Although There Was Some great racing going on at Barber Motorsports Park this past April, the overwhelming topic of discussion the entire weekend was the unveiling of the '09 AMA Superbike series format by the Daytona Motorsports Group, now the custodians of AMA Pro Racing. As expected, a number of radical changes were made to the present structure of the AMA Superbike series, and nearly all of the current racing categories have been deleted or radically altered.
The controversy was swirling around the adoption of the "Daytona Superbike" class as the premier category, due to the fact that-among other constraints-a power limit of 130 horsepower will be enforced on all equipment in the class. This basically means that 600s will be the feature class of the race weekend, as they are the only displacement that can be suitably contained within that horsepower limitation. The Red Bull Rookies Cup will also be part of the program, along with the Moto-ST endurance racing series at selected events.
There will also be a "LiterBike" class for the current 1000cc superbikes-but there are obvious signs that the DMG would rather have this category go away. These include forcing the manufacturers to completely support the class with minimum entry requirements for each brand, with no purse available. Needless to say, the changes have created a storm of controversy.
Everyone can agree that there was a definite need for change. AMA Pro Racing was simply incapable of properly promoting and managing any of the various racing disciplines in its control. The organization was rife with ineptitude, secrecy, scheming and cronyism, which resulted in a number of heated controversies that fostered a growing adversarial relationship with the racers and teams, especially in the increasingly popular roadracing arena. The overriding consensus was that unless there was a sweeping change in management, AMA Pro Racing was going to run the Superbike series into the ground.
Thankfully, the DMG appears to have a much more capable and organized group of people on board with the potential to do better and greater things with the AMA Superbike Championship series. I'm not sure, however, that their vision of roadracing's future in the U.S. takes the idiosyncrasies of current motorcycle racing, the market and its fan base into account.
The move to the 130-horsepower limit is said to center upon the current 1000cc superbikes outgrowing the available American racetracks (the majority not built with motorcycle racing safety in mind) with their horsepower and speed. Apparently a few racetrack proprietors are concerned about future demands on track layout changes, particularly because riders have been very active in recent years regarding safety issues at many of the racing venues on the AMA calendar. The thinking here is that the literbikes definitely aren't going to be getting any slower, so it's only a matter of time before more demands are made on racetrack changes, forcing some track owners out of the AMA series.
In reality, on the tracks that riders have cited as still having some safety issues, if that section of track is dangerous for a 200-plus-horsepower 1000cc superbike, it's basically just as dangerous on a 130-horsepower 600cc machine. Corner speeds will invariably be higher with the smaller-displacement machines, and that's where the vast majority of crashes occur-it means more energy to be dissipated if a rider comes off the bike. There have been scant few incidents on straights that could be attributed to the additional speed of the 1000cc superbikes.
Instead of castrating the Superbike class with such a low horsepower limit, why not take steps to reign in the 1000cc machines, as the World Superbike Championship has done in many instances?
The reason is that the DMG wants to bring the rest of the AMA Superbike series in line with the Daytona 200. Daytona International Speedway changed the format of the 200-mile race from 1000cc to 600cc in 2005 after the previous year's horrific preseason testing accidents related to tire failures, and shortened the circuit by building a new infield section that deleted the west banking in order to lessen the track's unique stress on the tires.
Forcing out the 1000cc superbikes may also seriously affect American riders' opportunities to make the move into the World Superbike or MotoGP World Championship series. It's difficult to imagine that those teams will look upon such a constricted race format as a proper training ground when they already have their own that compete on the same circuits (for example, World Supersport and 125/250 Grand Prix).
The subject of racing in the rain was broached as well, with some venues apparently hoping that the smaller displacement will help them get off the "no rain racing" blacklist and avoid rain delays/cancellation due to inclement weather. Unfortunately the same rule applies here: If it's too dangerous to race in the wet, a smaller-displacement/fewer-horsepower bike isn't going to make the racetrack any safer.
It's too bad that the LiterBike class is only a token attempt at mollifying the manufacturers' wish to keep the 1000cc Superbike class in some form of existence in the AMA series. In requiring the manufacturers to completely support the class by demanding a minimum of four bikes per brand and a maximum of six with no purse payout (meaning no privateer entries), the DMG is effectively forcing the manufacturers into a very difficult (some would say impossible) financial corner and telling them that their long-standing and considerable financial and marketing contributions to the sport mean nothing in 2009.
The manufacturers have spent millions of dollars developing and marketing their production 1000cc sportbikes around racing over the past decade-and that doesn't include the millions spent supporting various functions that promote racing events as well. Even though the U.S. isn't the only racing market in the world, it is now one of (if not the) most important to the manufacturers, and unilaterally legislating that development-of both 600cc and 1000cc models-out of racing in the U.S. will put our influence with the factories right back into the Stone Age.
The motorcycle market in the U.S. is very brand-loyal, much more so than other motorsports. Even in NASCAR and NHRA, the auto manufacturers are now but a footnote to the fans of those racing series. On the flip side of that coin, we've seen firsthand just how loyal motorcycle enthusiasts are to their particular brand every year when we publish our comparison tests of the literbikes and middleweights. You cannot simply overturn the American motorcycle race fan's brand-loyal mentality overnight, but it's also a two-way street; you need star riders and teams as well, and you can't build that up overnight sans factory support. Motorcycle racing has been joined at the hip with the manufacturers since the beginning, and you won't be able to separate them easily and quickly without irreparably damaging either.
Attempting to "level the playing field" by introducing numerous restrictions such as horsepower limits, spec tires, spec fuel, ECU swaps, combined rider/bike weight, and so on to foster closer racing and supposedly reduce costs is good in theory. But all of those restrictions are fraught with numerous issues in practical application, especially when done in one fell swoop. Racing is part of the development equation for the manufacturers, and that is the primary reason sportbikes are as good as they are today; massive restrictions like these kill off any need for manufacturer development.
I'm not saying that things should remain status quo. Bringing the AMA Superbike series out to a more mainstream audience will require some change in order to make it more palatable to the general public. But simply turning the playing field upside down and "dumbing down" the racing in the headlong rush towards a more homogeneous structure will hurt the sport more than it will help.