Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.


Just a note on Quick Shifters…

I remember reading that the World Superbike Ducati team had experimented with a number of shifting devices ranging from quick shifters to button/automatic shifters (Formula-One-like) and had determined to their surprise that there was no discernible advantage on track (rider being Troy Baylis). That being no decrease in lap times consistently. And, having found this out they opted out of putting them on the bike.

I find it hard to believe that this is completely true but I am very skeptical of a-half-second gain in lap times from a quick shifter. Most modern transmissions are so well made and smooth that a concentrated effort to maximize shift speed manually might just add up to a bit better/smoother rider in the end anyway. If half the privateers I have seen race in the Pros (me included) spent that kind of money making sure their suspension and set-up was done by a professional – they’d be a lot more than a-half-second a lap faster.

Given the fact that it seems quick shifters are easily hidden and already in use by some of the Pro teams it probably won’t get you any closer to the front anyway. Just one more thing to go wrong and cost you money.

It seems to me tighter restrictions on race weekend tire usage or testing or “one off” factory parts would be a more worthwhile cause to expend all of this editorial energy on.

Dean de St. Croix
Toronto, Ontario, Canada




I completely fail to see the logic in Tom Houseworth’s letter. It doesn’t matter how much time the quick-shifter is worth, the point is that it’s worth something, it’s not a stock part, and it costs money to buy, maintain and set-up.

Therefore allowing it in SS-based class extends the advantage that the well-financed (the factories) have over the not-so-well-financed (the privateers). It goes against the two basic reasons SS classes exist, to race bikes as close to their showroom configuration as possible and to make the racing as even as possible.

Is there any intelligent life at the AMA?

Rich Desmond
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma




Regarding Houseworth’s comments on the quick-shift set-up: I’m aware of Tom Houseworth’s accomplishments & respect his position in the industry. Regarding his comments on quick-shifter set-ups, sure, they’re worth half-a-second. I know that & so do many other guys. So, when we all get them we’ll be going half-a-second faster & we’ll all have spent X amount more dollars on a class which is supposed to be a “cost saving” class.

You know damn well that once they’re allowed, privateers will have the $800 model & the factory guys will have the $2500 model. I see the point of going faster, but the whole point of dis-allowing a certain modification isn’t to keep racers from going fast, it’s to keep the playing field level. Once they allow quick-shifters it will cost that much more & be one more thing to worry about in order to keep the playing field level. Talk to anyone who really knows what’s going on in Supersport today & they’ll tell you how far from level the playing field already is. Talk to a privateer doing the whole series & see if he’d like to spend $800 on a quick-shifter on top of all his other annual expenses so he can try keep up with the factory quick-shift system.

Make them illegal & everyone is equal (in this regard, at least) which is the way the class was designed. Just another case of the AMA bowing to pressure from the factories. Isn’t the first time, sure it won’t be the last.

Enzo Assainte
Bergenfield, New Jersey



(Editorial note: According to the proposal’s author, the real reason behind the proposal to allow quick-shifters is the belief that the factory teams are already using them, built into the black-box and activated by disguised switches, and the belief that AMA Pro Racing cannot enforce existing rules banning the use of quick-shifters.)