in the season (or, in some occasions, at all).

I remember hearing a member of the FIM Roadracing Commission (CCR) say once after an exasperating meeting on World Superbike regulations with the GPMA (now the MSMA) back in 1998, "The Japanese engineers are insisting on allowing special parts that only they know how to build. They will only be happy if the rules allow them to make use of their biggest advantage -- their budgets. The factory engineers are only happy if they can find credible ways to spend their big budgets."

As far as a race promoter is concerned, the fate of private teams is only an important factor if they drop so far off the pace that they just look slow -- if we start seeing lappers before the final laps. Promoters also begin to worry when the private teams (including some so-called 'satellite' teams) are so far off the pace that they can't attract enough sponsorship to sustain themselves.

Circuit owners become worried when the bikes become too fast for the tracks. And, given that the AMA circuits are, with a few of exceptions, so dangerous that FIM inspectors wouldn't know where to start with their list of improvements required for homologation for a world event, the only logical conclusion is that something must be done either to bring US tracks up to something like FIM standards or the bikes need to be slowed down. And this doesn't just mean on the straights since the apex corner speed remains just as fast on almost all corners regardless of whether the bikes have 100 or 200 horsepower (in fact 250s with around 100 HP are as fast or faster than MotoGP bikes at the apex of corners at all MotoGP tracks).

And, ultimately, top speed and corner speed can only be controlled by technical regulations. Although I am going to concentrate entirely on engine regulations here, the subject of whether to allow aftermarket swingarms and links is one that will also be debated by all Superbike promoters in the future. Those who believe these components should be stock will argue that demanding the use of original parts would slow corner speeds. Others argue that turning professional riders loose with powerful 1000cc Superbikes and then denying teams the freedom to bring handling up to the level of that power would create more safety problems.

Those who argue for a single brand of tire, while primarily crediting a control tire system with leveling the playing field for all teams by providing the same tire options to all, also maintain that one sure way to reduce apex and exit speeds is use standard, assembly-line produced tires. That way no one will have the benefit of prototype tires with extreme sidegrip suited not only to specific circuits but also specific riders.

All of this is part of the growing Superbike debate that is taking place not just in the United States but throughout the motorcycle racing world today.

The immediate concern, however, has to do with the technical regulations controlling engines.